Talk:Historiography in the Soviet Union/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Statistical data

The "statistical data" section is only remotely relevant to Soviet historiography. So, I made it a little shorter. Objections?Biophys (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you used your sneaky tactic of saying one thing and doing another. You did not just make it shorter but made it fit your POV more. You are giving Conquest's claim that data was invented and falsified more weight than it objectively deserves. Of course he is going to say that the data is lies when it proves him wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the piece altogether? Conquest's concerns were mostl about Western historians who gave Soviet statistics more weight than it deserves. A typical Soviet historian would ignore the statistics (or find a way to misrepresent it) if it would contradict the Party-recommended narrative (and of course use it if it would support one) thus it is not very relevant.

Who are you to judge this? And we are talking about the actual statistics, not analysis based on them. -YMB29 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The statistics of great Soviet economic successes has been intentionally fabricated according to multiple sources.Biophys (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What sources? Your favorite Conquest? -YMB29 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion, the "actual statistics" in the USSR were fabricated, that's common knowledge.--Termer (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not about what you think...

You can bring up sources that claim this, but not insert it as a fact. -YMB29 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding scope of the article?

I think this article by Nikita Sokolov might be a good source, but it deals not only with the Soviet historiography but also with Russian Imperial and Modern Russian one. How about to keep the scheme:

• Early Imperial historiography
• Karamzin scheme
• Post revolutionary Marxist historiography, Pokrovsky and Co
• Stalinist Historiography
• Post-Stalin Soviet historiography
• "Perestroyka consensus"
• Emerging Putin's neo-Stalinist historiography

How about changing the article topic to say Historiography in Russia and Soviet Union? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The first 2 would be part of Russian historiography. The last one too but since there is a connection, only the "neo-Stalinist historiography" would be relevant to this article I think. The bottom line, I don't think we should extend the scope beyond Soviet here. After all, Soviet historiography includes the version of history written in other soviet republics than Russia. And Russian historiography has had it's own paths in the past like in the present. But other than that, seems like a good source that could be used for a bone structure of this article. I like the way the guy has broken down the periods, makes sense and if anybody fluent in Russian could take time and use the source, it may considerably improve the article.--Termer (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am all for an article on Russian historiography. Obviously, this would cover both pre-1917 and post-1991 ones and may eventually be split into two subarticles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet and Russian historiographies were very different. Therefore, I oppose merging as proposed by Alex. A separate article about the pre-revolutionary "Russian historiography" can certainly be created. As about "modern" Russian historiography, this is either a separate (third) article or a "revival" of the Soviet one, as currently described here (separately is probably better).Biophys (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally agree with Biophys, although some more points should be added. First, pre-Stalin, Stalinist and (in lesser extent) post-Stalinist historiography also differ dramatically (despite some apparent similarity). Second, modern historiography is not a revival of the Soviet one. In actuality, the official modern Russian historiography is a strange chimaera, an illogical combination of Imperial and Stalinist ideology. As regards to the non-official historians, you can find a broad spectum of them (like in almost any ordinary country), from "hawks" (Russian equivalent of Conquest) to leftists.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the official modern Russian historiography is a strange chimaera, an illogical combination of Imperial and Stalinist ideology. - in this respect I do share Paul's sentiment ;-). Stalinism is now treated as a form of Russian nationalism, Stalin is extolled as a great autocrat who fought for the 'Russian cause', continuing the age-long fight against the 'Western threat'. Miacek (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) My own editorial sentiments are that Tsarist and Post-Tsarist (Soviet) historiographies are are not a continuity other than Soviet historiography utilizing an expansive view of historical Russian control and influence (self as empire)--so I don't know that the article would gain that much by the inclusion of pre-Soviet historiography.
   I do believe that Soviet and post-Soviet (Russian continuity with...) historiography belong together.
   In my own research, I have encountered the Russian "expansive" view going back to accounts of Kievan Rus and what territory was truly part of the domain versus non-Russian scholarship regarding the same.
   So, it's not so much a chimera as a layer cake (simplified view):

Empire 3	Post- Soviet Russian nationalist version
Empire 2	Soviet version of the Russian people and of the Soviet role in history and the happy family with Russia of other peoples prior to the ascent of the Soviet family
Empire 1	Russian version of the Russian people and Russian domain as far back as possible, starting with the purported extent of Kievan Rus

Not the most scientific, perhaps, but might be a decent structure for a narrative. PētersV (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to elaborate a common definition, because I have a feeling that under "Soviet historiography" we mean quite different things. I couldn't find British historiography of French historiography articles for comparison, however, for instance, the article Historiography of the British Empire states:"The historiography of the British Empire refers to the studies, sources, critical methods and interpretations used by scholars to study the history of the British Empire". Note, in this definition nothing has been said about a concrete historical school (it is a history of Britain from the point of view of the world historical science). In contrast, in this concrete article only a Soviet historical school is being discussed. In connection to that, it is not clear if we are talking about the Soviet historiography as a Soviet vision of the history of Russia/USSR only (in other words, a Soviet historiography of the Soviet Union), or about the Soviet vision of the world history as whole (Soviet historical science). Currently, the article is a strange mixture of both versions, however, they can hardly be combined together in a single article. Therefore, it is necessary to decide in which direction the article should develop, and, depending on that, some sections should be removed and others expanded.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet historiography encompasses both... history of the Soviet Union is part of the wider history of the world. Keeping the topic manageable might be best served by sub-articles such as "Soviet historiography of pre-Soviet Russia" (or on any other major topic). PētersV (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If we accept your vision, the term Soviet historiography should be defined as: "Soviet historiography is the studies, sources, critical methods and interpretations used by Soviet scholars to study the world history and the history of the USSR." In that case, the statement that the Soviet historiography is an almost complete lie is simply incorrect. The Soviet vision of the world history (in contrast to the history of the USSR) is remarkably reasonable, although in some particular cases it is affected by redundant use of Marxist cliches. Therefore, since Soviet historical science is not limited with the Soviet history, the overall article's tone should be modified.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Paul -the Marxist cliches like you call them, if you'd be familiar with the subject, you'd know that the cliches were applied not only to the Soviet history but to the Soviet version of world history as well. Therefore there is no reason to separate the two in the article as things based on the same politically motivated concept.

