Talk:Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Historians assessing the number of victims Stalin for about 20 million

Well, I got to tell you, my father beat me, too, and I haven't killed 20 million people yet. - Stephen Kotkin, interview after publishing the book "Waiting for Hitler" in 2017, https://slate.com/gdpr?redirect_uri=%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Finterrogation%2F2017%2F12%2Fhistorian_stephen_kotkin_on_stalin_and_his_new_biography_on_the_soviet_dictator.html%3Fvia%3Dgdpr-consent&redirect_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com

Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the Gulags" - Montefiore 2007 , s. 376.

Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives. - Volkogonov, Dmitri. Autopsy for an Empire: The Seven Leaders Who Built the Soviet Regime. p. 139. ISBN 0-684-83420-0. 

My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s. -  Yakovlev, Alexander N.; Austin, Anthony; Hollander, Paul (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-300-10322-9. 

"More recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest' and range between ten and twenty million. -  Gellately (2007)

USRR – 20 mililon - Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. p. 4: "U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths

Estimations on the number of Stalin's victims over his twenty-five-year reign, from 1928 to 1953, vary widely, but 20 million is now considered the minimum. -  Brent, Jonathan (2008) Inside the Stalin Archives: Discovering the New Russia. Atlas & Co., 2008, ISBN 0-9777433-3-0"Introduction online" (PDF). Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 19 December 2009. (PDF file)

We now know as well beyond a reasonable doubt that there were more than 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million -  Rosefielde, Steven (2009) Red Holocaust. Routledge, ISBN 0-415-77757-7 p.17

"Yet Stalin's own responsibility for the killing of some fifteen to twenty million people carries its own horrific weight ..." -  Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin's Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Princeton University Press, p. 11

"Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some fifteen million." -  Conquest, Robert (2007) The Great Terror: A Reassessment, 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, in Preface, p. 

...most historians now estimate that he had been directly responsible for death of somewhere around 20 million people - Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, XV, 1994

,,With estimates ranging from eight to 20 million; some put the number as high as 50 million Leslie Alan Horvitz , Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, 405 - 2008 30 to 40 million dead in total (….) as a result of Stalin;s murderous impulses: Stephen R.A’Barrow, Death of a Nation: A New History of Germany,

Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo and the closest adviser of Mikhail Gorbachev, who as chairman of a commission to study Stalinist repressions had access to all the relevant records, Stalin was responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet citizens. - https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/cleverness-joseph-stalin/

In my opinion, it should be written, "the number of victims is from 3 to over 20 million." Differences arise from distrust of official archives and problems with the number of victims of some events. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Our goal is not to reproduce common stereotypes, but to provide a good quality information. As a rule, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. If some author just mentions some fact tangentially, it is hardly a good source. If some author just reproduces the data from other sources, it is hardly a good source. If some author tells "historians agree that..." it would be good if they explained which historians they are telling about, and in which context. It is quite likely that the figure of 20 millions is just an uncritical reproduction of Cols war stereotypes. Actually, these stereotypes are still existing in non-special literature.

In connection to that, it is important to know if each of the authors cited by you did their own research, or they just took the data from other books.

It is quite likely that the figure of 20 million was taken from the Black Book of Communism. It is a very influential collective volume, and its Introduction says that communists killed 20 millions in the USSR. However, two facts should be taken into account. :First, the Black Book is highly praised not due to the Introduction, but due to the chapter about the USSR, authored by Nicolas Werth. Werth himself says 15 millions were killed.

Second, Werth's own opinion about the Introduction, and, especially about the figures, which were taken by Courtois out of thin air, was very negative. He publicly disassociated himself from the conclusions made in the introduction.

Third, most reviewers call the Introduction "the most controversial part of the Black Book", in contrast to the Werth's chapter, which is considered a "rock the whole Black Book rests upon". That means it is the Werth's opinion which should be trusted. Nevertheless, popular writers and journalists continue to cite highly questionable Courtois' figures, as your search perfectly demonstrates. That is probably because the Werth's chapter is long and detailed, and to a superficial mind it is much easier to look through a brief and primitive Introduction than to go through the whole Werth's chapter. However, if we are not ready to read long and complex texts, maybe we shouldn't edit Wikipedia.

Last (but not least). Even the figure of 20 million (manufactured by Courtois) is a total figure of all victims of Communism in the USSR. It includes Civil war victims (from both sides), Volga famine victims, Red Terror victims, etc., and all of that happened before Stalin took a full power. Even if we consider all of them victims of Communism, they are not victims of Stalinism, because there was no Stalinism during this time.

To summarise. Cherry-picked quotes from google are hardly what we need. Wikipedia's goal is not to summarize common stereotypes (if that were the case, no Wikipedia would be needed, a simple google search would be sufficient). It is always better to use few really high quality sources and filter out all garbage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Weird how these anonymous IP's and WP:SPA's are coming out of the woodwork at around the same time. I wonder...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

However, take into account that a specific number of "20 million" rarely falls in these quotations. These are rather estimates from 15 to over 25 million. In addition, you forget that the Black Book of Communist has set the number of victims across the USSR at 20 million, including hunger during Lenin's reign - 5 million victims. That is why they are not thoughtless copies.

13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million. And unquestionably one must add those who died of famine – more than 5.5 million during the civil war and more than 5 million during the 1930s Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives

Some events are not added: Deportations of Germans after 1945 [2 million victims], killed German prisoners [1 million], Hunger in 1931-1932 - a total of 8.7 million victims - Ukrainians and others - only this gives almost 12 million victims. Add to this the fact that it is not known how many kulaks died in deportations until 1937 [15 million deportees]. Volkogonov was to assess the number of those killed in these repairs up to 4.5 million, Conquest 3,5 miliona. Snyer and others only count until 1932. What's more, Snyder added to his number of starved Ukrainians, but not 3.3 million, he estimated, the dead of other nationalities. Then his number of off Stalin would be 12 million.

That is why the number of victims of 20 million is likely, the more so because we do not have accurate information about kulaks until 1937 and the number of war crimes during World War II. Apparently, the NKVD shot 1 million soldiers in the back. Many historians support it, even in 2017, which is why I am insisting on a change. 37.8.230.247 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read my post? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the anonymous IP skimmed it at least, but it doesn't matter. These SPA's are bent on flooding the article with this stuff, which is why I requested semi-protection back in early September (see "Persistent unconstructive editing" above). I think it is imperative at this point.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As WC Fields would say, I don't know why I ever come in here. The flies get the best of everything.--Woogie 10w 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I will ask for semi protection using Twinkie since we all agreed on the death range with using archival data and historical footnotes by reputable peopleJack90s15 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

