BBC repeats Nazi lies

[Great Helmsman]

Ukraine remembers famine horror
By Laura Sheeter
BBC News, Kiev

Ekaterina Marchenko is insistent.

"I can't have you leaving here hungry," she says. "Here, just have this bowl of soup, and maybe later you'll feel like having a sandwich, or a cup of tea and a piece of cake."

The hospitable 87-year-old cannot bear the thought of her guest being less than full, but then she has a horror of going hungry.

Seventy-five years ago, Ekaterina saw seven members of her family and almost all of her neighbours starve to death, in a man-made famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine.

Tree bark and roots

The "Holodomor" or "famine plague" as it is known in Ukraine, was part of Joseph Stalin's programme to crush the resistance of the peasantry to the collectivisation of farming.

Don't go near the priest's house either - because the neighbours there have killed and eaten their children
Ekaterina Marchenko recalls a warning from her mother

When in 1932 the grain harvest did not meet the Kremlin's targets, activists were sent to the villages where they confiscated not just grain and bread, but all the food they could find.

The confiscations continued into 1933, and the results were devastating. No-one is sure how many people died, but historians say that in under a year at least three million and possibly up to 10 million starved to death.

The horrors Ekaterina saw live with her still.

"We didn't have any funerals - whole families died," she tells me.

"Of our neighbours I remember all the Solveiki family died, all of the Kapshuks, all the Rahachenkos too - and the Yeremo family - three of them, still alive, were thrown into the mass grave."

Ekaterina, her mother and brother, survived by eating tree bark, roots and whatever they could find - but she says starvation drove others to terrible deeds.

"One day mother said to us, 'children, you can't take your usual shortcut through the village anymore because the grandpa in the house nearby killed his grandson and ate him - and now he's been killed by his son...

And don't go near the priest's house either - because the neighbours there have killed and eaten their children.'"

Though some, like Ekaterina, can never forget what happened, many Ukrainians had never heard of the famine until the country's independence - such was the secrecy about it during Soviet times.

But every year since independence, events to commemorate the famine get larger, and momentum is growing behind a campaign to raise international awareness of what happened.

This weekend marks the 75th anniversary of the start of the Holodomor, and Ukraine is starting a year of commemorations.

Events are being held across the country. And around the world members of the Ukrainian diaspora are also marking the anniversary.

Ukraine has officially declared the Holodomor a genocide - it says the famine was part of a campaign to crush Ukrainian nationalism.

Russian objections

Ukraine's borders were sealed during the famine, say scholars, to ensure the subjugation of the whole country.

It is a message Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko wants to take to the world.

This anniversary is being used to boost a campaign for other countries, and the United Nations, to officially declare the Holodomor a genocide, too.

But Russia objects. The Russians are accusing Ukraine of using the tragedy of the past to gain political advantage.

The famine could not be genocide, they say, because there was starvation in many parts of the Soviet Union at the time and, they add, for the Ukrainians to claim it was aimed at them is an insult to those of other nationalities who died.

Within Ukraine there is division too.

The head of the country's Communist Party, Pyotr Simonenko, does not believe there was any deliberate starvation at all, and he accuses President Yushchenko of using the famine to stir up hatred.

"He draws people's attention to history so as not to answer questions about the problems of today - he speaks of the dead, not thinking of the living," he says.

"Yushchenko has set a time bomb under Ukrainian-Russian relations.

"His insistence that this be recognised as a genocide - which is by the way, an idea with no foundation - will only lead to someone using it in the future to ignite inter-ethnic conflict."

Though few in Ukraine share Mr Simonenko's interpretation of history, there is some sympathy with his view that the commemoration has been politicised, and that the campaign could damage relations with Russia.

None of this, however, is deterring President Yushchenko. He says he wants a new law criminalising Holodomor denial - and to see new monuments to the famine built in Ukraine before the end of the year's commemorations.