At the same time there are some areas different that might deserve a special attention though, things I've also already pointed out a year ago or so. Anything covering archaeology, guys like Mikhail Gerasimov the founder of Forensic facial reconstruction for example would clearly be considered as a serious scientist even in modern terms. And so on, anything that has to do with completely apolitical subjects like the history of National costumes etc. etc. for example can be valid topics within the Soviet historiography.--Termer (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Termer, you mix two different things: a Marxist (or, more precisely, Soviet Marxist) chliche and the Marxist methodology. Whereas the former is just an ideology, the latter is a scientific method that is still considered to be valid by some western scientific schools (see abobe discussion, for instance). BTW, it is a major difference between Neo-Nazism and Neo-Marxism: I doubt you find any reputable scientist who is Neo-Nazist ("Analytical Nazism" has never been existed as a serious theory). My point is that Soviet historians except those working on the Soviet history (espesially before and after Stalin) were able to work under relatively mild ideological pressure. As a result, their vision of the world history, starting from Ancient Greece to the Great French Revolution is rather adequate. It is an alternative view of the world history, however, it complements the western vision rather than contradicts to it. Therefore, I think it is hardly reasonable to discuss the Soviet historiography of the Soviet Union (and Stalinist historiography of Tsarist Russia) and a Soviet historical science as whole in the same article. They are two different things to discuss them together.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't need to know how neo-nazism and neo-marxism differ in your opinion, something that is not related to this discussion board at all. your opinion that historians in USSR "were able to work under relatively mild ideological pressure after Stalin" doesn't have any basis. Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union lasted well up to the era of perestroika.--Termer (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am telling not about the (quite obvious) difference between the Neo-Marxism (a reputable scientific concept) and Neo-Nazism (extremist ideology). The only two things they have in common are: 1) the perfix "Neo" and 2) your personal equally negative attitude to the words "Marxism" and "Nazism". And, therefore, I absolutely agree that this question has absolutely no relation to the current discussion.
If you have looked carefully at my previous post, you would see that it is not my statement you dispute with, but your (mis)interpretation of it. I never told that historians in USSR "were able to work under relatively mild ideological pressure after Stalin", therefore I am not inclined to discuss if that statement has any basis. I always separate what Soviet historians wrote about the history of the USSR and the history of the rest of the world.
Your statement about Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union is quite obscure. Could you please explain what do you mean?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet propaganda photos as a source

How to judge whether Soviet era photos are reliable? I am asking this in light of a recent discussion of Nazi-era photos were there are many voices that they are perfectly reliable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi photos and military reports of Baltic collaborators executing Jews without Germans directing them was propaganda (even staging drunks in uniforms) aimed to paint the Holocaust as "local." There are photos that show the staging of these photos, and private correspondence with Berlin which gives the lie to military reports of cooperative and eager natives. Nazi photos, drawings from the field, and reports of the destruction the Soviets inflicted as they retreated following their initial occupation (as the Nazis advanced during Barbarossa) are absolutely true.

   Soviet photos taken of protestors/welcomers against the Ulmanis government/for the Soviet liberators are of agitants imported WITH the troops to stage the appearance of a welcome. Not to mention being shot if you didn't cooperate (a problem regarding veracity with the Nazis as well, of course). Soviet photos of Hitler's death camps as the Soviets advanced toward Berlin are absolutely true.

   The answer is, it depends. The problem, of course, is that some choose to believe the propaganda associated with the photo instead of the reality, or that the photo is somehow more convincing "proof" than the word. The answer is that Nazi or Soviet photos are no more or less reliable than Nazi or Soviet written accounts regarding those same events. PētersV (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is that any photos are primary source (WP:PRIMARY) and usually they cannot be as the sole basis of information for an encyclopedia. They may only used as a support of statements coming from expert sources, which describe what exactly you see in the photo, who took the photo and when, and where the photo came from. There are zillions of possible problems with photos: they may be staged, taken out of context, attributed to wrong place, cropped, photoshopped... `'Míkka>t 17:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos are not required to be a source. They merely serve to illustrate a subject of a WP article, and as such can remain in the article. However, they do not prove anything (support at most).Biophys (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the talk title is "Soviet propaganda photos as a source". "To illustrate" means "to corroborate". If a photo is staged, at best it may illustrate a propaganda technique, not a historical event. I was not speaking about "proofs". Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. It is a source of information. If a photo is dubious, then it is a misinformation. `'Míkka>t 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue, for example, is that photos are put up with captions such as "XYZ welcoming Soviet tanks" (staged Soviet propaganda photo) when reliable sources describe an "invasion." (It's not just a question of clashing "POVs".) PētersV (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, the problem usually are not the photos of any kind but leaning political commentaries attached to them. In case the commentary comes from a secondary published source pr WP:RS and is attached to the photo in Wikipedia accordingly, there shouldn't be any problems, a foot note should explain from where everything comes from. In case any controversial photo has not sourced leaning original commentary attached to it, it clearly would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNT.--Termer (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A photo and a commentary go tightly together. You may have a real, non-staged, photo and a correct political statement. But taken together they may create a lie. As I said above, a photo (like you clarified, on a controversial topic) must be taken together with a commentary from a reliable source. `'Míkka>t 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Superskew

This article stinks POV from miles away. It sounds like some high and mighty occidental soul objects to someone interpreting history differently. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.144.160 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Russia's past was admirable"

