Talk:The Soviet Story/Archive 1

Archive 1

DO NOT POST FALSE ACCUSATIONS!

Section "Controversies". 129.173.66.208 keeps on posting deliberately false accusations about the films content under the section "Controversies". I deleted them. The false accusations were as follows:

a) ACCUSATION: "H. Müller appears as SS-Brigadeführer in the film". ACTUALLY IN THE FILM: H. Müller is Standartenführer! (minute 49:36 in the film)

b) ACCUSATION: "H. Müller is Chief of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) Amt IV (the Gestapo)". ACTUALLY IN THE FILM: H. Müller is a "representative of the Chief of the Security Main Office of Germany" [Sicherheitshauptamt]. (minute 53:07 in the film)

c) ACCUSATION: The document in the film contains reference to "RSHA - Reich Main Security Office" ACTUALLY IN THE FILM: There is reference to "Sicherheitshauptamt" and NOT TO RSHA - "Reichssicherheitshauptamt" (minute 53:13 in the film).

d) ACCUSATION: H. Müller signed Kristallnacht documents on November 11 of 1938 and physically couldn't be in Moscow. This is a blank accusation, since no reference to any docuements signed by Müller on Novermber 11, 1938 is provided!

Is it in the film (e.g., what they say in the film) or ON THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT? I wrote about the document. I agree with point d) since I've found document dated November 9 so far. I will continue the look for other documents (I'm pretty sure that they exist). But I will restore the reference to Izvestia since the fact that they reported the document to be fake is true. 129.173.66.208 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove also the information about "KGB officers during the 1940s"? Also, when editing, please take care about the integrity of references etc. (to avoid error messages like 'Cite error: Invalid ref tag'). Just use Preview button before saving your changes. 129.173.66.208 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA FILM?

I don't see a reason why this movie is classified as propaganda. I will remove this word from the article. Loool (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections. But I think it is more correct to classify this film as propaganda since it's much more closer to the definition of propaganda film than to that of documentary film in wikipedia. Specifically, "A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." The following key points from this definition can be identified in the film (please excuse me if the following arguments sound not encyclopedic, the discussion page is not a wikipedia article, so I use somewhat less neutral language):

• providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content - see Section Controversies.
• convince the viewer of a certain political point - while the first part of the film pictures several historians (although their scientific reputation was reported to be very poor, I will try to find and incorporate direct link to a paper describing this), the second part features several contemporary Latvian politians presenting their own political views towards modern Russia.
• influence the opinions or behavior of people - the demonstration of the military personnel of Nazi Germany and USSR is followed by with mass-meeting of so-called Vlasovzi (members of Russian Liberation Army supporting Nazi Regime), which has no clue with the USSR military personnel being actually Nazi servants.

How this facts can be connected with documentary film which is "based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality" (the definition in wikipedia)? 129.173.66.208 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Instead of writing answers to questions posted here someone has just locked the article writing Documentary with Large first letter. Indeed, it's a Great Documentary with lots of faked facts and pictures ;) Speaking seriously, I think it was enough just to undo the change with propaganda on history page. 24.222.199.65 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RS? OR?

Since when do David Irving's musings about what constitutes a real historical source and Dyukov's footnoteless whitewashes of Stalinism count as WP:RS? Furthermore, the cited sources date from years before this film was released. As it stands now, the "Controversy" section is WP:OR (i.e., a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position") attacking the film, rather than a description of what the critical public discourse regarding The Soviet Story actually is (such as, for example, the inexplicably deleted material about the protest by "Young Russia" was). —Zalktis (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the problem. Actually, all the arguments in this section were published in Russian press. I just summarized these publication and added original sources. I will find these publications and add references to them. Considering sources dated before this film was released - it's a nonsense. The film ignores some publicly available historical facts which were published decades before the film was released. Should we wait before these sources will be published once more time to use them? I think, we also need to restore the material about the Young Russia response. I also agree with your sceptisism considering the credibility of David Irving and A. Dyukov. 129.173.66.208 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I will find more sources considering the reaction of the public to the film and incorporate it in the "Controversy" section. Basically, all recent reactions tend to list the same facts I have already included in the article, so please do not erase them while I'm looking for recently published sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.66.208 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have included a reference to a publication in Izvestia, "a long-running high-circulation daily newspaper in Russia" as one can read in wikipedia. This publication includes all the facts that I've included in the "Controversy" section and is published AFTER the film was screened in European parliament. If you have any questions, PLEASE write them here before editing MY text in the "Controversy". I'm very limited in free time and invested considerable amount of it in the article. I'm also shocked with the level of 'documentality' of this film and will do my best to publish as much as possible verifiable and precise information abouth this film in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.66.208 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not "your" text. See WP:OWN. Reinis^talk 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the arguments about Müller are really those put forward by Dyukov in Izvestiia, why do the references point to things like the book Kristallnacht, or the Jewish Virtual Library website? Once again, the "Controversy" is looking like User:129.173.66.208's "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". The proper placement of the footnote references to Dyukov/Izvestia would preclude the need for these other sources. We're talking about the controversy here, i.e. what has been said about the film; if you want to write your own essay on why Šņore's film is a blatant falsification of history (I have not seen it, so I cannot judge for myself), then please do so. But not on Wikipedia. Cf. WP:OR. —Zalktis (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly views

