Misplaced Pages

Talk:Historiography in the Soviet Union

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 7 October 2011 (Useful sock edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:04, 7 October 2011 by Piotrus (talk | contribs) (Useful sock edits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historiography in the Soviet Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconHistory C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3



This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historiography in the Soviet Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

Disputed tenets of Soviet historiography

This is the latest name of the disputed myths section.


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

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

Then please make a constructive suggestion instead of presenting us as the same hopelessly unencyclopedic POV version that has already been discussed above. Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The most appropriate section's name should be "Conquest's and Pipes' views of some events of Soviet history". Again, this section belongs to Soviet history, not Soviet historiography, because it presents different versions of some historical events, not how Soviet historiography presents well established and well known facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I believe this discussion (as well as the disputable section) belongs to another article, let me quote some other scholarships that contradict to Pipes' statements. After Civil war, when both Red and White terrors were understandable, and before Stalin took full power there were no terror in the USSR.
"In 1926 a new RSFSR Criminal Code was enacted. This Code also included the death penalty as 'an exceptional measure for the protection of the workers' state', existing only provisionally 'until its abolition'. In the next year, an attempt was made to restrict the application of the death penalty to certain political38 and military crimes and to banditry (Article 167 of the Code). This restrictive policy resulted in a rather sharp decrease in the number of death sentences in the RSFSR from about 0.1% of all sentences in 1922-25 to only 0.03% in 1928. In 1928 about 1.5 million sentences were pronounced in the entire USSR (according to figures given by the criminologist Gernet), which means that the total number of death sentences was probably about 450 as against about 1,200 in 1923 and 1,300 in 1926." (The Soviet Union and the Death Penalty. Author(s): Ger P. Van den Berg Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 154-174)
In connection to that, could anyone remind me what was the number of death sentences in the US and the UK during that time?
Pipes' conclusions are disputable, and cannot be presented as examples of debunking of some myths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul, I noticed you changed the source for the quote above. Is Van den Berg the antecedent source for Volobuev and Schutz or was that just a correction? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I inserted Volobuev by accident: I copypasted it from the wrong article (I was working with two files simultaneously).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly propaganda

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

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

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

Factual inaccuracies

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

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

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference reflections was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Paul Gregory, Russian National Income 1885–1913. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982
  3. ^ Richard Pipes Communism: A History (2001) ISBN 0-812-96864-6, pages 73-74.
You fail to counter the argument. The piece you cite is hardly extensive; it very much falls under "minimized" (not to mention, major biased). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The USSR is not Russia is not the USSR

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

Rename

The request to rename this article to Historiography in the Soviet Union has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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

Useful sock edits?

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

Categories: