Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 2

message: Please correct "bourgeois" from "bourgois". Accuracy matters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.211.166 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: = Middle Class

message: To my opinion, the following fragment of the "Questionable tactics" section is obsolete. 
::"The huge number of Russian troops taken prisoner in the first eighteen months of the war convinced Stalin that many of them must have been traitors who had deserted at the first opportunity. Any soldier who had been a prisoner was henceforth suspect … All such, whether generals, officers, or ordinary soldiers, were sent to special concentration camps where the NKVD investigated them … 20% were sentenced to death or twenty-five years in camps; only 15 to 20% were allowed to return to their homes. The remainder were condemned to shorter sentences (five to ten years), to exile in Siberia, and forced labor – or were killed or died on the way home."
Currently, more detailed data are available that were obtained based on the Soviet de-classified archive data. For instance, the articles of Zemskov((“Военно-исторический журнал” (“Military-Historical Magazine”), 1997, №5. page 32) Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944-1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4) contain well balanced precise numbers. Even such an anti-Soviet scholar as Conquest conceded the numbers produced by Zemskov were generally trustworthy. (See, for instance, Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Author(s): Robert Conquest Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319). Therefore, I propose to remove Bullock's text, because, most probably, the precise data weren't available to Bullock when he wrote it. In addition, the text contradicts to the well known data on the Gulag population after the war: ~2 million totally (including ordinary criminals). Let me remind you that in the present day's US there is about 2.5 million prisoners.
Therefore, I propose to replace the last three paragraphs of the section with the text from the Gulag article:
:During and after World War II freed PoWs went to special "filtration" camps. Of these, by 1944, more than 90 per cent were cleared, and about 8 per cent were arrested or condemned to penal battalions. In 1944, they were sent directly to reserve military formations to be cleared by the NKVD. Further, in 1945, about 100 filtration camps were set for repatriated Ostarbeiter, PoWs, and other displaced persons, which processed more than 4,000,000 people. By 1946, 80 per cent civilians and 20 per cent of PoWs were freed, 5 per cent of civilians, and 43 per cent of PoWs re-drafted, 10 per cent of civilians and 22 per cent of PoWs were sent to labor battalions, and 2 per cent of civilians and 15 per cent of the PoWs (226,127 out of 1,539,475 total) transferred to the NKVD, i.e. the Gulag.(“Военно-исторический журнал” (“Military-Historical Magazine”), 1997, №5. page 32) Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944-1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4
By the way, I see nothing questionable in re-drafting of freed POWs. Completely devastated country, which lost a huge part of male's population couldn't afford a luxury to let exPOWs to recover.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to take out that long Bullock quote anyway eventually.  It's kind of out of place in an encyclopedic article.  So I agree with that: ditch it (and replace with accurate figures of the underlying substance) unless someone vehemently disagrees.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I would add the reason(s) for the filtration camps in this article because it's not explained (possibly suspected of being traitors).Mosedschurte (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allan Bullock 

message: Everywhere else says Stalin was born in 1879 not 1878!
Jharmer95 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Birthdate 

message: I've just removed a couple sentences about Holodomor from the article's summary. This article about Stalin, not Holodomor, so brief mentioning of the famine is sufficient for the lead. The article is too long.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely.  I noted this point with another editor, who insisted that the various historical views of the famine should be included in the lead.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I also had missed the addition of some other editorializing long paragraph someone added at the end of the Lead yesterday.  The original short paragraph was restored.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holodomor in the lead