Talk:Historiography in the Soviet Union/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

abstract

I suggested to restrict theme of this article as "Soviet historiography of XX centure". For such article Biophys's variant of abstract would be correct. But now theme of the article is all Soviet historiography, including anchient, medieval and modern, so it's necessary to separate marxist Soviet historiography and professional Soviet historiography. Such separation for ancient historiography you may find in Kuzischin book (chapter 9). Ado's work analyse marxist influence to soviet historiography of French Revolution. --Ioakinf (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Soviet political historiography" would be still more precise I think.--Termer (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think old name is fine because Soviet historians also rewrote history of Russian Empire, including re-interpretation of Ivan the Terrible, and so on. But the inserted text is not supported by sources. It says: "since 1917 developed upon two different directions. One was continuation of Russian traditional historical schools and another was attempt to rewrite history with Marxist theory." Could you please provide exact citation that would supports such statement? I did not find it. Afanasiev did not tell it.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As fot Kuzischin book (chapter 9), it tells something completely different and consitent with previous version: Великая Октябрьская социалистическая революция 1917 г., открыв новую эпоху всемирной истории, эпоху крушения капитализма, становления и роста новой, коммунистической общественно-экономической формации, стала торжеством марксистско-ленинского учения, претворением его в практику исторической действительности.

Огромную роль в развитии революционной теории и практики сыграл основатель и вождь Коммунистической партии Советского Союза В. И. Ленин.,

and so on.Biophys (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the core tenets of Soviet "self"-historiography is of Lenin as the fountain of Sovietism, to the point about his "enormous role in the development of revolutionary theory and practice"--when Lenin had in fact read and digested the writings of Tkachev in focusing if not creating his revolutionary thought. Tkachev's influence however gets no mention since it would have meant Lenin was not the father of the Soviet Way. Quite a successful ommission too, I've started some research on Tkachev to write an article--with all the self-professed and empirically-professed Sovietophiles around, "Pyotr Tkachyov (1844-1886), a Russian revolutionary" exists only in disambiguation. It's really rather a shame that the proponents of the Soviet view spend such little time on actually understanding it. PētersV (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think his "teacher" was actually Sergey Nechayev - take a look. Yes, Tkachev "proposed the extermination of all Russians over 25 years old, whom he considered incapable of carrying out his revolutionary ideal" ("Black book", page 753). Biophys (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tkachev article exists now thanks to an industrious editor. —PētersV (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "XX century" is the period in which it was generated, but the historiography extends to all periods, from the founding of the United States to amplifying the role and influence of Russia throughout history. For example, in my studies of eastern central European history, I consistently find that Russian scholarship paints a more expansive picture of Kievan Rus than western scholarship. PētersV (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian historiography

On related subject, The Economist had recently some interesting articles:

• Russia's past - The rewriting of history - he Kremlin uses its version of the past to forge a new ideology for the present
• In Russia's shadow - The Katyn deniers - Our diarist muses on mass graves and mass media

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of interesting publications on this subject: [1] [2]. One of this new Russion history textbook authors, Pavel Danilin, tells that book has been prepared on the order from Putin's administration. Danilin wrote a chapter "Sovereign Democracy" (a term invented by Vladislav Surkov) to describe new "democracy" in Russia). In reply to criticism of the textbook by teachers, Danilin said

"...you will teach children using books that are given to you, and in such manner as needed for Russia. Either your stupid ideas will disappear from your moron's heads, or you will disappear from teaching. We can not allow every Russophobe, a piece of shit, or simply an amoral character teach history of Russia. Let's clean up this disease. If you refuse, let's do it by force." (I omitted a few obscene words). He replied to another journalist who criticized him: "You will die but your children will be taught using textbook that I am going to write. But you can not have children because you are a gay".

(Russian: «Вы сколько угодно можете поливать меня грязью, а также исходить желчью, но учить детей вы будете по тем книгам, которые вам дадут, и так, как нужно России. Те же благоглупости, которые есть в ваших куцых головешках с козлиными бороденками из вас либо выветрятся, либо вы сами выветритесь из преподавания. Позволить, чтобы историю России преподавал русофоб, говнюк или попросту аморальный тип, – нельзя. Так что от скверны надо очищаться. А если не получается, то очищать насильно». «Ты сдохнешь, а твои дети будут учиться по учебнику, который я напишу. Впрочем, у тебя не может быть детей, так как ты пидарас».

Flitring with Stalin. Biophys (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Annals of Rewriting Russian History "The Federal Security Service (FSB) is working with Russian historians trained in Soviet times to rehabilitate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". Biophys (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Same thing. Biophys (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The new Stalins must be kept in check By Alex Goldfarb. Biophys (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category and use suggestion

I was just leafing through my Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian S.S.R. reading the entry for Jānis Čakste, the first president of Latvia. It's quite, well, "Soviet" in its outlook. We've had a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Soviet "version" of history. I would like to suggest a different approach. (The Čakste article needs more attention, another topic.)
  I was thinking that I would translate the Čakste article and enter that under a section titled "Soviet historiography". Plain and simple. Articles containing such specific "Soviet historiography" sections would then include a [[Category:Soviet historiography]] tag.
  There are two ways of dealing with propaganda. One is to try and erase it. I think we can agree that's impossible. The other is to lay it out completely in the open. It's much more valuable to educate readers to recognize propaganda by example. Of course, if someone really wants to believe Čakste was a Soviet counter-revolutionary heading multiple bourgeoisie organizations and that he personally sold out (during trips to Paris and London) the interests of the Latvian nation and subjugated it under the western imperialist great powers, they are obviously free to do so. —PētersV (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to propose a template, though I wasn't sure how that would work, obviously it couldn't contain links to all articles if this were adopted as an approach to the issue. —PētersV (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an interesting approach.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a Category:Pseudoscience. So, why not to have this one? But the article should be dedicated mostly to a subject from the category, and I do not think we will have a lot of such articles.Biophys (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet historiography is both a topic and a thread. You're right, there's little or no incentive to (keeping to my example) of writing a "Jānis Čakste (Soviet version)" article. But if we're going to be forced to recount the Soviet versions of things, then rather than doing so kicking and screaming in protest, we should embrace the opportunity and use it to more thoroughly educate readers. I don't necessarily think that a "Soviet historiography" category mandates that the article be primarily Soviet historiography, it should be enough that the article contain a distinct section discussing the official Soviet version as compares to the rest of the article regarding the topic at hand. That said, it doesn't preclude potential articles such as "Soviet historiography of the American Revolution." —PētersV (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Myths and realities

This is totally anti-Soviet POV, with the October Revolution being the only actual myth accepted by western historians. Stalin's industrialisation is seen as necessary, or at least the prevailing view is that Russia would not be able to defeat the Nazi's or be industrialised without Stalin's five year plans (see '50-100 years behind the west' speach). Equally there is still debate over whether the Purges and Terror was due to Stalin or a continuation of Lenin's policy, however the prevailing view is once again that Stalin's excesses would not have been carried out by Lenin. Therefore I've deleted this section. --Superdantaylor (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that is all your personal opinion not supported by any sources. The text you deleted was supported by a reliable secondary source per WP:Source. If you think this text is not neutral, please add some sourced texts that claim the opposite per WP:NPoV policy. Deletion of sourced and relevant texts is violation of WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is my personal opinion but it is also what is taught for Russian History module of the A-level syllabus in the United Kingdom, admittedly bragging, I happened to get 100% in that exam (more saying how crap the exam system is than my skill in history). Thus, the opinions I stated are at least the currently dominant opinions of British historiography. I'm afraid I don't have my old textbooks at hand nor can I be bothered to go down to LSE library to get some books to edit a wikipedia article with. I'm sorry for breaking the rules, I don't know what the historiography is in the States, but I think the deletion should stand. I'm not sure if you, Biophys , wrote this originally. If you didn't and can be bothered then you can look it up and I bet the sources you find will corroborate with what I've said. --Superdantaylor (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are right about history teaching, deletion of sourced texts is not the way to edit in WP. Please look at WP:NPOV policy. In this particular case, we could simply add (rather than delete) that acccording to such and such textbooks (reference with page, please) certain views are taught in UK Universities or high schools.Biophys (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section currently violates NPOV as it stands, because it presents Conquest's views as fact by using the "myth" and "reality" tags. The content should remain, but it should be worded differently to emphasize that the ideas presented are Conquest's views, not "reality". -- Amerul (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem with Conquest's way of phrasing things is that he (probably deliberately) phrases the issue in a very incomplete fashion. For example, was the Bolshevik uprising popularly supported? If you mean that in the sense of "did a majority support the Bolsheviks as their most favored party?" then the answer must be "no." But if we mean it in the sense of "did a majority support the call for 'all power to the soviets' and the consequent dismissal of the Provisional Government?" then the answer is "yes." The majority of Russians would have been happy to vote for, if not a Bolshevik, then a Menshevik, or a Left or Right Social Revolutionary, in a government based upon the soviets. The Mensheviks and the Right SRs backed away from supporting such an aim, not because they were afraid of what we later called "totalitarianism" but because they really were afraid of taking the lead in a revolution. But the Bolshevik overthrow of Kerensky, and even the subsequent dismissal of the Constituent Assemby as a bourgeois institution, was rather widely supported. Orlando Figes (not a pro-Lenin author by any means) discusses in great detail in PEASANT RUSSIA -- CIVIL WAR the stance of the peasant majority towards the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly and how they were perfectly at ease with it. Another author, Peter Holquist, MAKING WAR -- FORGING REVOLUTION, discusses the role of the Left SRs in the early revolution and how many ideas which the Whites cursed as "Bolshevik" came from them. At the same time he notes how the White tendency to lambast everything which they hated as "Bolshevik" polarized things to the advantage of the Bolsheviks. One can speculate as to what might have occurred if the Mensheviks and Right SRs had willingly joined the government of soviets, as they were invited to do, and if the Whites had refrained from polarizing things in the way that they did by condemning all Leftists as "Bolshevik." But Conquest is giving a wrong impression by accenting the issue of whether or not a majority was voting Bolshevik. The Bolsheviks were able to emerge as the leading party because they had spent the most time and energy preparing for a revolution and preparing for being able to fight a war against forces like the Whites. The Mensheviks could have placed themselves among the leaders of the revolution, though not the sole leaders either, based upon popular voting alone. But they were not prepared for such a role and backed away from it. Most people who hear Conquest's take on things will get the impression either that the majority of Russians supported either a continuation of the Provisional Government or a White counter-revolution. Both impressions are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another of Conquest's incomplete misreperesentations, in regards to Czarist industrialization. I think one can make a rational argument that if Europe, and Russia most especially, had managed to sustain at least 25 more years of peace then the Russian economy might at that point have been so altered that events such as what occurred would not have been possible. There is evidence to support that. But then we have to ask, why did the Slavophiles in the Czarist government push so hard for backing Serbia and beginning the mobilization of the armed forces? This brings us back to studying the tensions which industry imported from abroad was stimulating within the still nominally feudal nation of Czarist Russia. The point is however that by 1917 all of this was academic. Czarist Russia was breaking down under the consequences of a war which it had played a role in initiating, revolution and the formation of soviets was spreading across the country, and the conservative army officers who formed the leadership of the Whites were totally out of touch with what was happening around them. It is only from that point onward that one can begin to discuss the development towards later economy. Simply giving off the impression that Czarist Russia was on its way towards modernization, except for a small bump in the road called World War One, begs more questions than it is able to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The last "myth" is speculation. Who knows what Lenin would have done? We do know that he didn't chase and murder people from his own party. The article itself seems very biased, almost like a History Channel "documentary". I could post 100 articles that say exactly the opposite. It is my opinion that the myth section should be erased or moved to a bigger article concerning the Soviet Union.--85.139.193.225 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example

