Stalin V Hitler - playing the numbers game

Morlar

Does anyone have details on the recent Israeli, Russian & German study which downgrades the numbers killed by stalin from 20,000,000 to 6,000,000 ?

For decades these figures were solid, peer reviewed and well established ; that Stalin killed far more than hitler.

Now with this new study (which considering the monumental reversal invoved has been extremely quietly announced), the roles are apparently reversed in an incredibly comprehensive fashion.

Given what is known at this point about the study it is hard to know how reliable this new study is.

For such an epic study to be so quietly announced and with zero peer review (at this time & to the best of my knowledge) it is not very encouraging in my view.

The methodology used, the scope of it, which scholars from Israel, Russia and Germany were involved and for how long etc.

I would not be inclined to trust Israeli scholars on this subject, as there is a clear political motive in downgrading the numbers killed by stalin in order to elevate the numbers killed by Hitler, hence to enhance jewish victimhood which has been the political rockbed of the state of israel, likewise I would not be inclined to trust Russian scholars on this as the re-habilitation of Stalin has been long underway (both for clear political reasons).

The current climate of political correctness in German WW2 study means that those scholars results also have to be scrutinised in my view.

Is anyone else surprised by this ? Anyone else feel given what is known at this point the results are entirely credible/partially credible/non-credible ?

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jan/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/

I am not looking for the usual brainless 'All Germans=BAD all Soviets =Good' types of responses from the usual suspects here, the thread is for a wider, less hysterical, less emotional and more considered purpose.

The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.

It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive. Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit less. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people starved.

Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.


A poster from 1930. The text reads, "We will smite the kulak who agitates for reducing cultivated acreage." From Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution from the Hoover Institution Archives by Peter Paret, Beth Irwin Lewis, and Paul Paret

In 1937, as his vision of modernization faltered, Stalin ordered the Great Terror. Because we now have the killing orders and the death quotas, inaccessible so long as the Soviet Union existed, we now know that the number of victims was not in the millions. We also know that, as in the early 1930s, the main victims were the peasants, many of them survivors of hunger and of concentration camps. The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions.

In the largest of these, the “Polish Operation” that began in August 1937, 111,091 people accused of espionage for Poland were shot. In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions. The total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism, around six million, is of course horribly high. But it is far lower than the estimates of twenty million or more made before we had access to Soviet sources.

Notes on the above, it seems that the numbers of deaths Stalin is responsible for are based on those who provably died, ie those for whom paper orders have remained intact in the Soviet controlled archives these last 70 yrs. There is no information in the above about the likelihood that those archives remained intact, or if there are missing records, or discrepancies etc.

Also discouraging that in the quest to lower the stalin body count they disregard some of the millions who died in the famine as being not provably deliberate, hence not blood counted on stalin's hands. I am genuinely curious if these exact same criteria were applied to a study of German killed - ie to only include those for whom records with names exsist what would the figure be then ?

marcsignal

Morlar wrote: »

Does anyone have details on the recent Israeli, Russian & German study which downgrades the numbers killed by stalin from 20,000,000 to 6,000,000 ?

:cool:

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Does anyone have details on the recent Israeli, Russian & German study which downgrades the numbers killed by stalin from 20,000,000 to 6,000,000 ?

.......

Given what is known at this point about the study it is hard to know how reliable this new study is.

For such an epic study to be so quietly announced and with zero peer review (at this time & to the best of my knowledge) it is not very encouraging in my view.
.....

I would not be inclined to trust Israeli scholars on this subject, as there is a clear political motive in downgrading the numbers killed by stalin in order to elevate the numbers killed by Hitler, hence to enhance jewish victimhood
.....

Also discouraging that in the quest to lower the stalin body count they disregard some of the millions who died in the famine as being not provably deliberate, hence not blood counted on stalin's hands.

Keeping an open mind to something which you are only learning about would be a good starting point IMO
I hope I am wrong but the launguage used in yout post suggests that you have already made your mind.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Keeping an open mind to something which you are only learning about would be a good starting point IMO
I hope I am wrong but the launguage used in yout post suggests that you have already made your mind.

In my experience I find scepticism more valuable in dealing with the study of WW2 history than blind acceptance of things not clearly proven, especially when the acceptance is based on a clear ideological prejudice.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this ?

hinault

I have to admit this new study is news to me.

I would have thought, like the OP said, that a downgrading of the number of victims apportioned to Stalin thereby increasing the Hitler figure in relative terms, would have been reported by news media.

And if this new study could be validated, what does that say about the prior historical scholarship which for decades allotted huge figures to Stalin with smaller quantities allocated to Hitler?

Morlar

This new one does not seem to include in stalins toll the millions of 'missing' ethnic germans, or the millions of missing wehrmacht in russia. I strongly doubt the exact same criteria were applied to both sets of data. I think it would be interesting to get the full background, context and methodololgy to how exactly these new vastly downsized stalin figures were arrived at.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

In my experience I find scepticism more valuable in dealing with the study of WW2 history than blind acceptance of things not clearly proven, especially when the acceptance is based on a clear ideological prejudice.

Scepticism is fine, but asking a 'question' then following it up with your own 4 answers in the negative when you clearly dont know much about it shows your obvious prejudice. It would be wise to await more information on the study before making up your mind.

For your information:

prej·u·dice
   [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Scepticism is fine

You have had 2 posts on this page neither of which contribute anything meaningful to the discussion in any way shape or form whatsoever. I would prefer you did not threadspoil with this nonsense.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this ?

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

You have had 2 posts on this page neither of which contribute anything meaningful to the discussion in any way shape or form whatsoever. I would prefer you did not threadspoil with this nonsense.

Im afraid I must point out that there is no spoiling involved. It would be interesting to get some further unbiased feedback on this, hence my highlighting of the OP prejudice. To respond to this in your ad hominem fashion belittles only one person (much as you try to do otherwise). Rather than continue in this line could you explain further this point if possible

Also discouraging that in the quest to lower the stalin body count they disregard some of the millions who died in the famine as being not provably deliberate, hence not blood counted on stalin's hands.

Is there information on this method of compiling deliberate vs. non-deliberate?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Im afraid I must point out that there is no spoiling involved.

It is not up to the person doing the threadspoiling to decide if there is any threadspoiling taking place.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this ?

ejmaztec

The Russians never were any good at sums, and I can't help but compare this study with that pertaining to the total number of Holocaust victims. They calculated that there were 6 million Jewish victims, whereas the other allies estimate 2 or 3 million. The figure of 6 million is still carved in stone, despite the general consensus nowadays that the Russians were wrong and that the other allies were closer to the truth.

It could be said that the Russians were playing the numbers game to ram home the evils of nazism, in the same way that the anti-Stalin camp has possibly been overdoing the numbers for their own agenda.

The end result could well be a proportionate reduction in victims on both sides, possibly not changing the pre-revisionist position as to which one was worse than the other.

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Russians never were any good at sums, and I can't help but compare this study with that pertaining to the total number of Holocaust victims. They calculated that there were 6 million Jewish victims, whereas the other allies estimate 2 or 3 million. The figure of 6 million is still carved in stone, despite the general consensus nowadays that the Russians were wrong and that the other allies were closer to the truth.

Funny thing is, that this Russian, Israeli *cough* and German study is nothing less than Revisionism, is it not ??
I wonder are these 'Historians' going to be pelted with eggs everywhere they go now, like David Irving?? *

*I have never read any of David Irvings material.

PrzemoF

Some Polish books says he killed 27.00.000 to 72.000.000. The Ucraine famine alone was 5-10.000.000.

Morlar

PrzemoF wrote: »

Some Polish books says he killed 27.00.000 to 72.000.000. The Ucraine famine alone was 5-10.000.000.

I always thought circa 8,000,000 for the Holdomor. It was that figure for decades if I am not mistaken.

ejmaztec

marcsignal wrote: »

Funny thing is, that this Russian, Israeli *cough* and German study is nothing less than Revisionism, is it not ??
I wonder are these 'Historians' going to be pelted with eggs everywhere they go now, like David Irving?? *

*I have never read any of David Irvings material.

They'll all be arguing for evermore, when some other revisionist bright sparks come up with some other altered statistics.

If Irving comes up with them, they'll immediately get shot down in flames, so it's probably best that he doesn't bother, and leaves it to some credible historian to do the ground-work.

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

They'll all be arguing for evermore, when some other revisionist bright sparks come up with some other altered statistics.

If Irving comes up with them, they'll immediately get shot down in flames, so it's probably best that he doesn't bother, and leaves it to some credible historian to do the ground-work.

Well if the piece is ever peer reviewed by Gulie Ne'eman Arad, Peter Novick or Norman Finkelstein, I'd be interested in their findings.
However I can't help feeling it's more likely to be reviewed by someone like This Guy unfortunately. He's bound to think it's an acedemic masterpiece, shoring up his own deranged philosophy on Israel.

PrzemoF wrote: »

Some Polish books says he killed 27.00.000 to 72.000.000. The Ucraine famine alone was 5-10.000.000.

I've found some Eastern European books interesting in this regard, and have cited them on here before. Unfortunately the information has been very cooly recieved in some quarters, particularly by posters who lurk, infer, condescend, etc, and then don't back up their own claims.

hinault

The story about the revised figures doesn't seem to have gained any traction in terms of the story being reported in the general media.

Morlar

hinault wrote: »

The story about the revised figures doesn't seem to have gained any traction in terms of the story being reported in the general media.

I had noticed that too and that is an oddity.

If the Hitler figures were overnight reduced by 75% there would be more focus I believe. I believe the response would certainly not be even handed in any way shape or form in comparison to the response this one received.

Some historians like to make a name for themselves with headline grabbers, and that is certainly the most noteworthy aspect of that article about this book.

I am not really entirely sure what to make of the low key inclusion of figures such as those in this article/book.

Or what to make of the seemingly total absence of any kind of media scrutiny attracted to this study, and the seismic shift that it's figures purport to represent.