It remains to be seen whether those monuments will bring Ukrainians together in remembrance, or divide them along political lines.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7111296.stm)

[вор в законе]

I don't have any problem stamping this as a Genocide so long as the do the same for the Great Irish famine which the BBC has gone amnesiac about.

[вор в законе]

BBC on the Great Irish Famine:



An artificial famine?

This was not an artificial famine as the traditional Irish nationalist interpretation has long maintained - not at any rate at the start

I leave this as a testament of their fucking hypocrisy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_02.shtml)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 11:58 am
BBC on the Great Irish Famine:



An artificial famine?

This was not an artificial famine as the traditional Irish nationalist interpretation has long maintained - not at any rate at the start

I leave this as a testament of their fucking hypocrisy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_02.shtml)

"not at any rate at the start"

Thats true, had you known anything about the actions of the Peel government and the potato blight, you would have known this.

Arguably following Peels introduction of the Corn Laws, which ended his political career, and the Whig government came into power then their utter and complete inactivity, arguably did have a sinister edge to it. However, the Peel government did impliment measures to attempt to aliviate the situation.

Do not for a moment think that I am saying that the Peel government could not have done more, but so suggest that the famine was initially employed as a means to impliment a holocaust is simply not supported by the evidence. For example, the construction of the Irish railways was subsidised by the government, as a means to generate jobs in ireland so that workers could afford to purchase food. £185,000 worth of food supplies were imported from abroad, etc. The Russell government that succeeded Peels didn't do anything, but i suspect that was as much to do with sheer incompetance as it was malicious.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 10:54 am
I don't have any problem stamping this as a Genocide so long as the do the same for the Great Irish famine which the BBC has gone amnesiac about.
But that famine wasn't a genocide... :huh:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 25, 2007 09:29 pm--> (drosera99 @ November 25, 2007 09:29 pm)
Red [email protected] 25, 2007 10:54 am
I don't have any problem stamping this as a Genocide so long as the do the same for the Great Irish famine which the BBC has gone amnesiac about.
But that famine wasn't a genocide... :huh: [/b]
Well, the argument is that while the British government did not create the blight, its inaction created the famine deliberately. One of the arguments is that the British did nothing to wipe out a large portion of the Irish population, which would reduce the capacity of the Irish for rebellion; making the rebellion a genocide.

Personally, I do not think that the evidence supports such a conclusion. Under O'Connell the Irish population was apparently relatively pacifistic and to a degree, loyal. The percieved deliberate inaction of the British government changed that radically.

[вор в законе]

When Communists do it, its a genocide, when capitalists do it its an accident.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's a piece that sheds some light on the reality of the famine that occurred in the Ukraine: Fraud, Famine, and Fascism (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm)

[Philosophical Materialist]

It is pure bullshit and this nonsense is not shared by serious historians. Joseph Stalin did some shitty things, but can he really be blamed for the weather too?

The capitalist propaganda likes to ignore how the wealthy Kulaks withheld food from the people to gain higher prices, and operate a capitalist market, which severely worsened the famine.

Also notice the use of the phrase "possibly up to 10 million people died." WTF is that? Hardly scientific as a statement, which only tells you that a number of people anywhere from 1 person to 10 million died. That's pathetic spin.

[Invader Zim]

It is pure bullshit and this nonsense is not shared by serious historians.

The likes of Courtois and Conquest can be accused of many things, that they are not 'serious historians', is hardly one of them.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 11, 2007 08:14 pm

It is pure bullshit and this nonsense is not shared by serious historians.

The likes of Courtois and Conquest can be accused of many things, that they are not 'serious historians', is hardly one of them.
You're kidding right? Conquest's work base themselves mainly on the writings of pro-Nazi collaborators such as Olexa Woropay (in a book published by Stepan Bandera's fascist movement). He also based some of his work on a paper by Dana Dalrymple, who in turn cited fascist collaborationist sources - Nicolas Prychodko, Otto Schiller and Nazi propagandist Dr Eward Ammende.