See my post regarding concealed fate of Soviet POWs returning from German captivity and send to Gulags.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alekseyev

From this article, p.16: "The fate of Soviet historians such as Valentin Alekseyev (1924-1994) from St. Petersburg, who persistently attempted to disclose the truth about Russian-Polish relations and events in Poland, has frequently been quite dramatic. During his lifetime he was never able to publish his books about the Warsaw Uprising (1944), or about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (1943) (“ The Ghetto Does Not Exist Anymore”). Because of the strict regulations in Soviet historiography as to what could and could not be published they were printed only after his death in 1999. Alekseyev was fired from his job several times for his protests against the party dictatorship. He later found employment in other colleges, where he was duly appreciated for his knowledge and understanding of history, only to be fired again for his disagreements with party officials and supervisors." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Criticisms?

Given that the article is currently dedicated entirely to criticisms of Soviet historiography, and does little to describe the historiography, perhaps we should rename the article to Criticisms of Soviet historiography, and re-create Soviet historiography as a redirect, or maybe a stub, until someone could provide more information on the subject? What do you think? -- Amerul (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note (but I didn't want to create a separate section for this new comment): Are the pictures appropriate? I mean, they are pictures of Soviet censorship of images - very good for the article Censorship of images in the Soviet Union, but not terribly related to historiography. We would do better to have a picture of a Soviet history book, or something similar. -- Amerul (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Soviet historiography. If you feel that something was missing, you are welcome to add more sourced materials. For example, you can add some praise rather than criticism of the Soviet historiography.Biophys (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you tried to create a more neutral version using the previously provided sources that criticize Soviet historiography. This led to a text which is actually inconsistent with cited sources. You need to find new sources that tell something different to NPOV this article.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, my text was perfectly consistent not only with the cited sources, but also with the previously existing text. Please compare the two versions of the section under dispute, the myth/reality version and my attempt at NPOV, and notice that I have not changed any of the views and arguments attributed to Pipes and Conquest. I will present pairs of statements from my version and yours so that you can see they are the same:

Your version: A number of specific claims made by Soviet historians and supported by some of their Western colleagues have been described as examples of big lie by prominent historians Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes.
My version: A number of specific claims considered as fact by Soviet historians are seen as controversial propositions in the West, with some Western historians supporting them and others opposing them.

Your version: #Myth: The Bolshevik party during the October revolution was supported by masses, and especially by Russian working class.
Reality: "Bolsheviks only got a quarter of the vote at the height of their popularity in the elections that followed". Massive strikes by Russian workers were "mercilessly" (as Lenin said) suppressed during Red terror
My version: For example, Soviet historians and some of their Western colleagues claim that the Bolshevik party during the October revolution was supported by the masses, and especially by the Russian working class. [...] Historian Robert Conquest argues that, on the contrary, the Bolsheviks at the time of the October revolution were not as popular as they claimed, based on the fact that they only polled 25% of the vote in the elections that followed, and because they later suppressed strikes by Russian workers.

Your version: #Myth: "Stalinism was a success, having fulfilled its historical mission to force the rapid industrialization of an undeveloped country".
Reality: "Russia had already been fourth to fifth among industrial economies before World War I." Russian industrial advances could have been achieved without collectivization, famine or terror. The industrial successes were far less than claimed. The Soviet-style industrialization was "an anti-innovative dead-end".
My version: They also claim that the Stalinist industrialization drive of the 1930s was a success, having fulfilled its historical mission to force the rapid industrialization of an undeveloped country. [...] Conquest also argues that the Stalinist industrial successes were far less than claimed, that they led to "an anti-innovative dead-end", and that they could have been achieved without the accompanying Stalinist collectivization, famine or terror.

Your version: #Myth: Mass terror during Stalin ruling was an aberration of the communist system, which resulted from Stalin's personal paranoia and his "cult of personality". If only Lenin had been alive, those abuses would never happened.
Reality: It was Lenin who introduced Red terror with its hostage taking and concentration camps. It was Lenin who developed the infamous Article 58 that was used later during Great Terror. It was Lenin who established the autocratic system within the Communist Party. Vyacheslav Molotov, when asked who of two leaders was more "severe", replied: "Lenin, of course... I remember how he scolded Stalin for softness and liberalism".
My version: Some Western historians, as well as Soviet historians after 1956, argue that mass terror during Stalin's rule was an aberration which resulted from Stalin's personal paranoia and his cult of personality. A number of such historians, as well as most Trotskyists, further argue that if Lenin had been alive and ruling in Stalin's place, those abuses would never have happened. Historian Richard Pipes disagrees with this view, arguing that Lenin's policies laid the groundwork for Stalin's later abuses, for example by setting the precedent of the Red terror, by introducing Article 58 into the legal code, which was later used by Stalin during the Great Terror, and by establishing the autocratic system within the Communist Party. Pipes also quotes Vyacheslav Molotov as saying that Lenin was more "severe" than Stalin, commenting that "Lenin... scolded Stalin for softness and liberalism".

The differences in content, as you can see, are minimal. Tags were inserted into my version asking for references for the claims of "Soviet historians" - but these references are already given. They are Conquest and Pipes. Conquest and Pipes say that Soviet historians supported various "myths." The views that my version attributes to Soviet historians are the views that Conquest and Pipes attribute to Soviet historians.

As such, I do not see why you object to my attempt at a NPOV rewrite of the "myth" section. -- Amerul (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Conquest and Pipes say that Soviet historians supported various "myths", exactly as you admit, and the previous text reflects exactly that. These sourced do not tell "controversy"; they tell "big lie", "culture as propaganda" and so on. Calling these things "controversies" (as you did) means OR. Besides, your version is poorly readable. Previous version makes statements one by one: Statement (Myth) 1, ..., Statement 2..., and so on. Your version just represent a plain text with moot meaning. Biophys (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the previous text, as I keep saying, is that it gives the impression that the statements of Conquest and Pipes are established fact, when they are nothing of the sort. In fact, Conquest and Pipes themselves are cited as saying that "some Soviet and Western historians" disagree with their views. When there is disagreement, that means controversy. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I will go look for opposing views to those of Pipes and Conquest if that is required to achieve NPOV.

As far as the difference in style between bulletpoints and plain text goes, I think a flowing paragraph is actually better than a bulletpoint list. It may be longer, but it is more encyclopedic. Not many articles or sections on wikipedia are written as lists of bulletpoints. -- Amerul (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "A number of specific claims considered as fact by Soviet historians are seen as controversial propositions in the West, with some Western historians supporting them and others opposing them" is not correct, there are specific Soviet claims and accounts ("versions") of history that are completely unsupported by fact whatsoever. You make it sound like some heated disagreement where both sides are arguing over the same facts. "History serves politics" (not my words) in the Soviet Union, a place where, depending on events, history was rewritten on nearly a daily basis. —PētersV (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that Soviet historiography was guilty of rewriting some parts of history. The question is, which parts. No one disputes the fact that Soviet historians lied about some things; what may be disputed is that they lied about specific issues X, Y, Z. -- Amerul (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Bolsheviks were not supported by the masses. Please! What the Bolsheviks said was, if you're going to have a revolution succeed, you can't have the army oppose you. —PētersV (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What the Bolsheviks did not have was the vote of the people who voted in Petrograd in late 1917. Whether they had the "support of the masses" or not is another question entirely. Does Gordon Brown currently have the "support of the masses" in the United Kingdom? I don't know. All I know is that he had their vote in 2005. -- Amerul (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What Conquest and Pipes are telling is well established, including that Bolsheviks were not supported by the masses. This could be elaborated of course, but probably not in this article.Biophys (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I see with Amerul's work is that the new statements are not based on any sources unlike the previous version. If you'd like to alter the text Amerul, you'd need to reference the text to Secondary sources. Since Soviet sources would be primary sources (sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event)in the context of Soviet historiography, these should be avoided according to Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.--Termer (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that Soviet sources should not be used in an article about Soviet historiography? That's like saying that White House statements can't be used in an article about George W. Bush, or that American historians can't be cited in an article about American historiography. I can't actually read Russian, so I don't have access to Soviet sources anyway (unless I could find translations), but I strongly object to your statements. -- Amerul (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And I am sure we can also come up with more (secondary) sources on the topic. Of course then we'll have to deal with "they are Cold War POV." When the facts of a situation and the consequences to those under the Soviets are related accurately, that the resulting "view" of the Soviets is negative does not make that a negative point of "view." —PētersV (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A point of view is not negative or positive. It may be Soviet, American, British, French or Chinese. It may belong to Robert Conquest or Alec Nove. NPOV doesn't mean a balance between "negative" and "positive" views, it means a balance between the different views of different historians on a given subject. In the case of Soviet historiography, NPOV would mean a balance between the views of major scholars on the subject, from a variety of countries (including the Soviet Union and the United States). -- Amerul (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Are you seriously saying that Soviet sources should not be used in an article about Soviet historiography?". Yes. We can use here only sources that tell something about the Soviet historiography, which was essentially a Soviet propaganda department. This is "coverage about coverage" type article. Biophys (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the entire "myths" section should be removed, since it talks about Soviet history, not Soviet historiography. The only argument about Soviet historiography made by Conquest and Pipes in that section is that Soviet historians used the big lie technique. All their other arguments are about specific facts in Soviet history, not about the study of history in the USSR. -- Amerul (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the myths section speaks about historiography, the methods -how history was written in Soviet union. And surely, while talking about Historiography, you can't always avoid history itself like the soviet historians did according to this section. That is why I think the scholars have used also some actual historic facts in their studies on Soviet Historiography, to see the methods of history writing in Sovet Union.--Termer (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Historiography is both content and method. As for "it is not our job to say that a specific historian's view is "the factual account of history""... our "job" is to indicate what is verified to be false and verified to be correct according to reputable sources. We don't "allege" that the sun rises in the east, and we don't "allege" that the moon, indeed, is not made of cheese. —PētersV (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The "myths" cited by Conquest and Pipes are not verified to be false, and to compare them with physical facts is ridiculous. I will head to the local library to look for sources disputing their claims, and I will return to edit this article once I have found them. With regards to the proper content and sources to be used in this article, I will use the following rule: If a certain claim is currently made in the article, then any source disputing that claim is relevant and should be included. For example, since Conquest claims that the Bolsheviks did not have the support of the masses in 1917, any source claiming the opposite (or making an observation about the issue) can be included. Do we agree? -- Amerul (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If your source is a Soviet textbook of history - no. If your source is about the Soviet interpretation of history - yes.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't have access to Soviet textbooks anyway, so you have nothing to worry about. -- Amerul (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rename to criticism". Of course not. Just as Holocaust is not renamed to "criticism of Holocaust".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Soviet historiography is about (content-wise) a version of history which often didn't exist, "Criticism of Holocaust denial" would be the more apt analogy. —PētersV (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Other myths

