"Stalin killed xxx people"

[Drace]

What can be used to debunk this? I'm not yet knowledgeable enough of the history. Is there an article discussing this?

Btw, are there any leftist IRC channels?

[Invariance]

This (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/soviet.htm) might interest you.


Btw, are there any leftist IRC channels?

Yes; revleft has one. Look above. :thumbup1:

[Drace]

The revleft chat is pretty empty though =/

And Im looking at the link but its quite unorganized...Ill have a look through it though. Thanks!

[Bright Banana Beard]

The revleft chat is pretty empty though =/

And Im looking at the link but its quite unorganized...Ill have a look through it though. Thanks!
well it not emptyness like it used to be, just wait about 3 minute and someone will start the flamewar :)

[Mindtoaster]

The revleft chat is pretty empty though =/

And Im looking at the link but its quite unorganized...Ill have a look through it though. Thanks!

normally between about 14-20 something people on at any given time

[khad]

I'm surprised that no one even has a decent response to this. There is an excellent historigraphic review of the literature on Stalin's repressions by Michael Ellman, "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" in EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 54, No. 7, 2002, 1151–1172.

I can't post links yet, but you can probably Jstor it. I will post the conclusions of the paper here, though. The paper's quite nuanced in the way Ellman qualifies and inserts uncertain variables into even the tenative estimates.

Bottom line, about 12 million total repressed, with about 3 million dead (not all intentional) and 1.4 million "justifiably repressed."

The guy makes reference to "soviet death camps," so it's clear he's not by any means a Stalin apologist or even a Soviet defender (for any trots who want to levy that charge). Ellman is the chair of the Department of Business Studies at the Amsterdam Business School.


Conclusions
(1) The surprisingly high figures for those freed from the Gulag are partly explained
by several decisions to increase the ‘efficiency’ of the Gulag by releasing invalids
and the incurably ill. This was a cost-cutting measure which saved food and
guards and other personnel, and improved the financial results, but was not a sign
of the humanity of the system, and artificially reduced the recorded number of
deaths in the Gulag.

(2) The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths
in 1937–38 is the range 950,000–1.2 million, i.e. about a million. This is the
estimate which should be used by historians, teachers and journalists concerned
with twentieth century Russian—and world—history. Naturally it may, or may
not, have to be revised in the future as more evidence becomes available. Most
of these repression deaths were deliberate NKVD killings (‘executions’) but a
significant number were deaths in detention (some of which were also deliberate).
An unknown number of them were people who died shortly after their release
from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. The higher estimates given by
Conquest use a � awed method, can only be reconciled with the demographic data
by making implausible assumptions, and rely on unimpressive sources. Conquest’s
method is, however, useful in generating a healthy scepticism about the
meaning of the categories in the NKVD archival documents and the completeness
of the figures in these documents. The main uncertainties remaining concern
NKVD killings excluded from the Pavlov report and the mortality experience of
the 644,000 people recorded as being released from the Gulag in 1937–38. On
these two topics further research is needed.

(3) This estimate of roughly a million is, of course, an underestimate of repression
victims in 1937–38. It excludes those arrested in 1937–38 and who were still
under investigation on 31 December 1938 or who were sent to places of detention
(prison, colony or camp) and survived beyond 31 December 1938. It also
excludes those deported (mainly almost 200,000 Soviet Koreans). It also excludes
those who suffered but were not ‘repressed’. These include those dismissed from
their jobs but not arrested, and close relatives of those arrested who themselves
were not arrested but did suffer family grief and often material losses and also
were frequently discriminated against.

(4) The March 1947 report by the Minister of Internal Affairs does not demonstrate
that the recorded Gulag mortality data were falsified. This misinterpretation rests
on a misunderstanding of the meaning of ubyl’ in Soviet statistics of that period.

(5) It is true that the newly available data show that some earlier estimates of the
stock of prisoners at various dates were grossly exaggerated. They also show,
however, that the � ow of victims through the repressive system (both deportees
and prison, camp and colony inmates) was enormous.