It could mean that serious historians have not given it enough credibility to even warrant a response, but this is not necessarily the case. I really don't know what to make of that at all.

Mahatma coat

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Russians never were any good at sums, and I can't help but compare this study with that pertaining to the total number of Holocaust victims. They calculated that there were 6 million Jewish victims, whereas the other allies estimate 2 or 3 million. The figure of 6 million is still carved in stone, despite the general consensus nowadays that the Russians were wrong and that the other allies were closer to the truth.

It could be said that the Russians were playing the numbers game to ram home the evils of nazism, in the same way that the anti-Stalin camp has possibly been overdoing the numbers for their own agenda.

The end result could well be a proportionate reduction in victims on both sides, possibly not changing the pre-revisionist position as to which one was worse than the other.

ah but its only Illegal to revise ONE set of figures mentioned.


this is very interesting, what counts as Non Deliberate Killing in something like the holdomor?

what if the same criteria were applied to the holocaust, ie remove all the numbers that died from diseases in the Camps, Remove all those who were Killed for 'justifiable' reasons, I'd wager that the figures would come down to somewhere between 1 and 2 million.

jonniebgood1

What are people commenting on?

the article by snyder? Or the 'study' hes talking about? The possiblity of revised figures being less than previously known?

Are these figures in a book or article or what contitutes this 'study'? Surely the basis and methodology for any analysis of figures should be checked before they are so easily dismissed or accepted. This is all missing at this stage.

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

Well if the piece is ever peer reviewed by Gulie Ne'eman Arad, Peter Novick or Norman Finkelstein, I'd be interested in their findings.
However I can't help feeling it's more likely to be reviewed by someone like This Guy unfortunately.

Considering the finkelstein v goldhagen debates that would make for an interesting discussion.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=2&ar=2

Finkelstein's Response to Goldhagen. Comments on Daniel Goldhagen's "The New Discourse of Avoidance"

by Norman G. Finkelstein, April 9, 1998

In March 1998, Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt, collected two published essays by, respectively, Ruth Bettina Birn and myself, into a book entitled A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth [hereafter: ANOT]. (1) Scrutinizing Goldhagen's scholarship, Birn and I both concluded that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners [hereafter: HWE] (2) fell below the minimum standards of an academic study. In her essay, Birn, who is the recognized authority on the archives Goldhagen consulted for his book, documents that Goldhagen systematically distorted these primary source materials. In my essay, I document that Goldhagen's book is replete with gross misrepresentations of the secondary literature and internal contradictions.

In fall 1997, Goldhagen published a reply to Birn's original article in German Politics and Society. (3) Although fully twice the length of Birn's piece, it passes over in silence Birn's central criticisms bearing on the archives. (4) In March 1998, Goldhagen posted on his web site a reply to my essay entitled "The New Discourse of Avoidance." (5) My critique of Goldhagen's scholarship runs to 87 pages. Yet, the points he directly contests in his reply comprise altogether less than two pages of my text. Goldhagen told Newsweek that he had prepared a "point-by-point" rebuttal of my essay. (6) Even in the examples he cites, Goldhagen does not dispute but rather obfuscates my arguments. I will return to these evidentiary questions presently. The preponderance of Goldhagen's reply, however, consists of what one might call a new discourse of avoidance. Indeed, Goldhagen assembles a stupefying catalogue of allegations. Illuminating as they are of Goldhagen's (lack of) scholarly scruples, (7) I want first to consider them. My remarks will only address, however, topics pertinent to A Nation on Trial. Readers interested in my views on the Israel-Palestine conflict can consult my published works. (8)

(A) Goldhagen purports that I "deride the notion that Jews were 'innocent' in the Germans' genocidal assault on them." This remarkable claim merits pause. With endorsements from the world's leading authorities on the Nazi holocaust (including Raul Hilberg and Christopher Browning), the son of survivors of the Nazi holocaust maintains -- according to Goldhagen -- that the Jews deserved to die. Stepping outside Goldhagen's fantasy world, we read in A Nation on Trial: "It should be clear that, in the context of the Nazi genocide, there can be no question of Jewish guilt or innocence" (ANOT: 95). (9)

(B) Goldhagen purports that I "would have people believe that the Germans who tortured, brutalized, and killed Jews were not anti-Semites." The relevant passage in A Nation on Trial reads: "It bears emphasis that Germany's anti-Semitic legacy did constitute a vital precondition for the genocide" (ANOT: 53).

(C) Goldhagen purports that I dismiss all "non-German scholars" on the Nazi holocaust as Jewish "propagandists" in the service of a "Zionist conspiracy." Yet in my essay, I distinguish between two bodies of work on the Nazi holocaust: "holocaust scholarship, which tends to be historical and multicausal, and Holocaust literature, which tends to be ahistorical and monocausal." (ANOT: 88) I reckon the former as "solid scholarly research," the latter as "largely devoid of scholarly interest." I also locate Holocaust literature in the Zionist paradigm which casts the Nazi genocide as the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of Jews. Finally, I point to an apologetic dimension in this Zionist discourse. The respected Israeli writer, Boas Evron, similarly observes that it "condones in advance any inhuman treatment of non-Jews, for the prevailing mythology is that 'all peoples collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of Jewry,' hence everything is permissible to Jews in their relationship to other peoples." (10) For the record, the Nazi holocaust scholars I specifically praise in my essay -- Hannah Arendt, Raul Hilberg, Arno Mayer and Eva Reichmann -- are all Jewish. I rely much more heavily on the Anglo-American than the German contingent of historians. Among those I cite most frequently is Israeli scholar David Bankier. I rue this ethnic roll-call but Goldhagen's sinister accusation leaves me no choice. True, I place Goldhagen's study in the category of Holocaust literature. It seems that Goldhagen confounds my evaluation of his own book -- "worthless as scholarship" -- with my evaluation of all academic research on the Nazi holocaust.

(D) Goldhagen purports that my contribution to A Nation on Trial is a "sanitized," "excised," "cover up" version of my New Left Review article, which Henry Holt is now trying to "foist...on what it hopes remains an unsuspecting public." Goldhagen is apparently unaware of the normal scholarly practice of revising a journal article for publication in a book. The original New Left Review version of my essay did not benefit from extensive peer review. (11) In accordance with subsequent scholarly criticisms that I found valid, my initial formulations were variously modified, refined, sharpened, muted, and modulated. I remain grateful for this collegial input. The finished product is much improved. The overarching framework of my essay, however, is unchanged. I also bolstered the scholarly apparatus with additional documentation. Indeed, the allegedly "sanitized" Holt version contains controversial new material.

(E) Goldhagen purports that "Finkelstein's allegations, including that I think Germans are 'crazy' and 'deranged perverts' are wild inventions." In Hitler's Willing Executioners, Goldhagen depicts the typical German as "pathologically ill...struck with the illness of sadism...diseased, tyrannical, sadistic," "psychopathic" (HWE: 397, 450, quoting a "keen diarist of the Warsaw Ghetto"), in thrall to "absolutely fantastical...beliefs that ordinarily only madmen have of others...prone to wild, 'magical thinking'" (HWE: 412), and so on. The book's most evocative analogy compares the typical German to "crazy" Captain Ahab (HWE: 398-9). In Goldhagen's mind, these formulations "restore the humanity" of ordinary Germans.

(F) Goldhagen also dissents from my methodology. In fact, my approach is simply to scrutinize Goldhagen's text for internal consistency and verify his citations from the mostly English-language secondary literature he uses. (12) None of the many prominent scholars who endorsed the Holt book (e.g., Ian Kershaw) questioned its methodology. Goldhagen is the first and to date only one to do so. Leaving aside that Goldhagen is perhaps not the best placed to render judgment in matters of methodology, these disputes are best resolved in concrete analysis. Regrettably, Goldhagen devotes only a small fraction of his response to directly engaging my findings. I want now to consider this rebuttal.

1. To document his claim that homicidal anti-Semitism was pervasive in Germany and Austria even before Hitler's rise to power, Goldhagen cited historian Peter Pulzer's finding that there were 12 ritual murder trials between 1867 and 1914. However, Goldhagen reversed the import of Pulzer's finding. The remainder of Pulzer's original sentence read: "eleven of which collapsed although trials were by jury." In his reply, Goldhagen does not dispute that he suppressed the crucial caveat in the Pulzer finding that undermines his thesis. Rather, he complains that I "zoom in" on this one example. Yet, my essay documents not an isolated case but rather a pattern of systematic misrepresentations throughout his book.

2. In the body of his text, Goldhagen reports a scholarly claim that the anti-Semitic petition campaign in mid-19th-century Bavaria was spontaneous and broad-based. In the endnote, however, Goldhagen presents creditable evidence that the campaign was carefully orchestrated and that many German signatories did not harbor anti-Semitic animus. Goldhagen states in his reply that he did "openly discuss" the full gamut of evidence. Yet, I never contested this. My point was that Goldhagen's own critical evidence disputing his textual claim was buried in the book's back pages.

3. The central thesis of Goldhagen's book is that ordinary Germans were no less anti-Semitic than Nazi party members. Thus Goldhagen reports, for example, that, right after Hitler's seizure of power, "Germans posted signs" with anti-Semitic prohibitions. Turning to the cited source, we learn that this campaign was organized not by ordinary Germans but by "local hotheads in the Nazi movement." In his reply, Goldhagen doesn't dispute that he explicitly misrepresented his source. Rather, he claims that his general context implied Nazis. Yet his general context also implied ordinary Germans (cf. his allusions to "Germans inside and outside the government," and a "society-wide attack" on the Jews). His specific reference, however, isn't at all ambiguous: it is flat-out false. This example illustrates one of Goldhagen's techniques for "proving" the Nazification of ordinary Germans: where the source material states "Nazis," he reports "Germans."