It should also be noted that Conquest was previously employed by the 'Information Research Department' of the British Foreign Office. The IRD was a covert department responsible for much of British Cold War 'black propaganda.'

The 'Ukrainian Genocide' is considered a myth of mainstream historiography. It was only resurrected by 1980s Reaganite anti-Soviet propaganda who had no qualms using far-right sources as "proof" of this garbage. It only enjoy kudos amongst right-wing academics such as James E Mace at Harvard University.

Douglas Tottle's Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Progress Books, Toronto 1987) is one example of which gives a secure debunking of the genocide myth. He talks about how fascists used Tsarist-era and WW1 Austro-Hungarian photographs as pictorial 'proof' of the Ukrainian "genocide". He also noted how tainted Nazi sources were resurrected by collaborationist émigrés and 1980s US anti-Soviet propaganda.

[synthesis]

I think it is more likely that the famine was similar in character to the Chinese famines, where local and lower-level government authorities were too intimidated to accurately report the failure of certain economic measures and therefore the highest levels of government had no idea what was going on until it was far too late.

In other words, totalitarianism was indeed the culprit, but not in a malicious way.

[Invader Zim]

You're kidding right?

No. You don't get a significant post at an institution like Stanford, which is widely accepted as being one of the top ten universities in the world, if you aren't a 'serious' historian.


onquest's work base themselves mainly on the writings of pro-Nazi collaborators such as Olexa Woropay (in a book published by Stepan Bandera's fascist movement). He also based some of his work on a paper by Dana Dalrymple, who in turn cited fascist collaborationist sources - Nicolas Prychodko, Otto Schiller and Nazi propagandist Dr Eward Ammende.

That is as maybe, however Conquest is famous, in part, for his prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives and sources once they were opened; and his views - he claimed - are supported by the archival evidence.



It should also be noted that Conquest was previously employed by the 'Information Research Department' of the British Foreign Office.

I see someone has been using Wikipedia. However, if political alligence necessarily impacted upon the validity of a historians work, no one would take half the best scholars of the last century at all seriously. Indeed that is nothing more than a poor association fallacy. Shocking though it may seem, some neo-conservatives do write 'serious' histor; but serious thought it maybe, it is not necessarily correct.


Douglas Tottle's Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (Progress Books, Toronto 1987) is one example of which gives a secure debunking of the genocide myth.

Now here is the amusing irony, you accuse the likes of Conquest of not being serious historians, and then proceed to cite a trade unionist (not a historian) as an example of their myths debunked.

If you look in the journals and their book and article reviews you can find much better and more authoratitive critiques of Mace, Carrynyk, Maksudov, Krawchenko, etc, by actual 'serious' historians.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think that "Stanford" argument really holds. Its not impossible that maybe fields like sovietology are heavily policitized--which would make a lot of sense. Besides, there are new "sovietologists" who seem much more sensible, like Getty for example.

[Invader Zim]

I don't think that "Stanford" argument really holds.

What you don't think that 'serious' institutions hire 'serious' scholars?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 13, 2007 03:31 pm

I don't think that "Stanford" argument really holds.

What you don't think that 'serious' institutions hire 'serious' scholars?
I don't know if they are "serious" or not, but I am pretty sure some of them let their politics get ahold of them.

Do you think it is outlandish to think that a virulently anti-communist state is not going to back virulently anti-communist scholars? Its one thing to treat classical greek, than it is to treat stalin's regime.

[Invader Zim]

but I am pretty sure some of them let their politics get ahold of them.

Any historian who claims that they don't let their politics or their surroundings influence the history they write they are either lying or they are fucking stupid.



Do you think it is outlandish to think that a virulently anti-communist state is not going to back virulently anti-communist scholars?

I suggest you purchase some books on historiography, because "virulently anti-communist states" such as Britain and America have produced a truly prodigious number of radical leftwing historians who write on subjects such the Soviet Russia and just about every other topic and these historians have had posts in all these 'serious' institutions. Correlation does not imply causation.