On a serious note, no W.C. Fields today. These "repression" statistics in fact are penal statistics, 14 million persons convicted of crimes in the judicial system. In addition 6-7 million persons sent by the secret police to the Special Settlements. In The famine of 1933 6-7 million perished, the reasons are debated and disputed. Wheatcroft has provided details of the 14.269 million who were convicted of crimes: from 1937-52 of those convicted 3.081 million were sentences for political offenses,only about 1/5 of those convicted in the Gulags or executed, 1,344,923 in 1937-38 in the purges and 599,909 in 1941-46, when many were sentenced for collaboration with the Nazi invaders.
3.287 million "repression" deaths are listed in this article: 878,704 occur in 1937-38 during the great terror and 1,241,031 from 1941-45 the war years when there were food shortages.
The balance of 10-20 million additional deaths listed in some sources are in fact hypothetical deaths. The natural death rate can be manipulated to achieve a desired higher number of deaths. In any case the living conditions in the USSR were at lower standard than in western Europe and the US, forced labor of everyone was the norm in Stalin's USSR. We need to give readers a better understanding of the reasons for the"repression" statistics. To cite a single solitary statistic listed in a reliable academic source misleads readers.--Woogie 10w 22:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No comments. I am wasting my time here.--Woogie 10w 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not. Just let's re-write the article accordingly (as I proposed below).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal below. But if we are going to go into "serious demographic effects", that changes the scope of the article a bit. Should the article also mention the "excess lives" (Ellman, 2002, 1164) and growing population under Stalin?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The numbers scholars are operating with come from two different type of sources: documented deaths and demographical evidences. The second type data actually operate with such factors as a normal birth rate, normal mortality, life expectancy, migration. These data are are absolutely necessary to take into account when we discuss demographic evidences. Therefore, all of that fits the current article's scope pretty well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

Guys, this talk page is terribly formatted. I am trying to format some posts, but I cannot do all this job for you. Can you please stick with a standard formatting style?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am i am putting my name after what i say Jack90s15 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget about indentation (adding colons, like other people do). That allows people to see who answers to whom: thus, I added "::" so people see I am answering to you. And try to avoid redundant blank lines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In general, the page should look like that:

(A first post) (signature: userA)

An answer to a userA (signature: userB)

An answer to a userB (signature: userC)

Another answer to a userA (signature: userD)

An answer to a userD (signature: userA)

A totally different post (signature: userB) and so on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting data?

Those historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million[4][2][5][6] to nearly 9 million.[7

Our number of victims

Gulag – 1,5 – 1,7 Soviet Famine 1932 - 1933 – 5,7 – 7,0 Executions – 950 000 – 1,200 000 Soviet famine 1946-1947 – 1 000 000 – 1 500 000 Deportation of kulaks – 400 000 Forced settlements in the Soviet Union 1939-53 – 300 000

minimum number of victims – 8 350 000

maximum number of victims – 11 600 000

This means that even our data says that the number of people killed could be over 10 million. Convertible 9 million to 15 million Conquest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Erni Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR Your proposal is a synthesis of various sources that adds down to your original research.--Woogie 10w (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

{(edit conflict)As Michael Ellman correctly noted, the problem with "calculation of the number of victims" is that it is not clear who should be included. Thus, Rosefielde speaks about "excess mortality" associated with collectivisation in 1930s, and the same author speaks about "excess mortality" (ca 4 millions) during the economic transitions from socialism to capitalism in 1990 in Russia (I am sure the deaths of the same scale occurred in other post-Soviet states, but these data are unavailable). If we agree to describe all excess deaths in 1930s as "victims of Stalinism", then 1990s deaths should be considered as "victims of democracy". That sounds logical, isn't it? However, nobody speaks about "capitalist mass killings" in post-Sovuet states.

"Population losses" ≠ "excess mortality" ≠ "number of people killed": these categories are intrinsically different, and the definition of "killing" in this particular case is strongly dependent on political views of each concrete author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

and this page shows correctly what the number is  ! this page was worked on with more then 2 people for it to be protected Jack90s15 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The gulag case

2 historians involved in the gulag, the number of victims is above 3 million, and most historians consider this to be 5-6 million. However, here is given 1.7 million as a scientific consensus based on data from Dan Healey. However, he does not deal with the number of Gulag victims and homosexuality in the USSR. We should therefore write that the number of victims is from 1.7 - 6 million and historians are not in agreement about the "consensus".

Gulag archival sources suggest an official death toll in the area of ​​three million, although historians concede that mortality was probably much greater. - Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 90, no. 3 (Fall 2016

Figes, Orlando (2009). "Ученый: при Сталине погибло больше, чем в холокост". BBC News. Хотя даже по самым консервативным оценкам, от 20 до 25 млн человек стали жертвами репрессий, из которых, возможно, от пяти до шести миллионов погибли в результате пребывания в ГУЛАГе. Translation: The most conservative calculations speak of 20-25 million victims of repression, 5 to 6 million of whom died in the gulag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.8.230.158 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The most conservative calculations speak of 20-25 million victims of repression, it is not any more for the most part

in 2011, the historian Timothy D. Snyder, after assessing 20 years of historical research in Eastern European archives, asserts that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million rising to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account

The release of previously secret reports from the Soviet archives in the 1990's indicate that the victims of repression in the Stalin era were about 9 million persons. Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million based on their own demographic analysis and from dated information published before the release of the reports from the Soviet archives

Jack90s15 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Snyder and censorship of other sources

I think we should change the number of victims from 3 to 9 - 3 to 11 or 15 -20. First, this number is only Snydera, all historians who think differently are censored by one guy. Robert Conquest, however, based on demographic research concluded that by 1939, 11 - 13 million people died [1]. Similar results were published by the Ukrainian court, which found that only 9 [2] million people died in the entire USSR during collectivization, and the committee of Ukrainian historians stated that 10 million [3]. Therefore, in my opinion, the number of victims should be increased to 14 or as Naimark wrote in 2010! [4]. Relying only on Snyder is a mockery.

Several types of mockery exist, and "Snyder vs others" is one of them. Snyder speaks about people Stalin killed (either directly, for example, during the Great Purge, or indirectly, as a result of criminal neglect). Other modern authors (I am leaving those who use obsolete data beyond the scope) speak about excess mortality, i.e. the deaths that could not have normally occurred. To explain you a difference between these two categories, let me remind you (I probably did that previously, but let me do that again) that, for example, excess mortality in democratic Russia in 1990s under democratically elected president Yeltsyn amounted to 4 million, and these figures were obtained in the works of the same authors who write about, for example, Holodomor. Can we seriously speak that more people were killed by Yeltsyn in 1991-1999 than by Stalin in 1937-40? Following your logic, that would be correct, however, in fact, that would be a mockery.

Snyder was trying to compare apples and apples (the number of people killed by Hitler and Stalin), and his approach is absolutely correct. If we want to speak about excess deaths (which is much broader category), we must explain what exactly does it mean, otherwise that would be a mockery of the worst type.