4. According to Goldhagen, Hitler fully and incessantly apprised the German people of his genocidal plans. I document that none of the evidence through 1939 supports this claim. I then quote Max Domarus, the authoritative compiler of Hitler's speeches and public pronouncements, that Hitler did not explicitly proclaim a policy of genocide even during the war years. Rather, Domarus reports, Hitler "confined his remarks on a massacre of Jews to threats within the scope of his foreign policy." Contrariwise, Goldhagen maintains that Hitler "announced many times, emphatically," the genocidal killing of the Jews. Goldhagen thus dissents from what he himself calls in his reply Domarus's "different interpretation." Yet, the source material Goldhagen cites in support of his own interpretation, the Domarus collection, supports Domarus. Goldhagen's complementary claim is that ordinary Germans assented to the genocide. In his reply, Goldhagen himself explicitly conjoins the two claims, arguing that, if ordinary Germans opposed the Final Solution, why did Hitler "keep announcing and emphasizing it"? Yet Goldhagen's source, Domarus, documents that Hitler's public pronouncements were in fact contingent and indirect. Indeed, every schoolboy knows that the Final Solution was officially shrouded in secrecy. To sustain his argument, Goldhagen misrepresents Domarus's finding -- exactly as I suggested in my essay.

These four items exhaust Goldhagen's rebuttal. As noted above, the points he contests comprise altogether two percent of my textual critique. Significantly, Goldhagen quietly passes over the numerous internal contradictions that I document in his book. His silence is, if unfortunate, nonetheless understandable. Readers could then easily verify who is telling the truth. Goldhagen states that "nothing can be believed in Finkelstein's piece without first comparing his text against my original text." I strongly agree. Indeed, I would urge readers to do so.

Notes

1. Ruth Bettina Birn's essay, "Revising the Holocaust," originally appeared in a slightly shorter version in The Historical Journal, 40.1 (1997). A shorter version of my essay, "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis," originally appeared in New Left Review, July/August 1997.

2. New York: 1996.

3. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, "The Fictions of Ruth Bettina Birn," in German Politics and Society, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1997.

4. See Birn's forthcoming rejoinder in German Politics and Society.

5. See www.Goldhagen.com.

6. Laura Shapiro, "A Battle Over the Holocaust," 23 March 1998, 66.

7. I will leave to one side Goldhagen's scholarly style which confuses invective -- he variously denounces me as "a notorious anti-Zionist ideologue," "the neophyte Finkelstein," "the anti-Zionist crusader and conspiracy theorist," etc. etc. -- with rational argument. I would be remiss, however, to ignore Goldhagen's recent insinuation that my co-author, Ruth Bettina Birn, is an anti-Semite (cf. "A Comment by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen on A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth," posted on Goldhagen's web site). Birn is not only an internationally recognized scholar but also commands unique moral authority. She is a German who has devoted her life's work to prosecuting Nazi war criminals in Canada. In electing to serve as chief historian for Canada's war crimes unit, Birn has displayed rare personal integrity. Unfortunately, Goldhagen's web site does not allow for dialogue. Epithets are hurled, but the elementary right of response is denied.

8. See Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Verso: 1995), and The Rise and Fall of Palestine (University of Minnesota: 1996). To discredit my scholarship, Goldhagen reports that "Finkelstein's published work has been in the 'field' of anti-Zionism," and reproduces an unsigned notice in a trade journal. Permit me, then, to quote a signed review by William Quandt, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former member of the National Security Council, that was published in Foreign Affairs: The prospects for war between Israel and the Arab nations may be fading, but the war of the historians rages on. For some years, revisionists have been dismantling Israeli and Arab myths created in the formative years of the conflict. Now, as in this book, the revisionists themselves are under attack for not going far enough. Finkelstein already has one victory to his credit. Along with a few other conscientious scholars, he demonstrated that Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial, which claimed that Palestinians arrived in Palestine only recently, was based on shoddy scholarship. That landmark essay is included in this collection and is the best of his offerings. More controversially, Finkelstein tackles Benny Morris, author of an important account of the origins of the Palestinian refugee exodus. Here he praises much of Morris' empirical research but rejects the conclusion that the exodus was born of war rather than a master plan. All this is bound to be a bit confusing to readers new to the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but for those well versed in the debates and the literature, this thoroughly documented book is guaranteed to stimulate and provoke. It will be required reading in the continuing war of the historians. (May/June 1996)

9. In the original New Left Review article -- the unsanitized version, according to Goldhagen -- I similarly state that "in the context of the Nazi holocaust the reality was, if not absolute Gentile guilt, at any rate absolute Jewish innocence" (85; emphasis in original).

10. Boas Evron, Jewish State or Israeli Nation? (Indiana University Press: 1995), 227.

11. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank New Left Review for publishing my original article. No mainstream publication would consider it.

12. In this respect, my lack of professional expertise in the field did not prove a liability. For the kind of analysis I underto ok, common sense quite sufficed.

jonniebgood1

What would they talk about Morlar since you cannot provide a link to the 'study that you are speculating on? I can't find any other information on this study so discussing it is a bit like a poormans chinese whispers.

Fremen

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Keeping an open mind to something which you are only learning about would be a good starting point IMO
I hope I am wrong but the launguage used in yout post suggests that you have already made your mind.

He's right to be skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What would they talk about Morlar since you cannot provide a link to the 'study that you are speculating on? I can't find any other information on this study so discussing it is a bit like a poormans chinese whispers.

'Does anyone have details' are the first four words of this thread. Your approval for a discussion on this, or any other subject is not sought by anyone.

jonniebgood1

Fremen wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I agree. The problem however is we have'nt seen where the claims are made and how they come to make these claims. Thus adjudicating on them is quite difficult. I have searched the web for information and cannot find anything. Thus I find it strange that a discussion is started about something thats not known and am curious as to what the motive for this is. Might as well talk about the leprauchans until we see the source paper. Or any other rumours doing the mill. Unfortunately this thread was prejudiced from the OP as I have pointed out. Its not to be rubbished because its author may have been israeli (Jewish being the implication) or German as has been suggested by OP and others. In the simplest terms if there is no further information availiable about this study then it is discounted as it is not possible to consider it.

Morlar

Fremen wrote: »

He's right to be skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And these are very, very extraordinary claims. Also noteworthy is the manner of their arrival and lack of scrutiny. As mentioned in post 17 & 18 - seems inexplicable.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In the simplest terms if there is no further information availiable about this study then it is discounted as it is not possible to consider it.

Could not agree more.

No one has said it is possible to accept these figures without more contextual information. I certainly would not accept them as presented.

That does not mean there can be no further discussion on this subject. This thread was started to find out more, to gather views and discuss a *potential seismic shift in the numbers of recorded deaths associated with WW2.

*potential - if the context and detailed methodology used in gathering of these figures become known and stands up to review.

Reekwind

[Edit: The article in question is probably 'Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, (1993), Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years'. It's well known enough that it's probably available online and is well worth the read. However this paper was:

a) Published almost twenty years ago. Which is probably why none of youse have heard of it (even if it is a seminal and highly cited paper in the field). It is not a new paper that has been "extremely quietly announced"

b) Extensively built upon in subsequent papers, some of whom I reference in the link below. Those particularly vested in the old figures have challenged aspects of its findings but on the whole the archival figures that it draws upon have been pretty much accepted by subsequent historians. Many later papers have elaborated on it

As an aside, however, dismissing an article without even knowing it's name or substance is pretty bad form]

Morlar wrote: »

Does anyone have details on the recent Israeli, Russian & German study which downgrades the numbers killed by stalin from 20,000,000 to 6,000,000 ?

For decades these figures were solid, peer reviewed and well established ; that Stalin killed far more than hitler

They were also based on speculation, guesstimates and isolated scraps of material. Historians did the best they could but there simply wasn't a lot to go on. In contrast, figures for the Nazi crimes were established primarily from Nazi documentation and archive evidence recovered after the fall of the Third Reich. For decades such material on Soviet crimes was simply not available to historians. The odd scrap leaked out from

What changed was the fall of the USSR and the (partial) opening of the state archives. This is obviously not new and the first paper to provide real archive evidence in English was published in 1993. I note a number of the relevant papers published since here. This has comprehensively changed our understanding of the Soviet penal system and has made most of the high pre-1990 estimates unsustainable in my opinion

Of course these figures only provide a rough base to work from and if new numbers emerge then we are naturally obliged to factor them in. For now though the academic consensus seems to be settling on a range of 1m purposefully executed, 2-3m killed during deportations or incarceration, and 3-7m dead via famine. The latter was obviously a product of Soviet economic policies but these days not even Conquest maintains that it was man-made or deliberate

Now with this new study (which considering the monumental reversal invoved has been extremely quietly announced), the roles are apparently reversed in an incredibly comprehensive fashion.

Given what is known at this point about the study it is hard to know how reliable this new study is.

For such an epic study to be so quietly announced and with zero peer review (at this time & to the best of my knowledge) it is not very encouraging in my view.

To stress again: this is not the result of one study but a whole series of papers (in Russian, English and German) since the fall of the USSR

It's actually gotten to the point where even a relatively conservative historian like Snyder (whose Bloodlands follows very much in the 'totalitarian' tradition) is abandoning the higher figures

...likewise I would not be inclined to trust Russian scholars on this as the re-habilitation of Stalin has been long underway (both for clear political reasons).