[Sky]

This scholarly paper proves that the famine was not man-made:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Taug...n%20Actions.pdf (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actio ns.pdf)

This archival demographic data shows that total excess deaths from famine in 1932-33 throughout the USSR amounted to about 2.2 million.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economic...nger/deaths.xls (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls)


No-one is sure how many people died, but historians say that in under a year at least three million and possibly up to 10 million starved to death.
The archives show that in Ukraine there were 1.5 million deaths above the normal rate in 1932-33. This is unequivocal.

[Intelligitimate]

The likes of Courtois and Conquest can be accused of many things, that they are not 'serious historians', is hardly one of them.

Except they are accused of exactly that by other serious historians. See, for instance, Getty's discussion of Conquest's use of sources in his iOrigins, or Thurston's paper On Desk-Bound Parochialism, Commonsense Perspectives, and Lousy Evidence: A Reply to Robert Conquest. Manning also once said "He's terrible at doing research. . . He misuses sources, he twists everything.” Courtois' work was so bad his co-author distanced himself from it.


That is as maybe, however Conquest is famous, in part, for his prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives and sources once they were opened; and his views - he claimed - are supported by the archival evidence.

You're really exposing your own ignorance. Conquest isn't famous at all for any archival research. I can't think of even a single thing he has done since the archives were opened except crying in right-wing rags and replying to the work of serious scholars who are working on the archives.


Now here is the amusing irony, you accuse the likes of Conquest of not being serious historians, and then proceed to cite a trade unionist (not a historian) as an example of their myths debunked.

Tottle's work is rock solid. It doesn't matter whether or not Conquest was in agent of the IRD, or is employed by Stanford, technically speaking. His work would still be crap, primarily because of the very nature of his source material.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, 75 years ago, using Soviet might, the workers of the Ukraine willed themselves out of existence in order to obliviate the west: alas the counter-revolutionary Trotsky used his demon-powers to avert their combined Soviet spectres.

[Invader Zim]

I can't think of even a single thing he has done since the archives were opened

That is because you are an under-read lay person attempting to argue with a person with more than a highschool diploma; and of course your 'lay' status is exposed immidiately. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine (written in the 80's when access to archival information had been greatly increased) and The Great Terror: A Reassessment (after the archives had been fully opened) are famous for the degree of archival material they used. Indeed the latter was a re-assesment because it was written in 1990 in light of Conquests research in the archives.

[Sky]

Tottle's work is rock solid.
Tottle's work is too polemical. For an honest account of the famine, refer to the literature or Mark Tauger, Stephen Wheatcroft, and Robert Davies.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 29, 2007 07:26 pm

I can't think of even a single thing he has done since the archives were opened

That is because you are an under-read lay person attempting to argue with a person with more than a highschool diploma; and of course your 'lay' status is exposed immidiately. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine (written in the 80's when access to archival information had been greatly increased) and The Great Terror: A Reassessment (after the archives had been fully opened) are famous for the degree of archival material they used. Indeed the latter was a re-assesment because it was written in 1990 in light of Conquests research in the archives.
LOL! You really don't know shit about Soviet history, and just keep digging yourself in deeper.

Neither one of those works reveals anything from the archives. Harvest of Sorrow, which Conquest was paid to write by Ukrainian Nationalists, didn't make use of anything from the archives. You couldn't even cite the archives in the 1980s, dumbass, and the only people claiming to see anything from the archives were people in the USSR. And Conquest's Reassessment is mostly an apologetic for all the material refuting his bullshit, and commenting on other material being published in the USSR at the time. Conquest doesn't do archive research, moron.

[Invader Zim]

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about; in the 1980's the soviet union was collapsing and access to the archives became far easier, which is why there were numerous works which made use of official documents which historians had only just gained access to. Conquest's works were no exception, and the review articles, even those that criticised his conclusions, praised the depth of his research.