With regard to Conquest, in the article you cite he speaks about excess deaths, not about people who were killed as a result of Stalin's orders. Of course, a significant part of those deaths were a result of incorrect economic policy. If we assume those people were killed, then we must admit that democratic transformation in modern Russia were also accompanied by mass killings comparable (by scale) to the Holocaust. Wouldn't it be a mockery? Naimark provides no reference on the page 11, and it is not clear what exactly does he mean under 20 million, and where did he take this figure. I frequently face a situation when some fresh publication cites popular but obsolete data. It is not clear what does "responsibility" mean, and what people Naimark is speaking about. Thus, as soon as we speak about responsibility, we may speak about Hitler's responsibility for the killing of 60 million people (all WWII victims), and that view would be formally correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Only that the collectivization was carried out in a criminal manner, people were forced out of their own farms, until 1937, 17 million people were deported. The Conquest was counting this period, how much terror during collectivization, hunger and disease would consume the victims, and therefore its results should not be rejected. If you take food away from people, throw you on the farthest outskirts of the country and you die because of illness, hunger or cracking, then it is obviously Stalin's fault. Similarly, Hitler is guilty of the deaths of Jews in ghettos who have died through bad conditions[Erni 120]

Conquest's results were obtained from indirect estimations, modern studies use much more reliable data. In addition, you are ignoring my point: most deaths were not the results of killing, they were the result of deterioration of living conditions. However, the general trend was in steady and fast improvement of living conditions, which manifested in a very considerable decrease of mortality. In other words, the death of a 40 man could be considered normal in, e.g., 1900 (when the life expectancy was 32 years), but it was considered premature in 1950 (when the life expectancy was 60 years). In a situation when mortality (and especially, infant mortality) was quickly declining it is hard to tell which death could be considered an excess death. And it would be especially incorrect to equate all excess deaths with killings. By combining two correct statements: "Stalin deported millions of peasants, and significant part of them died prematurely" and "In 1933, there were at least 5 million premature deaths in the USSR" together, we create a false impression that the first statement is supported by the demographic evidences. No, it isn't, demographic data say how many people died, but they do not say why and how did that die, for what reason, and who exactly is directly responsible for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Erni is correct,he understands the Stalinist system. The Soviet leadership had little regard for the lives of the millions deported against their will to build the industries in the Urals and Siberia. Clean drinking water, shelter and medical care was not provided for and there were millions of excess deaths as a result. Conquest and Neimark understand this, Synder does not. In the US in the 1930's there bread lines in the capitalist USA. Read Steinbeck of Mice and Men, the people left for California of their own free will. African Americans hopped a freight in Mississippi and headed uptown to Harlem.--Woogie 10w (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Stalinist system had little regard for the lives, but the life expectancy almost doubled in Russia/USSR during the first half of the XX century (I mean the corrected data, which take into account the demographic catastrophes of 1932-3 and 1941-7) I can agree that modern democratic rulers of Russia have more regard for the lives, but their rule lead to a significant decline of life expectancy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul, the NKVD came to the village and demanded thirty able bodied adults for work. The poor souls were loaded on box cars and sent to the Urals and forced to work in barbaric conditions. Read Behind the Urals by Scott, he was there. Sorry Paul I am an American, I cannot make excuses for Stalinist policy. --Woogie 10w (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Woogie, you are right. However, if I combined your totally correct statement "the NKVD came to the village and demanded thirty able bodied adults for work. The poor souls were loaded on box cars and sent to the Urals and forced to work in barbaric conditions" with another, totally correct, statement "in 1933, more than 5 million died prematurely, according to modern demographic data", I would a totally misleading statement.

In addition, if an average peasant's life expectancy was slightly above 30 years in 1900, doesn't it mean that his living conditions were normally barbaric? If the life expectancy of people was 60 in 1950 (by the end of Stalin's rule), doesn't it mean the regime was doing something else in addition to "taking poor peasants to Siberia"?

As Michael Ellman correctly noted, anecdotal evidences are a dangerous thing. If you want to speak about examples of Staninists' atrocities, I see no reason why cannot you do that. If you want to talk about statistics, I also fully support that. What I am objecting to is the attempts to combine anecdotal evidences with statistics to create an absolutely misleading picture.--Paul Siebert (talk)

Years ago I spoke with a group of ex-German POWs in Russia, they looked at my soft hands and said "you would not last a week, those who can't work don't eat" , back in 1968 I worked with a Ukrainian who was in the Gulag he said the same thing after he saw my hands. That is Stalinism--Woogie 10w (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is Stalinism too.

By the way, when you are talking about the ex-German POW you spoke with, please, keep in mind that one of them could be a man who killed my grandfather near Stalingrad, and the Ukrainian you were speaking with could be a man who killed my Jewish relatives near Lutsk. As you probably know, participation of West Ukraiunians in killing Jews was massive, and a significant part of those who were sent to Gulag were ex-banderovcy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have some number of deaths for 10 years and suddenly it is 100 times larger, it is clear that an epidemic or hunger broke out. Who did it? Stalin! By deporting people, shooting them, starving them, he is responsible for the excess of death. It is so to say that Hitler is not responsible for the deaths of Jews who died in bad conditions of the ghetto. Or, mao is not responsible for the deaths of 20 - 45 million Chinese during the famine, because all in all he had them somewhere and let them die and not deliberately killed.Conquest's study is confirmed by the Ukrainian court - 9 million dead in the USSR only during famine and ukrainian historians - up to 10 million in the entire USSR. Gentlemen, what are we talking about here? If the number of deaths rapidly increases, it is clear that Stalin is responsible for this. So deportations, hunger and diseases. For 10 years of Stalin's rule, death statistics were stable and, suddenly, 10-14 million people died in the collectivization? This is not his fault? He destroyed the villages and chased on syberia, but he did not shoot at them? Let's agree that Hitler is not responsible for the deaths of Jews who died in transports or starved in ghettos. Excess of Eeath during Yeltsim was caused by US-based TRANSFORMATION! A NOT TERROR AND YOUR HEART OF YOUR NATION IN STALINA AND PARTI'S NAME. Stalin is responsible for the death of these people, and new research confirms the huge mortality during collectivization. Therefore, there is no reason to censor the opinion of historians. Let us write, then, that the number of Stalin victims is estimated at 3 -12 to even more than 20 million [Erni] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.135.15 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion in full, you would probably understand your first sentence contained at least three major mistakes. First, it is incorrect to speak about "some number of deaths for 10 years", because that number was rapidly decreasing during Stalin's rule (it dropped from 32 to 60 during 1900-1950, and a significant part of that time the USSR was under Stalin's rule, and I doubt any significant increase of living standards occurred in 1914-22): in a situation when the death rate was rapidly declining, we have no stable reference. Second, "suddenly it is 100 times larger" is a dramatic exaggeration. Third, we did observe a sharp increase of death rate in 1990, after dissolution of the USSR and democratic transformations of the post-Soviet society: is it sufficient to speak about "democratic mass killings"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues here to discuss, first:the information we had prior to the archival disclosures of the 1990's. The estimates made at that time are of historical interest. Two influential writers on the topic were Iosif G. Dyadkin and Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, both used flawed population data and came to the conclusion that repression deaths were 30-40 million. Their estimates have no relevance today.secondthe information we have since the archival disclosures of the 1990's and the revision of the 1939 census. This can best be summed up in a 2001 article by ADK [1](Google translate does a nice job) Total excess deaths in the Stalin era were c.38 million(7.2 million collectivization; 3.0 million repression deaths; 27.2 million war deaths(1941-45)(according official Russian figures) and 1.0 million in 1947 famine). An important point to consider is that of the war dead 18 million were killed and the balance of 9 million were indirect deaths due to a deterioration in living conditions that caused famine, disease. We need to get our facts straight. The total excess deaths were c.38 million including 27 million in WW2 and 11 repression deaths according to ADK. Do the math if there were 20 repression deaths,18 million died in the war. Historians in the west need to explain the entire balance of 38 million and provide support for readers. They just cherry pick figures and spin a tale for readers. ADK actually explains what comprised excess mortality in the Stalin era, 9 million from 1928-38 and 29 million from 1939-53. The caveat is the census of 1939 was overstated by 2 million and war deaths (1941-45) were 27 million according official Russian figures. Bear in mind there were no reliable vital statistics for this period 1928-53. --Woogie 10w (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Woogie, I am not going to discuss the figures until we came to an agreement about what exactly do they mean. The reason is simple: as a rule, people who discuss these figures are trying to convey a very specific point, namely, that Stalinism killed more people than Nazism. However, a comparison of excess mortality during Stalin's rule with mass killings perpetrated by Nazi is a comparison of apples with oranges. And, we must keep in mind that excess mortality under different regimes/governments are, as a rule, not a focus of separate studies. Thus, Bengal famine is generally considered just a war time accident, whereas there are numerous evidences indicating that it was a result of Churchill's criminal neglect.

I believe you perfectly know the famous proverb about three different degrees of lie. Statistics is the worst kind of lie, and I want to avoid it by any possible means.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Excess mortality needs to be understood in a statistical context. Synder puts the number of victims at 9 million in the Stalin era, he equates the policy of Hitler and Stalin. ADK puts the number at 10 million, 7 million in the famine and 3 million Gulag/Special Settlement deaths(of which 1 million were in the war). The figure of 20 million is supported by the analysis of Rosefielde, total excess deaths in the Stalin era of 45.4 million. 23.4 million in the war(1939-45) and 22.0 million due to Soviet repression( 8.9 million 1927-38 and 13.1 million from 1939-49) Neimark and Conquest are in close agreement with Rosefielde. Paul you choose to count on the deaths reported in Russian sources that that exclude estimated excess deaths due to Stalinist economic policy. Rosefielde considers this genocide. The official line in Russia today is that the Soviet Union was building socialism and needed workers in the East from 1928-39, they are proud of their achievements. In the 1941-49 era the deserters who supported Hitler were shot or sent to the Gulags. These scumbags were welcomed in the west and considered fighters against communism.--Woogie 10w (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Woogie, Snyder does NOT equate Hitler's and Stalin's policies, he discusses the number of people killed by these two leaders. When he speaks about 11 million noncombatants killed by Hitler - whom does he talk about? As we know, Hitler is responsible for killing of 6 million Jews, 2-3 million Polish gentiles, some amount of gentile Soviet people, a significant number of Yugoslavs,, etc. However, if we assume, following what Western sources say, that Soviet military losses were 11-13 million, then the number of civilian losses was about 15 million, and, even if we subtract about 1.5 million of the Holocaust victims, this figure is much greater than 11 million (despite the fact that those 11 million include European Jews, not-Soviet Slavs, Gypsies, etc).

Furthermore, regarding 15 million Soviet civilian losses, do we have a serious reason to expect that significant amount of them would be killed by Stalin had WWII never begun? I doubt. Would it be correct to attribute those victims to Hitler's policy, broadly defined? I think, yes, and majority of historians agree with that. Obviously, when Snyder spoke about 11 million civilians killed by Hitler, he definitely meant not the victims of Hitler's policy (broadly construed), but those victims who were killed following his direct or indirect orders. A direct analogy to these 11 millions are the victims of the Great Purge, Gulag deaths, deportation deaths and few other categories. If you want to speak about demographic evidences, you must clearly understand that this figure refers to a totally different category of deaths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read Bloodlands and have heard Synder give a talk on his book. The man does equate the policies of Hitler and Stalin.--Woogie 10w (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul Synders figure of 10.4 million victims of Hitler refers only to Poland and the USSR(including 1 million Jews transported to Poland). He cites Dieter Pohl for his figures. Pohl puts the total number of Hitlers victims at 12-14 million. Pohl's book is the best summary of the crimes of Hitler Germany.[2]--Woogie 10w (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Woogie, as I already explained, the number of Soviet civilian losses during the war was much greater than these 11 million. Do you really believe Hitler is not responsible for that? I can give you a simple example: a sister of my mother died in a train when my family was evacuated to Ural. I am pretty sure Snyder did not include her in his 11 million figure, but ADK include in Soviet excess mortality rate. However, it is obvious that she would be alive had Hitler not started WWII. However, your and Erni's approach makes her Stalin's victim, not Hitler's one. Which is absolutely incorrect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul you are just guessing,we need to discuss sources here. Our opinions don't count on Wikipedia. Pointer the Putin line in Russia today is that military war losses were 8.668 million and civilian losses in the war were 18 million. ADK parrots this official line. Assuming that this balance 26.668 million is correct, how can we provide an accurate breakout the military and civilian component? --Woogie 10w (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not guessing, I am showing you the difference between "excess mortality" and "X's victims". Sometimes, the problem is not in showing exact figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul what would you say if the monthly bank statement had an ending balance with no details and the message "Sorry the problem is that we cannot provide exact figures" --Woogie 10w (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect example. A better analogy would be that you have an non-itemized bank account statement and the information that some unspecified amount of money have been stolen from it. Would it be correct to attribute all negative balance to the theft?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's probably you forget that we are here to place the HISTORIANS 'findings! If Conquest and Rosefielde recognize that Stalin is responsible for these deaths, then you have to put it. And he does not place the number of victims from 3 to 9 mo. SNYDER HAS SAID. Your arguments are ridiculous, and if they were to Hitler, they would arrest you for the Holocaust's negation [Erni]

Yes, but we are here to present historians' findings in a proper context. A correct context for Conquest is that his estimates are outdated. With regard to Rosefielde, when he applies his method for calculation of excess mortality to democratic Russia, he finds that 4 million people died prematurely as a result of the policy of democratic transformations. No similar studies have been done for other post-Soviet states, but it seems obvious that the mortality rate was similar, so this figure can be doubled. That means, following Rosefielde, about 8 million excess mortality in 1990 can be attributed to democratic transformation, which is greater than the amount of Jews killed by Hitler. Do you seriously think we can speak about these two events in the same terms and compare them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's true, and after 1989 Conquest lowered the number of victims to 14-15 million, based on new demographic research. The Ukrainian court stated that 3.9 million Ukrainians and 5 million other people were killed during famine. A group of experts disagreed with the court and found that 7 million Ukrainians and 3 million other people were killed, but still 9-10 million. For this we do not add those who have died of diseases or poor living conditions, which are the result of the deportation of 17 million people made by Stalin. Hence, the number of 14 million can be deduced only from demographics. Add to this: 2 million expelled Germans, 1 million German prisoners, 1.5 million deportation victims, 1.5 famine victims 1946-1947, 1 million soldiers killed by the NKVD, etc. it will calmly come out with more than 20 million

[1] https://newleftreview.org/I/219/robert-conquest-excess-deaths-in-the-soviet-union [2] http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/978-966-02-7025-1/978-966-02-7025-1.pdf [3] http://www.univ.kiev.ua/news/8063 [4] Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin's Genocides (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity). Princeton University Press, p. 11: "Yet Stalin's own responsibility for the killing of some fifteen to twenty million people carries its own horrific weight ..."

Relying on some biased Ukrainian court or Naimark's book is absurd. The latter makes no actual calculations but merely tosses that number out on a whim. He doesn't even give a citation for this and I know this because I'm looking at my copy of the book right now. This is an issue with many works on Stalin era Soviet history that toss out the higher estimates - they can't provide detailed analysis of how they reach these estimates, because there is no data from the archival revolution which backs these outdated and obsolete figures of 20 million+ deaths. Yakovlev is another glaring example of this. He merely dismisses the data as false and "assures" the reader that the estimates are 25 to 35 million, and we are just to take him at his word, which is absurd. The 1996 article by Robert conquest shows why he is such a terrible scholar of the USSR. Almost no one accepts the number of 1,750,000 executions for 1937-38. The figure he appears to reject in this abstract, 681,692, is almost universally accepted by historians of the USSR as the number of documented executions during this time.

This brings me to another issue, and Paul illustrates this brilliantly. The problem with popular discourse in Western society when it comes to the USSR, and in particular the Stalin era, is that it focuses exclusively on political repression and literally nothing else. This is why it is propaganda, not history, because while the repression was real, although certainly exaggerated for political reasons, there is more to the story. If what Antonov-Ovseyenko said in his idiotic book "The time of Stalin" was true, that "Stalin's main activity, and his favorite form of diversion, his real calling, was murder" which surpassed all other historical tyrants, (pg 167) then how did the USSR transform an agrarian backwater like the old Tsarist Empire into a world superpower rivaling the United States by the 1950s, basically in one generation? Something is missing. Paul notes a decrease in mortality rates during this time, and a sharp increase in life expectancy. He is right. In addition, the USSR reached nearly full literacy during the twilight of there Stalin period. This is almost entirely left out of Western discourse on the subject, which tends to favor the biased and flawed views of Ovseyenko and Conquest. So it is not surprising that when recent polling of the Russian population shows that 66% wish the USSR never collapsed, Westerners can't understand this because all they ever hear about the USSR is that it repressed and killed people from sunup to sundown, and did little else.

It should also be mentioned that very little is said about the DECLINE in living standards following the collapse of the USSR. For example, Kristen Ghodsee points out in her work that life expectancy for the average Russian male in 1985 was 67, but in 2002 it was 60 - a seven year drop off! (pg 64) And as Paul pointed out time and again, some of the same scholars of the Stalin period, such as Steven Rosefielde, posit that the transition to capitalism, as driven by the neoliberal Washington Consensus under Yeltsin, resulted in excess mortality in the millions. Funny how we always hear about excess deaths under Stalin, but almost never Yeltsin or the Washington Consensus, but I digress.

Given proper context, Westerners might better understand the USSR and its complex history - a nation that experienced savage political repression by revolutionaries who always feared the counter-revolution overturning the USSR (historian James Harris, citing archival evidence, makes this point brilliantly, undermining more of Conquest's postulations) while at the same time rapid modernization with increasing standards of living - so such polls wouldn't be a surprise and a source of confusion. "But, but, but... How could those crazy Russian miss the Evil Empire? Stalin killed millions of people! They must be reading propaganda!" Um, no. Most of those who favor the USSR are older Russians who remember higher standards of living, greater equality and a more stable society!

In my view, this article should not be a vehicle for more outdated Cold War propaganda with an emphasis on the absurdly high estimates which are mostly pre-1991 or postulated by historians who provide no evidence on how they reach such estimates. That's why I believe this article should rely largely on academic sources such as Wheatcroft, Getty, Tauger, Ellman, Snyder and others who have analyzed actual evidence and come to more reasonable estimates as a result. Sources such as Naimark and Yakovlev can be included of course, but such estimates should not be given undue weight and should be put into proper context. The verdict of some Ukrainian court is almost completely irrelevant and not a reliable source for estimates in this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, you yourself are the promoter of Stalinist propaganda. The Ukrainian court has observed that the Ukrainians have died 3.9 million, and other residents around 5. However, the full number of victims of collectivization is much more if one looks at demographic research. You can not censor historians because Mr. Griffin has such a capriciousness. After 1989, part of the historian recognizes the number of 20 million victims as appropriate, the other 9 million. We can not speak only about 9, the more so because demagogic research shows that the matter is more complicated. Snyder is not an oracle, but Griffin constantly censors the findings of other historians and will not provide information that Conquest, based on demagogic research, acknowledges that Stalin is responsible for the deaths of at least 14 million people. Let us also add the fact that during the war Stalin committed a mass of crime - Shooting soldiers in the back - 1 million - Expulsion of Germans - 2 million - German prisoners - 1 million E.t.c. [Erni]

Erni, the statement "Griffin, you yourself are the promoter of Stalinist propaganda" is a personal attack, at that may inflict sanctions on you. Furthermore, can you please put a proper signature after your posts (two dashes followed by four "~")?

Regarding your figures, the figure of 1 million shot in the back, it comes from anekdotal evidences and is not supported by serious authors. As "Ivan's war" concludes, barrier troops existed for very short time, and this practice was dropped quietly long before they were officially disbanded, and their role consisted not in shooting of soldiers in the back. "Enemy at the gates" is a very poor film.

Expulsion of Germans (you means post-war expulsion, as I understand), was a questionable step, but it was in agreement with the attitude of local population towards Germans.

German POWs mortality was high, but not too outstanding as compared with the mortality of local population, taking into account that the country's economy was in a desperate state. Anyway, it was not a deliberate starvation (in contrast to the policy conducted by Nazi towards Soviet POWs).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin you need to become familiar with the ADK analysis that supports excess deaths of 38 million from 1928-53 [3]. Since there are no reliable vital statistics for this period they estimate the war dead component and the balance attributable to Stalinist policy. ADK gives us #1-the beginning population in 1927 and ending population in 1939 and 1959.,#2-the number of live births from 1927-58 and #3-an accounting of the losses in the war. The number of natural deaths, including infant mortality, is imputed by using a declining balance method. This analysis can fit on one single page. This information is in the ADK study p.118 [4]. There is and alternative estimate of births made by J.N.Birben in the Journal Population #2 1976, that will yield similar results as ADK.
C.J. Griffin please take the time to familiarize with the methodology used to estimate total excess population losses in the Stalin era. You are just wasting your time shopping around looking for the lowest number to prove that Stalin was really not that bad and the socialist system is the best.--Woogie 10w (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC) The author of the study is Evgeny Andreev[5] he backs his figures up with analysis, Getty and Wheatcroft do not.--Woogie 10w (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Once we have determined that Griff defends the Stalinist system, then we can change the mind, "Those historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated the victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million [4] [2] [5] [6] to nearly 9 million. [7] "On" Those historians working after the soviet union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million [4] [2] [5] [6] to over 20 million? [Erni]?

Woogie, "Stialinist policy" is a vague term. If we attribute all excess deaths to Stalinist policy, we also have to discuss a large number of "excess lives" that Michael Ellman also attributed to Stalinist policy. Had the normal mortality rate been the same in 1950 as in 1922, the number of deaths would be greater, but they would not be considered "excess/premature deaths". The policy of the regime had two opposite effects, and that is necessary to keep in mind.