I deleted this phrase because it is nothing specific to soviet historiograpy. It is a common position of every history of every country: glorious past. In particular, in Russia it was before soviets during soviets and after soviets. Hence the phrase has no relation to to concept of "return to soviet historiography". - Altenmann >t 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This has little to do with simply gloryfying the past. This is revival of pseudo-history (pseudo-science) concepts, and precisely the concepts developed by the Soviet historiography, according to historians like Yuri Afanasyev. But this should be better sourced.Biophys (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. The phrase in question about glorious past of Russia has nothing to do with specifically "Soviet historiography". Only two tsars were glorified in Soviet times: Peter the Great and later Ivan the Terrible, as a part of an attempt to rehabilitate Stalinism in Brezhnev era. - Altenmann >t 17:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you are right about "better sourced". The issue in question is not a pure physical or historical fact or event: It is a judgement about a certain fact or facts. As such it must be exactly attributed: who expressed this opinion. In particular, it is not The Economist what said something: it is a specific author. I am giving a leeway here and not deleting Putin's quotes (btw, unsouurced) which, in view of a wikipedian support the thesis. But strictly speaking, it is a piece of original research: it is quite unclear what exactly "Soviet-historiographish" in Putin's speech and there may be a suspicion that it was taken out of context. - Altenmann >t 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Points taken and agreed. I took the Economist quote to indicate Soviet historiography extends back into the distant past (glorifying as it goes, but, more importantly, fabricating), but that phenomenon needs to be described in more academic terms from a better (and attributed to someone) source. PetersV       TALK 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Downgrade to Start

Language use, weaseling (both pro- and anti- Soviet), fixation on contemporary history, expression, lack of appropriate citations of historiographical sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalinist industrialization

I've removed the "myth" and "reality" section about industrialization under Stalin. It's a well established fact that the USSR underwent rapid industrialization under Stalin's 5 year plans. Labeling this as a myth is totally counter to what any western history book will tell you. The "reality" is explained using WP:SYNTH of sources and dubious logic. Simply pointing to the global ranking of the economy without any context cannot be a basis to assert that the Russian Empire/pre-Stalinist USSR was already industrialized. One could use that same logic to claim that India today is fully industrialized because it's the fourth largest economy in the world. The fact is that industrial output soared during Stalin's rule, which is what set the path for the USSR to become a superpower.

The "theory" paragraph is the only acceptable one since it's based on an actual coherent theory rather than false conclusions made up with SYNTH, but that said, this is hardly the article for it. You should move that over to Industrialization of the Soviet Union.LokiiT (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LokiiT, you are using your personal interpretation to delete content. The question is, had Stalin not embarked on the program—which recall also included instituting a central planning/management model, would industry have developed just as well or even better. Of course pre-Soviet Russia was industrialized, why is it that the 1905 revolution started in the first place? (Long hours, horrible conditions,...)

   This is pig iron, naphtha, and coal per a Soviet commemorative album of the 1905 revolution here, production in all three pretty much tripling in the last decade of the 19th century (from 1890 to 1900). I suggest you do a bit more studying on the topic before you delete reputable content ranting about it being obviously WP:SYNTH, dubious and all.

   And here is growth in factory workers for the same period.

   Fair warning I will be reverting your deletion as unfounded and ill-informed—you don't present any evidence whatsoever that the content you deleted is invalid other than your personal contentions of obviousness that it is wrong.VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Coal production is about the same as for West Virginia in the U.S., which is still the U.S.'s largest coal producer. I've posted this before. It's the graph in the first link converted into metric tons, with West Virginia coal added. You will note that the U.S. and Russian raw output growth rates at the end of the 19th century match. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not using personal interpretation to delete content. I'm using wikipedia policies. Second, Latvians.com is not a reliable historic source for Soviet figures. I suggest you read a mainstream western history book, which will assert what most people know as common sense, and what we all learned in high school. If you want some raw figures to look at without the political undertones of what you're used to reading, try this. You can see in that source that industrial output did in fact rise by magnitudes during Stalin's rule, a fact that can't be denied. If you compare that growth to the industrial growth of other already fully industrialized nations like America and Britain during that period, you'll see the difference. Third, I never claimed that the Russian Empire wasn't partially industrialized. Just like India today in fact is partially industrialized. But comparing India's industrial advancement today to America or Russia would be foolish, just as is comparing Russia's industrial advancement to that of America's at the turn of the century.

Moreover, that chart you posted disproves your own argument. If you compare Russia and America's raw output at that time, America's was many times higher, despite the fact that Russia had a population/workforce about 50% larger than that of America. On a per capita basis there was simply no comparison at all. Now the fact that Russia's industrial growth was still slower than that of an already fully industrialized America only shows how backwards industry in Russia was and how much unfulfilled potential there was, which became fully realized in Stalin's later years when Russian per capita industrial output was much closer to America's.

The questions you propose about Stalin's policies are valid, however this isn't the article to be theorizing on things like that. This article is supposed to be about Soviet historiography, not yet another essay on what some guy thinks Stalin did wrong. This is especially true since it was being presented in such a ridiculously biased fashion: "MYTH:, "REALITY", honestly... Moreover, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for fringe theories, no matter how valid you think they are. Claiming that Stalin's 5 year plans didn't industrialize the Soviet Union or that Russia had already achieved full industrial advancement on par with the west before Stalin came to power is the epitome of fringe. LokiiT (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And to back up what I'm saying about early 20th century Russia's undeveloped economy with a credible western historic source, according to The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, page 199, at the end of the century... "Approximately 80 percent of Russia's working population was associated with agriculture. Its per capita manufacturing output was only 15 percent of Britain's - compared to the 65 percent of Britain's per capita output in the United States." LokiiT (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not be condescending, I have read plenty of "mainstream" history books. Your position is that yours is "common sense" whereas mine is "once you dig under the covers, reality is often counter-intuitive to 'common sense'." If you have not read the sources quoted, you can't say they don't apply based on your common sense—"common sense" is just another form of WP:OR when it comes to encyclopedic content.

   First, on LATVIANS.COM being "reputable," it only has a copy (image, not even transcribed) of the original Soviet source, so the information is completely valid for discussion.

   As for the rest of it, there were a number of industrial producers in the Russian Empire at the turn of the century who were leaders, if not the the largest, producers of product X on the planet. Your arguments regarding "per capita", "India", and all are your personal comparisons, not comparisons out of a reputable secondary source on the topic—so, yes, it is your personal interpretation here. This is how these articles get into trouble—once you contend what is "obvious" sans a reputable source to back you up in detail, all bets are off.

   About "Moreover, that chart you posted disproves your own argument." No, it doesn't—who knows where exponential growth might have taken Russian industry—that would be the object of study of reputable scholars, not your personal contentions, not my personal contentions. I did not claim Stalin's 5 year plans "didn't industrialize" the Soviet Union, what I claimed is that there is more than good evidence that:

• economic development achieved under the initial damage brought on by communism + centralized 5-Year plans not driven by economic need IS LESS THAN
• economic development which would have been achieved, for the lack of a better term, had the Empire and capitalism continued.

   Industrialization was already growing rapidly during the reign of Alexander III, owing to foreign investment. Just as American industrial expansion pushed the rails west, Russian industrial expansion pushed the rails east. By 1890 (the year my sample graphs start), Russia had over 30,000 km kilometres (roughly 18,000 miles) of track. In 1890, admittedly, the United States had 8x to 9x times more rail (~163,500 miles); nevertheless, Russian industrial development had reached a critical mass by 1900 as the import of raw materials began to be substituted by domestic production, allowing for the development of Russian industry to be fueled in the interior of the country without the need for external supplies from abroad—a factor which, until then, had limited industrialization to areas with ready access to ports and had also limited development by requiring transport of materials over long distances.

   Lastly, if you're going to have a discussion about a topic, please do dispense with the Wiki-links et al. My experience is that editors that use those to further their editorial position aren't really interested in discussing the topic. It's not fringe in the least. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

re common sense: There's a reason I linked to WP:FRINGE. You're allowed to have your opinion, but wikipedia is for mainstream views. Just because you agree with a theory that is counter to the vast majority of historic literature on the subject doesn't justify using it in any wiki article, much less presenting it as if it's the only truth of the matter, and mainstream views are a "myth". Wiki policy is quite clear on that matter.

re "who knows where exponential growth etc..." - yes, who knows. I don't, neither do you. But this isn't the place to speculate on such questions. Again, I have to remind you what this article is about. If someone has a theory about what might have happened, that doesn't mean what did happen was simply a "myth".

re the Russian Empire's economy: I don't understand how you can still be claiming that the Russian Empire's economy was fully industrialized after the source I cited which proves without a doubt that it wasn't (and if you're not arguing that, I don't know what you're arguing for in the first place since that's what the article implied). I repeat: 80% of what they produced was in agriculture. Manufacturing output per capita was 15% that of Britain's. That's called a peasant economy. Could a capitalist Russia have been fully industrialized in the 1950s? Maybe. Is that an indisputable fact that proves Stalin's 5 year plans didn't do a thing to advance industry? Of course not. LokiiT (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Manufacturing output per capita was 15% that of Britain's." I don't think that comparison is correct. It depends on what is considered capitae: Britain's per capita is calculated for metropolia, whereas Russian per capita is calculated for Russian Empire as whole. If you add Indian population, British per capita will drop dramatically.

Re: Vecrumba. I don't think your point is fully correct. Of course, normal industrialization would proceed more smoothly, however, had this industrialization been subordinated to market's needs it would never result in creation of such enormous monsters as Magnitka, Uralmash or Novo-Kuznetsk in such a short time. Obviously, these monsters were not needed for such a moderately economically developed country as Russia/USSR. Their creation was dictated by military needs, and only non-economical tools could be utilized to force people to build them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but whatever the case, the article's claim that "Russia had already been fourth to fifth among industrial economies" based on the size of its overall economy, which was agriculturally based, is wrong without question.

Another relevant point on Stalinist "successes" is the rapid demographic shifts that occurred in the Soviet Union due to the advancement of the economy, modern medicine, mass urbanization etc... (I put that in quotes because it's not clear that these were all positive shifts in the long term). I was reading through a report by RAND on the Russian demographic crisis the other day, and it makes some very interesting points about how much quicker the demographic shifts towards what we know as a "modern" European demographic structure (ie. low fertility, low mortality, high life expectancy) occurred in the Soviet Union compared to Western Europe and America (where it happened much earlier and much more gradually). The article goes into great detail, but to put it in a nutshell, the life expectancy gap between Russians and Americans from 1926 to 1965 dropped from 16.2 to 2.9 years for men, and 13.2 to 1.6 years for women (page 116): "Between 1938-1939 and 1958-1959 in Russia, life expectancy increased by over 20 years for both sexes, from 40 to 62 for men and from 47 to 70 for women." Is this part of the "myth"?

I hate the fact that I'm sounding like a Stalin apologist simply because I'm pointing out uncontroversial statistical facts that certain people don't want to believe. Really I hate to defend the guy, but we can't just go around to every article writing or implying that Stalin was nothing but a brainless evil monster whose rule had not a single positive outcome. It's just not true. But Stalin's crimes speak for themselves, and it all ended in failure anyhow. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not the ends justified the means. We can't manipulate readers into making the "right" conclusions by inserting such ridiculous revisionism into every article that mentions his name. And this is exactly what I was talking about with this comment on the need for the Eastern Europe cabal that you were involved in. LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Find both of your claims in a review article[s] on Soviet political economy. There are a number of them. They are very good. They cover the entire literature and will draw a particular skilled academic's conclusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I hate to defend the guy, but we can't just go around to every article writing or implying that Stalin was nothing but a brainless evil monster whose rule had not a single positive outcome". Absolutely correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Just to circle back to "...According to The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, page 199, at the end of the century... "Approximately 80 percent of Russia's working population was associated with agriculture. Its per capita manufacturing output was only 15 percent of Britain's - compared to the 65 percent of Britain's per capita output in the United States." LokiiT (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)", this is my issue here with your representations, that is, take one data point with no context before or after it (is the growth curve up? down? slowly...? rapidly...?) and then contend it supports your contentions regarding industrialization which started three decades later, and which, per Paul's rightful observation, had little to do with market-driven (capitalist style) industrialization improving the circumstances of the average person.
   But as long as we are on personal interpretations, regarding your comparison of pre-Soviet Russia to India, was "industrialized" Soviet Russia any better? Did the USSR count as "more developed" when you waited the better part of the day to get a loaf of bread and when you got to the head of the line there was none left? This is why we need to stick to sources that discuss a continuum of development, not just points or events in time around which we can embelish as we please to suit our personal POV. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Clearly, the Soviet account is of great success, including plans finished ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, accounting of associated production was often monetized (recorded according to worth) in statistics and when later reconverted to actual units of production was artificially inflated. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And on "Re: "I hate to defend the guy, but we can't just go around to every article writing or implying that Stalin was nothing but a brainless evil monster whose rule had not a single positive outcome". Absolutely correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)"