Even a rudimentary knowledge of the historiography of the Soviet Union would tell you that the control over archival documentation wained consideravly in the 80's; and as you were apparently unaware, it is quite obvious that you are a complete novice.

As for 'reassessment'; there is nothing more to say. You are wrong, and anyone who knows anything about this subject knows that. You should appraise yourself of the most basic historiography of these subjects before attempting to act like you know anything.

[Intelligitimate]

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about

You clearly don't. You're so fucking ignorant you think Conquest could cite anything from the archives in the 1980s. You're pathetic for even trying to pretend to know what you're writing about.


n the 1980's the soviet union was collapsing and access to the archives became far easier, which is why there were numerous works which made use of official documents which historians had only just gained access to.

No non-Russian scholar was doing any archival research in the USSR in the 1980s, you stupid fuck. The few things that were even mentioned in the Soviet press could not even be cited properly, because everything was still classified.


Even a rudimentary knowledge of the historiography of the Soviet Union would tell you that the control over archival documentation wained consideravly in the 80's; and as you were apparently unaware, it is quite obvious that you are a complete novice.

You're the one that is so god damn ignorant that you claim Conquest was doing archival research in the 1980s, when not one single fucking person outside of the USSR was doing squat in the archives. Conquest isn't famous for “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives and sources once they were opened,” you stupid ignorant motherfucker. Conquest went on to basically claim the archives are worthless, and to promote the use of memoir material over archival evidence. You haven't read any of Conquest's post-archive drivel, or you would know know this.


As for 'reassessment'; there is nothing more to say. You are wrong, and anyone who knows anything about this subject knows that. You should appraise yourself of the most basic historiography of these subjects before attempting to act like you know anything.

I can only conclude you are a liar. You are knowingly pretending to have even read anything by Conquest, when in fact, you obviously have not, and lack even basic familiarity with any works of the field. I mean, you're so fucking stupid as to claim Conquest is famous for “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives and sources once they were opened,” and then stupidly cite a book written in the 1980s to prove this, when literally no one outside of Russia had any access to them.

[Invader Zim]

No non-Russian scholar was doing any archival research in the USSR in the 1980s,

You really know nothing about this. Various 'new' state material was released from restricted archives into the public sphere in the 1980's; you read any review of this work and it will mention it and Conquest's, at that point, 'exhaustive research' and use of state documentation. That you deny that even a limited portion of this, formerly restricted, material became available to scholars in the 80's is evidence of your ignorance.

But apparently you don't know the difference between the archives being opened and a liberalisation in existing policy. I grow tired of this kind of ignorance that you subject me to.

[Luís Henrique]

Intelligitimate, consider yourself warned for flaming.

Regarding the subject in discussion, I have never seen any evidence supporting that:

1) the famine was restricted to Ukraine;
2) the famine was merely the result of governmental reprisals against kulaks;
3) there was any kind of attempt, from the part of the Soviet government, to suppress the Ukrainian population.

These are the points that Ukrainian nationalists would have to prove, in order to successfully equate the holodomor to the Holocaust. I don't think they can, if for no other reason, because these three points are utterly false.

Luís Henrique

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 30, 2007 03:29 am


No non-Russian scholar was doing any archival research in the USSR in the 1980s,

You really know nothing about this. Various 'new' state material was released from restricted archives into the public sphere in the 1980's; you read any review of this work and it will mention it and Conquest's, at that point, 'exhaustive research' and use of state documentation. That you deny that even a limited portion of this, formerly restricted, material became available to scholars in the 80's is evidence of your ignorance.

But apparently you don't know the difference between the archives being opened and a liberalisation in existing policy. I grow tired of this kind of ignorance that you subject me to.
I never said stuff wasn't coming out in the 80s. This is your invention. I said no non-Russian scholar was doing archival research. Doing archival research means being in Russia, and having access to classified material, dumbass. It doesn't mean talking about material already being published in Russia.