I want you to understand a very simple thing. when we are talking about some concrete cases of mass killings, either direct (via shooting, deaths in camps, etc) or indirect (via criminal neglect), they can be directly attributable to Stalin. However, if we speak about demographic evidences, a situation is less straightforward, because we implicitly assume that the sharp decrease in mortality rate happened spontaneously (and is not related to the regime's policy), but excess mortality events were a direct result of the policy of the regime, and these two things were totally independent. That is incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Stalinist policy was to forcibly deport "free" Soviet citizens to the east for economic development. The resulting excess deaths do not appear in the archival data released in the 1990's. --Woogie 10w (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also according to archival evidence 2/3 of those convicted were common criminals--Woogie 10w (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I want you to understand a very simple thing, the natural death rate fell because a disproportionate number of adults, mostly males, perished in the purges, gulags, forced labor and the war. The surviving children had a lower natural death rate. The purges,gulags and forced labor can be directly attributable to Stalin. The archival evidence does not encompass the forced labor component. In fact it was an accepted normal situation for "free" Soviet citizens.--Woogie 10w (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Purges and Gulag's demographic effects were insignificant. The only demographic catastrophe that created a gender disbalance was the WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, deportation to the east was a part of Stalinist policy. However, that was just one aspect of the policy. If we speak in terms of demography, let's talk about the net effect (which consisted in a sharp decline of mortality and increase of life expectancy). In addition, the fact that the labour camps contributed to the economic development of the country does not mean this contribution was decisive. Labour camp population never exceeded 2.5 million, and on average it was lower.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the statistics did not include this is no wonder Stalinists were in the habit of falsifying documents. The "criminals" themselves are a little misleading, as the penal code of the USSR was formulated so that everyone could become a criminal, so let's say that as a result of repression and national politics, three to over 20 million people died. Or write that 3-9 million people died directly as a result of repression, but if you add dead as a result of national politics as collectivization and war crimes - for example, German prisoners - 1 million victims - the number of victims may exceed 20 million/ [Ernii] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.135.15 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to achieve the figure of 20 million, any unreasonable assumptions are possible to make. However, as you probably know, a situation when some archival data are incorrect or falsified in not unusual in human history, and one of the important skills every good historian has is to an ability to extract correct data from inaccurate sources. There were several studies devoted specifically to the question of falsification of Soviet archival data, and these study demonstrate that, whereas some concrete archival document may be falsified, the whole body of documents give an adequate picture. As Wheatcroft correctly noted, by assuming that Stalinist authorities were engaged in falsification of documents to conceal their crimes, historians exaggerate their own significance. Indeed, Stalinist authorities were interested in keeping their state functional, and that is why they needed in an adequate internal (not public) statistics. Since the data modern historians are working with were classified, there were no need to distort them. There were several reasons for local authorities to understate mortality rate, and there were several reasons for overstating them: each separate archive may lie, however, that can be easily detected by a comparative analysis of, for example, local and central archives, or the archives of different branches (for example, railway statistics and NKVD data). One may argue that all archives could be falsified in a consistent way, however, this assumption implies there was a special agency that was conducting falsifications. Such an assumption, however, leads to a contradiction: if some separate agency existed that was responsible for creation of consistently falsified statistics, this agency was supposed to have its own archive. However, there is no evidence that such an agency eve existed, and no archive of this kind was found.

Regarding 1 million German POWs, again, to qualify it as a war crime, you need a solid ground. 1 million (out of 4-5) in almost 10 years is much lower rate than 50% in 2 years (the mortality of Soviet POWs in German camps). In addition, you should keep in mind that 10% of this figure constitute the POWs taken in a Stalingrad cauldron: they were in a desperate state, many of them at the point of dying, and the USSR (thanks to Hitler) had no resources to properly feed them (its own population was starving). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Just notice that there are a number of dead people whom the USSR could not count, why, for example, the archives of the USSR quarrel with their own censuses? We really believe that 7 million people [14 million victims to 1939, I deduct 7-9 million hunger] have suddenly evaporated? Soviet archwires are not reliable for every historian, so it is worth to save their data.[Erni]

One has to resort to ad hominem when they can't engage in a debate on the facts. I acknowledge it was brutal. But neoliberal capitalism is also a brutal system (what the US backed in Indonesia 1965-66 is every bit as heinous as the purges of 1937-38, to highlight one example. Historian John Henry Coatsworth posits that the military dictatorships the US sponsored in Latin America repressed and murdered more people from the 1960s to the 1990s than the entire Eastern Bloc put together during this same time period. I guess repression and murder is only pure evil when done by Stalin and co. Then we should also consider that neoliberal capitalism has turned the US into the largest penal colony on the planet, but I won't get into that. You get my point I think). And I find it interesting that some refuse to acknowledge the rise in living standards in spite of the brutality of the system (which Ellman rightly points out resulted in excess LIVES), and the dramatic FALL in living standards over the last decades with the collapse of the Soviet system. These are the facts that some cannot accept for purely ideological reasons, so those who point this out are attacked as "Stalinists" which is ignorant and absurd. Are those 66% of Russians who miss the USSR all unabashed Stalinists? I highly doubt that.

Regardless, I don't promote propaganda of any kind, but serious scholarly research published in academic journals and University presses (as evidenced by nearly every hyperlink provided by myself in this discussion). Regarding this ADK analysis, is this even mentioned in contemporary peer reviewed scholarship on the subject? This smacks of original research to me. The sources provided aren't even in English, so they would be inappropriate for the English Wikipedia anyway. It doesn't even really contradict Wheatcroft et al as the bulk of that 38 million are war deaths from WWII. The problem is that, unlike Wheatcroft, Davies, Tauger and Ellman, deaths during collectivization are all considered repression deaths and not excess deaths. You subtract deaths from collectivization from the "repression deaths" or "purposive deaths" (to borrow Wheatcroft's phrase) category and the numbers will look similar to those of Wheatcroft and Ellman. I agree with Paul that many of these deaths should be considered excess deaths not much different from those under Yeltsin in the 1990s. I keep up with scholarship on the subject regularly, and that not ONE piece of serious scholarship mentions this ADK analysis tells me to be very skeptical of it. That they include WWII deaths in the overall Soviet death toll to come up with 38 million is highly problematic, for myriad reasons.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, ADK were cited (and used) by Wheatcroft and Ellman, they are using their data and consider them a good and reliable source. Another author who provides similar figures is Maksudov, a renown Harward professor. However, I agree that they just provide figures, and these figures can be interpreted as "number of victims of Stalinism" or "excess mortality (from all causes)" depending on political views of each concrete author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of this. My apologies. I find it is odd that ADK is being cited here as a kind of rebuttal to both, in particular Wheatcroft. As I pointed out, depending on how one breaks down the death toll into "excess deaths" and "purposive deaths", the numbers would largely match. That Wheatcroft and Ellman cited this data helps explain that. All this being said, I fail to see any evidence that Stalin an co are responsible for 20 million deaths. Given this, the death toll in the article should not be inflated to 15 - 20 million or higher as the original editor suggested. It seems ADK further corroborates those who have established lower repression deaths, unless one wants to blame all 38 million on Stalin, and then claim they were all murders (including war dead), which would be an extreme absurdity.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen, but have we ever mistaken roles? If some historians interpret that 14 million losses in the years 1929-1939 are Stalin's fault, then you have to enter it. Similarly, 1 million killed prisoners of war or expulsion of the population. And we do not block the results because Griff wants to prove at all costs that Stalin did not do anything bad. Let's say that some historians interpret population decline and various acts on the crow as a Stalin crime and so reach the number of 20 million. Griffin himself admitted that he promotes Stalinist propaganda because capitalism is also bad, which is why he censors all historians. The whole article is Griffin censorship, who wants to present the stlaine in the best possible light. Let there be a place for Wheatcroft, who thinks that the USSR archive is reliable, but let there be a place for Robert Gellately and Simon Sebag Montefiore who think they are unbelievable. Griffin similarly censored Alexopoulos' work, claiming that the critics of his calculations are right. Let there be a place for historians who support the number of victims on the basis of archives, and others deny them, because population censuses have shown a sharp decline of up to 14 million by 1939, That's why let's put this goddamn information that current historians recognize that Stalin is responsible for the deaths of 3 to over 20 million people. For now, this whole article is Griffin's censorship and propaganda, which at all costs wants to prove that Stalin was not that bad, and every historian thinks otherwise he has no right to be placed on wikipedia. Imagine that Griffin tried at all costs to reduce the number of Hitler's victims and downplay those who say that the number of victims was greater.[Erni]

I never admitted I promote Stalinist propaganda (I would actually consider many of Stalin's views and policies quite reactionary personally). I also acknowledged the unbelievable brutality of the Stalinist system, but also acknowledge that there is more to it than that, because brutality alone doesn't explain the rise in overall living standards and excess lives created, as Ellman points out. This is what you clearly have an issue with, so brand me as a "Stalinist" because you can't account for it and don't want to account for it. Because I have a different perspective than you on some historical issues does not mean I "admitted" to any of your accusations. If anything, I pointed out that everything I post is based on scholarship or reliable media sources (like Reuters for example). Stop with the ad hominem and accusations or you will be reported. There is no censorship of the sources you mention, as Montefiore, Conquest et al are all cited within the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Erni, a good Wikipedia article is not just a collection of opinia of various authors. We are supposed to combine all what they write in some logically consistent story. For example, to write "Conquest says XX million were killed, Getty says only Y millions were killed, Wheatcroft says archives are reliable, Montefiore thinks they are not" Such an article would be unreadable. In addition, we cannot equate the source where some fact or opoinion is just briefly mentioned with the sources that perform a deef analysis, for the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Wheatcroft not thinks that correct information can be extracted from Soviet archival data, he demonstrates what exactly his conclusion is based upon. Regarding Alexopulos, I saw negative reviews on her work, and on her figures in particular, which means these data should be treated with cautions.

In general, the question is not about inclusion or exclusion of some author into the article, but in the most appropriate way all of them should be presented there.

PS. I think you have to apologise for accusing C.J. Griffin in promoting Satlinist propaganda, because otherwise he has a ground for reporting you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

His accusations of censorship by me are nonsense. The article states the following: "Those historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million[4][2][5][6] to nearly 9 million.[7] Some scholars still assert that the death toll could be in the tens of millions.[8][9][10]" You have to wonder what he is complaining about. What he wants is already in the article, and in the lede at that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, we have the best quality source (Ellman) that separates the "victims of Stalinism" and "excess mortality" into different categories. He explicitly says that the term "victims of Stalinism" is vague, and that it depends on one's political views. I think that is a core idea the whole article should be built upon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, on both counts.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul you and I are in agreement "term "victims of Stalinism" is vague, and that it depends on one's political views"--Woogie 10w (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin Russian sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, the two links I have listed above can be translated by Google. Also note well ADK puts the repression deaths at 3 million and 1932-33 famine & collectizvation deaths at 7.2 million [6]--Woogie 10w (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Academics in the west cannot explain the entire baunlance of 27 million Soviet war dead. They parrot the archival figure of 8.7 million military war dead that includes only 1.8 million POW deaths. They consider official figure of 18 million civilian war dead excessive, a figure of 7-9 million is cited by Dieter Pohl. The millions that starved to death were road kill. Outside of Russia roughly 10 million deaths in the ADK study remain unexplained!--Woogie 10w (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the archival disclosures in the 1990’s some historians outside of the USSR estimated the total demographic loss in the Stalin era at 40 million. The official figure of war dead was 20 million, these historians outside of the USSR estimated the victims of Stalin were the remaining balance of 20 million. In 1993 ADK did their study and estimated the total demographic loss in the Stalin era at 38 million. The war dead suddenly got bumped up to 27 million. The famine deaths 32-33 were 7 million, archival repression was 3 million, famine deaths in 1947 were 1 million. --Woogie 10w (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Griff himself confessed to speaking about the victims of capitalism, he leads censorship, because instead of treating the information equally, he promotes those that suit him, because "capitalism is also bad HEHE." A huge number of authors recognize the number of 20 million victims as appropriate, probably even on this site most of the footnotes are for her, and we censor data because for Griffa capitalism is also bad, I come from a country that was under Stalin occupation and I will not apologize to someone who wants to downplay Stalin's victims at all costs. to write that the number of victims is between 3 to over 20 million, or that historians are divided into two camps. They just think that the number of victims is from 3 to 9 - Snyder - some from 14 to over twenty - Conquest and Montefiore. the article is a pathetic apology of Stalin, where only the data on lower mortality is promoted and spends in the face of 100 million victims of communism, which is why censorship - Griff he finally got rid of Davies - and downgrading the results of other historians is simply a scandal. That's why it appeals again, 3 best solutions

1 The number of victims is from 3 to over 20 million

2 The official number of victims of repression is 3 - 9 million, but demographic research, and the addition of the number killed by communist war crimes, prompted the number to be increased to over 20 million

3 We currently have minimalists and maximalists. Some recognize that the number of victims is between 3 and 9 million, the second between 14 and over 20 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.135.15 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The way you are conducting the discussion is hardly appropriate, and I thing C.J. Griffin has serious reasons to request for a block or your IP. I also am not sure you are following what we all are writing. C.J. Griffin does not argue "capitalism is also bad", his point is different: the approaches to description of the events in different countries must be consistent: if some deaths under one regime are considered "excess mortality", it would be totally incorrect to describe similar events under another regime as "mass killing victims" unless some serious evidences have been provided. We DO have serious evidences that allow us to speak about crimes committed by Stailinist regime. However, we have NO evidences that would allow us to claim that ALL excess deaths during Stalin's rule were "victims of Stalinism". An extreme example is your alleged 1 million of German POWs (by the way, some authors argue some of them were actually MIA). One way or the another, you seem to be ignoring the arguments of others, so it would be a good time to stop this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Frank Lormier a demographer working for the League of Nations authored the Population of the Soviet Union in 1946.[7] On pages 158 and 162 we can see the shift of population eastwards and the decline in the rural population. The demographic picture indicates at least 8.5 million excess deaths from 1927-38 according to ADK. This was human cost to industrialize the nation. It was a wise move,those industries won the war for Soviet Russia.--Woogie 10w (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I cannot agree with your straightforward interpretations. Many free people moved to Siberia, this tendency started even before 1917. My own grandparents moved to Siberia in the pre-war period, and then they decided to move back (retrospectively, that was a mistake). Regarding the Stalin's "wise move", I also cannot agree: there was a possibility to make industrialisation in a less painful manner, and, had Stalin been less authoritarian, the anti-Hitler alliance would have probably formed earlier, and there would be probably no WWII (and the Holocaust) at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We come from different worlds, in 1910 my paternal grandfather was an inspector in the coal mines in Penn. My moms father worked on the railway as a Brakeman in Indiana. Both men could quit their jobs and moved anywhere in the USA. --Woogie 10w (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no difference. My grandfather married my Jewish grandmother and moved from Ukraine to Siberia (voluntarily). Soon after that, they decided to move back to Europe, and my mother was born in the middle of this trip. They both were free to quit their jobs and move to some industrial city in Central Russia. What is the difference?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You see no difference Paul, I was wrong Stalin's USSR must have been a swell place to live. My parents should have left the US and moved there in 1933 when they lost their jobs in the depression. --Woogie 10w (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I like your sense of humour...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gentlemen, do as you please, continue to censor the data and suggest lower scores, or write that historians now determine the number of Stalin victims from 3 to over 20 million. I do not see the point of discussing this topic.[Erni] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.135.253 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is not censoring anything it shows a neutral point of view 74 sources are in the reference part of the article

