User talk:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selected quotations from the original talk page[edit]

(as selected by Digwuren the Infamous Sock Puppet with Big Scissors)

Timeline[edit]

Ghirlandajo added this comment:

As is clear from the context of his address, he referred to the claims that the USSR "occupied" tha Baltic States at the conclusion of the WWII, whereas they had been considered its constituent states since 1939. There is no evidence that Ivanov denied the occupation of those states in 1939.

This is actually contrary to the official position advocated by Russia. Specifically, the official position does not publically consider Baltic states to have been SSRs before their "admission" in 1940; what happened in 1939 is customarily considered "presence of limited army contingent as a part of general cooperation and mutual military assistance" (or other nice-sounding euphemisms). Importantly, 1939 events have not been recognised as start of occupation by Russia, and since the puppet governments weren't installed before 1940, probably never will be. Digwuren 11:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The troop stationing under the pacts of mutual assistance in 1939, though coerced (direct threat of occupation by Stalin), was legal. What was illegal was all that followed (invasion, "elections," "petition to join," etc.). 1939 was certainly the prelude to occupation, but only the 1940 invasion marked the start of occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation denial claims[edit]

[some context mercilessly deleted by Digwuren the Deleter Guy]

The Soviet occupation of Romania lasted from 1944 to 1958. That's a pretty long time, by any measure. Turgidson 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a differentiation between what was incorporated to the Soviet Union by the means of occupation and what was occupied and kept as independent countries. The occupation of Poland was a direct result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact during World War II, Poland was not occupied after the war. The occupation of Romania was a result of the Yalta Conference and connected to the incorporation of Bukovina to the Ukrainian SSR and Bessarabia to the Moldovian SSR. After Stalin's death in 1953 the political climate changed and the Red Army was withdrawn. --Philaweb T-C 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[editor's remark: Philaweb is not pushing a denialist point here. He's merely pointing out a need for clarification. This is made clear by the context I deleted as useless for the new article.]

Totally disputed[edit]

Article on denial of soviet occupation would include stuff on Russian (and late USSR) denial of the fact that the Baltic states were occupied in the 1940s by the Soviet Union. The quotation by Ivanov is a good example.
Article on denial of soviet crimes would include stuff on Katyn, Holodomor, deportations, Gulag, persecution of political dissidents.Lebatsnok 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources for the future[edit]

Just collecting sources to be included, depending on the outcome of AfD. Not commenting on quality of those sources or contents.

DLX 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates, accuracy and references[edit]

I melded the "forms" of denial into one, as the one represented as one which people popularly argue ("Soviets invited") is also stated by the Russian authorities (for which I provided a reference). Harking to Soviet past, specifically in associating with that past, also clarified and added reference to restoration of Dzherzinsky's (founder of the Cheka) bust to the Moscow police's courtyard in 2005, from where it had been removed in 1991. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Further reading" reference to book by Bernhard Lamey (1952). Lettland in der Europäischen Schicksalsgemeinschaft. Andrejs Ozolins Verlag, Eutin. OCLC 4382484.. This book contains copy of United States of America , Department of State, certificate no. 5234, signed May 28, 1947 by Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The certificate certifies that: "The incorporation of Latvia by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is not recognized by the Government of the United States". There are copies of three other certificates related to this issue. Unsigned added by User:Philaweb 14:16, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

Soviet crimes against Russians[edit]

One of the persistent theses of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was that the largest ethnic group victimised by the Soviet regime were the Russians. This raises two interesting questions:

  • Do Soviet crimes against Russians, and their coverups, fit into this article?
  • Are there any reliable sources systematically describing these crimes and their coverups? Digwuren 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, the crimes against Russians also fits into the scope of this article. The concept of Bolshevism and Communism is to mold a new breed of people - Homo Sovieticus - which also succeeded with the USSR to a large extent. Those people, who voluntarily moved from the Russian SSR (and other SSR's) to the Baltic SSR's and other SSR's in shortage of labor force, were the priviledged class within the Soviet Union, with better paid jobs and housing just waiting for them in the newly "incorporated" territories. The rigid Soviet bureaucracy made it almost impossible for ethnic inhabitants of a SSR to move from the countryside to the nearest regional town, not mentioning the SSR capital. The Soviet system encouraged ethnic inhabitants to move outside their republic of origin, those individuals not willing or able to adapt were the victims of the Soviet Union, which also includes millions of Russians. --Philaweb T-C 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard a legend for which I do not have a proper RS right now. It says that in the Czarist era, it was common for most villages throughout Russia to have a small number -- typically, one to four -- of "rich households". These households would be able to lend out money on interest to others when necessary, as well as providing other financial services, thus constituting a form of banks. Come the revolution, such households would be declared kulaks and "liquidated", leading to dismantling of the Russian rural banking network, and thus, causing "interesting" financial troubles in the following few decades. Can this story be corroborated or refuted? And furthermore, if true, has this dismantling of banking network been considered as a crime in the appropriate literature?

Soviet dismantling of previously existing banking network in Estonia has so been treated, but it mainly counts as a crime because of its inherent connection to the hostile occupation. Obviously, considering Russia "occupied" by the Bolsheviks is quite strained, and unlikely to be supportable. But perhaps, there are other approaches? Digwuren 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, in the utmost consequense anything relating to Communism can be construed as criminal when opposed to other political philosophies. To keep the subject unbiased, or at least neutral, the communist philosophy in theory must be held against Communism practiced in reality and its consequenses. Another problematic dilemma is when judging today on what can be construed as crimes ninety years ago. Remember that Capitalism, the directly opposed philosophy to Communism, only began to play a balanced role in the world after World War II with the booming Wirtschaftswunder of the Western World. In the youth of practical Communism in the Soviet Union, the main results of Capitalism in the eyes of laymen was the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Depression. It seems to me that many people forget these facts in hindsight view. The Russian Revolutions did not emerge from nothing. In my book, Soviet crimes can be summed up to a single word: "Betrayal". A good example would be the Red Latvian Riflemen who fought for the cause only to be betrayed during the Great Purge. That is the true crime of practical communism. --Philaweb T-C 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing in Russian Wikipedia (or, Operation “I ask anyone to vote”)[edit]

Приглашаю всех проголосовать: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.B3.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.88.D0.B0.D1.8E_.D0.B2.D1.81.D0.B5.D1.85_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D1.82.D1.8C 193.40.5.245 08:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion[edit]

Might I suggest we allow the article to develop into something more general so it's not seen as a "fork"? Or are we going to hound articles in progress in user spaces? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the current plan for this article? --Alexia Death 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • also, the title has problems. If we talk about crimes, denial of occupation feels off... I hope someone has a bright idea about this...--Alexia Death 09:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily, both war of aggression and a number of the deeds committed through the occupation count as crimes. Digwuren 09:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the full term is Denial propaganda of crimes of the Soviet occupation regime against oppressed peoples. I'd rather not suggest it as the article's new title without a proper discussion yet, though. Digwuren 09:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Soviet historiography"... :-) --Illythr 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean discarding all the propaganda aspects. Unfortunately, Soviet approach to history does not make sense without understanding their approach to propaganda. Digwuren 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I remembered that suggestion for somewhere, so I went and checked. You made this suggestion on the AfD discussion. And upon re-reading your other amazing positions on the same page, an interesting question developed in my mind; a question I hope to get a good answer for -- but won't hold my breath:
Why should your suggestions regarding the article here be considered anything more than the cheap sophistry they were there? Digwuren 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's a strange reply. Don't you believe "Soviet historiography" and "Soviet propaganda" to be pretty much the same thing?
  • The term yields far more Google hits than your invention (29400 against 8);
  • It provides you with an indulgence to focus on your favorite parts of Soviet history without attracting further AfD requests :(unless you really botch it again);
  • It is still a POV fork, as its very name implies that Soviet historiography differs from "traditional" historiography
  • However, it will have more balance and NPOV potential and may eventually become a good article, in some distant future.
Exactly which one of my arguments on that page do you consider "Cheap sophistry"? (Yes, I'm expecting you to reply "all of them") --Illythr 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some aspects of the peculiarities of Soviet history are explained and described starting on page 92 of Valge Raamat. This describes what happened to Estonian historical research people in the early years of occupation. Digwuren 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there an English translations available online? --Illythr 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of new narrative[edit]