[Invader Zim]

Doing archival research means being in Russia, and having access to classified material

Wrong, all it means is doing research with archived materials. it odes not imply that the material mst be classified, or formerly classified; though much of the material obvious was formerly restricted before the 80's.

Go away and learn what youi are talking about before you attempt to talk to a person who has actually a lot of time in various archives.

[Intelligitimate]

Wrong, all it means is doing research with archived materials. it odes not imply that the material mst be classified, or formerly classified; though much of the material obvious was formerly restricted before the 80's.

You are fucking dumb. You don't "research" material from the archives that has already been published by someone else, dumbass. Research implies producing something new and original. Archival research implies producing something new and original from the archives, not commenting on things already published by someone else. You have to be physically working with the archives in some fashion.


Go away and learn what youi are talking about before you attempt to talk to a person who has actually a lot of time in various archives.

Juding by how much of a liar you are, I doubt you have ever worked with any archives, or are even a university student, for that matter. It is clear nothing you say can be taken for granted whatsoever, because you have no qualms at all with making up bald-faced lies.

[Invader Zim]

You don't "research" material from the archives that has already been published by someone else,

You seem to have missed the point, Conquests work in the mid-late 80's wasn't based on prior-published materials, but primary sources historians were starting to gain access too following a liberalisation of policy in the Soviet Union during that period.


I doubt you have ever worked with any archives, or are even a university student, for that matter.

As usual, the facts are railed against you. How do you suppose I have access to JSTOR without being at a university? You really are awful at this.

Also, you apparently cannot understand simple instructions.

[Intelligitimate]

You seem to have missed the point, Conquests work in the mid-late 80's wasn't based on prior-published materials, but primary sources historians were starting to gain access too following a liberalisation of policy in the Soviet Union during that period.

Which were being published in the Soviet press by Russians, dumbass. Conquest wasn't doing any research, unless you think reading the work of people in Russian and commenting on it counts as “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives,” moron. Even your own fucking language implies physically being there. You're not only a liar, but a stupid liar who can't even keep your bullshit straight.


As usual, the facts are railed against you. How do you suppose I have access to JSTOR without being at a university? You really are awful at this.

I've had access to it for the last couple of months through a friend, as I wasn't able to get into university in the Fall (just a few more days till I move into the dorms though). I don't really care anyway, cause nothing you say can be trusted, because you have no qualms about lying. Whether or not you or a university student doesn't matter to me. What you clearly are is an ignorant, anti-communist, pseudo-Leftist liar that likes to pretend to be knowledgeable and make up statements out of thin air.

[Invader Zim]

Which were being published in the Soviet press by Russians,

Your simply wrong, but cling to your misconceptions; ignorance is bliss and you no doubt are exceptionally happy.

[Intelligitimate]

Except I'm not wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about, even though you like pretending to.

For any lurkers, a good book on the subject of what was being published in the 80s in Russia is R.W. Davies' Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution. I bought it to see if there was any discussion about some of the forged documents to come out of the era, such as the Eremin forgery, which had already been exposed as such decades before. There wasn't much of that kind of stuff, but if anyone wants to know what was coming out of Russia in the 80s, this would be the book to get.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Intelligitimate
Except I'm not wrong

Intelligitimate: - "No non-Russian scholar was doing any archival research in the USSR in the 1980s"





"Those who belong to my generation (I did my graduate work in the 1970s), or to the generation that trained us, initially harbored few hopes of gaining right of entry to the Soviet archives if our research topics focused on 1917 or on later periods in Soviet history. As a result of détente and of expanding bilateral exchanges between the American and Soviet governments, however, researchers by the 1980s began to obtain limited access to certain archival collections. Working in the Central State Archive of the October Revolution and Socialist Construction (TsGAOR, today GARF) in 1986, I experienced not only great personal satisfaction but also a strange sensation of doing something risqué and forbidden, for even though I had been trained as an archival historian in the Rankean tradition, I had never before set foot in a Soviet archive."