(6) Estimates of the total number of Soviet repression victims depend both on
accurate estimates of the numbers in particular sub-categories and on judgement
of which sub-categories should be included in the category ‘repression victims’.
The former is a matter of statistics on which we are better informed today than
previously but on which the figures are still surrounded by a significant margin
of uncertainty. The latter is a matter of theoretical, political and historical
judgement. The number of deportees (first peasant victims of collectivisation and
then mainly the victims of ethnic cleansing) seems to have been about 6 million.
Currently available information suggests that the number of those sentenced on
political charges was also about 6 million. If these two categories are defined as
the ‘victims of repression’ then the number of the latter was about 12 million. (Of
these, from 1921 onwards about 3–3.5 million seem to have died from shooting,
while in detention, or while being deported or in deportation. In addition, a
currently unknown number died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a
result of their treatment in it. Furthermore, a currently unknown number were
killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918–20.) This total of about 12 million (of whom at
least 3–3.5 million were fatal) can be reduced by, say, 1.4 million by subtracting
the number of those ‘justifiably punished for political offences’. It can also be
increased substantially by including those peasants who were deported ‘only’
within their own region and by the about 1 million Kazakhs who � ed from
Kazakhstan in 1931–33. It can also be increased by including the large number
who ‘suffered’ but were not themselves arrested. It can also be increased by
including the non-Soviet victims, e.g. the German civilians interned in Soviet
death camps at the end of World War II. It can in addition be very substantially
increased by including also the victims of war, famine and disease, but whether
and to what extent this is appropriate is a matter of judgement. It seems that in
the 27 years of the Gulag’s existence (1930–56) the number of people who were
sentenced to detention in prisons, colonies and camps was 17–18 million. This
figure excludes the deportees, prisoners of war and internees, those in the
post-war filtration camps, and those who performed forced labour at their normal
place of work, and counts people sentenced more than once just once. The
number of prisoners in the Gulag (camps and colonies) in 1934–53 was 18.75
million (a figure which exaggerates the number of people involved since some
people were detained more than once). These huge figures are not a measure of
political repression. A large number of inmates of the Gulag were criminals.
However, the distinction between criminals and politicals was blurred under
Soviet conditions, the statistics on the classification of the prisoners are misleading,
and the concepts themselves are problematic under the conditions of the
1930s. Some (e.g. the homeless) are difficult to classify either as criminals or
politicals. The large number of Gulag inmates is mainly an indication of the large
number of people dealt with by the criminal justice system in this period and the
harshness of that system.

(7) During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly
in 1918–23, 1931–34 and 1941–45) were not repression but war, famine and
disease.83 The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period led to a large
number of excess lives.

(8) There is a substantial difference between the demographic reality of Soviet power
and the popular image of it. This is mainly because released intellectual victims
of repression wrote books, the organs were bureaucratic organisations which
produced reports and kept records, and Ukrainians have a large diaspora, whereas
Central Asian nomad or Russian peasant victims of disease, starvation or
deportation, criminal or marginal victims of incarceration in the Gulag, the
victims of ethnic cleansing, the long-term improvement in Russian/Soviet anthropometric
indicators (height and weight)84 and the extra lives resulting from falling
mortality rates generally interest only a few specialists.85 Repression was enormously
important politically and was a series of ghastly crimes. It was both mass
murder and mass manslaughter. Under current international law it constituted a
series of crimes against humanity. It also affected a large part of the population.
In absolute numbers of victims, it was one of the worst episodes in the long and
cruel history of political persecution. However, repression mortality (excluding
famine, war and disease mortality, and repression survivors) was only a modest
part of the demographic history of the USSR.

(9) We now know much more about the number of victims of political persecution
in the USSR than we did before the archives were opened to historians. We do
not yet have, however, precise and complete figures for the total number of
victims or for some sub-totals. Further archival research—and discussion of the
meaning and significance of its findings—is still needed.

[ComradeOm]

Very good khad. Could you, or someone with JSTOR access, perhaps download the paper and host it on another site for myself? I've read some of Ellman's previous work on the Soviet economy and was favourably impressed by it - the man knows what he's talking about

I assume that 3 millions deaths is a total count with the 1.4 million being a subset? If so how is Ellman categorising these non-"justifiably punished" 2+ million deaths? Are they those who died during deportation or in the Gulag as opposed to those simply executed by the NKVD? Or is he including death by famine/disease in these totals?

For what its worth, the totals that I've been going by typically break down as 5-8 million dead during 1928-1936 (the vast majority from famine/disease) and 600K-1.5 million during the period 1937-1939. These figures are from 1994 (Davies et al, 'The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union') so I wouldn't be surprised if archival research has substantially revised them

[Invariance]

Here ComradeOm: Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments (http://f.imagehost.org/download/0108/826310) by Michael Ellman.

[khad]

Very good khad. Could you, or someone with JSTOR access, perhaps download the paper and host it on another site for myself? I've read some of Ellman's previous work on the Soviet economy and was favourably impressed by it - the man knows what he's talking about

I assume that 3 millions deaths is a total count with the 1.4 million being a subset? If so how is Ellman categorising these non-"justifiably punished" 2+ million deaths? Are they those who died during deportation or in the Gulag as opposed to those simply executed by the NKVD? Or is he including death by famine/disease in these totals?

I apologize for the confusion. That 1.4 million is a subset of the 12 million and includes subversives such as terrorists, nazis, etc. It is unclear how many of these ended up in the dead category, though I would guess that the percentage was significant.

Of the 3 million total deaths, this is just direct repression deaths, so no famine or disease deaths included. I believe this is broken up into GULAG administered prison deaths (1.5 million), died during detention/awaiting trial/transport (0.5 million), and executed by the state (1 million).