• "Brainless?" Never.
• Should we be less critical of Mussolini because of his positive contributions? After all, he made the trains run on time. Hitler built the Autobahn, still in use today.... I don't see anyone advocating for a kinder gentler accounting of them. No need to respond, it will just result in a black hole. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba missed out the creation of Volkswagen. other than that, anybody praising dictators for "positive contributions" on wikipedia raises red flags, especially since in the context anything Stalinist is one of the corner stones of the modern Russian nationalism.--Termer (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem. People seem to think they can write whatever they want about any dictator, regardless of how factually incorrect it is, simply because anyone who corrects them can be attacked as being some sort of nationalist or apologist. Termer, are you implying that I'm a Russian nationalist because I've removed factually incorrect information from an article and pointed out some statistics that prove this information wrong? Or have I misinterpreted you? I've never praised Stalin or his policies and I certainly don't think we should be less critical of him, but being critical does not mean whitewashing history to portray him as not only evil, but useless. If you want my personal opinion, I don't think the ends[1] justified the means. LokiiT (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, Hitler did have some huge successes with the German economy, and we can see that in his own article. That's not taking a "gentler" approach to him, it's just presenting facts. Hitler was no brainless moron either. If we can acknowledge that "Hitler oversaw one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen", why can't we acknowledge that "Stalinism was [...] a success and fulfilled its historic mission, socially as well as economically given that it modernised the Soviet Union, transforming a peasant society into an industrial state with a literate population and a remarkable scientific superstructure."...? Neither of these are outrageous claims (taken from the Hitler and Stalinism articles), and neither of them paint their respective dictator in any better of a light given the magnitude of their crimes. LokiiT (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "anybody praising dictators for "positive contributions" on wikipedia raises red flags". Absolutely not. I am praising not dictator's positive contribution, but positive contribution of peoples who lived under that dictatorship. What Stalin can be credited for? For devastation of Soviet agriculture, for mass killing of Soviet intelligentsia (in attempt to eliminate his personal enemie), for blatant political blunders before WWII and during its first two years, for strategic blunders during first two years of Great Patriotic War (before he eventually allowed his generals to do their job by themselves) etc. However, simultaneously Stalinist peoples (many if not majority of Soviet, or even Eastern bloc people supported Stalin's declared, not actual, goals during that time; remember, even Stanislaw Lem's first novel, Obłok Magellana was a Communist utopia) did a lot of things totally unrelated to purges, deportations and other crimes. Moreover, they themselves were a subject of Stalin's crime. Nevertheless, they managed to change their country in such a way that, according to some standards (education, health care, heavy industry etc.) it became close to developed western societies.
Negation of this fact is both factually incorrect and morally untenable.
One way or the another, the discussion seems to turn to a general dispute. This talk page not a forum, so I propose to stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "People seem to think they can write whatever they want about any dictator, regardless of how factually incorrect it is, simply because anyone who corrects them can be attacked as being some sort of nationalist or apologist." Again, fully agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course we have a lot of sources, Soviet and Western claiming Stalinist industrialization to be success. However, we also have notable historians, Pipes and Conquest, telling this to be a myth promoted by said sources and explaining why. So, please do not remove sourced text. If there are other sources which argue with Pipes and Conquest, please provide them.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Biophys, I don't really care what motivates anybody to remove sourced material, either Russian nationalism or whatever. The bottom line, nobody has any business removing sourced material by claiming "how factually incorrect it is". If anything is "factually incorrect" in your opinion, find another source that says so or anything different and then all those s.c. "factually incorrect" statements should be there according to WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Myths and reality

I don't think latest re-introduction of the text made by Biophys is correct. Moreover, the very name of the section is inappropriate. The section presents Conquest's and Pipes' statements as ultimate truth, as opposed to works of majority Soviet and western scholars (that are supposed to be a lie). Definitely, the very fact that the thesis about big lie is supported by these two, is sufficient to call it minority views, or even fringe theory. The section should be completely re-written or removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) PS I admit it is possible to present many books and articles supporting Conquest's theses. However, even in that case we cannot speak about "myths", just about different views on some aspects of Soviet history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conquest is in no way Fringe, but the presentation is synthetic and unencyclopedic. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So I was bold, and deleted it.  :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So I was unbold and undeleted. I did reword it to clarify per the concerns here [noted post-rewording, so on the same page]. Hopefully this positions the content of the section more appropriately. Apologies I did not see your post here first. The content is valid and suitably referenced. It's much better to handle this by agreement to changes in narrative regarding representation of sources than simply deletion. That approach does not go well in articles related to the Soviet legacy, whether past or present. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Before doing that it makes sense to decide if the facts are presented in a proper way. Currently they presented in such a way that Conquest and Pipes said the last words in Soviet history.
That is not the case, however. The Pipes statement "It was Lenin who introduced Red terror with its hostage taking and concentration camps. It was Lenin who developed the infamous Article 58 that was used later during Great Terror. It was Lenin who established the autocratic system within the Communist Party" omit several important facts, namely, that Lenin's steps were made during terrible and devastating Civil war, when the Soviet state was on the brink of catastrophe. Remember, the US established concentration camps for their ethnic Japanese citizens when the danger was only potential. In addition, the only alternative to imprisonment in concentration camps during that time was immediate execution, so by that moment it was humanistic step. And, finally, after Civil war Lenin ordered to cease both Red terror and war Communism policy, so the number of political prisoners was minimal until Stalin took full power. In addition, I don't think Molotov (the most intimate Stalin's companion-in-arms) is a good witness. It would be more appropriate to quote Lenin himself (e.g. his testament, where he predicted what would happen after his death and directly requested to stop Stalin).
It is not a big problem to find needed sources to support my words, that demonstrate that the disputable statements of these two western scholars belong to the article about history of the USSR, not to the present one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is certainly valid: a discussion of specific claims made by Soviet historiography that are rebuked by others is quite useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is rather ludicrous to present only the viewpoint of two historians as if they had found the ultimate truth on some very controversial aspects of Soviet history and historiography. And useful is not a valid criteria anyway, many of these so called myths are not even myths at all. Or are there really many people who believe that Stalinism was a success? Pantherskin (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