Donald J Raleigh, 'Doing Soviet History: The Impact of the Archival Revolution', Russian Review, Volume 61 Issue 1 Page 16-24, January 2002 p. 16.

As we all can see Intelligitimate was wrong and foreign historians did indeed have access to the Soviet archives in the 80's (as I stated), and the history of the Soviet archives is yet another subject which our Stalinist friend here is blindly ignorant. Perhaps he can now dispense with the accusation that I have in any way lied, as I have just proven (yet again) that I was correct.

[Intelligitimate]

I admit my wording was not very precise. Some non-Russians did have rather limited access to the archives, though did not do anything of real importance. This is confirmed by the very source you cite, which you either did not fully read or quoted dishonestly.

"Moreover, the terms of admission imposed from above also put me on edge. For one thing, I was shown -- and then only after frustrating delays -- a mere twenty archival files (dela). I could not consult archival inventories (iopisi) or catalogs, discuss my research with archivists willing to help, or inspect files in the same building in which our Soviet colleagues conducted their research."

The first work cited in this article is the one I just mentioned, R. W. Davies Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution which leads me to believe it was also the first thing you could find in your college's academic journal search. Raliegh's difficulties were not unique, and were part of the wider restrictions placed on any non-Russian seeking access to the archives. To quote Davies:

"While the battles are still continuing, all historians are agreed that the restrictions on access to the archives constitute a major obstacle to serious research, , ,While British scholars are still not allowed to consult the catalogues (opisi) relating to the Soviet period, and depend on archivists to supply a limited range of files on their topics, access to the material on the Soviet period has improved since as early as 1981, particularly after the archival protocol signed in March 1984 between the State Archive Administration and the British Academic Committee for Liason with Soviet Archives."

This statement was made as late as 1989, when the figures for the Gulag populations were being published (again, without proper citation). Your source, and Davies, confirm what I said, if taken in the sense I meant it, which was that no non-Russian was doing any serious archival research. The confusion though is entirely my own fault, and for that I do apologize.

[Invader Zim]

I admit my wording was not very precise.

No, your statement was very precise, and it was wrong.


which leads me to believe it was also the first thing you could find in your college's academic journal search.

Actually it was an article I used as an undergraduate in 2004 when studing changes in modern historography. I simply read through the bibliography of the essay I used it in to find the relevent reference, re-found it and proceeded to trascribe the passage you see above. The reason I didn't add the lower quotes is because I was transcribing and secondly it was not relevent as I had already stated that access in the 80's was limited.




You will find if you look through the review articles of the two Conquest books I referenced that they are full of praise for the depth of Conquests research, using new material in the form of state documents, etc. Such documents could feasably only come from the archives.

[Intelligitimate]

No, your statement was very precise, and it was wrong.

It was not precise in the sense it did not convey exactly what I wanted it to.


Actually it was an article I used as an undergraduate in 2004 when studing changes in modern historography

I don't believe that, but whatever.


You will find if you look through the review articles of the two Conquest books I referenced that they are full of praise for the depth of Conquests research, using new material in the form of state documents, etc. Such documents could feasably only come from the archives.

"Coming from the archives" and “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives” are not the same thing, and in any case, both the source you cite and the one I do confirm “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives” was not possible for non-Russians.

[Invader Zim]

I don't believe that, but whatever.

Now why is that? In the past I have uploaded an undergraduate essay onto this forum.


“prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives”

This had 'Re-assessment' in mind.

[Intelligitimate]

Now why is that? In the past I have uploaded an undergraduate essay onto this forum.

Again, the fact that the first work even cited in the article is the one I cited in the post right before the one you made. I don't see what the hell uploading an undergraduate essay would have to do with when and where you found this, unless the essay contained a citation to that article.


This had 'Re-assessment' in mind.

This work isn't famous for his “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives” either. The work is basically just a reprint of The Great Terror, with actually very little discussion of new archival material. The last section of the original "Epilogue: The Aftermath," which contained some of his bogus calculations, is replaced with "Book III."