Stalinist Mass Killings
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Stalinist Mass Killings
I’ve contacted professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft asking him to forward me his response to Conquest critique know as “The scale and nature of Stalinist repression and its demographic significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest” . That he did, he also send me “'Towards Explaining the Changing Levels of Stalinist Repression in the 1930s: Mass Killings' “ –which is one of his more recent works. I’ would have posted it here but it contains numerous tables without which it is kind of hard to understand. The article is in MS Word format So if anyone is interested feel free to sent me your e-mail via PM and I’ll forward it to you.
-
Ostuf Charlemagne
- Member
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 13:33
- Location: Honduras
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Re: Stalinist Mass Killings
Olegoleg wrote:I’ve contacted professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft asking him to forward me his response to Conquest critique know as “The scale and nature of Stalinist repression and its demographic significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest” . That he did, he also send me “'Towards Explaining the Changing Levels of Stalinist Repression in the 1930s: Mass Killings' “ –which is one of his more recent works. I’ would have posted it here but it contains numerous tables without which it is kind of hard to understand. The article is in MS Word format So if anyone is interested feel free to sent me your e-mail via PM and I’ll forward it to you.
Yes i would like to know about the article you can send me over my email
[email protected]
Wildboar
-
Patrick Edwin Cooley
- Member
- Posts: 336
- Joined: 24 Dec 2002, 10:30
- Location: Canada, British Columbia, Port Coquitlam
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
My friend's father worked in FSB (Federal Bureau of Safety ), when he lived in Russia.
He told me that when he looked through the execution files (1930-th, stalinist purges)
he found a case, when a deaf-and-dumb villager was executed for "Antisoviet agitation". It was written in the denunciation ( which actually was the reason of
the arrest) that at the 1-st of May the man was sitting at the porch of his house and
"smiling in antisoviet way"
He told me that when he looked through the execution files (1930-th, stalinist purges)
he found a case, when a deaf-and-dumb villager was executed for "Antisoviet agitation". It was written in the denunciation ( which actually was the reason of
the arrest) that at the 1-st of May the man was sitting at the porch of his house and
"smiling in antisoviet way"
-
Panzermahn
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
Herr Oleg,
i would also like to see this work by this Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft.
Please fwd it to me,
[email protected]
THank you for sharing with us this information and i really do appreciate it...
By the way, have you checked about the political beliefs of this professor as well as his background?
i would also like to see this work by this Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft.
Please fwd it to me,
[email protected]
THank you for sharing with us this information and i really do appreciate it...
By the way, have you checked about the political beliefs of this professor as well as his background?
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Panzermahn asked, in relation to Professor Wheatcroft:
He is a known Leftist, and has been involved in the production of polemical material for Leftist causes. For example, he edited and contributed to a work on the "Demidenko Affair" which, although published by the University of Melbourne, was clearly polemical in nature, rather than being a work of impartial scholarship.
That being said, Professor Wheatcroft's involvement in leftist polemics does not automatically invalidate his academic work, which specialises in the field of Soviet economic history.
Works by him held by the National Library of Australia are:
The Economic transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945
Publication date: 1994
Genocide, history and fictions : historians respond to Helen Demidenko/Darville's The hand that signed the paper
Publication date: 1997
(This is the polemical work I referred to)
Challenging traditional views of Russian history
Publication date: 2002
Materials for a balance of the Soviet national economy, 1928-1930
Publication date: 1985
A general criticism of the scholarship of Professor Wheatcroft and similar "revisionist" historians of repression in the Soviet Union is that they accept only Soviet documentary evidence, eg NKVD records of the numbers of executions or deaths in camps, and reject all non-documentary evidence such as accounts by former prisoners such as Solzhenitsyn. Thus, Wheatcroft et al reproduce an NKVD record of the total number of executions and deaths for a given period and conclude that that figure is the absolute maximum.
In other words, Wheatcroft et al follow exactly the same methodology as that followed by the reviled David Irving in relation to German atrocities; he accepts only German documentary material, rejecting all survivor narrative and eyewitness testimony. Thus, Irving accepts 300,000 as the absolute maximum figure for the number of persons who perished in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp complex, that being the greatest number that can be computed from surviving German recors of the deaths of registered prisoners (and in fact he prefers lower figures).
The major criticism that has been made of Irving's methodology by his detractors is that it ignores the fact that large numbers of victims of German atrocities were simply not captured in the statistics and official documentation. Thus, many persons arriving at Auschwitz were never registered, and thus their deaths were not recorded in the camp statistics. According to Irving's critics, the figures he claims based on German documents represent the absolute minimum number of victims, those actually recorded, and the real total must be much higher.
The same criticism could be made of Wheatcroft et al. By accepting only official NKVD figures, they are probably leaving out of the equation those victims whose deaths were never recorded, but have been attested to by survivors of the GULag camps and other parts of the Soviet apparatus of repression. The official NKVD figures must represent only the absolute minimum number of victims of Soviet repression (since we can be confident that the NKVD did not exaggerate the number of people they killed), and the real total must be higher (although it is evident that the astronomical figures given by people like Solzhenitsyn, Conquest etc are exaggerated).
In fairness, it must be said that certain of the "revisionist" historians, eg Alec Nove, do accept that the official NKVD records do not include all victims, and that there must have been many mass-killings that were not officially recorded, for example those that resulted in the mass-graves found near Minsk.
In summary, I think it would be accurate to sat that Wheatcroft and some others are seeking for ideological reasons to minimise the number of victims of Soviet repression, in exactly the same way as Conquest and other historians of his school sought to maximise them for contrary ideological reasons.