It's actually quite the opposite. Russian academia, and those who buy books, have been virulently anti-Stalin for years now. 'Beating up' on Stalin (which strikes me as unprofessional, if not entirely undeserved) is one of the quicker ways to get a grant or book advance in Russia. For example, Suvorov's Icebreaker thesis has been largely discredited by Western military historians but remains popular with their Russian counterparts

Notes on the above, it seems that the numbers of deaths Stalin is responsible for are based on those who provably died, ie those for whom paper orders have remained intact in the Soviet controlled archives these last 70 yrs. There is no information in the above about the likelihood that those archives remained intact, or if there are missing records, or discrepancies etc

This is very true and, as I say, if new records come to light then they will be incorporated into the historical record. For now however there is no reason to doubt the archive figures that we do have (which were intended for internal consumption during the Soviet era) and they provide us with a much more solid base to work from than the estimates of the 1960s. Obviously they have to be set alongside literary and demographic sources but these are figures that are far more detailed than previous work

For example, Wheatcroft (1996) has shown that Conquest's figures regarding the prisoner population at Nagoevo, which were based on transport ship capacity, were at times over 500% greater than the archive data reports. Conquest got some things right but we're now in a far better position to assess the reality

Also discouraging that in the quest to lower the stalin body count they disregard some of the millions who died in the famine as being not provably deliberate, hence not blood counted on stalin's hands. I am genuinely curious if these exact same criteria were applied to a study of German killed - ie to only include those for whom records with names exsist what would the figure be then ?

The difference is that there is ample evidence that Nazi famines were planned (ie, the notorious Backe-Plan) whereas two decades of research has failed to turn up anything resembling a 'smoking gun' with regards the famine of the early 1930s. It's easy to consider this to be the product, at least in part, of Stalin's economic policies but it is baseless to suggest that this was an intentional famine. The research simply doesn't support that

As such the famine is far more akin to the Irish Famine of the 1840s than anything the Nazis perpetrated. You can add this to Stalin's total if you wish (and it still won't top Hitler's) but it is perfectly understandable that such a distinction should be made

Edit:

hinault wrote:

The story about the revised figures doesn't seem to have gained any traction in terms of the story being reported in the general media

I find that disappointing as well. For the last twenty years academics have been steadily lowering their ranges for deaths under Stalin (for example, a mere decade ago the famine of the 1930s was estimated to have claimed 7-8m; now the same authors propose, in light of new evidence, 3-5m deaths) yet the popular perception is moving the other way. Basically, this should not have been a shock to anyone but the divergence between historical reality and its representation in the popular media grows wider every year

marcsignal

Just posted a documentary Here about Stalin, Barbarossa, Hitler etc, and goes into Stalins relationship with Churchill in some detail.
The excerpts from private conversations between Stalin and Churchill certainly give some insight into the man.
The Holodomor is cynically mentioned by Stalin at one point.

Morlar

Reekwind wrote: »

[Edit: The article in question is probably 'Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, (1993), Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years'. It's well known enough that it's probably available online and is well worth the read. However this paper was:

a) Published almost twenty years ago. Which is probably why none of youse have heard of it (even if it is a seminal and highly cited paper in the field). It is not a new paper that has been "extremely quietly announced"

b) Extensively built upon in subsequent papers, some of whom I reference in the link below. Those particularly vested in the old figures have challenged aspects of its findings but on the whole the archival figures that it draws upon have been pretty much accepted by subsequent historians. Many later papers have elaborated on it

As an aside, however, dismissing an article without even knowing it's name or substance is pretty bad form]
.....

Edit:
I find that disappointing as well. For the last twenty years academics have been steadily lowering their ranges for deaths under Stalin (for example, a mere decade ago the famine of the 1930s was estimated to have claimed 7-8m; now the same authors propose, in light of new evidence, 3-5m deaths) yet the popular perception is moving the other way. Basically, this should not have been a shock to anyone but the divergence between historical reality and its representation in the popular media grows wider every year

I think it would be fair to broadly summarise your (original non edited) post as follows :

(leaving aside the most recent edits)

- These figures are not new. The original figures were not reliable
- The 'new' (75% reduced) figures of soviet killed are above reproach
- The non-reduced figures of German killed are also above reproach
- The holdomor was accidental and not Stalin's fault
- There is no political element (particularly rehabilitation of stalin) involved in the 75% reduction of soviet killed & 'leaving as is' of unchanged German figures.
- Previous figures of Soviet killed which were based on transport capacity are now (in places) reduced by 500%, German killed based on transport capacity are not however reduced.


I accept your point about there being no single, unified study by Israeli, Russian and German historians. Having re-read the phrasing used in the article is unclear *:

"Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers."

It does seem that this 75% reduced bodycount based may not be based on a single work, but instead on a myriad of sources (not referenced in the Snyder article).

I do not accept your assertion that the Holdomor was accidental. When it was clearly the forseeable result of deliberate Soviet policy. Furthermore purposefully exacerbated in the Ukraine. Those figures certainly stay in Stalin's column on my sheet. As regards smoking guns and Stalin - you are aware of the David Irving '£1000 to anyone' who can produce a written order by Adolf Hitler to annihilate the Jews ? To the best of my knowledge no one has ever claimed that money. Are you applying the same criteria to both sides tallies as regards the absence of smoking guns here ? Or Just Stalin for the holdomor.

Several points made above should be addressed. Firstly on the subject of the German killed figures being beyond reproach, actually they are not. In many cases based on unreliable census figures and double counting and 'worst possible case scenario' in terms of transports per day filled to x capactiy. There is an interesting thread about the census aspect on axishistory.com :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33429&sid=5ffb391a2418ae0a15e6d5630d70baf4

I would refer to the post halfway down the page 'by michael mills on 11 Oct 2003, 15:32' which gives a reasonable summary re census figures in my view.

I had said :

Notes on the above, it seems that the numbers of deaths Stalin is responsible for are based on those who provably died, ie those for whom paper orders have remained intact in the Soviet controlled archives these last 70 yrs. There is no information in the above about the likelihood that those archives remained intact, or if there are missing records, or discrepancies etc

And you responded to some or all of that with :

This is very true and, as I say, if new records come to light then they will be incorporated into the historical record. For now however there is no reason to doubt the archive figures that we do have (which were intended for internal consumption during the Soviet era) and they provide us with a much more solid base to work from than the estimates of the 1960s. Obviously they have to be set alongside literary and demographic sources but these are figures that are far more detailed than previous work

There is nothing to suggest the assertion that figures intended for internal Communist party/ state purposes are by definition inherently more trustworthy on the basis of their intended non publication and audience. There is also a question of missing records, discrepancies and the integrity of these documents in the soviet system since placed there, and throughout the various changes in party leader from that day forward. Let me put it to you this way if the National Socialist regime had won the war would the figures remaining in their N.S. archives 70 years later, and recently selectively released, would those equivalent figures be more or less definitive and trustworthy than these ?

You also mentioned soviet academics increasing their likelihood of receiving a grant if they were to increase the Stalin figures, I don't accept that point and the inference that rehabillitation of Stalin is a non issue. The rehabilitation of Stalin is certainly not limited in scope to Putin and a handful of hardline communists. Nor somehow it it utterly absent among Russian academia. Inversely German academic study of German figures are certainly not free of political influence. In fact a German questioning the numbers could find themselves in legal difficulty due to the extreme legislation and pervasive climate of political sensitivity which is in place on this subject in that country.

I think a comparison based on figures which are made up of :
-on the one hand a myriad of lesser known studies, subject to less scrutiny than those on the other
-on the other hand a climate where to even question numbers can lead to the ruin of your reputation and legal issues

is not a like for like comparison to begin with. Even so I would be genuinely curious to see the exact same level of scrutiny, and exact same criteria (and wherever applicable methodology) applied to the compilation of both sets of raw and 'editorialised' data.

* Per edit this may now in fact be based on a single study after all !

Reekwind

Morlar wrote: »

- The 'new' (75% reduced) figures of soviet killed are above reproach
- The non-reduced figures of German killed are also above reproach

No, of course they can be questioned. They are however, by some distance, the best figures that we currently have to work with. If at some point in the future new or contradictory evidence emerges then naturally this would lead to a re-evaluation. For now though we work with what we have and this points to a range of deaths far lower than many, but not all, pre-1990 estimates

- There is no political element (particularly rehabilitation of stalin) involved in the 75% reduction of soviet killed & 'leaving as is' of unchanged German figures

You're looking at this in entirely the wrong way. In the first place, no, there is no political bias present. Unless you want to write off vast numbers of academics on the basis of their nationality. I've seen nothing to suggest that any of the authors that I've mentioned in this thread or that link have any known political affiliations. To be perfectly blunt, it sounds like yourself who is being overly influenced by ideological concerns

Secondly, the "German figures" are entirely irrelevant to estimates of Stalinist victims. Why should they be? This is not some namby-pamby PC exercise where a lowering of one set automatically necessitates the lowering of the other. We're discussing the deaths of real people in horrific circumstances. In this case there has been no re-evaluation of German crimes because those numbers are already based on archival evidence. Historians of the USSR simply did not have the same quality of data until two decades ago

Again, if new evidence comes to light as to Nazi crimes then of course the numbers may be revised. This is unlikely to happen however given the academic attention that the Third Reich has drawn over the past 60-70 years. We're nowhere near that level of knowledge with regards the USSR

- Previous figures of Soviet killed which were based on transport capacity are now (in places) reduced by 500%, German killed based on transport capacity are not however reduced.

What Nazi figures are you referring to? We know of the vast majority of Nazi victims because the Nazis themselves were kind enough to record their details. Where this is lacking - such as the activities of the Einsatzgruppen or deaths of Soviet civilians - then the numbers are much more fuzzy

Now I'm not as familiar with studies into the Holocaust but I suspect that if anyone based an estimate on the Auschwitz death toll based solely on the number of train loads that visited the site... well, they'd probably be laughed at. That's because we have access to much better data, derived from Nazi records, as to the individuals that passed through the camp

I do not accept your assertion that the Holdomor was accidental. When it was clearly the forseeable result of deliberate Soviet policy. Furthermore purposefully exacerbated in the Ukraine

Prove it. This is a position that is entirely unsupported by historical evidence. Not even the likes of Conquest seriously contends that Stalin deliberately brought the soviet economy, and state, to the brink of ruin. But then if it is so evident then feel free to prove it

And I'd also like to qualify "accidental". The famine was definitely a product of a disastrous Soviet agricultural policy, admittedly exacerbated by weather conditions, but it was not intentional. And that I feel is key. Does it absolve the Stalinist state of blame? Of course not. But it does make it difficult to construct a comparison with Nazi atrocities

As regards smoking guns and Stalin - you are aware of the David Irving '£1000 to anyone' who can produce a written order by Adolf Hitler to annihilate the Jews ? To the best of my knowledge no one has ever claimed that money. Are you applying the same criteria to both sides tallies as regards the absence of smoking guns here ? Or Just Stalin for the holdomor.