Soviet Union started war not in June 22 1941 and against Hitler (as according to the Soviet historiography), but in September 1939. On the side of Hitler. As an ally of Hitler. (Из плохо понятой истории получается, что СССР вступил в войну 22 июня 1941 года, а не 17 сентября 1939-го. На самом деле мы участвовали в войне с 1939 года. На стороне Гитлера. В союзе с Гитлером.) - citing Yuri Afanasiev [3].Biophys (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case the UK and France (and Poland herself) started WWII from occupation of Czechoslovakia. It is well known that they convinced Czech government not to resist Hitler (and Poland took a piece of Czech land), and therefore, acted as Hitler's allies. Any formal arguments (like: "there were no declaration of war" etc.) don't work here, because from the same formal point of view the USSR had not been a Nazi ally. And, in addition, neither Poland nor the USSR declared a war on each other.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I provided a ref. to a well known historian. If you have any refs to historians who claim that UK started WW II, you are welcome to include it (obviously not in this article).Biophys (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Sir Winston Churchill to be a good source? Off the top of my head, I recall he considered Stalin's pre-war occupation of Poland to be understandable and reasonable step. Anyway, he never considered the USSR neither a Nazi's ally nor co-belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, another famous myth was "liberation of Europe" by the Soviet Union, which was in reality the conquest of Europe [4].Biophys (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You forget the (obvious) fact that during and after WWII for many people outside the USSR Communists were primarily the Hitler's enemies, the major force that opposed Nazi and eventually caused their defeat. Therefore, their victory in some countries was almost inevitable, and serious efforts were needed (for instance, in Greece) to change a situation. Therefore, I would say, a liberation of Europe (a real liberation) from Nazism created conditions for subsequent Stalin's crimes. In addition, during the war the influence of Stalin and his NKVD decreased sharply, so additional post war repressions were needed to "fix" the situation. Therefore, I would say that Soviet peoples really came as liberators (and slightly liberated themselves from the pre-war NKVD regime). However, during a subsequent decade they, along with other Eastern Europeans suffered from Stalin's regime that enslaved them back (by the way, other Easter Europeans were affected in a lesser extent that Soviet peoples did). Therefore, there really were no conquest of Eastrn Europe during 1944-45.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no any liberation. SMERSH conducted political repressions at the occupied territories immediately after the occupation (mass arrests, executions, and sending people to Siberia). Biophys (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your major problem is that you judge about that time events based on the present days moral rules. You forget two major things:

• People who survived and won the most brutal and the most bloody war in human history couldn't immediately switch to present days vegetarian perception of their actual and imaginary enemies. And you have no right to blame them in that because you (personally) got a chance to be born exclusively thanks to their brutality.
• The number of ex-Nazi collaborators was significant in Eastern Europe, therefore the very fact of the arrests means nothing. To come to something reasonable we have to take into account: a) the number of arrested people; b)a percent of real collaborators among them; c) a number of those released from filtration camps after they were cleared.

And, once again, it is ridiculous to expect that peoples whose only job during preceding 4-5 years was to kill enemies by any means (and to reveal hidden enemies, in contrast to 1937th purges, there were a lot of hidden enemies in the liberated territories) would immediately switch to liberal mode. BTW, the war time behaviour of the Americans towards, for instance, their Japanese compatriots provides you a good reference to compare with.
This war was cruel, and the liberation was cruel too. But it was a liberation, nevertheless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's simply stick to sources specifically about Soviet historiography (not different interpretations of History): "Предпринимается попытка утвердить официальную, или официозную историю России. Это та же история сталинских времен - сфальсифицированная, тенденциозная, идеологизированная. Сталину пытаются устанавливать памятники, идет реабилитация Сталина", - сказал Афанасьев в среду, выступая на конференции в РГГУ, посвященной 20-летию перестройки. По его мнению, "теперь нам предлагают вернуться точь-в-точь в сталинскую эпоху, интерпретируя многие факты истории так, как Сталин их интерпретировал". В качестве примера Афанасьев привел отношение к пакту Молотова-Риббентропа.

"Война для Советского Союза началась с участия в борьбе против Европы на стороне гитлеровской Германии. И это факт истории. Вы попробуйте его найдите в наших учебниках. А потом мы удивляемся, почему эти прибалты зациклились на пакте Молотова-Риббентропа. Да потому что для них это гамлетовский вопрос: быть или не быть. А у нас сейчас говорят, что якобы была оккупация Прибалтики, что якобы было нападение на Польшу", - отметил Афанасьев. [5].Biophys (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If I read the source you provided correctly, it states:"The war started for the Soviet Union from her participation in the struggle against Europe on the Hitler's Germany side". It slightly differs from your translation: "Soviet Union started war not in June 22 1941 and against Hitler (as according to the Soviet historiography), but in September 1939. On the side of Hitler. As an ally of Hitler." I would say your translation is at least a slight exaggeration. There are no reliable sources that state the USSR was a Hitler's ally. And, I would say, the Afanasiev's words are also an exaggeration. BTW, another obvious exaggeration is his statement about "the Hitler's struggle against Europe". Hitler's Germany, along with her allies and satellites constituted a major part of Europe, and it is impossible for Europe to fight against itself.
Nevertheless, I would say, Afanasiev's exaggerations are relevant for this concrete article aimed to point a reader's attention to the recent tendency to rehabilitate some Stalin's steps. However, one shouldn't take everything literally.
In addition, when I read sober articles written by reputable Western researchers, I see two things: a)the USSR foreign policy before 1939 was rather reasonable; b) Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not something too outstanding.
In other words, the fact that MRP was a wrong step doesn't make it an outcrying crime as compared with what other countries were doing during the pre-war period. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The recent tendency to rehabilitate Stalin, similar to what took place during late Brezhnev time, is a very wrong, negative shift in contemporary Russian mentality. And some incorrect and irresponsible statements, similar to what you are doing, just catalyze such a shift. Try to think about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• RE: Paul Siebert did I get it right? You just said There are no reliable sources that state the USSR was a Hitler's ally? From where exactly do you get such staff? The USSR was Hitlers ally since August 1939 until Germany attacked Soviet Union in 1941. here are few citations in case that's news for you:

• The Long Pretense: Soviet Treaty Diplomacy from Lenin to Gorbachev By Arnold Beichman Stalin couldn't have been more surprised when his ally of some twenty-two months, Nazi Germany...
• The Blitzkrieg Myth By John Mosier the Soviet Union, as Germany's ally
• Stalin's Secret Pogrom By Joshua Rubenstein, Vladimir Pavlovich Naumov, Laura Esther Wolfson Stalin was now an ally of Hitler
• Soviet Leaders: From the Cult of Personality to Collective Rule By Olga A. Narkiewicz the Soviet Union was attacked by its new ally, Nazi Germany
• Where Have All the Soldiers Gone?: The Transformation of Modern Europe By James J. Sheehan Stalin might make a separate peace with his former Nazi ally
• Debating the Origins of the Cold War By Ralph B. Levering Russia changed course and became Hitler's ally
• The Soviet World of American Communism By Harvey Klehr the Soviet Union became a de facto nonbelligerent ally of Nazi German
• Ayn Rand and Song of Russia By Robert Mayhe when Stalin was the ally of Hitler
• Ralph Bunche By Brian Urquhart the Soviet Union, which was, at that time, Hitler's ally
  

etc.--Termer (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
PS. I've seen Paul Siebert dragging discussions into political debates at Wp talk pages before by making provoking statements on the pro-Soviet platform. This thing needs to stop. We are here to provide WP readers with facts and interpretations of history from conflicting sources if necessary, not to hold debates about it at the talk pages. So, once again Paul Siebert please stop using the talk pages for expressing your political beliefs since it's not relevant what you or me or Biophys thinks, but what only any WP:RS source says out there on the subject. For example In case you have a source that says, "USSR was never an ally of the Nazi Germany", please do not hesitate to bring it forward. Thanks for understanding!--Termer (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Termer, could you please tell me what concretely is incorrect in what I am writing? Your only concrete argument relates to an alleged military alliance between the USSR and Hitler. However, I wrote: "There are no reliable sources that state the USSR was a Hitler's ally.", that means what that means, namely, there is no reputable books where MRP was called a military alliance. I agree, you can find a number of books and articles where the term the allies has been applied to the USSR and Nazi Germany, along with other inaccurate statements (I think you agree that a de facto nonbelligerent ally is an oxymoron). Such oxymorons, as well as imprecise use of the term "the ally" can be explained by the fact that majority books you Termer cite are not a military history books, so the authors simply do not care about accuracy in that concrete case. Therefore, I don't think you argument is completely correct. The term "military alliance" has very concrete meaning, and even Finland, who had been fighting during WWII along with Germany for 3 years and got substantial military help from her was just a German co-belligerent, not an ally. If you disagree, feel free to mark the USSR the Axis member or co-belligerent (1939-1941) in the WWII article or template, and let's see how long your change will stay.
Since you provided no other arguments, I still cannot understand what your claims about my pro-Soviet platform are based on. Could you please either provide an additional proof for you statement or apologize.
I would say, the reverse takes place: I am trying to balance the most outcrying provoking anti-Soviet statements when I find them. For instance, I believed Solzhenitsyn who told about more than ten million victims of Gulag machine. However, when I started to read scholarly articles on that account I found that all works telling about 20, 30, 40 millions perished in Gulag were based on estimations, whereas those articles based on documents give much smaller numbers. I found that starting from 1970th Robert Conquest's estimations are becoming smaller and smaller. I trusted numerous political journalists' claims about Soviet-Germany alliance, however, after reading Western scholarly articles I was surprised how unexpectedly peaceful pre-war policy of the USSR was.
Once again, what concrete my statement is pro-Soviet? My claim that I disagree with Stalinism rehabilitation? Or my claim that Greek Communists were so strong that special UK efforts were needed to prevent their coming to power (remember, Stalin promised Churchill not to help them, and he observed his promise). Or pointing out at numerous annexations in pre-war Europe made by Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, etc? Or, maybe, fixing a wrong translation of the Afanasiev's article made by Biophys?
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As regards to "USSR was never an ally of the Nazi Germany", I see no need for that, because the difference between Non-aggression pact and a Military alliance is quite obvious. Nazi-Soviet relations during 1939-41 didn't fit the definition of the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see you referring to any sources, therefore please stop introducing your personal opinions and politically provoking ideas at this talk page that only result is generating discussions surrounding the subject. in case you're aware of any other perspectives on the subject than the joint Nazi-Soviet occupation of Poland or the Nazi-Soviet alliance and the USSR's role in causing World War II or the 1939 Nazi-Soviet alliance unleashed World War II etc. please do not hesitate to bring up alternative perspectives according to the sources available to you on talk pages related to the subject.--Termer (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Termer, it is not a big problem to present a needed amount of sources. You, probably, noticed that I never introduce unsoursed pieces of text into WP articles. Moreover, I try to avoid even marginally reliable sources, for instance, articles from political web sites, limiting myself primarily with articles from reputable Western scholarly journals. I am always ready to provide sources supporting my POW, however, I believe that you, being a well-educated person, are already familiar with majority of them. If not, let me remind you that, according to traditional non-revisionist point of view, MRP and subsequent Soviet actions were a direct consequence of the UK/France/USSR unability (for many reasons, the intrinsically evil nature of Stalin's regime was least important) to establish a collective sequrity system in Europe, therefore a non-aggression treaty was signed by Stalin primarily to avoid fighting with Hitler one-by-one. (I see, you are keen on sources. Here they are: E. H. Carr., From Munich to Moscow. I., Soviet Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, (Jun., 1949), pp. 3–17.; MAX BELOFF, The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, vol. II, 1936–41.; Watson, Derek (2000). Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939. Europe-Asia Studies 52 (4), 695-722). In addition, Geoffrey Roberts (Infamous Encounter? The Merekalov-Weizsacker Meeting of 17 April 1939 The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 921-926.) based on declassified Soviet documents concluded that decision to sign a pact was made even later that historians thought before. Therefore, MRP was not a mean for Stalin to start a conquest of Europe (with of without Hitler), but a way to postpone the war.
I agree, that was not the best way, I agree that MRP was a major event that triggered WWII. I am also aware of other point of views on that account. However, since there is no single opinion on the 1939-41 events among western scholars, it is incorrect to say that the statement that Soviet Union started war not in June 22 1941 is a myth of Soviet historiography.
Let me point out that you left unanswered one of my major note: the difference between Non-aggression pact and a Military alliance is quite obvious and no sources call MRP a military alliance. Could you please refute this statement? Otherwise, all what your sources state is just an allegory. The USSR had been neither an Axis member, nor signed any other military treaty with the latter, therefore she never was a Nazi ally. Period.
As regards to the Afanasiev's note about alleged alliance or co-belligerence with Germany, it has to be considered just as an attempt to stop Stalinisation of Russian history (a quite reasonable attempt, to my opinion).
In addition, let me point out that WP rules preclude unsourced statements to be done in WP articles, not on WP talk pages. And such an unsourced discussion can be rather fruinful. You can see there how such a discussion helped to convert a narrow Polonocentric criticism to much more general criticism of the whole Stalin's pre war politics.
And, last but not least, I am still waiting for your explanation regarding my alleged "pro-Soviet" POW (or your apology). I believe, an insufficient use of sources on talk pages does not suffice for such an accusation.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

you're not citing any facts but opinions, reasons why USSR may have concluded the MRP and its secret protocol with Germany. The facts are Nazi Germany entered WWII on September 1, 1939 by attacking Poland and USSR on September 17, 1939 by attacking Poland that was followed by the Soviet attack against Finland on November 30, 1939. In case you're not familiar with the chronology of WWII, the WP article World War II would be not a bad place to start.
Other than the facts, the reasons why any of those guys attacked their neighboring countries is a completely different issue. Including if in theory and/or in practice the Soviet-Nazi military cooperation against Poland constitutes a "military alliance". There is nothing else to this really. Other than in January 2009 all the original documentary films made about the 1939 joint Nazi-Soviet military operation in Poland are going to be in public domain. And once in PD in few months, those are going to be available in commons and then everybody can judge by themselves if the "Stalin-Hitler alliance" included any military alliances or not.

• Now back to Soviet historiography, they in Soviet version of history don't speak about WWII but the Great Patriotic War that started on June 22 1941. In Soviet version of history Soviet Union had nothing to do with WWII before that date. The Soviet invasion of Poland if ever mentioned in textbooks is referred to as "liberation of Western Ukraine". Also, Winter War that USSR started up in November 1939 is not considered to be part of the Great Patriotic War. There is the difference. in West there is WWII that USSR entered in September 17 against Poland and in November against Finland. In USSR the Great Patriotic War started on June 22 1941, hope that it helps sorting it out.--Termer (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer,every secondary source is some scholar's opinion made based on facts (i.e. primary sources). All articles I cite contain opinios of reputable researchers made based on numerous facts. And, based on these facts, all authors I cite come to conclusion that after failing to sign an anti Nazi military alliance the USSR signed a non-aggression treaty (not a military alliance) with Germany. And, since your are avoiding to answer my direct question, I conclude that you failed to find any mention of the alleged military alliance between Germany and the USSR in 1939. Therefore, statements like: "Stalin was now an ally of Hitler" etc is an example of myths of Western historiography (more concretely, of ignorance of some western "historians"). In addition, I found no mentioning of the Soviet declaration of war on Poland. Therefore, in contrast to Germany the USSR had not been at war with any state in 1939.
Of course, the USSR wasn't a "stronghold of peace" during 1939-41, and it is a big question if Stalin gained anything signing MRP. It is also possible to consider the USSR a Hitler's co-belligerent (not an ally) for a short period. However, it is a very complicated subject, and every European country has something in its pre-war history what it would prefer not to remember. One way or the another, this discussion has no relation to the Soviet historiography myths. We can speak about a myth if Soviet historians' opinion opposes to some single opinion that exists in a scientific community.
Going back to to Soviet historiography, they in Soviet version of history do speak about WWII, although the Great Patriotic War is considered (correcly) a major part of WWII. However, the date 1 Sept 1939 was present in all Soviet history textbooks. Although a story about a "liberation march of Red Army" looks odd, formally, there is some groung for such a statement, because a territory with predomonately Ukrainian population was annexed to Ukrainian SSR (It is not a Stalin's apology. I just tell that formally it could be represented like that. If Western powers accepted the annexation of Sudetes, why the same was not allowed for Stalin?). As regards to the Winter War, some researchers consider it separatly from WWII. Why couldn't the Soviet do the same? Anyway, I see no reason to tell about "myths of Soviet historiography" in that case. By the way, many American sources tell that WWII started in 7 December 1941. [6].
Soviet historiography had enough real myths, so distracting a reader with ill-founded statements just makes you position weaker.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

myths of Soviet historiography or myths in Soviet historiography is a valid subject. Any possible myths in the western historiography wolud belong to the appropriate article. And the "Stalin-Hitler alliance" or Soviet-Nazi alliance is not an opinion but a fact in history. The myth advocated by soviets and soviet apologists says there never was an alliance but a necessary evil. Feel free to add it to the article that joint Soviet-Nazi attack on Poland was not a military alliance but necessary evil according to soviet POV. --Termer (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An alliance is formed when a treaty has been signed and every side took some military obligations. Was the US a UK's ally before 7 Dec 1941? The answer is no. Similarly, you cannot show me at least a single book where MRP has been called a military alliance. Imprecise definitions from the books you mentioned (where "alliance" is just a substitute for the "rapprochement") are not a fact of history, but a fact of someone's ignorance.
And it is incorrect to call everybody having another point of view "a Soviet apologist". Such a manner is a vestige of a soviet mentality...
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am not intended to write anything about a necessary evil because the subject it too complex to fit into a single definition.
It was a big pleasure to have a discussion with you on other talk pages, because you were one of the most interesting opponents. However, I feel that this discussion goes in a wrong direction, so I propose to postpone it for a while. All the best. Hope to meet you somewhere in WP again :)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has ever claimed MRP was an act of military alliance. MRP was a nonaggression pact that included a secret protocol that defined "areas of influence" that triggered WWII. However the fact that MRP didn't define military alliance de jure, it doesn't mean that there wasn't de facto military alliance between Nazis and Soviets that included "some military obligations" by both sides. And sure I can give you a source that speaks clearly about the soviet-nazi military alliance: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1971 "Both the Russians and the Germans initially expected benefits from the Soviet-Nazi military alliance of 1939".--Termer (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality

This article needs a lot of work. It's got some good information, but is mired down in poor editing. In particular, Myths of Soviet historiography is complete POV trash. I don't object to the points remaining but it must be rewritten to reflect them simply as opposing viewpoints and not "myths" or "realities". I've removed the "Soviet censorship" image as it is not encyclopedic. If someone wants to replace it with a comparison of photographs edited by Soviet censors that is cropped properly and doesn't have poorly photoshopped stylized text, I won't object. Colony Of Electric Machines (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reasons why you do not like the image?Biophys (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Could the image at the start of the article be changed?