Aside from building out a "Positive assessments" section, I've added a new "Scholarly views" as well, incorporation information from the Latvian Wikipedia article. I think this is justified, since most of the other two sections are mainly political or journalistic commentaries. One might argue that Dyukov, as an historian, should be included in the "scholarly views" section; my answer to this is that from what I've seen of Dyukov (on the web and in his performances on Russia Today as Al Gurnov's favourite "expert" on the Baltics) is that he is more engaged in publitsistika, than serious scholarship. Show me a reference to any article he has published in recent years in a reputable, peer-reviewed academic journal (e.g. Europe-Asia Studies, Cahiers du monde russe, Osteuropa, or Voprosy istorii), and I might change my mind... —Zalktis (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dyukov

Who is Aleksandr Dyukov? That is the million dollar question. According to an article in Diena [1] today, he is a pretty dubious person. He maintains to have graduated in 2004 from an institute that ceased to exist 10 years before the alledged graduation. He has no relevant publications and only has been among the editors of one book (plus two partial reprints of the same book). If these facts are true, he has no business of being mentioned in this article along with proper historicians. Mjbjosh (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He is Alexander Dyukov. ISasha (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you made an article on him. Still doubt about his relevance in the English version of Wikipedia, has he published anything in English or have his works been published in English? Mjbjosh (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You see e.g. Anton Chekhov hasn't published anything in English, but he is in the English version of Wikipedia :-))) The works of another acclaimed Russian historian Natalia Narochnitskaya have only recently been translated into French, Czech, Slovakian and Serbian languages, but not into English yet. The books by these authors are thought-provoking and provide the Russian point of view into the matter. I believe some information should be available in Wiki. ISasha (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Realy don't know anything about Alexander Dyukov, exept that he strongly kritisized the movie. Added mention of Russian writer Viktor Suvorov. He's books are at least controversial, but he is more known than Dyukov. You have made good article about Dyukov in just two days. Edo 555 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I fully agree. Everyone involved in the film should be mentioned. BTW, Alexander Dyukov, Alexey Isaev (author of "AntiSuvorov") and Igor Pykhalov are very well known in Russia.:-)ISasha (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dyukov is a fringe historian of unusual views and little notability. Not mainstream, does not deserve huge chunk of article. Undue weight. 82.131.109.131 (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dyukov's last book, The Genocide Myth, only printed 800 700 copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.109.131 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I wonder is this wikipedia article a church for Dyukov's views, I thought the address of Dyukov's blog was not this wikipedia article.. I wonder if anyone who will have something to say about this movie will get so much exposure on this thread which is not about some Dyukov which we hear for the first time (actually first time was on youtube video critisizing the film weeks before anyone ever seen it, so his agenda is clear, whitewash Soviet crimes with which nowadays Russia still idetntifies itself with for some strange reason, at all cost)

Well let's not let it to become a church. 82.131.109.131 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Baltic contingent of editors love Dyukov, plain and simple. He says everything over the top that the Russian foreign ministry can's say because they'd be made into a laughing stock. Novosti, which runs the Russia Today channel and puts Dyukov out on the airwaves frequently, is the Russian government. —PētersV (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Neutrality is disputed.

Russians think that film contains false facts and it is propaganda film against soviet terror.

People from eastern europe- (Baltic states, Poland, Finland, Ukraina, Belorussia, Countries of Balkan and others) thinks that film is true. True events about 20th century biggest repressions and terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.150.199 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you call Ivars Ijabs Russian? He characterized the film as an 'ideological work'. Then added 'That is why it is absolutely not necessary to evaluate the film in terms of 'hystorical objectivity'. Is it what a person says when one talks about somethink true? Here is a link for you (Latvian source): http://www.lv.lv/?menu=exblogi&sub=&type=full&id=44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

who in his memoirs clearly refers to it as "parade". I consider rewriting this part of the article and removing false accusation of the so-called joint Soviet-German military parade. The text in the mentioned memoirs by the Guderian is the following: A farewell parade and salutes to the two flags in the presence of General Krivochin marked the end of our stay in Brest-Litovsk. This is the only time he actually mentions the thing in his book. Here is some more text in the context:

"As forerunner of the Russians there appeared a young officer in an armored reconnaissance car, who informed us that a Russian Tank Brigade was on its way. Then we received information concerning the demarcation line which the Foreign Ministry had agreed; this surrendered Brest to the Russians, since the Bug was to be the boundary. We did not regard this as a very advantageous decision; and finally we were informed that we only had until 22nd of September in which to evacuate the territory east of the line of demarcation. This was so little time that we could not even move all our wounded or recover our damaged tanks. It seems unlikely that any soldier was present when the agreement about the demarcation line and the cease fire was drawn up.