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence that genocide of the Jews was planned by top Nazi officials, including Hitler?

I don't know about Irving's 'bet' but there is massive stacks of evidence as to the purposeful nature of the Holocaust. We know who was involved in it, the key dates, have copies of both the orders issued and confessions of the guilty. There is a solid chain of evidence that leaves no room for doubt. Nothing like this has ever been put forward for the Soviet famines

There is nothing to suggest the assertion that figures intended for internal Communist party/ state purposes are by definition inherently more trustworthy on the basis of their intended non publication and audience

Huh? Of course there is. Soviet reports intended for propaganda or other publishing (such as census figures or grain yields) are obviously of suspect nature. These numbers are not derived from such a source. It's possible of course that the security services were simply lying to both the political leadership and their other, but that seems unlikely. Certainly it would be stupid to throw out such a resource, and return to guesswork, on the basis of such an unfounded suspicion

The point I do take is that the statistics themselves are incomplete and be misleading in places. But that's why we employ reason and scepticism. No one believes, for example, that all those executed under 'counter-revolutionary crimes' were actually guilty of anti-Soviet agitation. Similarly, ranges are built into the estimates for this reason. The archives state that only 800k (IIRC) political executions took place during the Stalin years but most historians are smart enough to round this up to 1m or 1.5m to account for understating. What is not justified is to assume that the records only account for a small fraction of the total deaths; there's just no basis for that

And yet again I stress that these are the best figures that we have available at this time. Should new evidence emerge then of course these ranges will change. For now however most historians in the field accept that it's better to work with the data, bearing in mind the possible pitfalls, than ignore it

Let me put it to you this way if the National Socialist regime had won the war would the figures remaining in their N.S. archives 70 years later, and recently selectively released, would those equivalent figures be more or less definitive and trustworthy than these ?

Ah, but this is not the case at all. Unless you are arguing that the Soviet Union never collapsed? Or that there is no difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation? By which logic today's Germany has an interest in minimising Nazi war crimes...

Again, this just seems to me to be an unjustified national bias on your part. So we can never trust any records that emerge from Russia, even if the research has been conducted by Western historians, just because the sources are Russian? That's nonsensical

You also mentioned soviet academics increasing their likelihood of receiving a grant if they were to increase the Stalin figures, I don't accept that point and the inference that rehabillitation of Stalin is a non issue. The rehabilitation of Stalin is certainly not limited in scope to Putin and a handful of hardline communists. Nor somehow it it utterly absent among Russian academia

I had a handy quote on hand on this but I can't find it. Anyways, the idea that there is a noticeable pro-Stalin bias in Russian professional history is just wrong. Frankly I don't care about Putin, what matters here is what Russian academics are writing and, AFAIK, it does not flatter Stalin. No one would ever accuse the likes of Medvedev, Andreev or Darsky of being pro-Stalin

Of course if you want to put forward some evidence...

Per edit this may now in fact be based on a single study after all !

Seminal study does not mean 'only study'. This was the first work to draw extensively on archival evidence, not the only one. You can find the figures from the same sources in (probably) dozens of works

Even so I would be genuinely curious to see the exact same level of scrutiny, and exact same criteria (and wherever applicable methodology) applied to the compilation of both sets of raw and 'editorialised' data

Listen, I don't want to come across as a know-it-all gob****e but the reality is that a rough academic consensus has settled on the range of figures first proposed by Getty, in English, in his 1993 paper. There is still some controversy, with Conquest questioning the statistics, but there is little question that the earlier 'high' estimates are unsustainable in light of this evidence. This may change in the future but for now that's the case

Now this is not some overnight change, the ranges have been slowly dropping for almost two decades now, and if you're surprised... well, you shouldn't be. If this goes against your previous preconceptions, then you have two choices. You can either accept the 'new' figures (or at least work off them) in modifying your views on this period, or you can simply dismiss any evidence that you do not agree with and cling to discredited notions

If you want to do the latter then fine, I honestly don't care. Just let me know because while I'm happy to have a conversation on the topic, I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall or a series of national prejudices

Morlar

Reekwind wrote: »

No, of course they can be questioned. They are however, by some distance, the best figures that we currently have to work with. If at some point in the future new or contradictory evidence emerges then naturally this would lead to a re-evaluation. For now though we work with what we have and this points to a range of deaths far lower than many, but not all, pre-1990 estimates

Reekwind wrote: »

You're looking at this in entirely the wrong way. In the first place, no, there is no political bias present

It is not a matter of ‘these are THE figures - if new figures come along we can talk about it then’. These revisionist figures are unproven, open to doubt, scepticism and discussion as they are. I think the picture you paint here is one of a universal academic acceptance of the new 75% reduction, this is false. I also disagree that there is no political element related to the study of WW2 deaths, (particularly the overall 75% reduction of Soviet killed & 'leaving as is' of German killed).

Reekwind wrote: »

Secondly, the "German figures" are entirely irrelevant to estimates of Stalinist victims. Why should they be? . . .

That the same standards, level of scrutiny and methodology (not to mention climate of free and open dialogue) should apply in the compilation of, and discussion of both sets of data – all of this does not mean that one death at the hands of one regime is less or more valuable than a death at the hands of another.

Reekwind wrote: »

Again, if new evidence comes to light as to Nazi crimes then of course the numbers may be revised. This is unlikely to happen however given the academic attention that the Third Reich has drawn over the past 60-70 years. We're nowhere near that level of knowledge with regards the USSR

As above re the recent or ‘revisionist’ soviet figures, my thoughts on this would be that both sets of data should have the same standards and openness to review/discussion/disagreement and criticism.

Reekwind wrote: »

What Nazi figures are you referring to? We know of the vast majority of Nazi victims because the Nazis themselves were kind enough to record their details. Where this is lacking - such as the activities of the Einsatzgruppen or deaths of Soviet civilians - then the numbers are much more fuzzy

The numbers of people deemed to have been killed by the N.S. regime are not entirely based on signed lists of names. You are dealing again with census estimates, extrapolation and figures compiled on the basis of x trains per day filled to x capacity running round the clock for x months. It is not credible to suggest the figures of N.S. regime killed are entirely based on verifiably named lists. It goes without saying that within that mix are lists of names but it would be a false to say that they form the bulk of the numbers.

Reekwind wrote: »

Prove it. This is a position that is entirely unsupported by historical evidence. Not even the likes of Conquest seriously contends that Stalin deliberately brought the soviet economy, and state, to the brink of ruin. But then if it is so evident then feel free to prove it

I am not in a position to produce a document signed by stalin ordering the Holdomor.

Reekwind wrote: »

And I'd also like to qualify "accidental". The famine was definitely a product of a disastrous Soviet agricultural policy, admittedly exacerbated by weather conditions, but it was not intentional. And that I feel is key. Does it absolve the Stalinist state of blame? Of course not. But it does make it difficult to construct a comparison with Nazi atrocities

I disagree, the direct, foreseeable & inevitable consequence of state policy leading to millions of dead. Let’s clarify what is provable after the famine struck: Stalin ordering that certain people be prevented from fleeing famine areas, continuing to export grain in the midst of a catastrophic man-made famine - that much is provable, combined with the Great Terror and daily repression of the communist state they do put into a very narrow category.

Reekwind wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence that genocide of the Jews was planned by top Nazi officials, including Hitler? :confused

What I stated is in relation to your point about ‘no smoking gun’ to prove Stalin ordered the Holdomor.

There is no signed document by Stalin ordering the holdomor, likewise there appears to be no signed document by hitler ordering the annihilation of the jews. I do not agree that the absence of a Stalin-Holdomor smoking gun is sufficient to prove his innocence (as you appear to believe), I have asked you – do you think the same standard should be applied to either regime ? Or are you just applying that 'smoking gun' standard in the case of Stalin’s Holdomor ? I would suggest whatever standard is used it should apply to both regimes equally.

Reekwind wrote: »

Huh? Of course there is. Soviet reports intended for propaganda or other publishing (such as census figures or grain yields) are obviously of suspect nature. These numbers are not derived from such a source. It's possible of course that the security services were simply lying to both the political leadership and their other, but that seems unlikely. Certainly it would be stupid to throw out such a resource, and return to guesswork, on the basis of such an unfounded suspicion

I disagree with your assertion that internal NKVD-compiled, KGB Stored, Communist Party documents - which are selectively released are inherently trustworthy, and that only public documents are suspicious. To give you a simple offhand example, it is common knowledge that Soviet forces plucked civilians from the fields of Europe to join death marches of German troops (in order that the numbers of ‘German troops’ that would arrive at their destination would be the same as the number who had left). This is because many died enroute or were shot out of hand. Paperwork wise the nkvd documentation will record no discrepancy - whereas there are 2, one for each soldier killed/dies on the death march and one more for the hapless civilian thrown into his place. It’s also worth pointing out that there is a lot more scope for nuances in NKVD documents beyond the simple example above. You could also break this down into parts. Firstly NKVD local documents to party, then those documents which get filed and kept for 70 years and released as opposed to documents not filed, not present or not released or simply falsely or incorrectly recorded to begin with.

Reekwind wrote: »

The point I do take is that the statistics themselves are incomplete and be misleading in places. But that's why we employ reason and scepticism. No one believes, for example, that all those executed under 'counter-revolutionary crimes' were actually guilty of anti-Soviet agitation. Similarly, ranges are built into the estimates for this reason. The archives state that only 800k (IIRC) political executions took place during the Stalin years but most historians are smart enough to round this up to 1m or 1.5m to account for understating. What is not justified is to assume that the records only account for a small fraction of the total deaths; there's just no basis for that

I think there is a distinction between ‘political execution’ and execution for other purposes at the hands of a communist regime.