The stencil red and yellow text with the hammer/sickle thing stinks of someone trying to develop some scary theme around the issue. Just a pair of images showing before/after should suffice. 130.195.5.7 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(I'm sure I had seen similar as book cover) If it's a sequence of pictures put together by a WP editor, then the pictures already speak for themselves. That said, constantly rewriting history to serve political expediencies (or executions) should be a bit scary, no? —PētersV (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see the point you are making, but lets not mix personal opinions with what is wirtten in the article. If it is indeed scary, the before/after should be "scary" enough for the reader (as you correctly said). The only thing the red/yellow thing does is to indicate that personal opinion went into "writing" (you know, editing) the article which is surely a bad thing no matter which side you sit on. 118.90.59.31 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually PētersV, I need to apologise—it seems that you are right, it is a book cover! (See image desc. page ...) So I should really be asking: where can we get non-joined-up images like that? 118.90.59.31 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, as works of the Soviet government, they would be in the public domain. :-) —PētersV (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed?

As long as no such dispute is reasoned out on this talk page and no alternative viewpoints provided according to any WP:RS tagging articles randomly like this [7] [8] is simply unconstructive. The tag should be removed unless a serious alternative viewpoint can be spelled out according to any WP:RS, and then the viewpoint should be added to the article instead of unexplained tag like that.--Termer (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor complains of POV in a thread from a few weeks ago a little up this page. Tags stay up til issues are resolved or discussion stalls. the skomorokh 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are the WP:RS sources the POV complain is based on? And how do these sources differ from current secondary published sources used in the article? Unless this is not spelled out clearly, there is no neutrality dispute. In case anybody wishes to dispute the article based on his/her personal opinions, please let me remind you that WP is not a place for such disputes. The purpose of WP articles and our job here is to describe the dispute if any, not to engage in one. So anybody who wishes to "dispute the neutrality" please feel free to spell out the dispute according to any WP:RS and have it added to the article. Until it has not happened there is no dispute and the tag should be removed. Thanks --Termer (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to narrow the definition of a dispute unreasonably. Content is in dispute when, among other things, disagreement exists as to its neutrality. Plain and simple. I have no position, personally. If no-one speaks up about their specific objections to the article here after a reasonable grace period, it would be fine to remove the tag. If another editor then restores the tag, I'd advise that you take it to dispute resolution. Sincerely, the skomorokh 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you got it all wrong. WP is not a place to advance personal positions or opinions. Unless a valid source exists according to which there is a dispute, there is a dispute. If not, there is none. Plain and simple since any personal opinion is invalid pr WP:OR and the only thing that matters according to WP:NPOV are conflicting verifiable perspectives. And again, in case there is none brought forward, there is no dispute. In case a dispute can be verifided it should be simply added to the article. Going around and randomly tagging articles without putting any effort to improve it is just not acceptable.--Termer (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point entirely (it's very easy for example to construct a biased article out of impeccably reliable sources). If a user disputes something in an article, then a dispute exists concerning that article. Regards, the skomorokh 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a dispute tag in a random article does not make for a genuine content dispute. First, the user should express his/her opinion here, of what in his/her opinion is not neutral in the article and then (re-)add the tag.--Miacek (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that drive by tagging does not a genuine content dispute make, but this does:"This article needs a lot of work. It's got some good information, but is mired down in poor editing. In particular, Myths of Soviet historiography is complete POV trash. I don't object to the points remaining but it must be rewritten to reflect them simply as opposing viewpoints and not "myths" or "realities". I've removed the "Soviet censorship" image as it is not encyclopedic. If someone wants to replace it with a comparison of photographs edited by Soviet censors that is cropped properly and doesn't have poorly photoshopped stylized text, I won't object." Look up. the skomorokh 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not missing anything. Anybody is welcome to come and claim that there is a biased article constructed out of impeccably reliable sources. However you'd need to prove it pr. WP:verify. You can't just go and dispute Geography by saying it's a biased article. You'd need to show that there is a Flat Earth Society who disputes it. And then have the conflicting perspectives do the dispute between themselves within the articles, only then there is a dispute. So WP has proven policies for situations like that. And again, in case the dispute is not spelled out, there is no dispute but there is WP:TAGTEAM. I have no hurry since WP:There is no deadline. But the dispute needs to be spelled out sooner or later in order to justify the tag. So, anybody who claims there is a dispute, please do not hesitate to bring it forward--Termer (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of the editor's comment is lacking in specificity? They cite the exact section in dispute and the exact issue in that section. Really, this is getting quite ridiculous. the skomorokh 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be getting ridiculous, but not the way you think ;-). I've found your supposed 'dispute'. An editor with some ten edits leaves a message claiming that the article is of poor quality, without providing any additional information, although asked to do so by another user. This is bordering on buffoonery. --Miacek (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Skomorokh, Where is the alternative source that says otherwise? Any WP editors political opinions are not welcome here pr. WP:NOTFORUM. Again, in case there is a published source that says anything different than the current ones in the article, please do not hesitate to bring it forward. And labeling the sourced and verified text in the article with phrases like complete POV trash is not going to help. we are not here to dispute the issues but to describe the dispute if any. So who exactly represents a conflictive perspective on the issues discussed in the Myths section?--Termer (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources with alternative views can be inserted, but that does not determine whether an article or section is unbiased or not. An article can be biased when it presents interpretations and analysis of some authors as facts, or when it only concentrates on negative aspects of the topic (you cannot assume that other view points don't exist and write with such certainty). -YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was written to present Soviet historiography as only consisting of lies, therefore, it should then be called Criticism of Soviet historiography. The article also mostly uses sources written by authors (like Conquest and Pipes) who represent a one-sided view of the Soviet Union, and often their statements and opinions are presented here as facts. Then the section in the end suggests that only Western views on history should be valid. So how can you not say that this article is biased and needs a POV tag? -YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all your claim Soviet historiography as only consisting of lies simply isn't true. the article header gets right into serious Soviet historians like Roy Medvedev. And Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn comes right after him. So your claim about one-sided view of the Soviet Union is baseless. There are views of the totalitarian regime and the views of the serious Soviet historians both present in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the point... Only those who strongly criticize the Soviet Union are considered serious historians by you and some others. You cannot assume that the official Soviet history is made up of only the lies of a totalitarian regime, while the views of its critics and the West are the truth.

And I am not sure that you can call Solzhenitsyn a historian... -YMB29 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody assumes that the official Soviet history is made up of only the lies of a totalitarian regime but it is established fact that official Soviet historiography served the ideological interests of the Soviet interpretation of the Marxist ideology. Whether this ideology is considered a lie or not is a separate question: either the Soviet version of history that's based on this ideology is a lie or not depends on if one believes in the ideas of Soviet version of Marxism. And therefore, since it's a question about belief system, "the truth and lies", the issues you have raised are a matter of religion, not science. The science talks about facts and verifiability, a religion about the "truth and lies". There is the difference. There are Soviet historians like Roy Medvedev and then there are the "historians", the priests of Soviet ideology/religion. And the history itself has proved the ideologist-historians wrong. The Soviet version of socialism/communism was not a higher level of society after Feudalism-capitalism like claimed by the ideologists/priest historians. but just a side-loop that took the Soviet society into the dead end and collapse and all the way back to capitalism.--Termer (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the last sentences are your opinions on the achievements and legacy of the USSR, and should not be used to justify anything in the article.

Yes history is not a religion and we can't believe in things altered to serve an ideological purpose, but it goes both ways. You think only the Soviets were guilty of that?

Also history is not a definite thing; it is not only black or white, truth or lie. It can be viewed upon in many ways, especially when not every fact is known. And even if all facts are known it is still a matter of how you interpret them. -YMB29 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is the Soviet point of view a minority point of view or a fringe point of view?

Is the Soviet point of view considered a minority point of view or a fringe point of view? Bobanni (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you define those two first? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Soviet point of view". This view changed with every new CPSU leader, as suppose to be explained in this article. Best friends of Lenin have been declared "enemy of the people", then "rehabilitated", and so on.Biophys (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But there were some constants: ex. Soviet POV on communism, or Lenin himself... granted, there were not that many (I wonder if perestroika changed Soviet POV on capitalism?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't talk about "Soviet POV" after perestroika and glasnost since there was no single official truth ruling the society any more but the views on anything became diversified like in any society where freedom of expression is a natural part of every day life. Therefore we can't talk about historic Soviet POV as anything but WP:fringe today.
At the same time the Soviet POV must not be confused with the modern Russian nationalist POV, so called Russian national-patriotic ideology that has taken over significant parts of the former Soviet viewpoints Textbooks rewrite history to fit Putin’s vision, and therefore this Soviet flavored POV clearly constitutes a minority POV carried by the nationalism in Russia today.--Termer (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So you think that most Russians view the USSR the same way as you? It is not the late 80's and early 90's now when anything Soviet was considered bad. Lots of new facts became available since perestroika, but many lies, distortions, and exaggerations also developed. People learned not to trust the democrats/liberals/pro-Westerners and their supported version of history

As for Putin's propaganda, it is more anti-Soviet than pro-Soviet. Of course it is more pro-Soviet when compared to the propaganda from the Yeltsin years. -YMB29 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perestroika did not change the (official) Soviet POV regarding capitalism. Gorbachov in his own words wanted “more socialism”, he even ”discussed problems with Lenin″ and the CPSU retained a firm commitment to the 'historical choice of 1917'. Miacek (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that Perestroika did not change the (official) Soviet POV regarding capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system based on market economy and that's what perestroika was all about, reforming the Soviet economic system by implementing elements of market economy -meaning capitalism, the policy that ended the monopoly of the Soviet state in owning all companies and business in the country. Instead, private small businesses were allowed. And that was the fundamental change. At the time when Glasnost was about openness that cracked down the ideological monopoly of the Communist party including history writing that started all over from scratch during the era, including rehabilitation of the Royal family etc.--Termer (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Gorbachov intended to introduce capitalism aka market economy. Market elements? To a certain extent yes, as BTW was the case of Lenin's NEP. Soviet economy remained a socialist economy until the very end (collapse of the USSR), and real market reforms began with Gaydar (regardless of what we think of the results of Gaydar's reforms). But I believe here it is not the right place to discuss the seriousness of Gorby's market aspirations (perhaps one might check Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991). This link might be useful for more scholarly purposes. --Miacek (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) You do realize there are two questions here, with a common thread:

• That common thread is that everything ever documented during the Soviet Union's existence served a purpose, and that purpose was ultimately political. After the better part of a century of lies, it still amazes me how people get up on the soapbox and proclaim "Soviet archives will finally reveal the truth." People read accounts of a particular meeting and conclude it changes history. How utterly naive. Movie fans will understand the allusion: there is no spoon, there is no truth.