On the day for handing over to the Russians a Brigadier-General Krivochin appeared, a tank man who had some knowledge of French, and with whom I could therefore converse. What the instructions of the Foreign Ministry had left undecided I now settled in a friendly fashion directly with the Russians. All our equipment could be carried away; only supplies captured from the Poles had to be left behind, since in the short time at our disposal we had not been able to organize the transport necessary for their removal. A farewell parade and salutes to the two flags in the presence of General Krivochin marked the end of our stay in Brest-Litovsk.

On the evening of the 22nd of September we arrived at Zambrov. The 3rd Panzer Division had already set off for East Prussia, with the other divisions echeloned behind. The corps was now dissolved".

Text taken from the book's pages 62-63

PANZER LEADER (Abridged), Foreword by Captain B.H.Liddell Hart Translated from the German by Constantine Fitzgibbon

This edition published by arrangement with E.P.Dutton & Co., Inc. First American Printing: November, 1957 Second American Printing: April, 1961 Third American Printing: June, 1965 First Canadian Printing: November, 1957 Second Canadian Printing: June, 1967

Printed in Canada.

BALLANTINE BOOKS INC. 101 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003

ISasha (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing wrong considering the context. The German flag had to be lowered and the Soviet flag had to be raised. With German troops marching out of the city, a Soviet Russian official representative had to be present. This is clearly not a joint parade. ISasha (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Andora1 wrote: I liked this sentence:

>"This is the only time he actually mentions the THING in his book". This is correct. And that "thing", forgive me for citing Guderian, is a "PARADE". Is it not? Let us mention this in the article. Now. Who is marching in that parade? Nazi troops and Soviet troops. It took place during ONE parade. Or did you find Guderian mentioning two parades, one for Soviet troops, another for Nazi troops? If yes, please come forward with this information. Until then, I dared to restore the previous version. I removed a reference to a Soviet commander, since he does not support any of the "parade" versions. He avoids describing this event.

This is your own conclusion. Read carefully. Guderian says that German troops made a farewell parade before they went out of Brest. THERE WAS ONE PARADE. I am sorry, do you understand English or should I find you the German version of the text??? ISasha (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandalov's memoirs are also very important, just follow the link. I have made a blockquote to highlight the phrase in Guderian's memoirs. It is clear that farewell parade was made by German troops before they left the city. I will try to get the German version of the text in the next few days. ISasha (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight per WP:FTN

I made a request to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and the advice is that the views of Alexander Dyukov is given undue weight in the article. Therefore I am removing that section. A summary of his view should be given in negative responses section. Martintg (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK :-) It was not my idea to name it "the views of Alexander Dyukov". I will add it into the Negative Responses section. ISasha (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to summarise his views into a single paragraph, you are giving undue amount of space to his viewpoint. Martintg (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Every point is very important. To say "the whole film is full of lies" would be too short. ISasha (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to trim it down, because as it stands, it breaches WP:UNDUE. Note that those who support the film, including published historians, are given a single paragraph. Dyukov views are given too much coverage. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose view this is (I mean there is no reason to advertise Dyukov or whoever). This is first of all a list of falsifications, or if you wish - call it "alleged falsifications" in the film. They all should be listed. People should know both points of view. Dyukov's view on the film has also been supported by most historians in this country. ISasha (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, anyone? Of course it matters, whose view it is, there's no "universal and absolute truth". And someones credibility can only come from his background, education, work, notability etc. About support to Dyukov's view - references, please. Especially for the "most historians" part. And could you explain your own words - "historians of this country", what should this kind of "regional specification" tell us, are we talking about universal truth (like you tried to present it) or regional one? ;) Ptrt (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about "universal and absolute truth". We are not discussing here the Soviet Union in general, Gulag or whatever. This article is about this documentary film, which according to Russian mass media is a propaganda film, and not a documentary. The facts, figures and opinions shown and expressed in the film are controversial. That is the problem, and that is why people discuss that film. Regarding "someone's credibility": what is Edvīns Šņore's credibility? A very young man. What is his background? There is no information on him even in Latvian Wikipedia!ISasha (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Sasha:)) Thanks for the good laugh.. and your "argument" You compare Dyukov and Snore regarding Soviet Story? If there was no Snore would you be wasting your precious time discussing Soviet Story made by Snore?? However if there was no Dyukov (or whatever is the name of this Kremlin pocket historian from a country where there is almost no freedom of press and speech.. where most media is controled by Kremlin) the Soviet Story would still be as it is.. So once more.. this article is about Soviet Story made by Snore.. Dykov has got his own wikipedia article (made by you, Sasha?) and his own blog, where he can express his deeply personal views about his latest book The Genocide Myth, only printed in 700 copies, the Soviet Story in his personal view and other issues he and his few readers find important. But turning this article which is ABOUT THE SOVIET STORY into an article about what Dyukov thinks and says.. well. it is beyond idiotic.. or should we also make a special thread for every publicly known person who has an opinion on this film, instead of just a few sentences backed by links of sources where anyone who is interested can read the full opinion by the specific person like it is used in wikipedia?