For what its worth, the totals that I've been going by typically break down as 5-8 million dead during 1928-1936 (the vast majority from famine/disease) and 600K-1.5 million during the period 1937-1939. These figures are from 1994 (Davies et al, 'The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union') so I wouldn't be surprised if archival research has substantially revised themThese figures aren't too far off the mark of what Ellman is concluding. He's just a bit more narrowly focused with what he's trying to do.

These figures cover all of Stalin's period (to 1953), including prisoner deaths during WWII, which were some 50% of total prison deaths.

[Drace]

Thanks, but you know I think it would be much better if I were to instead read a whole history of Soviet Russia.

Because reading these figures alone had you confused and leaves you with many questions on what perticularly happened. Eg, who what when where were did deporayions take place, who was sent to the gulgags, what were the executions for?

[Forward Union]

What can be used to debunk this? I'm not yet knowledgeable enough of the history. Is there an article discussing this?

Btw, are there any leftist IRC channels?

I do not believe Stalin killed 40 million people. That number is just ridiculous. With an intense industrial extermination program the Nazis only managed to kill 6million.

40 million is a fucking huge number. It's two thirds of the UKs entire population today. I just don't believe it. It's absurd. The other reason I don't accept it, is because I have often read the slanderous lies the Capitalist press bring up against us today even "Anarchists plan to gas dublin" being a notable laugh for Mayday 2004.

Even if Stalin had killed 40 million people, that is far FAR less than liberal capitalism kills in the same timespan.

And more importantly, I am not a Stalinist. So even if he killed 1000 billion people, that's not really a point against anything I stand for.

[khad]

I do not believe Stalin killed 40 million people. That number is just ridiculous. With an intense industrial extermination problem the Nazis only managed to kill 6million.
Try 11. Or were Jews the only victims to consider?


40 million is a fucking huge number. It's two thirds of the UKs entire population today. I just don't believe it. It's absurd. The other reason I don't accept it, is because I have often read the slanderous lies the Capitalist press bring up against us today even "Anarchists plan to gas dublin" being a notable laugh for Mayday 2004.

Refer to the Ellman essay for a survey of the relevant demographic figures.

[Black Sheep]

"Stalin killed xxx people" What can be used to debunk this?
You can say that some died coz of their fault.

Try reading another view of stalin.
A wonderful argument is that :
'The CP told those who were to be gulag'd, [I]hey, we will go to the gulags, it is a long and hellish journey,so bring along food, blankets and supplies, coz you'll die, k? , but many of the naughty to-be-gulag'd did not do so, and as a result many died on their way to the gulags. '

[ComradeOm]

Cheers khad and Vinnie. I'll have a read of that article today or tomorrow


Because reading these figures alone had you confused and leaves you with many questions on what perticularly happened. Eg, who what when where were did deporayions take place, who was sent to the gulgags, what were the executions for?I recently read two good essays that dealt with this topic (State Violence - Violent Societies and The Quest for Order and the Pursuit of Terror) as part of the book Beyond Totalitarianism. I'm not sure if they're available elsewhere or individually. The picture that emerges is one of a state with no hesitation in resorting to mass violence (probably to a degree unparalleled in modern history) when targeting specific groups; eg certain classes, 'socially harmful elements', ethnic minorities, etc

[Forward Union]

Try 11. Or were Jews the only victims to consider?

Well, I haven't heard the 11 million figure, I had thought the 6million included political dissidents but if not, fair enough. My point still stands.

[welshboy]

Well, I haven't heard the 11 million figure, I had thought the 6million included political dissidents but if not, fair enough. My point still stands.
Not really. The Nazi's killed 11 million in a few years, the Communist Party had a tad longer between Joe coming to power properly in 1928 and his eventual death in 1953.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, Stalin didn't kill millions of people. The larger point, in my opinion, is that the state system of the USSR contributed to millions of deaths, and inevitably paved the way to another class system. That's just my perspective, though...I'm aware that other tendencies have different views on what ultimately went wrong with the USSR.

But yes, ultimately the USSR contributed to the deaths and misery of millions. That can't really be disputed without resorting to dialectical mumbo-jumbo or jargon related to how everyone from the peasants in the countryside to the Lenin-era Politburo were all secret fascists and counter-revolutionaries, but that doesn't stop anti-revisionist writers from trying.

[khad]

Not really. The Nazi's killed 11 million in a few years, the Communist Party had a tad longer between Joe coming to power properly in 1928 and his eventual death in 1953.
Yes, really. Stalin was directly responsible for approximately 3 million repression deaths over a period of 25 years, whereas the Nazis were responsible for 11 million direct deaths and another ~15-20 million civilian deaths through indirect means (war, disease, displacement). There is no comparison.