The questions are these:

1. One is a question of philosophy and practice, or philosophy versus practice, or simply paper versus practice. The Soviet constitution is a magnificent document purported to be practice, but never put into practice. Soviet "theories" and studies on "communism" are largely not scholarship, they are lab results "cooked" to insure the proper results to serve a specific purpose at the time of their creation. So, the answer is, not a fringe "view" but a fringe "version"--although one can still call it a "view" as it is likely still drawn from some basic facts not in question.
2. The other is a question of history. Here it is clear that the Soviet "record" is a wasteland of manufactured situations, calculated misrepresentations and outright lies and contentions of facts and truths which cannot be tied to any event which ever actually occurred. This is a "version" of history, not a "view". Differing "views" work off the same (verifiable) facts and produce different interpretations. Soviet history requires no facts. While a basic fact or two is always seeded here and there, the purpose is only to create the illusion of fact and truth by association; in the end, it is only an illusion.

Gorbachev's mistakes were not perestroika or glasnost. His mistake was in believing that a country that had known nothing but totalitarian rule--be it tsarist or oommunist--would posess the intrinsic moral positive fiber of society to make the leap forward. For one brief moment it did, and then it was lost to the interests of the power structure--which never changed. Today's Russia gives the lie to every principle of democracy and the right of free intellectual discourse.

   The greatest tragedy of the 20th century is not that the Soviet Union fell apart, per Putin. The greatest tragedy of the 20th century is that the coup against Gorbachev failed. A revolt against a failed coup eliminated the leaders of the coup--everyone else who sympathized and supported them is still pretty much in a position of power equivalent to that which they held during the Soviet era. A revolt against a successful coup would have wiped out the entire corrupt leadership structure.

   So, to answer the question, what do we call the theory that the moon is made of cheese? A minority POV? A fringe theory? And so you see the ultimate flaw in the question: it assumes one or the other answer is correct, when, in fact, neither is. The question is:

QUESTION: Is the Soviet alleged "point of view" a minority point of view or a fringe point of view or a lie?

ANSWER: It depends on whether it's an interpretation or simply a (carefully manufactured) illusion.

There is no spoon. Well, in fairness and more accurately, even if a spoon yesterday, that has no bearing on whether a spoon today. —PētersV (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You should write a book and be the next Conquest or Pipes... -YMB29 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All "recordings" of facts are subject to verifiability. Where Conquest is concerned, even Davies and Wheatcroft acknowledge the value of his work on gathering accounts of the famine in the Ukraine. Whether those accounts or Soviet archives are true (or the more true) depends on what reputable, verifiable facts can be brought to bear. The opening of Soviet archives is not the Oracle of Truth that a community of WP editors would make it out to be, rendering all scholarship before such opening "obsolete" Cold War anti-Soviet propaganda.

   Personally I'm a fan of Barghoorn. And I'll take Conquest and Pipes over neo-Soviet "archives don't lie" claptrap like Dyukov's any day. -PētersV (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Conquest was a propaganda tool during the Cold War. All he did was gather accounts from Ukrainian immigrants, including Nazi collaborators who ran to the West after the war. And then based on that he estimated the death toll? You are going to believe that over archived data? Many of the account were anonymous anyway. I guess it is just about what you really want to believe. People like Conquest and his followers like you are really upset that archives don't prove you right, so you call them a lie. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your editorial position as represented by your edits and reverts in Human rights in the Soviet Union that the Soviet Constitution was anything more than words where "rights" were concerned is uninformed and naive. -PētersV (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that everything Soviet is evil and lies is what is naive. And I was talking about economic rights. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Dyukov's latest drivel, he's now heading an organization ("fund" sounds more like Dyukov's retirement plan) protecting Russian history from evil rewriting by the west. Oh gag me. -PētersV (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a response to people like you. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everyone. There are many common "Soviet POVs" that now resurrected with vengeance. Yes, this is merely a combination of propaganda and pseudoscience. Post-perestroika in 1990s strongly enforced the Soviet POV on the "capitalism". There are also new bright ideas, such as an alleged "Holodomor" ... in the USA (2 million of Americans died from hunger during the crisis of 1930s according to some modern Russian commentators) or labor camps allegedly prepared by Obama to handle the current economic crisis (seriously). All that crap may soon be here, sourced to Russian newspapers.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-perestroika in 1990s strongly enforced the Soviet POV on the "capitalism".

Yes it sure did and proved it... -YMB29 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'American holodomor' topic has indeed been added to the article Denial of the Holodomor.--Miacek (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The major flaw of this discussion as whole is an attempt to present a Soviet POV as something uniform. It is not the case, because in actuality several different Soviet Unions existed during 1922-1991. The post-Civil war USSR was a country with a relatively mild regime: neglidgble number of political prisoners, state anti-antisemitism (Jews had significant preferences), actual absence of a passport system etc. Starting from 1930 the regime started to evolve towards Fascist type dictatorship (including a gradually increasing state antisemitism) that collapsed by 1953 (the first man who declared a broad amnesty and prohibited to use tortures, including complete destruction of corresponding equipement, was Beriya; he did that in few months after Stalin's death). The Khruschev's times were something absolutely unique, and although the USSR remained to be a strategic rival of the West and there were no political freedoms there in western sense, it was not a gloomy totalitarian society during that time. As regards to Brezhnev's time, I would say it was rather similar to the post war Frankist Spain: faded, stagnating, but rather toothless (both inside and outside). Therefore, the term "Soviet" has a quite different meaning, depending on what concrete period we are talking about.
Accordingly, the term "Soviet historiorgaphy" is broader than some anti-Soviet editors are trying to represent. This looks like an attempt to depict a conservative Western scholars as the sole bearers of "Western POV". Although we know that some of those conservative writers (for instance, those working for the Hoover Institution) sometimes tell an absolute bullshit, we cannot tell that Western historiograpfy is a lie or fringe theorizing.
The references to Medvedev (Roy) or Solzhenitsyn as good Soviet historiographs are not relevant because they were not Soviet but anti-Soviet historiographs. Nevertheless, there are many Soviet historians who, being Marxists, wrote quite reasonable, brillant history books. For instance the works of Robert Vipper, a Marxist Soviet historian, on ancient Greek history are vonderful. I never read a better description of the origin of Chistianity than than made by him. And his work are good not despite of his Marxist ground, but due to it.
The problem is that during the major part of the Soviet history Soviet historian had to conceal the major fact: according to the Marx theory, many (if not a majority) of steps taken by Soviet leaders (mostly Stalin) were a pure anti-Communism. Therefore, good historians avoided to deal with the history of the USSR herself. However, applying a Marxist methodology to another periods of human history was frequently very fruitfull.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) PS. BTW, attempts to call every bullshit written by Russian historians "a Soviet POV" are ridiculous. Persent days vision of many Russian writers has nothing in common with Soviet POV. Anti-Americanism and nationalism of those writers is not sufficient to call them bearers of Soviet POV.

Yes, Solzenytsyn and some others (like Avtorkhanov) do not belong to Soviet historiography. They were mentioned to illustrate the fact that free historical research on important political subject was possible only abroad, beyond the Soviet system of total censorship. Sorry, but the "post-Civil war USSR" was a country with a totalitarian regime; huge number of political prisoners, and state-promoted antisemitism (even Lenin personally issued some antisemitic orders), and so on.Biophys (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did even though he was partly Jewish and a large part of the Bolshevik leaders were Jews... :o

In fact here is him giving such an anti-Semitic order: [9] -YMB29 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did not you know that Lenin always claimed one thing but did something exactly opposite (a good strategy to fool around your foes)? From "About some policies at the Ukraine" (signed by Lenin, Fall of 1919):

Force Jews and city dwellers at the Uktaine into the "ezhovye rykavitsy" [can someone translate?], send them to the front line of war, do not appoint them to any organs of power (except for a negligible %, in exceptional cases under class control)... Use politically correct words [in orders]: Jewish Petite bourgeoisie (Lenin

("Sumerki" by Alexander Yakovlev, page 207. Too bad. We do not even have article Antisemitism in Russia. Biophys (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Provide more than just one sentence of the quote and in Russian, since I know from before that you can't (or don't want to) translate correctly.

Funny how both liberals and nationalist communists refuse to believe what Lenin said in this speech. -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, did I get it right? We do have a modern Marxist POV also present here? That should fall under WP:UNDUE similar to any other extremist POV like Neo-Nazi etc.

PS. RE: Paul Siebert you know, it would actually be helpful if you read the article. Nobody has ever claimed that there was a single uniform Soviet POV. All different periods in Soviet historiography have been spelled out in the article.--Termer (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On "Present days vision of many Russian writers has nothing in common with Soviet POV," unfortunately, we only have to watch Russian state media for "historians" such as Dyukov (yes, in quotes, even if he does have a degree) writing that Estonians were resettled to Siberia on comfortable coach trains, each with a doctor, nurse, and medical aid, not as Estonians LIE, according to their so-called eyewitness accounts and personal experiences and testimony, in "cattle cars." And the basis for this revelation? Because that's what the not-available-before archives say, and the NKVD archives don't lie.