They are notable historians, experts on the subject. Easy compromise is to make sure their views are attributed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be the first step - the other necessary step would be the inclusion of other notable historians and their views. But then this section wouldn't really be a myth and reality or a contention and scholarship section as this would mean that we as editors make the decision on what is true and what is merely a myth. Pantherskin (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the editors - the reliable scholars cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Although some reliable sources really claim that, it was some WP editor who decided to make an emphasis on these sources and de-emphasize others. Obviously, this is WP:UNDUE. Again, the discussion of some disputable aspects of Soviet history belongs to Soviet history's article, not the the Soviet historiography.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

De-emphasize is rather an understatement. Pantherskin (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "almost ignore" is better?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We could just do a journal search of history journals and look for a review article of Soviet Historiography and the debate over Conquest's contribution to the terror, famine, and war; that would obviously and immediately reveal a peer reviewed historian's opinion on the standing of the debate and the relative merits of the contributors. Then perhaps we could use encyclopedic prose to paraphrase the review article, while giving references to the works of the historians within the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject here is not Conquest, but Soviet historiography/Soviet version of history. So far, there is a portion of text about this sourced to books by Pipes and Conquest. You and everyone else is welcome to do the search (as you suggest) and include additional sourced information about Soviet historiography rather than Conquest. But this is not a reason to remove already sourced text.Biophys (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As you'd know its traditional for authors of monographs in history to include a historiographical critique of other texts and traditions. The section quoting Conquest on a "Big Lie" theory of soviet historiography was hopefully doing so. By presenting itself as tabular data instead of a discussion of Conquest's historiography of Soviet historiography it was claiming an incorrect authority. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Below are quotes from reviews on Conquest's works:

1. Mary McAuley Reviewed work(s): Industrial Workers in the USSR by Robert Conquest Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Jan., 1969), p. 407

"INTENDED as basic reading for students of Soviet affairs, this is one in a series of monographs dealing wlth different aspects of Soviet society. It provides the reader with a reasonably detailed legislative account of industrial relations during the Soviet period. Inevitably the attempt to compress the complexity of the legislation, and the changes in it, into less than zoo pages produces at times an almost unreadable listing of details. The beginning of the first chapter is particularly difficult to follow. The account also suffers from superficial conclusions tacked on at the end of chapters, and from what may be called the Problems of Communism method--the 'disproving' of Soviet claims by random examples of failure taken from the Soviet press."

2. L. G. Churchward Reviewed work(s): The Soviet Political System by Robert Conquest. The Soviet Police System by Robert Conquest Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Apr., 1969), pp. 555-556

"Despite its obvious merits, the book seems to me to be deficient in at least two respects. It claims to be a study of the Soviet political system, but it is not. A political system is something more than the formal apparatus of government. This holds for the United States and Britain just as much as it holds for the Soviet Union.

Secondly, there is the question of bias. The author keeps this well under control for most of the time, but there' are none the less several instances where his negative evaluation of the Soviet system leads him to ignore altogether or to underestimate important changes which have occurred in Soviet politics since the XX Congress."

After brief search I found no review articles of Soviet historiography that debate (or at least mention) Conquest's views. (ISI database gave no results for "Soviet historiography AND Conquest". Jstor.org also gave no reasonable results). Interestingly, the Gartell's article (below) does mention Hoover institute (where Conquest works), but completely ignores his works.

PETER GATRELL University of Manchester (FEET OF CLAY ? THE SOVIET ECONOMIC GIANT IN RECENT HISTORIOGRAPHY. The Historical Journal, 49, 1 (2006), pp. 299–315) ABSTRACT. This review considers Soviet economic history in the light of recent contributions to the historiography. Many of the latest studies in Soviet economic history take the form of archive-based treatments of economic policy and economic administration, the causes and consequences of periodic economic crises (notably famine), and the behaviour of workers, managers, and consumers within the constraints of the planned economy. As a result, we now have a clearer idea of the functioning of the economic system, the extent of coercion at various levels, and the scope of reform initiatives. Disagreement remains over important issues, notably the causes and timing of the Soviet economic collapse.

My conclusion is that Conquest is not so prominent to discuss him here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul for that excellent research. I second your finding that Conquest is irrelevant to the study of Soviet Historiography. Can we get someone to actually Buy and Read Roger Markwick whose career is Soviet Historiography? (Statement of Bias: I have an academic relationship with Markwick) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe, since you are familiar with his works you can do this job better. I found a couple of highly positive reviews on his books:

1. John Keep Reviewed work(s): Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956-74 by Roger D. Markwick. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 168-169

"These controversies are examined sensitively and with authority by Roger Markwick in a study based on diligent research in relevant archival holdings, published sources, and particularly on interviews with sixteen surviving participants that offer valuable insights."

2. Elaine MacKinnon Reviewed work(s): Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956-1974 by Roger D. Markwick Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 6 (Sep., 2002), pp. 989-991

"As Roger Markwick reveals, however, in his new book, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia, the revisionism unleashed by Gorbachev's glasnost' began earlier. It had deep roots in the Khrushchev and early Brezhnev eras, when the XX Congress opened new doors for historical scholarship. Markwick makes a valuable contribution to intellectual history with his detailed examination of the new trends in historical analysis emerging after 1956"--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This section "Disputed tenets" is correct in its basics, but sooo naive, misargumented and full of logical blunders. However I will not waste my time in discussing it against fans of flogging the dead horse. Anne Appelbaum wrote (unfortunately I cannot find the quote) something like that today it is time to stop wasting energy on condemnation of what happened, and time to analyze and understand why it happened. - Altenmann >t 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "misargumented and full of logical blunders" According to WP:OR, WP cannot present its own "facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". Therefore, your criticism should be understand as accusation in OR, or it should be addressed directly to Conquest or Pipes.
In general, I agree, however, that the section should be removed per WP:UNDUE because it discusses the views of only two, not the most notable historians, and ignores the works of others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. "have been described as examples of big lie by historians Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes" I couldn't find any evidences that Conquest used a term "big lie" in his works on Soviet historiography [2].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Biophys did this in the Human rights in the Soviet Union article also. Seems like he tries to stick in Pipes and Conquest whenever he can to present their views as fact. -YMB29 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the USSR still exist?