The net demographic effect of Stalin's repressions (even when you add famines into the mix) was so modest that the regions comprising the USSR experienced the most rapid population increases in their history under his administration. (Until you got to WW2, during which there were massive population decreases because 20 million people actually did die)

Stalin repressed a shitload of people, but no reasonable person could argue that it was similar in method and scope to the Nazi genocide.

[Hoggy_RS]

check the stalinist society dot com, they have some interesting articles on the subject. I wouldnt take everything they say as pure fact mind you

[Cumannach]

But yes, ultimately the USSR contributed to the deaths and misery of millions. That can't really be disputed without resorting to dialectical mumbo-jumbo or jargon related to how everyone from the peasants in the countryside to the Lenin-era Politburo were all secret fascists and counter-revolutionaries, but that doesn't stop anti-revisionist writers from trying.

The USSR didn't contribute to the deaths of millions, precisely the opposite in fact.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, really. Stalin was directly responsible for approximately 3 million repression deaths over a period of 25 years, whereas the Nazis were responsible for 11 million direct deaths and another ~15-20 million civilian deaths through indirect means (war, disease, displacement). There is no comparison.



Sorry to scome to this late, but do you suppose that from this article? The author quite rightly notes, and repeatedly (from the second quote of the article in fact) that the sources that provide us with information are highly problematic. Indeed your title 'Stalin killed xxxx people' is extremely problematic, that isn't what the article you post hopes to achieve at all. To quote the article:

"Since ‘victims of Stalinism’ or ‘victims of Soviet power’ are poorly defined and controversial categories, differing estimates would be inevitable even if we had perfect statistics. Since the currently available statistics are imperfect, the wide range of estimates for these categories is unavoidable."

Furthermore the author, it would seem to me, buys into the debunked view that only written sources in the archive can tell us anything. The exact view that Getty put for in Origins. Naturally this is wrong because it supposes, falsely, that the material in the archives is accurate and that people who actually witnessed events are incapable of providing any new information. This conservative histiorical methodology I had thought, with a few exceptions such as Getty, had become unfashionable (for obvious reasons) about 40 years ago with the institutionalisation of oral history.

[khad]

Sorry to scome to this late, but do you suppose that from this article? The author quite rightly notes, and repeatedly (from the second quote of the article in fact) that the sources that provide us with information are highly problematic. Indeed your title 'Stalin killed xxxx people' is extremely problematic, that isn't what the article you post hopes to achieve at all. To quote the article:

"Since ‘victims of Stalinism’ or ‘victims of Soviet power’ are poorly defined and controversial categories, differing estimates would be inevitable even if we had perfect statistics. Since the currently available statistics are imperfect, the wide range of estimates for these categories is unavoidable."
The entire article consists of him debunking exaggerated figures from the likes of Conquest and his camp. His conclusion of somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 million dead is a useful starting point.

As for controversial categories, Ellman is only counting people imprisoned or shot, not people who were demoted or relocated away from cities (technically not imprisoned, but not allowed to go to cities for a number of years). He is also not including famine figures, which would have added another 3-5 million (war famines can be attributed to the Nazis, but then this all gets confusing), but whose responsibility is constituted from a variety of factors.

This thread is simply about people KILLED, so this article is quite relevant. Many people died under Stalin, but direct repression deaths were nowhere comparable to Nazi Germany.


Furthermore the author, it would seem to me, buys into the debunked view that only written sources in the archive can tell us anything. The exact view that Getty put for in Origins. Naturally this is wrong because it supposes, falsely, that the material in the archives is accurate and that people who actually witnessed events are incapable of providing any new information. This conservative histiorical methodology I had thought, with a few exceptions such as Getty, had become unfashionable (for obvious reasons) about 40 years ago with the institutionalisation of oral history.

Since these archives were declassified, I am not so conspiratorial as to think that the NKVD was interested in lying to itself.

FYI, oral history is used as qualitative data and stands problematically on its own merits only in the absence of written sources. The archive is still how historians are trained now and in the foreseeable future. Thus there is still the rule of thumb by which one must excavate an archive in order to get hired with a history doctorate. Oral history is still pretty marginal and rarely deals with topics which require statistical data.

[Invader Zim]

The entire article consists of him debunking exaggerated figures from the likes of Conquest and his camp.
No, it doesn't. It is a survey of the existing literature surrounding the issue of Stalin's victims, a survey that specifically examines and emphasises archival research. But as the author notes with one of his two opening quotes: -

"the offcial data are clearly better than earlier outside estimates, but are they complete? They need critical scrutiny. We do not yet know the answers to many important questions, because the accounting system was chaotic and the figures lent themselves to manipulation. Bureaucratic as well as political motives led to the separate registration of various categories of prisoner … One has to … avoid leaping to conclusions. Scholars in this sensitive feld need to be humble about the extent of current knowledge but ambitious in setting future goals."

