Talk:Great Purge/Archive 2

message: This article is extremely thorough factually, but in terms of interpretation of those fact, I think it's extremely biased towards the 'totalitarianist' view of things (that of Robert Conquest et al). Even in the opening paragraph, this one, single viewpoint is espoused, without reference to any other: "The Great Purge (Russian: Большая чистка) is the name given to campaigns of political repression and persecution in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin during the late 1930s."
There is significant resistance to this supposition within academic circles. There isn't even a term in Russian for the purges as one whole concept, as we have in English, but rather its constituent 'phases' have different names - chistka, obmen, proverka, Ezhovschina... (It should be noted that the opening paragraph is incorrect, as Большая чистка refers specifically to the Ezhovshchina.) In addition, many respected Western historians - building especially on Getty and Fitzpatrick et al - take the 'revisionist' view that Stalin was not the only actor during the 'purges,' and that some parts of the purges did not have the aim of causing terror (though no-one denies that Stalin did have a part and that some parts of the purges did cause terror).
I propose that the article be rewritten to give the reader both the totalitarianist and revisionist views, for the sake of NPOV. I think it should also be stressed that the little available evidence does not support either of the views more than the other, and that it's really just a question of interpretation.
Kieron a m 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "this period is sometimes referred to as the Yezhovshchina ("Yezhov era")"
The article for dedovshchina claims that the -shchina suffix means 'retribution', not 'era' as this article says. Could a native Russian speaker ascertain what the suffix means and correct one or the other of these articles.
:It is attribution, not retribution, i.e., something attributed to somebody. mikka (t) 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yezhovshchina 

message: The numbers for arrests, sentences and executions is being conflated over and over again.  There is absolutely no reason for them to be conflated.  I am breaking arrests, convictions and executions into two sentences, one which refers to arrests and sentences to jail for a number of years, another for executions.  I see a deliberate attempt here to conflate numbers and try to confuse arrests for common criminal charges (murder, burglary) with arrests for more political charges like treason.  I also see an attempt to conflate and confuse arrests, sentences, executions and so forth.  There is no reason for this to be conflated.  It is being broken into different sentences.  A sentence on criminal arrests.  A sentence on more political arrests.  A sentence on executions.  Not all of it conflated together to try to trick people into thinking millions of people were killed because they had a portrait of Trotsky hanging in their dacha. Ruy Lopez 19:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very accommodating of you. Would that the other side were so coöperative. Shorne 21:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. Shorne 21:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  executions II 

message: Took up a suggestion above and started a Great Terror article. Still a stub.  Included Fred Bauder's disputed text.Marlowe 20:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the "disputed" text, which is unquestionably POV, as irrefutably proven by Ruy Lopez, me, and others more times than should be necessary in a community of (presumed) adults. I have also added a link that discusses Conquest's work from a critical perspective. Shorne 20:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you haven't proven anything yet - doesn't even look like you've read the referenced literature on the subject, just some conspiracy-theory websites. Anybody who claims certainty about what did or did not happen just shows that they didn't comprehend the part where the serious researchers discuss the limitations of their methodology. Stan 21:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only certainty claimed is that the comments are POV. Mikkalai spelled it out in short words at Talk:The Great Terror for the benefit of the intellectually self-deprived. Shorne 21:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't understand NPOV, do you? NPOV is "Neutral Point of View", not "No Point of View". Articles on controversial topics need to report all points of view, without themselves taking sides for or against. Your approach has been to delete instead of attribute, which is absolutely against policy. Stan 21:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess I am a "presumed adult" now, but let me just note that you (Shorne) are the one resorting to name calling.  The reason I moved the disputed text to Great Terror article was because it clearly bore facts taken from that text.  In other words, it should (and does now) read: "Conquest says", or "Conquest claims", which is perfectly legitimate for an article about a book</I>.  Anyway, enough of this arguing.  You've already shut down one artcile.  Might as well shut down Great Terror article as well.Marlowe 16:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See The Black Book of Communism for the way such claims should be handled. Shorne 19:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes.  Another article on your hitlist.Marlowe 19:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great Terror article