   Of course the NKVD archives lie. And everyone is all too eager to use Soviet archives to paint a kinder gentler Soviet Union that was misunderstood in its time. Hogwash. -PētersV (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So we should rather rely on estimations and analysis made during the Cold War by such wonderful "historians" as Conquest... -YMB29 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already replied above on Conquest. And I suppose opportunists like Dyukov are real historians... -PētersV (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As for multiple USSRs, it is quite true that the atmosphere did turn much darker upon Stalin's ascent. That said, I can't tell the lies from a Soviet propaganda publication from its first occupation of the Baltics from the lies I read in the Russian press today. -PētersV (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Once again. If some present days Russian "historians" write a chauvinist bullshit that doesn't mean they stay on the Soviet POV. Not every bullshit had been written by Soviet historians, and not every Soviet historian was writing a bullshit.
• Working with the NKVD archive doesn't necesserily mean that you stay on Soviet POV. Some reputable western historians write very good articles based on declassified Soviet archive data. From other hand, it is possible to write a completely false book using exclusivelly true, genuine archive documents.
• Of course, NKVD archives, intended for internal use only, cannot lie. Otherwise we must assume that the Soviet state was similar to that described in a Lem's "A manuscript found in a bathroom" - i.e. a completely nonviable apparatus. If you look through the Gulag talk page you will find numerous evidences of reliability of NKVD data (according to Western researchers). Nevertheless, I agree that if someone decided to write a lie he could do that based on selectively taken true archive documents. It is possible to do that in Russia, in the USA, in France - in any country. However, I see no connection between that and Soviet historiography.
• I don't think 30,000 prisoners (some of them did really participate in armed resistance to Soviet authorities) to be a "huge number" for a 150,000,000 country. I don't think that 10 to 30% of Jews in the Communist government to be a sign of a state anti-semitism (you probably mix anti-Judaism and anti-semitism. However, I don't think it would be correct to call, for instance, every anti-Orthodox action anti-Russian one). As regards to so on, I don't know what to argue, because it is not too concrete.
• In contrast to neo-Nazism, Marxism is a balanced and consistent scientific theory. It has its own drawbacks and limitations, some parts of it are obsolete now, but, anyway, this is a subject of a scientific discussion. And blatant accusations in extremism do not work here. However, the statement:"We do have a modern Marxist POV also present here? That should fall under WP:UNDUE similar to any other extremist POV like Neo-Nazi etc." - perfectly demonstrates one of my major points: that Soviet POV is considered by many editors as something uniformly negadive, marginal and false.
  --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is a balanced and consistent scientific theory? That was funny Paul Siebert! At first I thought that it doesn't really need a comment since a statement like that speaks for itself. But because it has been one of the best jokes on WP I ever encountered, it still deserves a response: Marxism has the appropriate scope and features to be considered a religion according to Robert John Ackermann, or a quasi-religion according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. So shortly Marxism is as much balanced and consistent scientific theory as any other belief based theory out there, like for example Creationism. And to consider Soviet POV and Marxism anything but marginal is not a serious discussion. However either it's negative or false depends on your belief system, meaning religion that in this case is either you believe in Marxism or not.--Termer (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Paul's points -

1. Even the most scholarly Soviet writings on history I have come across have at the minimum suffered from ancient Russian ties (e.g., Baltics) or ancient Russian hegemony (Soviet/Russian accounts of Kievan Rus' domain are invariably greater than as decribed by non-Soviet/non-Russian scholarship). And, certainly, histories written and rewritten to serve politics certainly do fall into the "bullshit" category.
2. The point with any archives, but with Soviet archives in particular, is that unless there is corroborating western data, the archives are suspect, plain and simple. Obviously, and agreed, there's a lot of latitude in representing what numbers actually mean (reality) versus hypothetical possibilities (conjecture or simply lies).
3. Why would you postulate that NKVD archives, intended for internal use only, cannot lie? The archive contents regarding Estonian deportations are lies, plain and simple. That does not mean there aren't parts that are true, but the contention that all parts are true is a leap of faith into oblivion.
4. "30,000" prisoners for a "150,000,000" population country? Clearly you're not talking about Estonia or the Baltics, so I can't comment on exactly which numbers you mean. I don't follow your logic on anti-Semitism. There were, for example, plenty of Latvians and Jews in the early Soviet leadership hierarchy--however, no one would postulate that these individuals typified their ethnicity. Stalin was rabidly anti-Semitic (per Khruschev). I don't equate the Orthodox church = Russia, if some do, that's beyond our discussion here.
5. Marxism is Marxism. However, people often use "Marxism" when they are talking about Leninism or Stalinism or "C"ommunism (capital "C"). Official modern Russian accounts of history are certainly accelerating toward, and not away from, neo-Stalinism.

To Paul's final point. Let's not call Soviet POV regarding history a "POV". It is not that. It is a manufacture, a construct. The degree to which any of that construct is true or false can only be substantiated by the application of externally verifiable facts. No Soviet account of history, no content of Soviet archives, can be taken at face value. Being able to pick fact from fib is, quite frankly, beyond 99.99% of the editors here on WP, so, for all intents and purposes, that Soviet POV, i.e, construct, cannot be considered reputable. -PētersV (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Paul Siebert. “references to Medvedev (Roy) or Solzhenitsyn as good Soviet historiographs are not relevant because they were not Soviet but anti-Soviet historiographs” - regarding Medvedyev you're wrong. He was not anti-Soviet per se, but namely anti-Stalinist. He belonged to the group of naive Soviet 'democratic socialist' dissidents who wanted to go 'back to Lenin' and regarded Stalinism as corrupted socialism. Medvedyev has maintained his socialist convictions up to this day, and in the early 1990s he led the Russian Socialist Workers´ Party, founded as a surrogate organisation for the banned CPSU. Miacek (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion that “In contrast to neo-Nazism, Marxism is a balanced and consistent scientific theory” is plainly wrong. Marxism is definitely not balanced, and most sociologist or economists would agree that it is not scientific. 'Contrasting' such theories as nazism and Marxism is not useful here, for both belong to the same category - pseudoscience. Miacek (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, as much as I'd love to jump in to this argument, can somebody explain what specifically is being proposed in terms of changes to this article? Because right now I don't see the relevance of all this. <eleland/talkedits> 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently nothing. Most of the debated issues actually belong to other articles.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked the question because there was a neutrality issue brewing. A NPOV tag was applied implying that the Soviet POV was not properly represented. Even if some of the discussion is slightly of topic - I am very impressed with the caliber of the discussion from all of the participants. This is much better than edit-wars and short insulting edit summaries. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! Bobanni (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the whole discussion has a direct relation ot the article, because some agreement is needed regarding the meaning of the Soviet POV term. To PētersV.

1. I didn't understand your point.
2. I would say, the archive work should be done by a professonal. That is valid for both Western and Estern archives. In addition, let me remind you a fragment from the Gulag discussion:"Conquest, who gave astronomical number of Stalin's victims in 1970s, concedes that: "We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures." (Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319)." In other words, even a biased anti-Soviet author, conceded that the work made by a professional can be highly reliable even if it has benn done based on Soviet archives.
3. Did you read the book I mentioned? You also can look through the Gulag talk page. Explanations and some references are there.
4. I am talking about the period between 1922-30. Of course, antisemitism was gradualy increasing with Stalin's rising to power, however, during that time the situation was reverse: Jews had many preferences, although some repressions took place against Jewish bourgeoisie and the Judaism (however, taking into account an intense secularisation of Russian Jews, started before a revolution, the latter was not too important).
5. The contemporary Russian POV is a chimaera. Anyway, it has no relation to the present discussion.

To Miacek. Agree on Medvedev. Disagree on Marxism. The theory is quite consistent, although somewhat outdated. As regards to "most sociologists", I don't understand where did you take it from. For instance, Karl Popper devoted a whole book to the Marx criticims. However, he criticized Marx theory as a scientific theory. Taking into account that Popper was one of founders of the contemporary philosophy of science, he would never pay so much attention to a pseudoscientific bullshit.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me also remind you that Marx, along with Max Weber and Émile Durkheim, is regarded as one of the founders of modern sociology. I would say that drawing any parallelism between Marxism and Nazism demonstrates just insufficiency of someone's education.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:drawing any parallelism between Marxism and Nazism demonstrates just insufficiency of someone's education. :-D Oh please, taking things out of context, suggesting that Marxism (equals) = "Marx as a founder of modern sociology" comes down to the same question either Friedrich Nietzsche was a Nazi. And was Marx a Marxist? I don't think so exactly like I don't think that Nietzsche was a Nazi. You can criticize scientifically all kinds of philosophies and theories all you want, just that currently we are talking about the Soviet interpretation of Marxism, how it was put to use in practice in Soviet Union, not about Marx as a philosopher. There is a difference between Marx and his works and what is Marxism, exactly like Nietzsche and Nazism are not the same things. And that should be self explanatory, not anything that needs to be pointed out once we talk about "insufficiency of someone's education".--Termer (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why it is absolutely necessary to elaborate common definitions. Of course, there is a tremendous difference between the Marx's theory, Marxism and "Marxism" (I recall, Marx even told regarding some "Marxist" theories that if they are Marxism, then he himself is not a Marxist). However, sometimes it is hard to understand what people are talking about. Therefore I don't "take something out of context", but, probably, see a wrong context.

The analogy between Marx and Nietzsche is very good, although incorrect. From the very beginning Nazism was a negation of the major Nietzsche's idea. (It is interesting to note that I found no anti-semitic statement in Nietzsche's book, although in some of them he commended Jews, for instance, for teaching the Germans to think logically) In contrast, Communism was a gradual deviation from the Marx's concept. In other words, there is a broad spectrum of Communist theories starting from almost authentic Marxism to Stalinism or Maoism. The latter two are in the same relation with Marxism as Nazims and Neutzshe's philosophy are. As a result, it is easy to separate Nazism and Neutzshe, whereas in the case of Marx, Marxism, Communism, Stalinism ect there is a lot of confusion.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you took things out of context since "a broad spectrum of Communist theories" has nothing to do with current article -Soviet historiography. The fact that Marx is considered a forfather of modern Sociology is relevant to an appropriate article -Sociology, exactly like Alchemy is relevant to chemistry as a forerunner of this modern science.