A person could be sent to a gulag for being late for work. I believe twice within a single week something along those lines, (particularly due to alcoholism). This person dying in a hard labour camp may not be classified as ‘Political execution’, it may be classed as a criminal & non political death, (it may even be classified as old age or natural causes) but I would disagree with that distinction.

Reekwind wrote: »

Ah, but this is not the case at all. Unless you are arguing that the Soviet Union never collapsed? Or that there is no difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation? By which logic today's Germany has an interest in minimising Nazi war crimes... :confused

I think you are avoiding answering a straightfoward, honest question on a slim technicality there.

Reekwind wrote: »

Again, this just seems to me to be an unjustified national bias on your part. So we can never trust any records that emerge from Russia, even if the research has been conducted by Western historians, just because the sources are Russian? That's nonsensical

There is a difference between a) Russian historians and b) NKVD/Communist Party sources. To distrust Nkvd-Communist party documents does not suggest a prejudice against Russian people. At the same time - to completely disregard the factor of efforts at stalin’s rehabilitation on the basis that it may leave you open to accusations of prejudice against Russians as a people would be silly.

Reekwind wrote: »

Frankly I don't care about Putin, what matters here is what Russian academics are writing and, AFAIK, it does not flatter Stalin. No one would ever accuse the likes of Medvedev, Andreev or Darsky of being pro-Stalin

For something to be a factor in a dialogue does not require that it apply to every example every time.

Reekwind wrote: »

Of course if you want to put forward some evidence...

OK, here is one that springs to mind (from 2009)

http://www.rferl.org/content/Trying_To_Bury_An_Inconvenient_History/1503708.html

What's The Real Reason My Book On Stalin Isn't Being Published In Russia?




On March 2, the Moscow publishing house Atticus Group (Inostranka) canceled a contract to publish my latest book in Russia. The reason given by the publisher is the economic situation, which may be part of the story, though I suspect (as do my friends in Russia) that the real reason is political.

The history in my book is inconvenient to the current regime in Russia.

"The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia" draws on several hundred family archives and thousands of interviews with survivors of the Stalinist regime that I conducted with Memorial, a nationwide human rights and historical research center which for 20 years has pioneered the research of Stalinist repressions in the Soviet Union. Memorial has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times in the past three years.

On December 4, a group of masked men from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office forced their way with police truncheons into the St. Petersburg offices of Memorial.

After a search, the men confiscated hard drives containing the entire archive of Memorial in St. Petersburg: databases with biographical information on victims of repression, details about burial sites in the St. Petersburg area, family archives, sound recordings, and transcripts of interviews.

Among the confiscated items was the entire collection of materials in the Virtual Gulag Museum, a much-needed initiative to rescue precious artifacts, photographs, and documents from more than 100 small exhibitions under threat across Russia (a country where there is just one substantial museum of the gulag, Perm-36, in the Urals).

All the materials I collected with Memorial in St. Petersburg (about one-third of the sources used in "The Whisperers") were also confiscated by the police. Luckily, I have copies of all the documents on my website. But the rest of the confiscated items remain in the hands of the police.

Rehabilitation Of Stalin

The raid on Memorial is part of a broader ideological struggle over the control of history publications and teaching in Russia that may have influenced the decision of Atticus to cancel my contract.

The Kremlin has been actively working for the rehabilitation of Stalin. Its aim is not to deny Stalin's crimes, but to emphasize his achievements as the builder of the country's "glorious Soviet past." It wants Russians to take pride in their Soviet past and not to be burdened with a paralyzing sense of guilt about the repressions of the Stalin period.

At a conference in June 2007, then-President Vladimir Putin called on Russia's schoolteachers to portray the Stalin period in a more positive light. It was Stalin who made the Soviet Union great, who won the war against Hitler, and his "mistakes" were no worse than the crimes of Western states, he said.

Textbooks dwelling on the Great Terror and the gulag have been censored, historians attacked as "antipatriotic" for highlighting Stalin's crimes.

The presidential administration has promoted its own textbook, "The Modern History of Russia, 1945-2006: A Teacher's Handbook." According to one of its authors -- the Kremlin propagandist Pavel Danilin -- its aim is to present Russian history "not as a depressing sequence of misfortunes and mistakes, but as something to instill pride in one's country. This is precisely how teachers must teach history and not smear the Motherland with mud."

Danilin is a close associate of Gleb Pavlovsky, a presidential adviser and the editor of the "Russian Journal," which aims to create an intellectual base for Putin's pseudo-democracy.

A special December issue on the "Politics of Memory" was published to coincide with the raid on Memorial. It contained two articles viciously attacking the work of Memorial for playing into the hands foreign historians accused of setting out to blacken Soviet history by focusing on Stalin's crimes.

"The Whisperers" has been translated into 22 foreign languages, including all the European languages of the former Soviet Union -- except Russian, it now seems.

Orlando Figes is a professor of history at Birkbeck College, University of London. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.

Reekwind wrote: »

If this goes against your previous preconceptions, then you have two choices. You can either accept the 'new' figures (or at least work off them) in modifying your views on this period, or you can simply dismiss any evidence that you do not agree with and cling to discredited notions

Those are not the options here. ‘Accept new figures or be wrong’. It serves no positive, constructive, useful purpose to try to compress such a complex issue into such a narrowly defined loaded point.

Reekwind wrote: »

If you want to do the latter then fine, I honestly don't care. Just let me know because while I'm happy to have a conversation on the topic, I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall or a series of national prejudices

There is no question of a national prejudice on my part against Russia. I am personally extremely interested in Russia and look forward to visiting for example St Petersburg, or Moscow at the soonest opportunity. So I would prefer you refrained from accusing me of prejudice against russians as a people, against the communist party - by all means but as stated that is a different thing to Russian People.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

....

....

....

likewise I would not be inclined to trust Russian scholars on this as the re-habilitation of Stalin has been long underway (both for clear political reasons).

Morlar wrote: »

There is no question of a national prejudice on my part against Russia. I am personally extremely interested in Russia and look forward to visiting for example St Petersburg, or Moscow at the soonest opportunity.

Prejudice against Russian scholars, but not Russians?

Although I suppose you don't limit your opinion to just Russians

Morlar wrote: »

I would not be inclined to trust Israeli scholars on this subject

You really should get a grip at this stage you are loosing touch. You refuse to accept studies on the basis of their authors nationality. Perhaps you should clarify this?

Morlar

It is already clear. In the case of a Russian scholar dropping the Stalin death toll by 75%, then no, I would not be in such a hurry to rule out political considerations.

If this 75% drop supports a persons ideological, or pro-communist or sympathetic to communist (not Russian, Communist) political viewpoint then I would not expect objectivity to enter into it on their part. I would probably also expect them to disingenously ridicule and attempt to undermine the notion that political considerations exsist around this issue and need to be factored in.

Reekwind

Morlar wrote: »

It is already clear. In the case of a Russian scholar dropping the Stalin death toll by 75%, then no, I would not be in such a hurry to rule out political considerations

You know what this reminds me of? Stalinist apologists who claim that anything published post-1953 is the product of 'Khrushchev revisionists' or 'Yeltsin liberals'. The research does not tally with your preconceptions and so it can only be the product of some political conspiracy or bias. You are effectively dismissing twenty years of research - by American, English, Russian, German, Israeli, French, etc academics - on the basis of... what? That Orlando Figes can't get published in Russian?

If this 75% drop supports a persons ideological, or pro-communist or sympathetic to communist (not Russian, Communist) political viewpoint then I would not expect objectivity to enter into it on their part

You have yet to demonstrate in any way that the academics who have advocated these figures are "pro-communist" or "sympathetic to communism" or anything of the sort. At least, nothing beyond poor national stereotypes and the (circular) assumption that anyone proposing such figures must be a communist

Which is ridiculous and, frankly, not worth my time. You are right and all those professional historians are wrong :rolleyes:

It is not a matter of ‘these are THE figures - if new figures come along we can talk about it then’. These revisionist figures are unproven, open to doubt, scepticism and discussion as they are. I think the picture you paint here is one of a universal academic acceptance of the new 75% reduction, this is false

Where did I suggest "universal academic acceptance"? I believe the phrase I used was "rough academic consensus". Again, the fact that they have been accepted by the likes of Snyder (are you seriously going to suggest that he is "pro-communist"?) demonstrates the degree to which they have been accepted in academia

Regardless, the archive figures form the basis of today's research in the field. Some disagree with them, some believe that they have been misinterpreted but no one (outside of fringe Stalinists like Furr) seriously believes that they are "unproven" or can be discarded. If only because they are of magnitude better than previous estimates. Seriously, how do you believe that the pre-archive figures were arrived at? Why do you have faith in their figures?

Actually don't answer that last one. Conquest's numbers tally with your own preconception and are therefore beyond reproach

That the same standards, level of scrutiny and methodology (not to mention climate of free and open dialogue) should apply in the compilation of, and discussion of both sets of data

It does!