Neutrality disputed

After removing the list of falsifications in the film, the article provides only one point of view. ISasha (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea:( may be we should connect the Soviet Story article to the RSS reader from Dyukov's blog, so we do not miss a word of Dyukov's personal opinion and get direct immediate updates. And we can renew about 30 to 40% of this article into Dyukov's opinions giving him his own large thread as it was in Sasha's version.. I pitty the wiki editor who ruined this article about Dyko.. oops, about the Soviet Story

There's still plenty of Dyukov. Personally, I would still say undue weight, but since he's the new mouthpiece for the "Soviet oppression was a lie" version of history, he's a convenient summary point for what's being carried in the Russian press.

Now you even have here a section on "false accusations" by the critics of the film, while preventing the article from any criticism. It is clearly not neutral.ISasha (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys you wrote lot of about how much you hate the film. But it is not so clear, why.

If you don't like that in the film Stalin's crimes are being instrumentalize or you deny the crimes of communists or just don't like the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celasson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MEPs

I know I've said I'm not going to to involve myself in the editing of this page. It must be pointed out, however, that Vaidere, Kristovskis, Vatanen, and Beazley all appear in the film. In the name of WP:NPOV, I suggest quotes from them be removed from the "Reception" section as being clearly a conflict of interest (of course they'd say it's a good film). —Zalktis (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a subsection of "Comments by interviewees" under section about the film. —PētersV (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a case of conflict of interest here, speaking in their capacity of MEPs, they could have also disavowed the film if it turned out to be crap. Martintg (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a casual reader I agree it's fair to mention they also were contributing to the film itself, and not just random watchers giving positive feedback. I tried to make it clear in the text. --J. Sketter (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to smear opponent to protect Baltic POV?

Vecrumba continues to revert an article, removing NPOV characteristic of Dyukov as "historian" (he's holding an advanced degree in history) and adding lengthy description of his views as sacrilegious (clearly POV). Let's discuss Dyukov's views on WP page devoted to him (the page is one click away), as currently he enjoys the dubious distinction of being the only commentator of this propaganda piece who's views are advertised. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To Vecrumba

Taking into account your repeated demands for me to register in order to be deemed "worthy", I fully expect you to revert edit of anonymous IP who reverted me recently. You're opponent of anon editing on principle, aren't you? Or is it kosher as soon as anon happens to share your POV? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RJ CG again, right? Oh, how nice of you to drop by... Ptrt (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is very nice page you linked here. Positive checkuser of two shared and unrelated IPs (one of them Public Library computer in city twice as big as whole Estonia). Based on history of reverts, with no original contribution to check for style here. What a gem of impartiality!!! 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course I believe you, please accept my sincere apologies. No, really... ;) Ptrt (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dare to shatter your beliefs, but traceroute link is all you need. I'm using shared IP from company with approx. 9,000 employees and another one is Toronto Public Library. You missed the point. 206.186.8.130 has long and varied edit history, but another one is revert-only. One can claim similar pattern of interests between 206.186.8.130 (some of peoples who use this IP) and RJ_CG, but TPL address has no edit history to speak of. This does not stop supposedly impartial admin from banning RJ_CG for using TPL address. That was the reason of my amusement. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Two birds, one stone

