Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[red_elk]

Kruschev, Stanford historians, Amsterdam University historians, Cambridge historians, Russian historians, pretty much all serious historians / academics of the field...

It's all a great conspiracy!

Yes, pretty much all serious historians.
Who now, when archival evidence become available, agree that the numbers were widely exaggerated:

Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[91] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – with a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[92]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims

Note that the even 3 mln. number includes all people executed for criminal offenses and all who died in prisons in 20 years period, as victims of regime.

So, 2/3 of Soviet cattle (Cheezy's number) was slaughtered that way? Sounds like something more widespread then the actions of a narrow, widely-hated caste the Kulaks are supposed to be, unless you're saying that the Kulaks possessed 2/3 of Soviet cattle in the end of 1920'ies. Which they didn't - see p. 145.

Can't say about exact numbers, don't know such details. I assume that kulaks, as richest part of peasantry possessed significant part of Soviet cattle.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't know whether this is true or not:

The numbers I've seen regarding cattle loss (not only from Cheezy) are usually even bigger then a quarter. We either have bands of kulaks running around being strangely successful in slaughtering other people's cattle, or far, far more animals belonging to kulaks then the Soviet statistics (which was actually quite good and objective by the end of 1920'ies) say.

Can't say about exact numbers, don't know such details. I assume that kulaks, as richest part of peasantry possessed significant part of Soviet cattle.

The pdf is directly from 1929 statistics. Average number of cows per household is 1,1; while (rough estimates here, p. 145 from the link in my post above)

The upper strata (roughly 3%) has 2,5 average per household.
Circa 13%, second strata - 1,7.
Circa 30% have 1,3.
Circa 25% have 1,0.
Circa 12% have 0,7.
Circa 10% have 0,3.
Circa 3% have no cows at all.

The draught cattle situation is roughly similar.

Doesn't really fit with the figure of 2/3 cattle being owned by a narrow caste of exploiters.

 

[luiz]

Yes, pretty much all serious historians.
Who now, when archival evidence become available, agree that the numbers were widely exaggerated:

Before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, researchers who attempted to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[91] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – with a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[92]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims

Note that the even 3 mln. number includes all people executed for criminal offenses and all who died in prisons in 20 years period, as victims of regime.

But that very section you quoted continues a bit:

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[102] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[103]

Whatever number and definition you choose, Stalin was one of the most brutal rulers in human history.

And also note that it's pretty much established that the Ukranian famine is largely to blame on Soviet authorities, through their brutality and incompetence. The real debate is now merely about whether or not Stalin used the famine as a political tool as well.

 

[red_elk]

But that very section you quoted continues a bit:

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[102]

But the funny thing is that the reference [102], if you look at it, points to the article of Zemskov, Getty and Rittersporn, which I posted here several times, and where authors argue against this statement. I love wikipedia

"Mainstream published estimates of the total numbers of “victims of repression” in the late 1930s have ranged from Dmitrii Volkogonov's 3.5 million to Ol'ga Shatunovskaia's nearly 20 million. (See Table 1.) The bases for these assessments are unclear in most cases and seem to have come from guesses, rumors, or extrapolations from isolated local observations. As the table shows, the documentable numbers of victims are much smaller."
http://web.archive.org/web/20080116...olitics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.
Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example,...

That's a good one too.

I would accept the higher numbers if they were based on documents or something more substantial than rumors or "2-3 millions is not enough, let's write 10 millions".

And I don't deny Stalin's government responsibility in consequences of famine, but counting its victims together with executed political prisoners would put too many world leaders into the category of multi-million mass murderers. Stalin was a brutal dictator and number of his victims is high enough without exaggeration.

 

[red_elk]

Doesn't really fit with the figure of 2/3 cattle being owned by a narrow caste of exploiters.

It probably means that the repressions were not limited to a narrow caste and "serednyaks" were sometimes involved too. I guess that outcome was not planned by the government and that's what was called "головокружение от успехов" and "перегибы на местах" in Stalin's article. But I'm starting to speculate here.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Blaming his own mistakes on the bureaucracy was something Stalin quite liked to do!