So no, I don't think the author is trying to 'debunk' anything. He is saying that he believes the type of source used by Wheatcroft and Getty are likely to produce more accurate figures than other sources and figures produced by this type of research should be what appears in text books. naturally if you were to approach other historians of the same topic they would totaly disgaree with that.

[khad]

So no, I don't think the author is trying to 'debunk' anything. He is saying that he believes the type of source used by Wheatcroft and Getty are likely to produce more accurate figures than other sources and figures produced by this type of research should be what appears in text books. naturally if you were to approach other historians of the same topic they would totaly disgaree with that.

Are the archives incomplete? Possibly. But I don't think they will be off by an entire order of magnitude. In an absence of more reliable data (I want to see you make a good argument for Conquest), 3.5 is a useful starting point. Historians deal with the facts they have, not the facts they imagine.

In case you weren't aware, historiography constantly changes as archival data is made available. There is an institutional bias for the archive, I'll admit, but that's how history is done--hard data over guesstimates.

[Radical]

What we first need to differentiate is the people Stalin dident mean to kill, and the people who Stalin did mean to kill.

Its hard to find out the true facts on Stalin, because you either love him or you HATE him. Its difficult to find out an accurate account because the leftists hate him and so does everybody else. Except that small minority that love him, who you cant really rely on for an accurate account.

[Invader Zim]

Are the archives incomplete? Possibly.

No, certainly. All archives are incomplete. That is the nature of studying history. I am currently doing a research project that looks at, among other things, British civil service records. You would be amazed how unreliable official documents are. Important facts are either not written down; have been written down and the document has been lost or destroyed (i.e. you find a reference to the documents but it simply doesn't exist anymore); the content of the document is wrong because the author is trying to manipulate the issue or is outright lying; the document does not make important distinctions forcing you to make guesses; the document directly contradicts another, ad infinitum. And to make matters worse while there are massive gaps in your knowledge because the documents are invariably incomplete, in most topics, and in modern history all topic they still number so many that you cannot possibly hope to ever read them all. And this is before we start considering the argument of the post modernists that the past is the construction, not of our predecessors, but the historian.

The eminent historian of Modern Germany Richard Evans once likened the work of a historian as trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing. That is entirely apt, and, as I understand, it no more so than in the case of this topic.


But I don't think they will be off by an entire order of magnitude.

And why do you suppose that? I have a friend who specialises in Soviet history and he won't touch this field because it is a complete waste of time. The long at the short of it is we will never know the answer to this question and no amount of research will set the matter to rest of dissolve the compromise. He told me about a historian who employed phone records during the terror to supplement demographic research. It strikes me as a great idea. A fantastic example of 'thinking outside of the box'. But that is the extent to which historians have to try to support their otherwise unsatisfactory sources in this field, because the ones they do typically use are so obviously open (and rightly) to the charge of unreliability. Furthermore the author also notes the issue of categorisation, which includes the issue of famine deaths which opens a whole new kettle of fish.

And that is down to irresolvable methodological issues. Do you put stock by the word of émigrés who are liable to tell you that tens of millions were slaughtered or archival information you know to have its own catalogue of problems. You can't discount either, but you can't trust either. That is why trying to find a definitive to the numbers issue isn’t going to get us anywhere. Nobody, however honest their intentions, skilful in their methodology, and masterful of the sources will ever satisfactorily get to the bottom if it. And reading the article you posted, the author seems to appreciate.


I am not so conspiratorial as to think that the NKVD was interested in lying to itself.
I disagree. I think the NKVD was interested in lying to itself. Look at any such institution, they always have a vested interest in vetting their figures to place their progress, or failures, in a light that suits their interests. That goes from the highest levels of the institution to the lowest. If your figures don't look good you manipulate them so they do. Again though, this is based on my own research of government institutions, but I would bet that the NKVD was no different.


oral history is used as qualitative data and stands problematically on its own merits only in the absence of written sources.
I disagree. You ask, where possible, the same questions of oral sources as you do of archival sources. You don't just try to supplement the oceanic gaps in archival material (though that is useful) by quizzing those who remember, that would be a waste of the opportunity.


The archive is still how historians are trained now and in the foreseeable future.While I agree that a natural emphasis is placed upon archival research, as that remains the richest source for the bulk of historians, you are entirely mistaken to believe that other types of source are left neglected and without training. Many universities offer modules, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, to instruct students in methodologies requiring resources beyond the traditional archive. This of course isn't simply limited to the spoken word, but involves other forms of sound as well as imagery.


I want to see you make a good argument for Conquest)Why would I want to argue in favour of Conquest's figures? He is on an extreme edge of the spectrum as far as this debate goes. There are plenty of other historians who suggest that the figure is higher than 3.5 but lower than x0,000,000. I would guess that you are familiar with Getty, well check Alec Nove’s addition to the volume he edited, Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives. What I take issue with here is the fact that this issue is being presented if it is done and dusted, as if there is not a major fracture in the historiography.

[khad]

Alec Nove’s addition to the volume he edited, Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives. What I take issue with here is the fact that this issue is being presented if it is done and dusted, as if there is not a major fracture in the historiography.
I'll have to take a look at that and tell what I think.

[Asoka89]

What can be used to debunk this? I'm not yet knowledgeable enough of the history. Is there an article discussing this?

Btw, are there any leftist IRC channels?

A time machine to change history.

[chimx]

The USSR didn't contribute to the deaths of millions, precisely the opposite in fact.

The over-inflated numbers of 40-60 million that are thrown out by conservative "historians" try to include deaths during WWII and deaths which were a result of the famine. WWII is arguable, but the USSR most certainly helped to contribute to the deaths of millions during the famine, as was admitted privately by Stalin

[Pogue]

Like all bourgeois eladers Stalin was responsible for many deaths. It was at least a few million. I don't see why you'd wish to debunk this.

[spiltteeth]

What do you guys think of the 3.5 million figure? Obviously it wasn't Nazism,but that still strikes me as a horrifically high number. I'd be terrified to live in such a society. Can such a number justified?

[khad]

I did read the Nove article (his article in that book you mentioned, which was edited by Getty), in fact, and I do not see how it significantly alters Ellman's starting point. He does deal with famine, which Ellman does not, and after introducing a number of uncertainties into the "official" demographic data, he suggests a total population deficit of 13-15 million (apparently there are some who suggest that the 1937 census was undercounted), of course, this includes people not yet born and collapse of birth rates immediately following famine, so the total population deficit from 1931-1937 is about 10 million. This is for the entire Soviet Union, not just Ukraine. Incidentally, the USSR suffered drought famines after the man-induced famine of 1932-33, which then raises the issue of whether or not Stalin was responsible for all the famine deaths.

Now to the meat of this thread --"direct" repression and the Great Terror. Nove goes on to use the lowball estimate of the Soviet population in 1939 as 168 million. Given the politically-suppressed figure of 162 million in the 1937 census, this represents an increase of at least 3 million per year, which is comparable to and even exceeds the growth rate from 1926-31. According to Nove, the abnormal deaths in the years of the great terror (37-38) do not show up as a major demographic blip.

As for incarceration. GULAG administered labor prisons, of course, were just a part of total incarcerations. The NKVD registered in 1955 that they had had files on 9.5 million detainees, but that is incomplete. There is a higher figure from Dugin that suggests is 11.8 (Ellman says 12), but that excludes deportees, which numbered from 2.5-5 million. It all depends on how you want to count, because not all deportees lived in prison-like conditions or even in special settlements. These deportee figures also included people who were not allowed to enter the major cities for a specified period.

Look, I don't see how these ranges of error do anything to discredit Ellman's starting point of 3.5 million repression deaths out of a total repressed of 12 million (which does not include famine deaths, as they are hard to ascribe). In fact it's downright pedantic of you to give me this much crap on an internet forum just to argue for an error range that might yield a +10-20% statistical result.

Incidentally, there is a Wheatcroft article (the very last one), which does some statistical work on the 1932-33 famine. Just taking the registered population, the total excess mortality registered by the civilian population was 3-4 million. However, if you add in non-civilian and unregistered people that can increase to 4-5 million. These are the sorts of statistical uncertainties and discrepancies we are dealing with. Perhaps useful if you want to be a specialist, but not in the context of this thread, which was started by a kid who wanted to ask how to disprove claims of Stalin killing 40 million people. Bottom line, Hitler killed many more people.

[ComradeOm]

Furthermore the author, it would seem to me, buys into the debunked view that only written sources in the archive can tell us anythingI think the author is, quite rightly, working under the assumption that oral sources, or similar research, is of limited use when dealing with such population/death estimates. Census data, archived records, and statistical analysis (ie, quantitative methods) are the tools used to tackle problems like this. Obviously the integrity of the data has to be borne in mind but I'm not sure how Ellman or others can be criticised for failing to avail of other, less useful, research methodologies. Its a matter of simply using the tool that works best. There are others (Figes, Fitzpatrick, and Merridale spring to mind) who make far more extensive use of oral sources but then they are studying a very different facet of those years

Frankly as far as I'm concerned the opening of the Russian state archives has been absolutely invaluable to the study of Soviet history. For too long Western historians were forced to rely on published (and often heavily edited or otherwise unreliable*) memoirs or the odd first hand account. While these do obviously have their uses its impossible to deny the huge progress made in the study of this field in the past two decades. Probably the most visible sign of this has been the constant refinement of the death toll for the Stalin years