Dear 206.186.8.130... I have been quite content to leave Dyukov described as a historian Novosti, the state news agency, trots out to dispute Baltic lies about history. (One of several of my edits deleted, each replaced by a more strident defense of Dyukov's credentials.) Given Dyukov's command of basic facts is worse than the factual improprieties he alleges in the film, he already commands far too much space devoted to his views. However, since English-speaking viewers--to whom this encyclopedia is targeted--get to see Dyukov quite often on "Russia Today" (Novosti's version of CNN or the BBC News), I'm supportive of leaving his commentary in (other editors have mass deleted it). Dyukov's spokesmanship as a historian "specializing" in Soviet history and in debunking, in particular, Baltic "myths" (he uses stronger words in his Novosti interviews) is notable whether I like it or not. However, his POV and role in the official Russian (not independent) media must remain in the article for his presence in the article to be understood and defended.
   As for my "principles", they are to representing the parties and their relationships to their establishments accurately. It's obviously simpler to delete undiscussed POV anonymous IP edits as vandalism if they have no reasonable basis in actuality. But whether you register or not, whether you choose to reveal yourself or not, any edit that portrays Dyukov as a reputable historian and ignores his incestuous relationship with the Russian state media agency will continue to be deleted as totally POV.
   Your tone of questions communicates to me a wish to be blunt. I'll be happy to oblige. Writing that Dyukov is a "professional historian" here and that he isn't should be discussed elsewhere amounts to nothing but asking the editors here to ignore facts and to lie under the pretext of "NPOV." —PētersV (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As tragic for you as it could be, Dyukov is diploma-carrying historian. And he's not the only person commenting on this propaganda piece who could hardly be called impartial. Landsbergis's fear-mongering pedigree is longer than distance between Riga (or even Vilnius) and Moscow, but it would be inappropriate to discuss his hateful and opinionated statements here, wouldn't it? 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already indicated to you quite clearly what Dyukov's role is here. If you wish to have Dyukov in the article at all, then he and his specific role here must be documented: "AD, a historian frequently featured in the official Russian media as debunking (Baltic) 'myths' regarding Soviet history". He was on Novosti crucifying the film as soon as it finished showing in Brussels. You can accept this NPOV description of his association with and supporting role to official Russian media, or we can delete him completely. Your vicious attack on Landsbergis just confirms your blatant POV and the bogus nature of what you consider to be "NPOV". —PētersV (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would make sense if the phrase would go like this: "Alexander Dyukov Russian historian says:". But that article got deleted as POV fork. :( Suva Чего? 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New controversy

United Russia has been brewing a conspiracy around this movie and Estonia's embassy in Finland: [2]. Apparently, they're unhappy about a seminar, to be held on March 23, 2009, about the crimes of communism -- and in order to not have to face up with the dark past of Russia, they're attacking the movie as "worshiping underlings of fascism". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Marx quote, or Engels

The article ends with: "Ījabs admits, however, Marx using the term "racial trash" (Völkerabfälle) in relation to a number of small European nations."

According to this page: http://marxwords.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html

it was Engels who used the term "Völkerabfälle". I have no idea how to fix the article to include this piece of information, though. In fact, it's impossible. Marx had racist ideas and other pecluarities but I don't think he was ever advocating for genocides.

The film can watched at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2928171075647907339 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.67.160 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

to PasswordUsername

Dear PasswordUsername, Please do not vandalize the Wikipedia page! You may not just delete whole sections of footnoted text and pictures, justifying your action only by: a "YouTube link was not allowed". Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. Andora1 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And which reliable sources confirm their authenticity, Andora1? PasswordUsername (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andora1, there is no need to delete whole sourced sections as you have been doing. --Martintg (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you answer my question or you will you avoid it? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missed your question. YouTube clips contain video of people (Beazley, Vatanen) pronouncing the very text, which is cited. What can be more relieable that that? Andora1 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