This is getting tiring. A huge source of data regarding Nazi deaths is derived from German archives. These have been open to scholars since the 1950s and have been extensively pored through for decades. It is only since the fall of the USSR that historians have had (limited) access to similar resources in Russia. Studies into Soviet crimes are still catching up on equivalent studies into Nazi crimes. It will likely be decades before we can be as confident in the Stalinist figures as we are on the Nazi ones

If we were to follow your suggestion and rely exclusively on pre-archive material in Russia then, again with your logic, you would have to rip up decades of research into Nazi Germany and return to 1940s estimates of Nazi victims. Madness

In short: the Nazi figures have not been amended downwards because there have been no new revelations emerging from the German archives. Figures for Stalinist victims have been revised downwards because older estimates are not compatible with new evidence emerging from the archives. I'm not going to explain that any more

I am not in a position to produce a document signed by stalin ordering the Holdomor

No you're not. No one is. And it's not just a "signed document by Stalin". There is no record of plans to devastate the Ukraine, no record of meetings to discuss the purposeful killing of millions, no orders implicating anyone in genocide*. At the heart of the 'Holdomor' argument is a vast void of missing paperwork or evidence. When something emerges to fill that hole then I'll reconsider the intentions of the Soviet state. Until then it's just baseless speculation

*All of which, as I've already mentioned, is present in the case of Nazi Germany. Your talk of treating the cases equally is laughable when you ignore the vast body of evidence that directly implicates the Nazi state in deliberate genocide

A person could be sent to a gulag for being late for work. I believe twice within a single week something along those lines, (particularly due to alcoholism). This person dying in a hard labour camp may not be classified as ‘Political execution’, it may be classed as a criminal & non political death, (it may even be classified as old age or natural causes) but I would disagree with that distinction

1) The vast majority of 'labour crimes' would be dealt with by the judicial courts and result in a non-custodial sentence (and yes, there are figures out there to prove this). Even then it would be strange in the extreme for such a case to end up in the GULAG, as opposed to a labour colony or a special settlement

2) Obviously a person who died in the GULAG would not be classified as a 'political execution', for the very straightforward reason that it wasn't one. It would be classified as a GULAG death, a category that I fully believe the Soviet state bears criminal responsibility for

I think you are avoiding answering a straightfoward, honest question on a slim technicality there

What? How is the fall of the USSR a "a slim technicality"?

You want a straightforward and honest answer? Your question was stupid in the extreme. It both provides a pointless hypothetical and ignores the distinctions between the USSR and the Russian Federation or Nazi Germany and Germany. The USSR did not 'release' these figures, period

There is a difference between a) Russian historians and b) NKVD/Communist Party sources. To distrust Nkvd-Communist party documents does not suggest a prejudice against Russian people

By the same token we can't trust any German archives because they were compiled by Nazis. In the case of Russia it's much better to rely on the odd smuggled work by intellectuals than a vast database of detailed records. Ideological purity must be maintained at all costs :rolleyes:

Seriously, scepticism is required when dealing with the archives but your complete rejection of them is just baseless. No, worse than that: it's destructive. You are essentially demanding that we reject the past twenty years of Russian historiography. Except for when the likes of Figes draws upon security reports; that's grand

Morlar

I think your phrasing here is misleading. I am not talking about 'research not tallying with preconceptions'. I am talking about the 75% reduction in Stalin's death toll by some historians.

Nor am I talking about :

Reekwind wrote: »

You are effectively dismissing twenty years of research - by American, English, Russian, German, Israeli, French, etc academics - on the basis of... what? That Orlando Figes can't get published in Russian?

Let's be clear here - you asked for an example of the Rehabilitation of Stalin being a factor in modern Russia. I posted an article to illustrate this. This article mentioned several points, which you ignore while continuing to assert politics and the rehabilitation of stalin is not a factor in Russian WW2 history. Here is a summary of the points contained in the single article :

a) the author's book not being published in Russia (but 22 other languages).
b) the new 'revised' russian school books with a more cheery outlook on Stalin
c) the seizure of computer databases belonging to the 3x Nobel peace prize nominated 'memorial' organisation (devoted to the memory of stalin's victims).
d) censoring of school textbooks & labelling of historians as 'antipatriotic' etc.

It is misleading to portray the above (which were never intended to be definitive to begin with) in the terms you have chosen to. There are also other examples of the rehabilitation of Stalin, many of which are widely known, this would include the recent BBC documentary on this topic. The continued insistence that the politics around the Rehabilitation of Stalin is a non factor lacks credibility in my view. Again, to return to your tired allegation - this has nothing to do with national stereotypes or a prejudice on my part against the Russian People. Nothing whatsoever. I have always had a great admiration for Russian culture tradition and history, (also Cossack, Kulak and Ukranian as it happens). Bolshevism is a seperate matter entirely.

I have not said such research should be discarded. I articulated a scepticism around them, I have said that I do not accept them as definitive as presented in the original unclear article which formed the starting point of this discussion.

Neither you (to begin with) nor I (nor apparently anyone else) were clear on which study this article referenced. Though to be fair you did edit your post afterwards (to include what is the source of the study).

This is not the same thing as saying they should be completely discarded so If you are going to repeat what I said you should make an attempt at accuracy, rather than rephrase what I did say, out of context into something I did not say.

Reekwind wrote: »

If we were to follow your suggestion and rely exclusively on pre-archive material in Russia

Point out where I said that. Your general approach here of re-phrasing what is said into what was not said is tedious. At the same time I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact much of the dialogue between historians on this topic appears to be based on attempts at re-conciliation between the earlier estimates and the ones based on selective releases from soviet archives. Related discrepancies and so on.

Reekwind wrote: »

No you're not. No one is. And it's not just a "signed document by Stalin". There is no record of plans to devastate the Ukraine, no record of meetings to discuss the purposeful killing of millions, no orders implicating anyone in genocide*. At the heart of the 'Holdomor' argument is a vast void of missing paperwork or evidence. When something emerges to fill that hole then I'll reconsider the intentions of the Soviet state. Until then it's just baseless speculation

*All of which, as I've already mentioned, is present in the case of Nazi Germany. Your talk of treating the cases equally is laughable when you ignore the vast body of evidence that directly implicates the Nazi state in deliberate genocide

I can take if from your reply that your defence of Stalin in terms of the holdomor, being based on the lack of a paper trail - this standard of 'no smoking gun' = innocent does not then aply equally to Hitler and the subject of the annihilation of the jews.

Considering there is no paper order signed by either man ordering either event. In one case it's proof of innocence, in the other it's not.

This scenario presented here for the purposes of dialogue was about soviet archives, being in soviet hands for decade after decade after decade after the war. NKVD /Commissar compiled documents stored by the KGB throughout multiple communist regimes not containing a Stalin signed order or paperwork associated with the holdomor. At least not among those so-far released.

If you considered an equivalent scenario of N.S. regime victory in WW2, with the additional factors of - no comprehensive longerm and widereaching de-nazification process in place, NS Archives being in NS hands for multiple decades after the war, would you find them to be reliable if selectively released by a successor government at a later date ? In a climate where re-habilitation was a factor ? Would you automatically accept them as safe to supercede other estimates previously peer-reviewed and universatlly accepted which were gathered elsewhere ?

While this discussion continues I remain curious here about where the millions of missing ethnic germans fit into these new figures. Also the millions of missing wehrmacht soldiers. Do you know if these are factored into the downward revised totals ? They do not appear to be and in my view should be considered whether referenced in recent releases or not.

marcsignal

Reekwind wrote: »

[Edit: The article in question is probably 'Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, (1993), Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years'. It's well known enough that it's probably available online and is well worth the read.

That particular piece is in the list of Articles Here. No 7.

.

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

That particular piece is in the list of Articles Here. No 7.

.

Yes. I have been going through them over the last few days. I think it would be fair to say that there has been bitter dispute over these revised figures.

marcsignal

Morlar wrote: »

Yes. I have been going through them over the last few days. I think it would be fair to say that there has been bitter dispute over these revised figures.

Well tbh, when I read the OP I assumed this was a new study, which will explain the cynicism in my reply in the 2nd post.
My first thought was "Oh Christ! What's about to be ratcheted up in the Middle East now?" because Finkelstein (one of many Jewish scholars, that I have the utmost respect and admiration for) goes on about this all the time. ie: Holocaust Newsflash!! folllowed by 20 dead Palestinians or New Israeli Settlements Under Construction a week later.

It's important to consider, that pre 1967, there were only 2 scholarly works written on the Holocaust, and now there are thousands.
Although The Holocaust, and Israel, are 2 completely seperate things, they are intrinsically linked.

The Gaza atrocities in Dec 2008, stopped suddenly, about a week before Holocaust Memorial day in 2009 (Jan 27th). It wouldn't have looked too good, to be lamenting the Holocaust dead, while youre indulging in very brutal violence against a section of your own population at the same time.

BlaasForRafa

marcsignal wrote: »

Well tbh, when I read the OP I assumed this was a new study, which will explain the cynicism in my reply in the 2nd post.
My first thought was "Oh Christ! What's about to be ratcheted up in the Middle East now?" because Finkelstein (one of many Jewish scholars, that I have the utmost respect and admiration for) goes on about this all the time. ie: Holocaust Newsflash!! folllowed by 20 dead Palestinians or New Israeli Settlements Under Construction a week later.

It's important to consider, that pre 1967, there were only 2 scholarly works written on the Holocaust, and now there are thousands.
Although The Holocaust, and Israel, are 2 completely seperate things, they are intrinsically linked.

The Gaza atrocities in Dec 2008, stopped suddenly, about a week before Holocaust Memorial day in 2009 (Jan 27th). It wouldn't have looked too good, to be lamenting the Holocaust dead, while youre indulging in very brutal violence against a section of your own population at the same time.

"The Gaza atrocities"?, I take it you mean Operation Cast Lead. The palestinians are not part of the Israeli population because Gaza is not part of Israel, neither is it occupied so the IDF wasn't doing anything to its own population...besides protecting them I guess. If someone is sending rockets into another territory then they shouldn't be surprised if action is taken.

Is this study some part of an Israeli plot I wonder?, way of diminishing the Soviet crimes so the jewish holocaust reigns supreme?

I've got my own doubts about this study though, pretty much along the same lines as Morlar. The paperback for Snyders book comes out in September so I'll probably read that before I judge but based on the language in the link posted in the op it does seem like they're trying to bend over backwards to find ways of reducing the soviet figures.

marcsignal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

"The Gaza atrocities"?, I take it you mean Operation Cast Lead.

That's the one 'Operation Cast Lead' and that was Not an atrocity? No?