Can anyone comment on the first article's sentence? Does the USSR still exist?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. - Altenmann >t 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also fixed other weird things in the intro. - Altenmann >t 23:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tenets of Soviet historiography

This is the latest name of the disputed myths section.

“ A number of specific claims made by Soviet historians and supported by some of their Western colleagues have been disputed by historians Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes:

1. Contention: The Bolshevik party during the October revolution was supported by masses, and especially by Russian working class.
   Scholarship: "Bolsheviks only got a quarter of the vote at the height of their popularity in the elections that followed". Massive strikes by Russian workers were "mercilessly" (as Lenin said) suppressed during Red terror
2. Contention: "Stalinism was a success, having fulfilled its historical mission to force the rapid industrialization of an undeveloped country".
   Scholarship: "Russia had already been fourth to fifth among industrial economies before World War I.". According to Conquest, Russian industrial advances could have been achieved without collectivization, famine or terror. The industrial successes were far less than claimed. The Soviet-style industrialization was "an anti-innovative dead-end" . Hoover Institution's Research Fellow Paul Gregory also claimed that a non-communist Russia would have "produced a contemporary Russian economy not that far removed in affluence from its immediate European neighbors"
3. Contention: Mass terror during Stalin ruling was an aberration of the communist system, which resulted from Stalin's personal paranoia and his "cult of personality". If only Lenin had been alive, those abuses would have never happened.
   Scholarship: It was Lenin who introduced Red terror with its hostage taking and concentration camps. It was Lenin who developed the infamous Article 58 that was used later during Great Terror. It was Lenin who established the autocratic system within the Communist Party Vyacheslav Molotov, when asked who of two leaders was more "severe", replied: "Lenin, of course... I remember how he scolded Stalin for softness and liberalism".

”

Let's see if we can use this to develop a compromise version on talk, incorporating findings and arguments from above sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please make a constructive suggestion instead of presenting us as the same hopelessly unencyclopedic POV version that has already been discussed above. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The most appropriate section's name should be "Conquest's and Pipes' views of some events of Soviet history". Again, this section belongs to Soviet history, not Soviet historiography, because it presents different versions of some historical events, not how Soviet historiography presents well established and well known facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe this discussion (as well as the disputable section) belongs to another article, let me quote some other scholarships that contradict to Pipes' statements. After Civil war, when both Red and White terrors were understandable, and before Stalin took full power there were no terror in the USSR.

"In 1926 a new RSFSR Criminal Code was enacted. This Code also included the death penalty as 'an exceptional measure for the protection of the workers' state', existing only provisionally 'until its abolition'. In the next year, an attempt was made to restrict the application of the death penalty to certain political38 and military crimes and to banditry (Article 167 of the Code). This restrictive policy resulted in a rather sharp decrease in the number of death sentences in the RSFSR from about 0.1% of all sentences in 1922-25 to only 0.03% in 1928. In 1928 about 1.5 million sentences were pronounced in the entire USSR (according to figures given by the criminologist Gernet), which means that the total number of death sentences was probably about 450 as against about 1,200 in 1923 and 1,300 in 1926." (The Soviet Union and the Death Penalty. Author(s): Ger P. Van den Berg Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 154-174)

In connection to that, could anyone remind me what was the number of death sentences in the US and the UK during that time?

Pipes' conclusions are disputable, and cannot be presented as examples of debunking of some myths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I noticed you changed the source for the quote above. Is Van den Berg the antecedent source for Volobuev and Schutz or was that just a correction? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I inserted Volobuev by accident: I copypasted it from the wrong article (I was working with two files simultaneously).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly propaganda

This article purports to review Soviet-era Russian historical scholarship, but it reads more like an attack piece against Russia with the "historical revisionism" characterization. If the article is supposed to be about Soviet historiography, then it should at least cite Soviet-era sources. There should be a summary of Soviet views on history rather than tendentious distortions. Attempts to show that Soviet historiography is unreliable is not substantiated by a consensus. Virtually all scientific works on Russian history in the English language cite Russian sources, including the Soviet period.

This scholarly work does not conclude that Soviet historiography is reliable, dubious, or of a revisionist type

Some older Western historians argued that LEnin, through his obedient and well-organized Bolshevik Party, manipulated the ignorant and uneducated working masses to gain power for himself. Soviet historians, by contrast, insisted that the Revolution had genuine popular support, although they stress the political role of Lenin as an organizer and propagandist. Kravavi (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

In another example, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 as well as the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 were censored out or minimized from most publications, and research suppressed, in order to enforce the policy of 'Polish-Soviet friendship'.

The Polish intervention in the Russian Civil War is discussed at length in Soviet-era volumes on the Civil War. The Soviet Encyclopedia article describes the war as "a conflict that broke out as a result of the bourgeois Polish government against the Soviet state...at the instigation of the Entente powers, the Polish circles attempted to expand Poland's borders from Gdansk to Odessa." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kravavi (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You fail to counter the argument. The piece you cite is hardly extensive; it very much falls under "minimized" (not to mention, major biased). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The USSR is not Russia is not the USSR

@Kravavi: Do not confuse Russia and the USSR. Saying something "bad" about the USSR (defunct) has absolutely no bearing on today's Russia, and it genuinely pains me to note the exception, other than the degree to which official Russia chooses to ignore or deny Soviet atrocities. (Which, again, are not Russian atrocities regardless of the position Russia takes.) Not to mention that Soviet encyclopedic accounts of conflicts are often significantly lacking factual basis. In the Soviet Union, history served politics (not my words). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful sock edits?

I don't usually care who added content; this was removed as "edits by sock of Jacob Peters". A quick reads makes the content appear solid, although I cannot say much about the reliability of the ru reference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian link leads to a wall of text (many pages). I do not see where it tells whatever was quoted. Trusting banned users is a very bad idea. You can restore a copyright violation or worse. Of course you are very welcome to restore anything that can be referenced to English-language RS. Biophys (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a serious problem here. Those are extensive changes made by the sock of the banned user. All of them must be reverted or checked. Moreover, I checked references 20-22 (pages are indicated). Reference 21 simply tells nothing on the subject. The claims made by references 20 and 22 are incorrectly summarized in the article. I can try to fix it if no one objects. Biophys (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The RU references he added seem to be from a site (slovari.yandex.ru) that hosts materials from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some of that could be used. For example, it tells, in traditions of typical Soviet phraseology/"newspeak": "Значительное место в марксистской И. как социалистических, так и капиталистических стран занимает разоблачение социальной и идейной направленности буржуазной и реформистской И.". But this source is the Soviet historiography. We should rather use other sources about Soviet historiography, something like works by Robert Conquest that have been removed by the banned user.Biophys (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There are also works which discuss Soviet historiography of the United States, for example. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. Biophys (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved to Historiography in the Soviet Union. Consensus is clear that a move is appropriate. If a seperate article on historiography of the Soviet Union (ie, the methodologies used by academics located anywhere in the world when studying the history of the Soviet Union) is required, then there's no reason why this couldn't be done. fish&karate 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Soviet historiography → Historiography in the Soviet Union – - unambiguous term (another meaning of "Soviet historiography" is "methodology in the studies of history of the Soviet Union", while the article talks about "methodology in the studies of history in the Soviet Union" - two letters but big difference.) Lolo Sambinho (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. When I saw the title, I assumed the article would be on "Historiography of the Soviet Union" – this move would add clarity. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Jenks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, these are two slightly different subjects. But this article includes (and suppose to include) the Soviet methodology in the studies of history (hence "Soviet historiography"). Biophys (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support unambiguity. GreyHood ^Talk 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think the nom is right about the content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Lolo Sambinho and Jenks24.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose until I see a proposal on continued reflection of Soviet methods and direction regarding portrayal of history. That is different from random, officially unguided, practice by historians within the frontiers of the USSR. The title changes the primary thrust of the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as Vecrumba. Vecrumba is right, when someone like Roger Markwick writes on Soviet Historiography there's a multiple meaning not captured in "Historiography in the Soviet Union" as Soviet Historiography refers to "Historiography practiced in the Soviet manner in the Soviet Union" not simply "Historiography practiced in the Soviet Union." While the situation isn't as simple as there only being a state mandated historiography, due to the force of control exercised over historians, all academic historiography of consequence needed to respond to the official position. Yet, at the same time, other historiographical practices also existed, usually of no consequence due to amateurism (Gulag Archipelago, for example). And we can't just call it "Official Historiography in the Soviet Union" because as Markwick notes: much academic history was an attempt to defer the pressure of official methodology. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "Soviet manner" mean, in your opinion?

In addition, from your and Peters posts I conclude that before discussing the change of the title we need to come to consensus about the article's content. Again, what this article is supposed to be about? If the article is about the attempts of some Soviet historians to distort the history of XX century, its name should not be "Soviet historiography". If the article is supposed to describe the activity of the Soviet historians as whole then its structure should be different: many good historians, such as Vipper, Tarle, Rybakov, et al left quite brilliant works despite the fact that they did not deviate from the Marxist doctrine.

My personal opinion is that the first option: a story about the attempts to falsify history by some official Soviet historians. However, that is not a story about historiography as whole, and even not a story about Soviet Marxist historians, because some Marxist historians, such as Vipper, do not fit in this narrative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Vipper, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the idea that all Soviet historians had to fight against the pressure of official methodology does not seem to be correct to me. Being just an amateur historian, I am familiar with just two comprehencive historical methodologies, Marxian and Toynbeean, and I am not sure the latter is significantly better. Marxist methodology left enough of freedom of manoeuvre for many historians, the problem was not with Marxism, but with persistent attempts of semi-literal party leaders to interfere into the work of Soviet scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Read Markwick: the scholars have a wider ranging interest than your own, and amply state their case. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's expansion in agreement with my position states the heart of the matter eloquently—as well as indicating the proper scope and tone of the article. Paul, I believe your portrayal misdirects the conversation here:

• "some" Soviet historians misrepresenting the XX century as a rogue activity is a misrepresentation as to who, as to period of time, and ignores both purpose and motivation
• "many" great works despite not deviating from doctrine completely puts the cart before the horse; it is the view of history through the glasses of doctrine influenced also by the needs of the state that is of interest; the influence of state— whether through direct or indirect involvement or merely its omnipresence is what differentiates Soviet historiography from purely western European Marxist historiography, which being anti-(capitalist) state cannot, by definition, serve the state
• and so, it is the "sovietization" (small "s") of:
  • the continuum of Russian history and that of Russia's neighbors (building a commonality of interest, purpose, experience of the Soviet family of nations/peoples) from the era of tribal life through serfdom through factory worker, and
  • the "sovietization" of world history (e.g., viz. the Soviet version of American history)
  which is the underlying thread in both great, and what we would consider more purpose-written Soviet-sycophantic (capital "S"), historical works.

The current title is proper and completely in alignment with target scope and purpose. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo . Which concrete Markwick's works do you recommend me to read?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The most accessible piece (given journal access is often easier than book access) is: Markwick Roger Dennis, ’Cultural History under Khrushchev and Brezhnev: From Social Psychology to Mentalites’, The Russian Review, 65 283-301 (2006)

If the book is in your library: Markwick Roger Dennis, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956-1974, Palgrave, Basingstoke UK & New York, xx + 327 (2001)

If the book is in your library, the chapter: Markwick Roger Dennis, ’Thaws and freezes in Soviet historiography, 1953-64’, The Dilemmas of De-Stalinization: negotiating cultural and social change in the Khrushchev era, Routledge, Abingdon, 173-192 (2006)

It was hard to be a historian, including being a Marxist historian in the Soviet Union. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The field of knowledge, rather than the setting, should go first. Rennell435 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Agree with comments above. In "Soviet historiography", "Soviet" is like an adjective, rather than a normal noun. It sounds very unprofessionally.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 11:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No. 17,000 books quoted this term as "Soviet historiography [3]. And even if you try to search for "Historiography in the Soviet Union" in Google books, it still leads to term "Soviet historiography" in the top hits. Biophys (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.