Apart from being a totally POV section name, I have removed the entire section for the time being as it is not sourced. The section is basically calling living people liars, and there are no sources to back the information up. I have no objections to information being reinstated, but in such a controversial section, every i must be dotted and every t crossed, with sources --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I support Passwordusername & Russavia regarding this point, although not on WP:BLP grounds (every contested statement seems to be properly sourced), but rather on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH- this comparative analysis is done by editor himself, mixing up information from secondary and primary sources (the movie itself). If there should be a reliable source behind this analysis, then it would be OK, but now.. no-no. Põhja Konn (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is now added: The official web page of the film. It contains not only film's authors' confirmation regarding the false claims, but also pictures. For example, picture of the Soviet-Nazi collaboration document, where it is clearly seen that IZVESTIA's criticism regarding the allegation titles of the Nazi leaders (Heydrich; Mueller) is simply wrong, and not relating to reality (the film). Andora1 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The assertions about the supposedly false claims aren't in the sources that this user has provided now. (Or that the site actually links to.) I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll make a post translations and why this criticism doesn't check out soon. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, do you see this image: http://www.sovietstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mueller-heydrich1.jpg . This screen shot from the film is found at the cited source (http://www.sovietstory.com/about-the-film/news/)? Do you see Reinhard Heydrich refered to as Reichsführer-SS and Heinrich Müller as Brigadeführer, as IZVESTIA claims? Or rather Heydrich as SS-Gruppenführer and Müller as Standartenführer? If you see the latter, the question is do you agree that IZVESTIA falsely accuses the film of showing a document which refers to Heydrich as Reichsführer-SS and Müller as Brigadeführer? Andora1 (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That one looks like an error on the newspaper's account (I'll dig more), but it's plainly evident that much of what's asserted in the "false claims" section (as compared with the linked original aritcles in Russian) are complete fabrications. References to photos appearing that never appeared. That claims that the movie promotes a certain type of view are invalid because that view is not the subject of the movie. Don't worry, I'll outline it. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. To help you with your research. Here is the exact claim of RIA Novosti in the original language: "В фильме показаны якобы жертвы сталинских репрессий: трупы, сложенные в штабеля и переложенные поленьями. На самом деле это фотографии жертв гитлеровских зверств, снятые советскими документалистами в 1944 году в концлагере Клоога на территории Эстонии и в Яновском концлагере под Львовом." source: http://www.rian.ru/society/20090830/182971694.html Do you find this scene: "трупы, сложенные в штабеля и переложенные поленьями" in the film? The official movie website claims this scene is not in the film. If you still find it, let me know. And I will immediately delete this claim. Andora1 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you here as well: where did you get "this image appears in 'The Soviet Story'. In fact, it does not" for your photo caption? In your Wiki addition, it is referenced to the Novosti article, but there is no photo shown in the article. I understand "трупы, сложенные в штабеля и переложенные поленьями", but that doesn't help answer the question I have asked of you. So, what is your source for saying that they are talking about this photo? PasswordUsername (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I edited the image caption accordingly. Andora1 (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We still have "RIA Novosti alleges[34] that the film shows a photograph of corpses piled in stacks and covered with logs, from Klooga concentration camp (such as the image above). In fact, the film does not show any images from Klooga.[32]" This photo is not in the sources. This edit [3] is not much of a change. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) I tagged each observation for a citation. We can't get a relatively small editorial community involved in content improvement if don't tag first and leave for at least a week or two for citations to be provided and while we discuss further. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please start by finding where the photo used in the "false accusations" section actually appears – because it's certainly not in the supposed source. 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Otherwise it is not clear who is talking and to whom it is addressed. Andora1 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the RIA Novosti claim that the film shows this photo "трупы, сложенные в штабеля и переложенные поленьями" from Klooga concentration camp. Do you find it in the film? Andora1 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Right. See my response above. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I likewise don't see any justification what so ever for the tag - everything's well sourced and the text does not in any way synthesize or misrepresent the material found in the sources. This appears to be another case of using the SYNTH tag to express objections which simply fall under "I just don't like it".radek (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo is still false, for one instance. (See my above response to Andora1.) Please stop characterizing people's arguments as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and get back to this discussion. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The caption very clearly explains what's going on. Is the inclusion of the photo the sole reason for the synth tag?radek (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the caption states that "images such as this" are attributed to the Novosti article. Not much of a change. The Novosti article doesn't have this photo and doesn't refer to "images such as this" either. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of the photo the sole reason for the synth tag?radek (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there are other reasons. I will outline them soon. But the photo is one source of badly-woven synthesis. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo is from Klooga. RIA Novosti allegges the film shows photos from Klooga, when it does not. What exactly would you like to change? Andora1 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove the photo, which is your WP:SYNTH. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you remove anything, please explain, where do you see WP:SYNTH. It seems that editors here do not quite understand your point, neither do I.Andora1 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading the section and familiarizing with all the new references, I feel that I must revise my opinion - there's nothing SYNTH or OR anymore, everything seems properly sourced now. You got my support for removing the synth tag. Põhja Konn (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

what OR?

This is more "slap tags on articles we don't like" baseless tagging. The text says "Several critics, mostly in Russia..." and then:

• Irina Yarovaya, Russian MP
• Russian State News Agency, RIA Novosti reported
• Russian daily Izvestia
• Russian historian Alexander Dyukov

All properly sourced. So maybe the "mostly" should be removed but that's about it.radek (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of novel synthesis

The section has as its lead:

"Several critics, mostly in Russia, have accused the film of showing things, which in fact do not appear in the film at all. The following cases of false accusations have been noted:"

This is pure synthesis on the part of the editor who inserted it. For example, the section states:

"Irina Yarovaya, Russian MP representing the leadership of the ruling “United Russia” party, declared that “The Soviet Story” film “glorifies Estonian Nazi collaborators, those who killed people in Khatyn and in Pskov region”."

First off, where does it say anywhere that Yarovaya was representing the leadership? Secondly, she at no stage has said that the film contains anything on Estonians who collaborated with the NAZIs. Rather she says that it glorifies those people. The film needn't contain pieces of information to glorify something (just the same that it needn't specifically mention something to condemn it...which as anyone who has seen Animal Farm would know).