Just out of curiosity, do you refer to The Holocaust as 'Operation Reinhard' or The Holocaust?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The palestinians are not part of the Israeli population because Gaza is not part of Israel, neither is it occupied so the IDF wasn't doing anything to its own population...besides protecting them I guess. If someone is sending rockets into another territory then they shouldn't be surprised if action is taken.

Ok, perhaps. So, the palestinians that are living in Israel, have absolute freedom of movement?
No Jewish only roads? Is that just a lie, perpetuated by Palestinians and neo-nazis??

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Is this study some part of an Israeli plot I wonder?, way of diminishing the Soviet crimes so the jewish holocaust reigns supreme?

Well comparisons with the Holocaust, are out of the question, by all accounts.

@36mins here. Listen very carefully to Abraham Foxmans (ADL) delivery and language, when he is addressing his Ukrainian hosts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQdJCOjLlE

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I've got my own doubts about this study though, pretty much along the same lines as Morlar. The paperback for Snyders book comes out in September so I'll probably read that before I judge but based on the language in the link posted in the op it does seem like they're trying to bend over backwards to find ways of reducing the soviet figures.

I agree with this.

.

Merch

marcsignal wrote: »

@36mins here. Listen very carefully to Abraham Foxmans (ADL) delivery and language, when he is addressing his Ukrainian hosts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQdJCOjLlE

Trying to think how to say, that video comes across to me
its disturbing, apart from the fact I thought the foxman guy was pretty arrogant and rude towards the Ukranian premier, at about 45 mins the group of people, saying I can see people being marched out and shot?? wtf?. It was interesting what the rabbi's were saying, the guy in NY and in Russia, about religious Jewish people and "secular" Jewish people.

And then in the end, the girl saying she'd like to kill people wtf?? is that what its all about, politicizing them so they can demonise who they perceive to be enemies??

It's frightening really, imagine Irish people going on like that about the famines (not just 1840).
I know this was about Stalin and Hitler, but that **** scares me as much as revising the deaths attributed to either of those dictators overall (whoever they were) in history books.

marcsignal

Merch wrote: »

at about 45 mins the group of people, saying I can see people being marched out and shot?? wtf?.

In fairness, I think she was imagining the Jews that were murdered in that place by the Nazis. I'm sure she wasn't suggesting, or believed that Ukrainians today would do anything like that to Jews.

Merch wrote: »

It was interesting what the rabbi's were saying, the guy in NY and in Russia, about religious Jewish people and "secular" Jewish people.

Yes, it sure is an eye opener.

Good point about the Irish and the famine.

Merch

marcsignal wrote: »

In fairness, I think she was imagining the Jews that were murdered in that place by the Nazis. I'm sure she wasn't suggesting, or believed that Ukrainians today would do anything like that to Jews.



Yes, it sure is an eye opener.

Good point about the Irish and the famine.

I just went back and watched it again to make sure I didnt hear what i thought I heard, but she does say,
"the worst thing is, I can see it happening today, I can see people being marched out of Kiev" thats as insulkting to the people of Kiev/ukraine as that guy was to the premier, probably worse.
I was shocked when I heard her say it first, maybe she/that group she was in a have a fear it can happen, but listening to the American guy (the proffesor that got sacked), the Rabbi's and the Israeli guy (that was/is the leader of a labour party? if I got that right), it seems more likely to me that some individuals/groups have an agenda to and are looking for opportunities to find perceived wrongs.

As I was looking at the clip, I noticed when I opened it I could only open it at the moment when the elderly couple were being interviewed just before the bit where the woman was talking about Kiev, I guess I cant get my head around what they were saying, it almost seems like a contradiction, they feel the ADL keeps them informed about Jewish issues, but neither are they orthodox (okay, that seems ok to me) , but they seem like they suggest they are not even religiously Jewish?? which ties into what the Russian Rabbi guy was saying about "Secular" Jewish people.

Definitely, history cannot/should not be forgotten, but to move forward, to change for the better, needs to in someway accept the past and ensure it doesnt happen again, but not just to ourselves or our own group, but to anyone, the Israelis should have been the International champion of Human rights, but it never turned out that way, Its unfortunate really.

edit,regarding history should not be forgotten applies to the numbers killed by stalin too, I dont like the idea of trying to turn him back into some hero of Russia by changing the text books. Not accepting what he was in one way or another a part of is not accepting what happened/denying history and opens the doors for someone to demonise another group today to allow something like to happen again.

marcsignal

Merch wrote: »

I just went back and watched it again to make sure I didnt hear what i thought I heard, but she does say,
"the worst thing is, I can see it happening today, I can see people being marched out of Kiev" .

Just listened to it again. I stand corrected.

Merch

I'd have preferred I stood corrected, glad i'm not from Kiev, I think I'd be a bit annoyed.
Neither can I say I am a fan of anyone parading around draped in their national flag anywhere, it just tells me they likely dont know or fail to see what really happens in the world or what their (not just Israel) country is like.
I dislike seeing that here (Irish in tricolour, but more so abroad), I would not like to see irish people parading around anywhere draped in the tricolour really. I dislike the irish Gov, current and former but I still feel their are things for people to be proud of nationally (anywhere), like unique identity/history/cultures, but I dislike the certain kind of nationalism that comes with draping a flag. I think it just dawned on me, I'm only probably only ok with it in the olympics

Reekwind

Morlar wrote: »

I think your phrasing here is misleading. I am not talking about 'research not tallying with preconceptions'. I am talking about the 75% reduction in Stalin's death toll by some historians

And you've objected strenuously to this. Instead you strongly favour previous tallies. The latter are no more factual than the new figures; they are in fact considerably more tenuously and rely heavily on conjecture and scraps. You're also choosing to ignore the existence of pre-1990 estimates that pointed to significantly lower deaths. In short you are resisting anything that suggests that the previous 'high' estimates are wrong

Neither you (to begin with) nor I (nor apparently anyone else) were clear on which study this article referenced. Though to be fair you did edit your post afterwards (to include what is the source of the study).

To be perfectly honest I strongly suspect that I'm the only person in this thread who is even slightly familiar with current research into the period in question

I can take if from your reply that your defence of Stalin in terms of the holdomor, being based on the lack of a paper trail - this standard of 'no smoking gun' = innocent does not then aply equally to Hitler and the subject of the annihilation of the jews

You accuse me of being repetitive and then you demonstrate why I am so. So let me make this clear: this is not about one signed order. It's not necessary to present such an order in the case of Hitler because there is a vast body of evidence that undeniably implicates the Third Reich in genocide. This, the vast body of evidence, is entirely lacking in the case of the USSR and it's this that I want to see. This is not complicated

If this evidence emerges then I'll obviously change my stance. Until then it was not genocide

If you considered an equivalent scenario of N.S. regime victory in WW2, with the additional factors of - no comprehensive longerm and widereaching de-nazification process in place, NS Archives being in NS hands for multiple decades after the war, would you find them to be reliable if selectively released by a successor government at a later date ?

The Federal Republic of Germany is a "successor government" to Nazi Germany. And yes, I consider that a report written in 1953 contains the same truths in 2011 as it did then. Unless of course it had been tampered with by the academic who published it; a very strong charge to make

Would you automatically accept them as safe to supercede other estimates previously peer-reviewed and universatlly accepted which were gathered elsewhere ?

I don't think you quite understand just what these terms mean. In the first place, Conquest's figures were never "universally accepted". Secondly, these archive figures have also been presented in papers that have been "peer reviewed". "Peer reviewed" merely means that the paper is fit for publishing

While this discussion continues I remain curious here about where the millions of missing ethnic germans fit into these new figures. Also the millions of missing wehrmacht soldiers. Do you know if these are factored into the downward revised totals ? They do not appear to be and in my view should be considered whether referenced in recent releases or not.

Yes, they should be. Don't have the figures on hand but I can tell you that in 1946 there were just under 900k Germans (civilian and military) in exile within the USSR. Again, a matter of hundreds of thousands rather than "millions"

marcsignal

Reekwind wrote: »

To be perfectly honest I strongly suspect that I'm the only person in this thread who is even slightly familiar with current research into the period in question

Fuck Me !! You're pretty impressed with yourself, aren't you :rolleyes:

.

Reekwind

I do actually. Call it the certain confidence that comes from knowing what it is I'm actually talking about. I've spent years reading up on the early Soviet Union so you'll excuse me if I don't have much of an appetite for much of the fiercely defended bull**** flying around here. Seriously, it's like talking football with someone who's just found out what 4-4-2 is and who, more importantly, isn't actually bothered to watch the matches

But hey! What does actual research count for? Sure, wasn't it all just an "Israeli plot" anyways? :rolleyes:

Merch

Reekwind wrote: »

I do actually. Call it the certain confidence that comes from knowing what it is I'm actually talking about. I've spent years reading up on the early Soviet Union so you'll excuse me if I don't have much of an appetite for much of the fiercely defended bull**** flying around here. Seriously, it's like talking football with someone who's just found out what 4-4-2 is and who, more importantly, isn't actually bothered to watch the matches

But hey! What does actual research count for? Sure, wasn't it all just an "Israeli plot" anyways? :rolleyes:

I'm not doubting how much you've read up, while i've read a few things here and there myself, I'm sure I probably have only scratched the surface.

What would you suggest to read to gain more insight into the soviet union from the 20's to say the start of WW2
And the formation of the communist party,how it came together/evolved, how it dealt with its opponents (not just the party members but whole organisations) and maybe the formation of the red army from existing Russian units.
Its an interesting subject, but surely huge too.

marcsignal

Reekwind wrote: »

I do actually. Call it the certain confidence that comes from knowing what it is I'm actually talking about.

Ah right you mean like Here?? Where you claimed 2 million Roma were killed by the Nazis ??

I mean, you were only out by One million seven hundred and eighty thousand...
And you wade in here thinking you're some kind of scholar ??? :P:P

Source