message: I've created a page called Talk:Great Purge/western reactions.  Maybe we can rewrite it there?  I don't even know what the hell the paragraph means, when exactly did western intellectuals turn against the Soviet Union?  After Khrushchev's speech?  After the publication of the Black Book of Communism?  It's not a big deal, it's just one of the things that doesn't make sense.  Perhaps we can edit the article there, although I think this paragraph should just be taken out and shot.  At least Bauder has stopped calling certain works "definitive".  That's a start, at least.  The first version of Talk:Great Purge/western reactions in the history is the original, I will be editting it.  Except as I said, the things like the above make little sense to me, so I don't even know how to rewrite it really. Ruy Lopez 21:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be some 100 word rule for sentences I don't know about because this first sentence by Fred Bauder is 99 words long.  If Fred Bauder's sentences made any sense he could be the next William Faulkner.  Please break that sentence up into 2, 3, 4 or 5 sentences with thoughts and statements that make sense and aren't a bunch of rambling clauses strung one after the other after the other?  I don't even understand what this says, never mind try to rewrite it.  At least the word definitive was taken out, that's a start. Ruy Lopez 22:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry; our messages crossed paths. See below. Shorne 23:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the paragraph 

message: Is there anyone who cares to defend the material that I deleted? It's nothing but a POV attack on alleged Stalinists. We don't need any grandstanding in these articles. Shorne 23:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, I'm willing to bet. In any case, even if that whole paragraph (you have quoted only part of it) were not blatantly biased, it would be out of place in this article. Anyone who thinks about it for a nanosecond or so will realise that an encyclopædia worthy of the name is not a bully pulpit from which to bash certain groups or ideas. Shorne 05:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Your personal opinion of your perception (probably greatly distorted) of our opinions has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is that a blatant POV attack on people is being made in this article. It simply has to go. Shorne 15:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if he wants to meet an orthodox Marxist-Leninist of this type he should go back in a time machine to around this period.  No one in the US power structure really seemed to think much about the purge at the time, only with the beginning of the Cold War did history get rewritten and did this become an "embarrassment" or "atrocity". I guess it was just a coincidence that all of the so-called evidence of all of this stuff came to light the moment it was politically useful for it to. Who is being naive here? Ruy Lopez 07:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on "Stalinists" 

message: I would like to reach a consensus on this article.  The vandal VeryVerily, who has been banned before, and is in arbitration for his current breaking of the three revert rule, is coming in and simply rv'ing this article (and virtually any article I, Shorne or others edit).  Of course, this makes it harder, perhaps impossible to build a consensus as he just wants to have a revert war.  I see Mikkalai and Fred Bauder editting this article and I really would like to work this out amiably with both of you.  Last time when a paragraph was contentious I just put it in the discussion page and editted it there.  Hopefully this can be worked out now despite VeryVerily, if not, I guess I will just have to wait for a judgement or temporary injunction against him by the arbitrators.  I will try anyhow.  I don't really expect VeryVerily to change soon, being as he broke the three revert rule within the past 24 hours, but if he does, fine. Ruy Lopez 07:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also eager to reach a consensus. If Fred Bauder and Mikkalai are willing to discuss issues here, let us begin. I suppose that VeryVerily will revert any changes agreed upon, as is his wont, but we serious people shouldn't let that stop us from trying. Eventually he'll be given the boot. Shorne 15:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  article consensus 