Are the archives complete or will we ever know the number of Stalin's victims for sure? Of course not. But its safe to say that our understanding of these years and our estimates as to the number killed is better now than at any time in the past. It is no longer possible to talk of 20+ million victims and the range of estimates is continually growing narrower and narrower. Ellman's work is an example of this from one of the foremost experts in the field. Its certainly not conclusive, and nor does he pretend that it is, but to simply dismiss this, and indeed the whole question, as being fundamentally unknowable strikes me as very odd

*As Ellman alludes to in this particular article. Nothing demonstrates the pitfalls of relying solely on first hand accounts as much as the Gulag Archipelago


Like all bourgeois eladers Stalin was responsible for many deaths. It was at least a few million. I don't see why you'd wish to debunk thisBecause if it has to be debunked then it is, by definition, a myth. And why tolerate a myth/lie simply because it suits your politics?


What do you guys think of the 3.5 million figure? Obviously it wasn't Nazism,but that still strikes me as a horrifically high number. I'd be terrified to live in such a society. Can such a number justified?The justification question is tricky, and up to each individual, but there's no question that it is an extremely high figure. Granted, this has to be put alongside other factors (the sheer size of the population, number of survivors, actual support for the regime) but it is an indication that the USSR during the 1930s was a society in an extreme state of flux and that the Stalinist political/economic order was based firmly on coercion. There's very few parallels in history of a regime that used mass violence on such a scale to control its own population

[Invader Zim]

I think the author is, quite rightly, working under the assumption that oral sources, or similar research, is of limited use when dealing with such population/death estimates. Census data, archived records, and statistical analysis (ie, quantitative methods) are the tools used to tackle problems like this.

Typically perhaps, but in this case the official statistics are not realiable. John Keep, in an article addressed primarily to Wheatcroft listed a series of major failings with the statistical evidence available and in summary stated, "For all these reasons we need to be prudent when using these offical sources which, far from being the last word on the subject, are probably about as reliable as the average mafioso's tax return." Keep, 'Wheatcroft and Stalin's Victims: Comments', Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 51, no. 6 (1999), p. 1091.

Not only are they unreliable, but they aren't at all comprehensive, what of those who died after interrogation before they reached the camps? What of those who died shortly after they were released? What of those killed in various massacres such as Katyn, which don't appear in offical statistics? Where do we go with the inordinately complex famine issue? And doubtless similar objections could be raised near ad infinitum. So why then discount eye-witness testimony for its inherent flaws while not dismissing over-reliance on offical statistics which are also inherently flawed? It doesn't make any sense.

Quite obvously the offical statistics do not provide the number of those killed, rather they provide the lowest possible figure.


but to simply dismiss this, and indeed the whole question, as being fundamentally unknowable strikes me as very odd

And why is that? You just conceeded three sentances earlier that the question is fundermentally unknowable ("will we ever know the number of Stalin's victims for sure? Of course not", though you might as well drop the 'for sure'.). At this stage it strikes me as a debate with no conclusive end, and argument for the sake of argument. It reminds me of alchemists attempting to transmute lead into gold. Try as they did, they never succeeded because there is no feasable solution to that problem. And I understand that it is impossible to every find absolute truths in historical research, but there has got to be a point, even in historical research, when you accept that your project isn't feasable and isn't going to produce any solid conclusions because you just don't have the sources that stand upto interrogation. And this, in my opinion, is one of them.

[ComradeOm]

Typically perhaps, but in this case the official statistics are not realiable. John Keep, in an article addressed primarily to Wheatcroft listed a series of major failings with the statistical evidence available and in summary stated, "For all these reasons we need to be prudent when using these offical sources which, far from being the last word on the subject, are probably about as reliable as the average mafioso's tax return." Keep, 'Wheatcroft and Stalin's Victims: Comments', Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 51, no. 6 (1999), p. 1091Which is the position of one academic. Other academics disagree. Even these however are not simply taking the statistical data at face value. The likes of Davies, Harrison, Wheatcroft, etc, have done fine work in revising and correcting many of the obvious falsifications, and attempting to fill in the holes in the data. I see absolutely no reason to simply write off their efforts simply on the basis that there is no ready made and 100% complete database available... perhaps you are also opposed to making population estimates of medieval society?

And really, what do you expect to gain from oral history in this period? Do you seriously suggest that its possible to obtain an accurate picture of the numbers who died in the various camps by questioning the few elderly survivors of a world long since vanished? No one has ever suggested that statistical analysis is perfect or that oral history has no relevance to this period but the former is clearly the most suitable tool for these problems


And why is that? You just conceeded three sentances earlier that the question is fundermentally unknowable ("will we ever know the number of Stalin's victims for sure? Of course not", though you might as well drop the 'for sure'.)I "might as well drop the 'for sure'" if I wanted to completely change the meaning of that sentence. "We will never know for sure" is by no means the same as "We will never know". Our knowledge of the workings of Stalinist society, and particularly the numbers that fell victim to it, has advanced tremendously in the past two decades. No historian will ever be able to give the exact number that died but the range of estimates continues to close. So our understanding of this topic has vastly increased and the days are long over when credible academics could seriously suggest 20-50 million dead. Surely you would consider this progress?