I feel that now we're rid of the baggage of a neologism, we shouldn't structure the article like a directory entry anymore. Thus, the intro should go roughly thus:

Soviet Union occupied some countries.[citation needed] Then, it committed some crimes.[citation needed] They were a part of the colonial policies[citation needed] of the occupation.[citation needed] As a part of the propaganda activities[citation needed] prescribed by Marxist-Leninist theories[citation needed], the crimes got covered up internally[citation needed] and actively denied overseas[citation needed]. Some notable people[citation needed] even today maintain[citation needed] some of these denials.[citation needed]

This would require some changes to the reference structure, though, and it's not obvious to me right now how best to avoid loss of references in the transition. Digwuren 09:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the problem with that, you know. Vecrumba has a much better suggestion above. --Illythr 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What problem? Digwuren 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one it got deleted for. A POV fork is still a POV fork, even if you source every word in it ten times over. --Illythr 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are dead wrong there. See WP:POVFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and WP:POVFORK#Articles whose subject is a POV. These two cover this article - and do remember that this article has never been demonstrated to be POV or POV fork, only claimed. DLX 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Heh, thanks for demonstrating that for me. I think that ...regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance... was the main reason for deletion.
Amusingly, this new page is a POV fork of a nonexistent article, Soviet crimes (the old one was a spinoff of the various "Soviet occupation of X"). One could assume that you guys are avoiding consensus without even trying to build any! :-) That's also why I favor "Soviet historiography": It's relatively neutral at least in name. Articles about a POV should adhere to NPOV themselves. --Illythr 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workpage[edit]

I also suggest to mark this workpage as such: {{Workpage}}. The one in User:DLX's userspace needs it badly, too (top on Google hitlist). --Illythr 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the utility of that. Please explain further. Digwuren 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thorough pondering, I believe this template would be useful if this article was developed in a style where at any given time, raw material or other brokenness would likely be lying around. History has shown it won't; even the raw material I copied around from the Katyn massacre article is not as raw as to not fit; its fault is only that it's too long. All the true rawness has been on the talk page, and will likely so be in the future.
Thus, I believe adding this template is unwarranted.
Of course, you have not yet explained your position further. When you do, this position of mine might merit reconsidering. Digwuren 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should pop up in google searches any time now. DLX's "Soviet occupation denialism" already is (after the deleted one gets flushed). No one should mistake this page for a real article. --Illythr 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

There is some true discrepancy between the terms used in this context, and their regular definitions in other contexts. For example, a lot of the events associated with occupation in the context of Soviet occupation would be called colonial in pretty much any other context. This may be a historical accident, but it is a place that critics (especially the dishonest ones) *will* pick up. This discrepancy needs to be explained.

I do not currently have a good source for that. I have a speculation for the reasons, but this would be WP:OR, so I won't mention it just yet. Thus:

Digwuren 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War the terminology was quite different than today. The First World represented the industrialized world or more politically correct, the "developed world". The Third World were the previous colonies of the First World, independent from but still economically dependent on their previous masters. They now have the more politically correct label "developing world". The Second World never kept (or had) any colonies in the sence of overseas possessions, since the major concept was to spread out into the world as a communist franchise of the revolution.
When it comes to Soviet crimes in this context, Nashism is the best describing terminology, even though that particular article only focuses on current movements and events. The word "nashism" (Our ones) describes the Soviet/Russian symbioses when it comes to territorial aspirations, an ideology where soil once incorporated to "nashi" (our) regime always will be regarded as "nashi" (ours). This way of thinking falls in line with the typical Russian sentiment of nostalgia, a profound feature of the Russian character. --Philaweb T-C 12:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress?[edit]

Is there any progress on this article? Philaweb T-C 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes&oldid=230890791"