message: Boraczek asked me what source I had for the reason given for the Purge, it was Molotov Remembers.  I'm sure I could find other sources as well.  The center-left French government never had a purge of its army and unlike World War I, it surrendered to the Nazis almost immediately.  I inserted the source in quotes like Fred Bauder does. (post by Shorne)
: Thanks for your answer. Molotov's statement was already mentioned in the article. There is no reason to mention that 2 times, one time as an attributed statement and one time disguised as an objective fact, so I will modify the paragraph a little bit.  
:The Soviet Union had a purge in its army and it was not even able to subdue tiny Finland. In six months the SU lost a huge territory to the Germans, a territory which was 3-4 times bigger than the territory of France in Europe. The purge in the army made the Soviet Union very weak and it encouraged Hitler to attack it. Boraczek 07:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be no explanation because defences on the western perimeter of USSR were not dismantled. When the Eastern Poland (or Western Belarus/Ukraine) was annexed, a new fortification line (known as Molotov Line in the West) was started on the new border. Defensive line on the old border was conservated as USSR simply did not have the industrial capacity required to maintain two constructions of such scale. It was planned to resume some works on the old defensive line somewhere in Autumn 1941. Meanwhile, lots of artillery and other equipment from Stalin's Line was used to equip the newly constructed fortifications on the new border. Eleyvie 12:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  substantiation 

message: Shorne, you have removed the italicized sections from the following:
"Finally, in France, where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism,The Black Book of Communism  (1997), relying in part on revelations of the Great Purge, compared communism unfavorably to Nazism. Nevertheless minimizations of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States and small but passionate groups of modern day Marxist-Leninists ."
"where the intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism," seems well established to me, both in terms of general knowledge, but is referenced to specific language written by the editor at Harvard University Press. What reference could you refer to which would show it is not true or even disputed?
"Nevertheless minimizations of the Great Purge continues among revisionist scholars in the United States" again is well established to those familiar with the field of communist studies and is referenced to specific language in a source which addresses the history of communist studies. Do you have available any reference which would show that there are no recognized communist scholars whose work purports to show that Stalin's crimes are exagerated in works such as The Great Terror and The Black Book of Communism and that the evidence of refugees from the Soviet Union and survivors of the Gulag is to be discounted or that they are not generally referred to in the field of communist studies as the revisionist school?
"and small but passionate groups of modern day Marxist-Leninists" again seems well established to those familiar with communist splinter groups and with  Maoist and Stalinist political movements. Again reference is made to an example of minimization on a site which is both Maoist and Stalinist. Could you reasonably make a case that the Martens does not minimize the crimes of Stalin or that the Progessive Labor party is not fairly characterised as small, passionate and Marxist-Leninist (at least according to their interpretation of it)? Fred Bauder 14:01, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Do you seriously think that framing the entire opposition to YOUR opinion as one monolith of commie pinko bastards is appropriate in this article? And do you think that calling people "revisionist scholars" and accusing them of "minimizations" constitutes neutrality? And do you honestly think that I should WASTE my time explaining things ten and twenty times to POV-pushing people who won't listen? Shorne 19:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, we're supposed to believe one book by one obscure nonspecialist outweighs the shelves of research by Dallin, Manning, Viola, etc. And of course if we don't agree with Shorne, then that's clear evidence we're not listening, so there's no need to respond point by point. It seems not to occur to Shorne that we might have listened and simply found him unpersuasive! BTW Fred, we really need to create the article on Martens' book. It's got a lot of amusing bits worth holding up for examination, and because it's the only book on the subject online, I think there are a lot of people who've come to think that it somehow represents the current state of Soviet historiography. Stan 22:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information from the section "Western Reactions"

message: Please join my request for a temporary injunction regarding Shorne and VeryVerily at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily#Request_for_temporary_injunction. Even if you feel only VeryVerily should be enjoined, please join this. I have also requested page protection pending resolution of the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 14:50, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
A temporary injunction was issued against both Shorne and VeryVerily. They may not revert more than twice in any 24 hour period and the page is now unprotected. I will not take advantage of their disablilty. I suggest that others similarly restrain themselves and focus on discussion and location of authoritative references which relate to disputed information rather than using reversions. Fred Bauder 12:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
:User Shorne rejoices in the temporary injunction restricting both him and VeryVerily to two reverts per day of any page. User Shorne originally proposed something quite similar to (but better than) said injunction himself in order to accelerate the dreadful pace of arbitration. User Shorne thanks the arbitration committee for finally getting around to taking action, however inadequate, that will control VeryVerily. 
:User Shorne would also like to point out that the arbitration committee, a kangaroo court with no legitimacy, voted unanimously (six out of six) to ban user Shorne from altering any article on a German or Polish subject, obviously without even bothering to check that user Shorne has not even touched any such articles for ages and certainly has not been involved in edit wars over them. When user Shorne protested and demanded the resignations or expulsion of the derelict arbitrators, corrupt arbitrator mav unilaterally rewrote the measure that had already been voted upon and vindictively instituted a new measure that would "temporarily" ban user Shorne from editing any articles on anything to do with communism or the Cold War, subject to the broad interpretation of any arbitrary administrator, for the duration of the arbitration procedure (which is likely to be months and months). Curious readers are invited to review the evidence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily and to post their own comments, which, I'm afraid, will probably be ignored by the kangaroo court known as the arbitration committee, if their history is a reliable indicator of their future behaviour. Shorne 13:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for temporary injunction

message: Espionage was not problem of Party. It was the reason of purge of whole population; party and non-party. Mikkalai 03:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv Ruy's switch of sentenses 

message: Counterrevolutionary propaganda, plots to overthrow the Soviet Government, anti-Soviet activities. These are not a simple criminal sabotage or espionage. These are political crimes, irrelevant to any war or else. Mikkalai 21:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which purges were not explained away this way? 

message: Detractors of the USSR say the Purge was done because Stalin had a personal desire for power for himself.  The other argument is that it had little to do with this, and that in preparation of the coming attack by Nazi Germany, factionalization would have to cease, militant Polish nationalists in territory recently ceded to the USSR would have to be dealt with and so forth.  One can't go inside of Stalin's head so one does not know - I think it's of very little importance what Stalin thought anyhow, the motives of one man matter little in a historical article. Ruy Lopez 23:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  some people claim 

message: Since this paragraph certainly did not sound NPOV, I have reverted the changes made to this article by Paranoid. The paragraph in question is as follows:
Although one may incorrectly assume that this is a list of 1,345,796 people killed in repressions, in fact it includes every known case of accusation (starting from 1918, when Stalin was not even in power), such as the one of Ivan Abakumov  - accused of participating in a counter-revolutionary mutiny on January 25, 1919, released on February 6, 1919, two weeks later. But people who use Memorial figures usually assume that every one of those 1,345,796 people, including Ivan, was shot, and use this list as a justification for other ridiculous claims, such as the "100 million dead" claim.
Is it not unreasonable to assume that a very significant percentage, perhaps even a large majority, of those 1,345,796 people were unjustly executed?
The "'100 million dead' claim" referred to is evidently a reference to an apparently widely-cited estimate of the total number of people unjustly killed by various communist governments during the 20th century. Paranoid evidently believes this to be an unreasonable figure.
Please discuss. -- (Anonymous) 70.110.70.237 00:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Society Figures 

message: I think that the article has been cleaned up pretty good, so have removed the cleanup tag. bjelleklang 23:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I thought we should distinguish the difference between gulag and GULAG, that was the reason for my first edit. Also, sorry for the accidental "blanking", I was in the midst of making some changes.. 
With my changes to the introduction, I figured we should stop beating around the bush. (Yeah, the Holocaust was a "persecution" as well, wasn't it?) The socialists out there who want to escape into fantasyland about Communism may have good intentions like other anti-democrats (who may or may not). However, like Holocaust deniers, your opinions should not influence the reporting of what we now take as factual evidence. Perhaps what we assume to be "fact" will change at a point in time. Until then, lets be honest with relaying what we assume the Purges are about right from the start.--68.45.21.204 09:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Translation of Yezhovshchina as "Yezhov era" is not correct. How will you translate Oprichnina?
   "Yezhov-style regime"? Lqp 07:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yezhovshchina 