I have removed that as it is WP:SYN on the part of the editor who included it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? It tells: Одиозные политики ряда европейских стран, организуя неофашистские акции и разоблачая "преступления коммунизма", преследуют единственную цель - унизить Россию, очернить советскую и российскую историю. Об этом заявила ER.RU координатор Государственно-патриотического клуба "Единой России", депутат Госдумы Ирина Яровая. This is official site of United Russia. [4]. Biophys (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Russavia, yes, it was a major mistake and synthesis to write that Yarovaya was representing the leardership of the "United Russia" party. I corrected it now - Irina Yarovaya, Russian MP, member of the General Council of the ruling “United Russia” party. Andora1 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Which means: she belongs to the leadership of the "United Russia" party.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But which does not necessarily mean that she speaks for the leadership. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, not. This is to smear the leadership of United Russia, some of whom might actually like the film. Andora1 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

again: PROPAGANDA FILM?

I think we should consider this film as propaganda film. Once again my thoughts why it should be so: I think it is more correct to classify this film as propaganda since it's much more closer to the definition of propaganda film than to that of documentary film in wikipedia. Specifically, "A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." The following key points from this definition can be identified in the film:

• providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content - see Section Negative Response.
• convince the viewer of a certain political point - while the first part of the film pictures several historians (although their scientific reputation was reported to be very poor, I will try to find and incorporate direct link to a paper describing this), the second part features several contemporary Latvian politians presenting their own political views towards modern Russia.
• influence the opinions or behavior of people - the demonstration of the military personnel of Nazi Germany and USSR is followed by with mass-meeting of so-called Vlasovzi (members of Russian Liberation Army supporting Nazi Regime), which has no clue with the USSR military personnel being actually Nazi servants.
• no opposite views are presented in the film.

How this facts can be connected with documentary film which is "based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality" (the definition in wikipedia)? 129.173.66.208 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Izvestia or Novosti ("Russia Today" cable channel) would like to say about whether or not the film is "propaganda" can be cited with references. The film presents itself as a documentary, it was funded as a documentary, it is a documentary. —PētersV (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---How can there be opposing views presented in the film?? Should they have brought on a Soviet genocide denier?? Are there any movies about the Holocaust that would do such a thing? And are there any films about the Holocaust that don't try to persuade you that the event was bad?? Ofcorse not because that would be completely insane, so why should a film about soviet genocides have to do that in order for it not to be called propaganda?!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Propoganda but based on facts

Maybe some pictures are not from 1934 but in 1933, but still movie is based on facts. It is made to show W Europe, that Soviet Union wasn't so nice. Holodomor and Stalins fight against "secret jewish doctor conspiracy to kill all soviet leaders" is fact. Doctors' plot "Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they're indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists." As Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact alsou known as Nazi-Soviet Pact. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly a propaganda movie and the list of falsifications in the movie will be expanded, don't you worry about that. Just stay tuned in. ISasha (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The real propaganda is the article itself. Partisans both for and against the film are constantly adding WP:OR material, either to discredit the interpretations presented in the film, or to discredit the people who don't like the film... If this continues, the article will be useless as a source of objective information about the film, as it will just reflect the edit-warring of the most active POV-pushers. Is this film actually so important, that it requires an article that mentions every person who ever uttered anything about it in cyberspace? It honestly think not. A single, matter-of-fact paragraph would probably suffice. To paraphrase Lenin, "Better less, but better". To show you all the way forward, I'm going to remove the reference I added to Dyukov's inflammatory blog entry. Then I'm not going to bother looking at this battlefield for soapboxing again. Trust me, this movie will be forgotten as quickly as Likteņdzirnas. —Zalktis (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of falsifications is an alleged list. For example the number of victims who died in the GULAG. That is a WP:OR contention based on an UNRELIABLE original source. Just as Dyukov insisting everyone deported from Estonia left on a coach train staffed with a doctor and nurse for the traveler's welfare, from "NKVD archives". Additionally, any allegation that is not properly referenced from a secondary source and specifically a statement in reference to the movie) will be deleted, otherwise it is WP:OR and/or violates using primary sources with an editor's own interpretation. —PētersV (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys. You can vandalize the article as much as you wish, but we'll provide enough reference for every point in the list of lies. Just stay tuned.ISasha (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable secondary source (and frankly Dyukov, if you use his comments, is as anti-Baltic partisan as they come), "proofs" based on personal interpretations of primary sources are WP:OR. Cuts between 60th V.Day parades and dead bodies are not falsification: dead bodies are what Soviet "victory" meant to the Baltics, recall, the Soviet invaded and murdered and deported long before Hitler invaded, when Stalin and Hitler were the best of buddies. —PētersV (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead bodies shown in the movie are taken from Nazi propaganda films, so that it has nothing to do with what Soviet victory meant to the Baltic states. ISasha (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't seen movie, but it is falsification;) Soviet - nazi colaboration, gulags, deportations and holodomor isn't history falsification. That some pictures are from 1921 not 1934, don't change it. Of coarse it is made to look a bitt more impresive, and to a bitt clearly show what was Soviet regime. Discovery Chanel movies alsou often have problems with fact accuracy. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) "photos of deported Chechens turn out to be photos of Armenians in Turkey in the beginning of the 20th century" - there just aren't photos of deported chechens. (Soviets wasn't so accurate at documenting they crimes as germans did) But chechen deportation is fact. 159.148.159.114 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Well, you are right - fact accuracy and falsifications "to make it look a bit more impressive" as you put it...that's what makes a difference between a propaganda and a documentary film.ISasha (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Most All documental movies are a bitt tendentious. Probably if film wouldn't mentioned modern Russia, by most it wouldn't be labeled as propoganda. Edo 555 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's right, but it's not only comparison of Nazi Germany with modern Russia that makes it a propaganda film, but most of the video footage in the film was actually taken from Nazi propaganda films in attempt to present this as Russian genocide or whatever. ISasha (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In coments I found"Авторы картины, политолог Эдвин Шнере и продюсер Кристап Валдниекс считают, что к созданию 85-минутного фильма их подтолкнула демонстрация российской документальной ленты "Нацизм по-прибалтийски", которую власти охарактеризовали как направленную против Латвии пропаганду" ------ Вести сегодня." Just need to find article;) Edo 555 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you say propaganda film? How do we define what a propaganda film is... in this sense any wikipedia article written about a film on the holocaust should labled the movie as a propaganda film... and I would think that most of you would agree with me in saying that such an idea is crazy!!! I mean in the end if we are talking about bias any movie about the nazis could be seen as a propaganda film because i doubt anyone would try and give them an objective perspective. This movie is the same thing, it does not give the soviets an objective approch because any normal intelegent person can see that their actions need to be condemed and brought to light as crimes against humanity. The topics which the film covers on modern russia are the same, any rational person would condem these movements in russia as inhumane and unexeptable in the modern world we live in. How could you cover killings and terror created by the neo-nazi movement objectivly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

criticisms from Russia or false accusations

I mean, it's both.radek (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia attempting to give the views of Dyukov more weight than other authors

Dyukov's views are already mentioned in the Reception section, now Russavia is attempting to insert his view in other sections as well, giving more weight than other authors. His edit comment is rather threatening too: "hardly undue and i will fight you to the death on this" --Martintg (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Must be cold down there in Tassie Martin, the cold has totally killed any inkling of get a sense of humour. But anyway, given that Dyukov is one person who is mentioned quite a lot in relation to this piece of propaganda, even going so far as to write a 120 page document refuting facts documented within the piece of worthless celluloid, therefore he is going to feature quite prominently in the article. Of course, I know that some of you would dearly like to whitewash the article of any views of Dyukov, and merely present the opinion of the Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A Minister of Dyukov being a lunatic, but that isn't going to happen. There will be more added from Dyukov, in particular in relation to the issues he presents in his report. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dyukov is Russia state media's poster boy for attacking the Baltics, starting with his whole "based on Soviet archives, Estonians rode comfy trains to Siberia and not in cattle cars, Estonians are liars" tome. He only deserves to have the weight of any other (smiled upon by official Russia) denouncement. He is not recognized as a mainstream historian anywhere except by those that push him here as an expert and, of course, his poster boy appearances on English language Russian state media (subtitled). Whitewash? You've got to be kidding, Dyukov is a menace to serious historical scholarship. Your vicious "Propagandic Republic of Latvia's F.A Minister" comment merits you being topic-banned from anything having to do with the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dyukov is one of the most vocal critics of the film so he warrants some mentioning, but indeed his writings are overused. Do we need the long citation from him in the criticism section. It is mostly rant just showing that Dyukov does not like the film. Is his opinion of such notability? He is not an expert in cinematography and as a historian he is considered controversial in Russia and probably even lower in Baltics. On the other hand, his factual observations of errors in the films might be useful (I have no access to the "tissue paper" referenced in the article, so I do not know how useful it is). Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Isnt this documentary free public domain?

As someone goes around on youtube and deletes it all the time. I would like to know this documentary's status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuous removal of sourced text and POV-pushing by Ogomemnon

Ogomemnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing well-referenced text and pushing his own (completely unsourced) views. He has been reverted now literally dozens of times, by no less then five different editors. Yet he continues this edit-warring without any explanations. Hopefully he can explain his behaviour, otherwise I have no options but to report Ogomemnon to AN/I. --Sander Säde 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with your agenda driven vandalism, for example your current erasing of Internal Soviet terror. It's counter-productive. You're an Internet bully and want it your way no matter what, without any sources. E. g. where is the source on Mr. Suvorov being a "former GRU member"? Ogomemnon (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me note that attacking others is not an explanation of edit-warring. Please see WP:NPA. You've repeatedly removed well-sourced information without any reason. --Sander Säde 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)