 

[red_elk]

Blaming his own mistakes on the bureaucracy was something Stalin quite liked to do!

Well, the point of the article was not in making excuses for himself (nobody was going to criticize him anyway), but in sending a message to local authorities "easy, guys".
As a proverb says, make a fool to pray the God, he will hurt his forehead.

 

[Quackers]

@Cheezy/red_elk: My history prof last semester talked about new documents from the Soviet records indicates that much of the de-Kulakization and collectivization was begun by the local Soviet officials, and the the Soviet leadership simply approved something that was already occuring. Is this actualy true or was she just nutty?

dude your asking people on the internet whether a freaking professor of history is crazy....

 

[Dachs]

dude your asking people on the internet whether a freaking professor of history is crazy....

Professors of history can be and are wrong in ways that other people might not be.

What is important is that it is demonstrated how the other person is wrong.

 

[Ajidica]

dude your asking people on the internet whether a freaking professor of history is crazy....

I'm asking people who know about Russian history if what she is saying meshes with what we are learning through the Soviet archives. History professors often have some very nutty ideas and are full of themselves. Besides, it is never a bad idea to cross-check something.

 

[Quackers]

forgive me but Dachs isn't up-to-date on the recent SU break-up documents is he? he likes his roman stuff and cheezy is a communist - your not gonna find a fair assessement from him. both undergraduates of history (or was cheezy??) and you think they know more then a professor!

 

[ParkCungHee]

I can't wait to finish my degree so Quackers will just take my word on stuff.

 

[Quackers]

if you become a professor i will probably take your word for it over a couple of undergraduate historians, BRAH

 

[Dachs]

forgive me but Dachs isn't up-to-date on the recent SU break-up documents is he?

I'm not up to date at all on Soviet history, other than perhaps military history (and even then not really), and I'm not offering my opinion.

if you become a professor i will probably take your word for it over a couple of undergraduate historians, BRAH

What if he is demonstrably wrong?

 

[Quackers]

but adjicia thinks its a good idea to ask you and i assume take your opinion as precedence over a fully certified professor of history from university of alabama or wherever adjicia attends

 

[Dachs]

Minnesota, I think. And Ajidica didn't ask me. And even if he had asked me, it wouldn't matter, because if I were able to provide a good reason to disagree with the professor, it would be valid regardless of credentials.

 

[Ajidica]

but adjicia thinks its a good idea to ask you and i assume take your opinion as precedence over a fully certified professor of history from university of alabama or wherever adjicia attends

First off, I would never spend any extended amount of time in Alabama. I go to college in Minnesota (a state you should totaly visit if you visit America).
Secondly, my professor made a throwaway mention to something that based on the little I knew of the topic seemed to jive with it. Because my knowledge is rather limited, I asked people who know quite a bit about the topic if her mention jived with what they knew of the Soviet Union.

Also, her expertise is in European Imperialism/Colonialism. fwiw.

 

[red_elk]

Professors of history can be and are wrong in ways that other people might not be.

Also, professors of history sometimes tend to disagree with other professors of history.

 

[Patroklos]

Saudi Arabia is pretty awful.

I wouldn't make the claim that it's worse than the USSR, but I suspect an informed person could make a good case for it.

Saudi Arabia has concentration camps and other programs where it imprisons/worked to death and/or executed dozens of millions of people too?

Also, you guys all know that the Russians don't open archives if they can help it, especially ones that might provide something exceptionally critical of them. That's why the NKVD/SMERSH archives for most of WWII are still closed.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Do you know what happened to the legitimate government in exile that escaped Poland? The one who provided several divisions of troops to the allies and waged a guerrilla war behind enemy lines for the entire war?
Hint: The Soviets didn't give them medals.

You think that when the USSR allied with Nazi Germany and then divided and invaded Poland it would have sent a clear signal.

Then there was the invasion of the Baltic states by the USSR

Then there was the invasion of Finland by the USSR

Hint: The soviets like to invade and then annex countries.