message: I've tried to follow through the english-language sources, which seem to devolve to politically motivated finger-pointing on both sides, but in the end all I could find was assertions that (1) Kulaks slaughtered animals for personal consumption and barter instead of surrendering them for collectivization, and (2) Kulaks refused to plant or harvest grain for requisitioning. Which would not be normally, in English, classified as "acts of sabotage". Further, I've not been able to find clarity about the order of events or the Russian (as against English) justifications. The Russian references I've seen (Like Stalin's speech) assert hoarding and, and there are references to detecting and seizing hoards.  
Anyway, that's two things I'd like to see referenced:  (1) Did Russian sources at the time claim sabotage, or was that third-party propaganda (on both sides), and (2) If Russian sources at the time claimed sabotage, did they mean political sabotage or physical sabotage? 121.200.27.15 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, how is intentionally breaking with state policy *not* considered an act of sabotage? Slaughtering animals and refusing to plant/harvest crops for requisitioning during an active famine across the country simply because you don't agree with government policy may in your eyes be a noble act of protest, but it most definitely fits the definition of economic sabotage. Thirst Responder (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  acts of sabotage against the Soviet government 

message: The claim that Nazi Germany planted forged documents to exacerbate the purges seems like it could be true, but it needs a more neutral source than Austin Murphy's book, which I found the following summary for: "This work documents the fact that the bad guys won the Cold War. In the introduction, it is shown that the Americans have deliberately killed more unarmed civilians than any other country in world history. The remainder of the book conclusively demonstrates (using new information, especially from Germany) that communism was a much more efficient and benevolent system than the American capitalist one. Nevertheless, the USA essentially won the Cold War because its prior exploitation of peoples around the world had enabled it to accumulate enormous wealth, and its propaganda was successful in causing people to naively associate capitalism with the prosperity that everybody wants. Contrary to that false propaganda, this book documents the fact that the USA triumph in the Cold War has increased economic suffering and wars, which are shown to be endemic to the New World Order under USA capitalist domination"
Whether or not Nazi Germany tried to exacerbate Stalin's purges is a factual question, and it would be nice to see a source for it that isn't quite so partisan. If you're a pro-Stalin person or whatever, don't get angry. I'm not attacking you. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I could find was this https://militaryhistorynow.com/2023/01/08/the-enemy-within-five-little-known-facts-about-stalins-purge-of-the-red-army-2/ saying that it's not true. I'll delete this claim in 10 days, unless someone has a better idea. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a better source than this one. 

message: Wasnt there a campaign that was used in the Ukraine during that time between 1936 and 1938 that saw many Ukrainians die. Many worked to death, imprisoned in gulags, and all out executed by the Russians. The exact number is probably not known, but I've heard stories of many millions that perished during this time frame. 198.254.165.162 (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Russians were underrepresented per capita in government, to throw such a blanked over a whole ethnicity is greatly reductive and just seeks to really contribute to meaningless nationalistic finger pointing. You'd have a lot more success criticising the terror regime itself rather than singling out but one ethnicity that made it up 144.124.136.48 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ukrainian purges of 1936- 1938 

message: The introduction states "The Great Purge... was Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin's campaign to solidify his power over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the state; the purges were also designed to remove the remaining influence of Leon Trotsky as well as other prominent political rivals within the party." This is contradicted by the more recent work of James Harris, Stephen Wheatcroft, and others cited later in the article that the purges were not motivated by Stalin's hunger for power but a fear of counterrevolution fueled by misleading intelligence reports, the rise of anticommunist right-wing dictatorships along Soviet borders led by the aggressive, expansionist Nazi regime, intensified fears of invasion, particularly after the emergence of the Anti-Comintern Pact and the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. STPatrick1982 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The works of Arch Getty also provide another outlook, focusing on the nature of how the purges spread out and ended up infecting the intelligentsia at large which caused it to accelerate in scope rather than some grand orchestrated terror campaign to secure Stalin's position 144.124.136.48 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the introductory summary 

message: The Kremlin Case or what is more commonly known as the Kremlin Affair/Kremlin Plot was a distinct event in 1935 that occurred before the Great Purge. No special attention is paid to the specific affair within the article, so if there's a good reason for it let me know. Padlocks (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the link for the "Kremlin Case" redirect to the Great Purge article?