Professor Wheatcroft hails from Britain, and is currently a professor at the University of Melbourne.By the way, have you checked about the political beliefs of this professor as well as his background?
He is a known Leftist, and has been involved in the production of polemical material for Leftist causes. For example, he edited and contributed to a work on the "Demidenko Affair" which, although published by the University of Melbourne, was clearly polemical in nature, rather than being a work of impartial scholarship.
That being said, Professor Wheatcroft's involvement in leftist polemics does not automatically invalidate his academic work, which specialises in the field of Soviet economic history.
Works by him held by the National Library of Australia are:
The Economic transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945
Publication date: 1994
Genocide, history and fictions : historians respond to Helen Demidenko/Darville's The hand that signed the paper
Publication date: 1997
(This is the polemical work I referred to)
Challenging traditional views of Russian history
Publication date: 2002
Materials for a balance of the Soviet national economy, 1928-1930
Publication date: 1985
A general criticism of the scholarship of Professor Wheatcroft and similar "revisionist" historians of repression in the Soviet Union is that they accept only Soviet documentary evidence, eg NKVD records of the numbers of executions or deaths in camps, and reject all non-documentary evidence such as accounts by former prisoners such as Solzhenitsyn. Thus, Wheatcroft et al reproduce an NKVD record of the total number of executions and deaths for a given period and conclude that that figure is the absolute maximum.
In other words, Wheatcroft et al follow exactly the same methodology as that followed by the reviled David Irving in relation to German atrocities; he accepts only German documentary material, rejecting all survivor narrative and eyewitness testimony. Thus, Irving accepts 300,000 as the absolute maximum figure for the number of persons who perished in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp complex, that being the greatest number that can be computed from surviving German recors of the deaths of registered prisoners (and in fact he prefers lower figures).
The major criticism that has been made of Irving's methodology by his detractors is that it ignores the fact that large numbers of victims of German atrocities were simply not captured in the statistics and official documentation. Thus, many persons arriving at Auschwitz were never registered, and thus their deaths were not recorded in the camp statistics. According to Irving's critics, the figures he claims based on German documents represent the absolute minimum number of victims, those actually recorded, and the real total must be much higher.
The same criticism could be made of Wheatcroft et al. By accepting only official NKVD figures, they are probably leaving out of the equation those victims whose deaths were never recorded, but have been attested to by survivors of the GULag camps and other parts of the Soviet apparatus of repression. The official NKVD figures must represent only the absolute minimum number of victims of Soviet repression (since we can be confident that the NKVD did not exaggerate the number of people they killed), and the real total must be higher (although it is evident that the astronomical figures given by people like Solzhenitsyn, Conquest etc are exaggerated).
In fairness, it must be said that certain of the "revisionist" historians, eg Alec Nove, do accept that the official NKVD records do not include all victims, and that there must have been many mass-killings that were not officially recorded, for example those that resulted in the mass-graves found near Minsk.
In summary, I think it would be accurate to sat that Wheatcroft and some others are seeking for ideological reasons to minimise the number of victims of Soviet repression, in exactly the same way as Conquest and other historians of his school sought to maximise them for contrary ideological reasons.
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
The problem with this analogy is however that while Jews were sweeped en mass every GUALG ZK left a paper trail -since every one fo them was convicted of something -justly or otherwise. Consequently that makes NKVD system far more precise. Katyn as targic as it is - is good evidence to that. Sorry Harri try as hard as you might - you will not be able to get your 60 million which even demographically makes no sense.Harri wrote:That's exactly what I thought. Well, here we are again, Oleg!!michael mills wrote:Wheatcroft et al follow exactly the same methodology as that followed by the reviled David Irving in relation to German atrocities
P.s Not so long ago people found a mass grave not far from Moscow - first assumption was that they were victims of purges. Turned out to be bones of Napoleonic soldiers.
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
such as ?they are probably leaving out of the equation those victims whose deaths were never recorded, but have been attested to by survivors of the GULag camps and other parts of the Soviet apparatus of repression.
what mass-killing you refer to and who says it was not recorded?and that there must have been many mass-killings that were not officially recorded, for example those that resulted in the mass-graves found near Minsk.
For the very last time: stop mentioning that "your 60 million" with my name (because it is not invented by me) or this will come personal, Oleg. I have so many times explained my views on this issue that even every moron should already know that. So don't bother anymore...oleg wrote:Sorry Harri try as hard as you might - you will not be able to get your 60 million which even demographically makes no sense.
Mistakes happen - to everyone... :roll:oleg wrote:P.s Not so long ago people found a mass grave not far from Moscow - first assumption was that they were victims of purges. Turned out to be bones of Napoleonic soldiers.
---
So, can one million figure be realistc like Oleg has stated?
Lets make this simple theoretical calculation so these figures are easier to handle: if there were 1000 camps and prisons in USSR and if one prisoner died every day in every camp/prison during 30 years that alone means (1000 x 1 x 365 x 30 =) 10.950.000 died/killed people. Actually there were hundreds of camps were tens or hundreds of people died every day (not to talk about separate mass murders and executions). in other words this figure means that about 1000 prisoners died/were executed every day and the figure Oleg said - 1 million - would need about 100 died every day.
Actually killing millions of people (mainly for starvation) during a long period is not even very difficult like this calculation well proves. Germans faced much bigger problems when they tried to "annihilate" Jews (and others) during a relatively short period.
BTW no-one has not yet answered to my "claim" that between 1936 - 1938 about 1.7 million members of Communist (Bolshevik) Party were executed (about the half of the members then). I think that these figures could be easily confirmed? Are these too nonsense?