non of this has anything to do with an ideology like Marxist Scientific Communism that the Soviet historiography was based on. The bottom line Marxism in the context is an ideology, not science. Exactly like the "racial science" in Third Reich was an ideology, not a science. Again, please in case you do have any WP:RS sources that have anything to say about the historiography in USSR, please bring it forward. and please do not broaden the scope of this discussion into territories that are not directly related to improving the current article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The current article deals with Soviet historiography as whole, including both blatant falsifications made by Soviet propagandists (that can be called historians only conditionally) and honest works of real historians that used Marxist methodology as a basis for their study. Therefore, I would say that in was you rather that I who took things from a context.
The analogy between Marx for sociology and alchemy for chemistry is also incorrect. Marx is much closer to a contemporary sociology. The prove for that is quite simple: Marx's works are being extensively cited by contemporary sociologists (for 10 minutes I found a number of such articles, for instance, A Marxist Critique of Marx's Theory of History. Beyond the Dichotomy between Scientific and Critical Marxism Author(s) Costas Panayotakis Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium (Mar., 2004), pp. 123-139. Closing the "Great Divide". New Social Theory on Society and Nature Author(s) Michael Goldman and Rachel A. Schurman Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26 (2000), pp. 563-584. Marxism after Communism Author(s) Michael Burawoy, Theory and Society, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 151-174. Note, in these works, as well as in many others Marxism is not a subject of critique), whereas you will never find references to Albertus Magnus or Roger Bacon in contemporary chemical articles. I would say, Marx for the contemporary sociology is something intermediate between Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner and Dmitri Mendeleev (less influential than the latter, but much more than the former).
Once again, as far as the article deals with both honest Soviet historians and blatant falsificators, my definition of the term "Marxism" seems to be more relevant that yours.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum. In case you wish, please refer to any sources that speak about "honest Soviet historians" like "honest Nazi historians" would need an appropriate source for appropriate article. Anything that has to do with Marx and his works etc. would need to go to the relevant article and it's discussion page.--Termer (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I started to suspect that you use the not a forum formulae every time you have no arguments...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In "The Argentine Writer and Tradition" Borges wrote: "Gibbon observes that in the Arabian book par excellence, in the Koran, there are no camels; I believe if there were any doubt as to the authenticity of the Koran, this absence of camels would be sufficient to prove it is an Arabian work. It was written by Mohammed, and Mohammed, as an Arab, had no reason to know that camels were especially Arabian; for him they were a part of reality, he had no reason to emphasise them; on the other hand, the first thing a falsifier, a tourist, an Arab nationalist would do is have a surfeit of camels, caravans of camels, on every page; But Mohammed, as an Arab, was unconcerned: he knew he could be an Arab without camels." Similarly, for scientists to be honest is natural. You will never hear "Toynbee was honest". But it doesn't mean he lied.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not have arguments because this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please do respect WP:DISCUSSION. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I second to Termer. I might reply to Paul Siebert's reply by referring to Popper's criticism of Marx's 'scientific forecasts' or, say, Alexander Zinovyev's opinions on Marxism and 'ideology', but this is not an appropriate place for such a discussion.--Miacek (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the discussion to what extent the Soviet historiography can be considered a science is irrelevant...--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The extensive discussion about whether or not Soviet historical works were "all lies" is absolutely irrelevant. It is not up to us to determine which version of history is "true" and which is a "lie." On Wikipedia, all reliable sources must be included. As for the treatment of "fringe" sources, WP:RS states:

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities."

Thus, Soviet or Marxist sources naturally cannot be used in an article about, say, American history, but they are entirely appropriate in an article about themselves. Even the article about the pseudoscience of creationism contains large numbers of statements sourced to creationist authors. -- Amerul (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And as a direct response to Termer: Even if Marxism were considered a "religion" - which, of course, it is not - are you saying that we cannot use religious sources on Wikipedia? Have a look at the articles about Christianity, Islam or Hinduism and count the pro-religious sources if you are so inclined. -- Amerul (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A general note again. Yes, Amerul, religious sources are used where necessary. However, we cannot really use the sources of Creation myth in the article Big Bang, or those of Intelligent Design in Evolution. In an encyclopedia, science and pseudoscience should not be presented as equally valid, and I hope it is not the case in wiki (I'd have to check the articles mentioned).--Miacek (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the question whether to use the 'classics of Marxism' here. I think they do deserve a section. I also have a number of books from Stalin era. It's surely interesting to read of the bloody imperialists, the “Trotskyist-Bukharinist agents of fascism″ and “the Judas Trotsky” (notion used numerous volumes in a band of supposedly academic writing).--Miacek (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally agree with Amerul. However, let me point out that majority of Soviet (not traditional Marxist) works about American history, as well as some American works about Soviet (not Russian) history are strongly affected by ideology (the Cold war legacy), therefore, I for that reason wouldn't consider the Soviet works a reliable source in that case. Nevertheless, that absolutely doesn't mean that the American history cannot be subjected to the analysis based on the theory of Marxism. You correctly pointed out that Marxism is not a religion but a scientific theory, so it can be applied to the American history, and American history works written by a non politically committed Marxist are quite relevant.
To Miacek. The analogy between Marxism and Creationism is not correct. In contrast to the latter, the former is a scientific theory. You will never find any sources of Creation myth in the article Big Bang. In contrast, a vast number of scholarly article have been written (and are being written) that discuss Marxism as a scientific theory (in contrast to the Hitler's race theory, BTW): some authors point out at it's flaws, some support it, however, one way or the another, Marxism is a part of the contemporary science, not religion. Therefore, one has to concede that the Soviet historiography does have a solid theoretical background. Another question is how efficiently and correctly had it been used.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself introduced him, let me remind you that Popper refutes all the major 'scientific' forecasts of Marx-Engels. I won't discuss it here in detail (perhaps I will at Talk:Marxism).I just add two consideration. In fact, I was born in a society built according to Marx's 'scientific' works. Much of today's reality in Eastern Europe still has its roots in this era.
Secondly, I have read some of Marx's and Engels's main works, incl. The Communist Parety Manifesto, where all the major points of this 'scientific' theory are already present. If you compare their ideas with the current reality, you see that absolutely none of these postulates corresponds to reality (be it the supposed continuous impoverishment of the majority of people in any capitalist society, the supposed inevitable, 'automatic' collapse of capitalism etc). They simply form an 'ideology', that does not really explain anything. Practice is the criterion of truth, a Marxist once cleverly said... And in general, the article at hand deals more with the practice of communism, not so much with the theory.--Miacek (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First. I don't think it is correct to state the post-war society in Poland or the USSR to be built according to "Marx's 'scientific' works". Which works do you mean? In actuality, Marx didn't propose any concrete mechanism for creation of the Communist society. His Dictatorship of the proletariat is only vaguely formulated general concept, and after 1917 Soviet Bolsheviks started to invent so-called scientific communism that appeared to be a complete bullshit. This scientific communism as well as the bureaucratic autoritarism they created has nothing in common with the Marx's theory, therefore, your personal experience adds not much to the present discussion.

Second. I wouldn't say that none of Marx's postulates corresponds to reality. For instance, taking into account the XX-XXI centuries' globalization tendencies, we do observe the continuous impoverishment of the majority of people in any capitalist society, because a present day's society ≠ country. Look, almost all industry that requires a low payed labour force shifted to China. Although politically the US and China are two different countries, economically they are inseparable, therefore, from this point of view in is a single society. And if we combine them we will see how the impoverishment continues: yesterday the American workers assembled computers for $100/day, now he sells the same computes assembled by a Chinese worker for $10/day.

Regarding the collapse of the capitalist society, I see no contradiction between the Marx's theory and the reality. He correctly pointed out that the development of the "free market" in the direction it had been moving in the second half of XIX century would lead to a collapse - and he appeared to be right. First World War, Russian, German, Hungarian revolutions, Fascism, Nazism, Great depression - all of that are a direct result of the explosive growth of capitalism. I would say Marx, in contrast to many, many other scientists and philosophers, who expected XX century to be an enlightened paradise, predicted the course of the events very precisely. The only thing he couldn't expect was the possibility to find a less radical way to restrain a wild capitalism, I mean the Roosevelt's New Deal and the European reforms that have lead to the contemporary Euro-socialism.
As you correctly pointed out, "practice is the criterion of truth". The major "Das Kapital's" idea was simple: "Money cannot work by themselves. Only human labour creates values". What to we have now? We have a subprime mortgage financial crisis that was a direct consequence of absolutely crazy attempts to force money to work by themselves.
I am not certain what the article deals with. If under "Soviet historiography" we mean the "History of the USSR (1917-1987)", we, of course, can speak about the almost absolute lie (and forget about any references to Marxism). However, if we are speaking about the Soviet historical science, we must consider it seriously, because it was a real science that presented a very original Marxism based view on the world history, because, although Soviet scientists couldn't write truth about their own country, they were allowed to do that about almost everything else, and, once again, their vision is interesting, correct and adequate.
Dixi
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Miacek, there are numerous Marxists who strongly disagreed with many aspects of Marx's original writings, especially his predictions about the future. The most famous example is Lenin himself. Marx predicted that the proletarian revolution would take place first in the most advanced capitalist countries. Lenin said that Marx was wrong, and the revolution would take place first in underdeveloped countries. If it is possible for Lenin to be a Marxist and disagree with Marx, then clearly we cannot use Marx's original works and predictions to judge all of Marxism.

I am Eastern European myself, but it is a mistake to say that any society in our region of the world was built according to Marx's ideas or works. No society could be built according to Marx's works, because Marx said almost nothing about the way a society should be built. His work focused on trying to explain the society that already existed in his lifetime. And, of course, Marx turned out to be wrong about many things. But Newton, the founder of physics, turned out to be wrong about many things too... That doesn't mean physics as a whole is wrong. -- Amerul (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry but it just hurts my brains how Marxism and Marxism-Leninism that are political philosophies AKA ideologies get mixed up randomly with what is known as Classical Marxism, what has that all to do with the subject in hand? Please stop publishing your own ideas surrounding the subject on this talk page pr. WP:NOTFORUM; at the same time feel free to suggest and cite any secondary published sources that look into the subject Soviet Historiography that could be used for improving the article. Anything else is irrelevant, other than yeah, in case anybody wants to go and check out if the Soviet POV is a fringe minority POV or not, there are relevant notice boards for that: WP:FTN, WP:RSN, WP:CCN, WP:POVN etc.--Termer (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Termer for hurting your brain again. I believe, however, that the present discussion have had at least one positive result: it pointed your attention at the brilliant article about Marxism. I hope after reading it, as well as another good article you will concede that your previous statements ("OK, did I get it right? We do have a modern Marxist POV also present here? That should fall under WP:UNDUE similar to any other extremist POV like Neo-Nazi etc."), as well as your tendency to mix Marxism and Stalinism weren't completely correct.
Since I fully agree that the discussion have come to its logical end, I propose to terminate it. Agree?
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In the context the "mix of Marxism and Stalinism" the Marxist-Stalinist doctrine (known as Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism at the time), an ideology according to which the Soviet history was written up to the 20th Party Congress is relevant to the article. And I'm sorry in case it hurts anybody's feelings that WP:UNDUE fringe ideologies like Neo-Marxism like any other extremist POV-s including Neo-Nazism versus completely valid subjects elsewhere like Classical Marxism have nothing to do with the current article. Therefore, sure I personally would appreciate if you'd terminate such not related discussions.--Termer (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I already said, I think that the discussion has reached its logical end, although it looks very strange how did you come to the conclusion that Analytical Marxism, Structural Marxism, critical theory (all of them are branches of Neo-Marxism) are "fringe theories"?
One way or the another, let's stop it.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)