I honestly don't understand the mentality that advocates just shrugging the shoulders and accepting this big gaping hole in out knowledge of the 20th C. The idea that we should just give up on further investigation and accept that we'll never know for certain... well it doesn't make sense to me. Not when the alternative is actually doing research to provide plausible estimates and ranges. An approach that, as I've noted above, has greatly enriched our understanding of the Stalinist period in the last decade or two

[khad]

And really, what do you expect to gain from oral history in this period? Do you seriously suggest that its possible to obtain an accurate picture of the numbers who died in the various camps by questioning the few elderly survivors of a world long since vanished? No one has ever suggested that statistical analysis is perfect or that oral history has no relevance to this period but the former is clearly the most suitable tool for these problems.
Hearsay, which is what oral accounts more often than not boil down to, is the most unreliable form of evidence, even moreso than doctored "official" statistics because at least with those you are able to reasonably surmise where the gaps may be.

[Invader Zim]

Other academics disagree.

Really? I doubt you will find any historians who would argue that the archives provide either comprehensive or particularly reliable data.


perhaps you are also opposed to making population estimates of medieval society?

I'm not sure thats analogous, and i'm not an expert, but I certainly think that in cases such as slave mortality estimates the debate is ceasing to be of any further value. We have our broad estimates, and I don't think much more work on the topic will radically alter them. I'm not saying people shouldn't work on these topics, but personally I don't see the interest or what they hope to achieve.


Hearsay, which is what oral accounts more often than not boil down to

This is a very outdated, and rather conservative (though inadvertantly, I'm sure), attitude. Firstly oral history as a medium of research is acually no more or less reliable than anything else. All authors of sources have an agenda, none are completely comprehensive and all are read by the historian who undoubtedly has his/her preconceptions, etc. Oral history is no different in this respect. Where it does have potential problems is in the issue of memory, and there is plenty of research on that which isn't worth going into here.

Secondly, as a medium of research that has primarily been exploited in histories from below. As opposed to the necessary top down approach of using archival data such as that we are discussing. People witness things that aren't in the archive, or provide an alternative view on what is. As a result, it isn't that modern historians who use these techniques are running a risk employing this as a source, rather it is negligence on the part of conservatives historians who refuse to examine what is a vital source of information that would otherwise be lost to them.

However, i propose we move this elelemt of the discussion, on methodologies, into a new thread either in this forum or in the history forum. I think it has the potential to be extremely worthwhile, certainly worthwhile enough to warrent its own thread.

[ComradeOm]

Really? I doubt you will find any historians who would argue that the archives provide either comprehensive or particularly reliable dataI can find plenty of academic who argue that the archives are a valuable resource and that much can be gained from a statistical analysis of the figures contained within. Which is what I mentioned above. Obviously this is the case or there would not be much of a debate, no? I have never once suggested that these archives were complete or that there was academic consensus on this point


I'm not sure thats analogous, and i'm not an expert, but I certainly think that in cases such as slave mortality estimates the debate is ceasing to be of any further value. We have our broad estimates, and I don't think much more work on the topic will radically alter themSo the research into these estimates has reached a point of diminishing returns. Which is fair enough. Perhaps the same will happen in a decade or two with regards the figures for the 1930s. But for now there is clearly still further scope for research in this area

[Invader Zim]

I can find plenty of academic who argue that the archives are a valuable resource and that much can be gained from a statistical analysis of the figures contained within.

Sure, but that wasn't what I said, or what Keep said. The point is not that it is impossible to make progress with these sources, but rather that they cannot be considered as capable of providing us with the final word on the matter.


Obviously this is the case or there would not be much of a debate, no?

I think that is a rather odd conclusion you have drawn. If the sources weren't fraught with major problems presumably they would be more conclusive and there would be considerably less room for debate and disagreement, and the range of estimates would be considerably lower.


Perhaps the same will happen in a decade or two with regards the figures for the 1930s. But for now there is clearly still further scope for research in this area

Sure, but is any of it likely to radically alter our current range of estimates? The Soviet Union began granting western historians access to its archives for around three decades now, and the landmark study on the purges by Getty is now approaching a quarter of a century in age. Yet historians are still debating the same points and covering the same ground. Sure Conquest has lowered his estimate by 30 million to 20 million, but there is still massive disparity between the big numbers school and the smaller numbers school. Why do you suppose another 20 years will change that when 25 years hasn't?

But I'm not really opposed to continued study of this topic if historians want to, I just doubt that they will get much closer to agreement even if they debate it for another quarter of a century. I guess we will both see in 25 years time.