Those historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million[4][2][5][6] to nearly 9 million.[7] Some scholars still assert that the death toll could be in the tens of millions.[8][9][10]Prior to the collapse of the USSR and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higherJack90s15 (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Excess mortality"

What a briliant euphemism for "genocide". --Bageense^(disc.) 01:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. When you compare the events in Stalin's USSR with, for example, the Holocaust, you can see that there is no doubt that overwhelming majority of 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust were deliberately murdered, in gas chambers, via shooting, or by creating intolerable conditions in ghettos. In contrast, our knowledge about Stalin's USSR is incomplete, partially because of the lack of documentation, partially due to the very complex nature of the events. Thus, we know, that during the Great Purge, 1.2 million people were killed, including about 600,000 executed and approximately the same amount died in camps during the next 2 year period. Obviously, that was a deliberate killing, although it was by no means genocide, because it was not directed against any specific group of population, and the goal was not to exterminate any group. We also know that several million died during 1932 famine and post-war famine, however, it is not completely clear (and there is no agreement among scholars about that) if the famines were deliberately planned (it seems they were mostly a result of poor management, although in some cases the 1933 famine had partially a genocidal nature). We also have many other excess (premature) deaths, for example, during WWII, and, although they occurred in the territory that was under Stalin's control, it is not clear what part of those deaths could be attributed to Stalin's regime. For example, who is more responsible for the deaths in besidged Leningrad: Stalin or Hitler?

Finally, we have the demographic evidences that say about several tens of millions of excess deaths during Stalin's rule. However, it is hard to tell if all of them were murdered, or died from starvation, disease, hard labour, and who was responsible for that. In addition, we also have to keep in mind that life expectancy almost doubled during Stalin's rule, so his policy had a dual effect: in addition to excess deaths it caused many excess lifes, so some deaths that were considered natural at the beginning of his rule was considered as non-natural at the end of his rule.

All of that does not allow us to apply simple and propagandistic terminology like "genocide", "democide", "mass killing" etc to such a complex phenomenon as mass mortality under Stalin's rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Obviously, that was a deliberate killing, although it was by no means genocide, because it was not directed against any specific group of population, and the goal was not to exterminate any group."

You're just flat out wrong:

NKVD Order No. 00485

The Soviet NKVD Order № 00485 issued on August 11, 1937 laid the foundation for the systematic elimination of the Polish minority in the Soviet Union between 1937 and 1938. The order was called "On the liquidation of Polish sabotage and espionage groups and units of the POW" (POW stands for Polish Military Organization, Polska Organizacja Wojskowa) (Russian: О ликвидации польских диверсионно-шпионских групп и организаций ПОВ). ::It is dated August 9, 1937, was issued by the Central Committee Politburo (VKP b), and signed by Nikolai Yezhov, the People's Commissar for Internal Affairs. The operation was at the center of the national operations of the NKVD, and the largest ethnically-motivated shooting action of the Great Terror.

User:Eshuark, first of all, do not forget to sign your posts, otherwise it leads to confusion.

No, I am not wrong. The Wiki article you cite says

"It was ordered by the Politburo against the so-called "Polish spies" and customarily interpreted by the NKVD officials as relating to 'absolutely all Poles'. "

which meant it was not an official policy, but the actions of certain officials. It is also necessary to keep in mind that during the interwar period, Poland conducted unfriendly policy towards the USSR, and one of its official goals was dismemberment of the USSR. It also supported various sabotage activity in Western regions of the USSR, although its scale was much smaller than Stalin thought. In connection to that, although an overwhelming majority of Poles that became victims of NKVD were just ordinary civilians, it would be incorrect to say those actions were totally unprovoked. The declared goal had never been elimination of all Poles, and it hadn't lead to their elimination. By the way, Stalin saw Poland and Poles as much more serious threat than they were in reality, thus, he believed Poland was going to attack the USSR (jointly with Japan) in 1933. In general, overestimation of Polish military capability was a common trend during the interwar period: for example, in 1939, Britain and France believed Polish military capabilities were comparable to those of the USSR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The page all ready talks about the deaths from the purgeJack90s15 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not wrong. The Wiki article you cite says

"It was ordered by the Politburo against the so-called "Polish spies" and customarily interpreted by the NKVD officials as relating to 'absolutely all Poles'. "

which meant it was not an official policy, but action of certain officials.

With regard to "The page all ready talks about the deaths from the purge", had it talked about the deaths from the purge and similar events, the total figure of the death toll would be around 2-3 million. In reality, the article discusses all premature deaths, including, for example, war time famine deaths.

I see no problem with renaming the article to something like "mass killings under Stalin regime", however, that requires a strict separation of mass killings and other premature deaths, and exclusion of demographic evidences from the death toll figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The page does a good job with showing the death toll from all date historians use, it breaks everything up it all ready shows the high estimate from the purge that is used occasionally by them. we can not just say deaths belong in what category we think it does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research The page does a good job on showing what deaths can be attributed to Stalin that is why I think the name should stay also.Jack90s15 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15, actually, I was answering to User:Eshuark's post, but since he forgot to sign, I thought it was your post. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with Paul on this. If the page is renamed "mass killings under Stalin regime", some of the content which does not pertain to direct killings goes bye bye (i.e., the famine of 1947, etc.), along with the higher estimations which include excess deaths.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

then what would stay does that mean the Holodomor would not be on the page that was a man made famine ?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Man made famine" is a very vague term. Thus, some famine that was a result of a wrong agricultural policy or antropogenic deforestation is considered "man made" too, however, as a rule, noone calls it "genocide" or "mass killing" when it happens in some non-Communist country. Thus, noone (outside India) calls Bengal famine a genocide despite a fact that it was a purely man made famine. "Man made" by itself is not a sufficient criterion to call the event "mass killing" or "genocide", we need to analyze it in more details. Thus, some aspects of Holodomor allow us to consider it as genocide. Concretely, the policy of Soviet authorities during some period of the 1932-33 famine and in some regions (a part of North Caucasus region and a part of Ukrainian SSR) allows us to speak about genocide. However, if there was a genocide during Holodomor, that does not mean the famine as whole was genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You explained it perfectly that is why I think it should stay the way it is like it says for the famine it says,the deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million persons in the famine of 1932–33 are sometimes, but not always included with the victims of the Stalin era.and This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine in Ukraine was created as a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and othersJack90s15 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"as a rule, noone calls it "genocide" or "mass killing" when it happens in some non-Communist country." This is verifiably incorrect. The Irish Famine is regularly called a genocide and has a long history of being described as such by a wing of historians. It is not difficult to find such debate on any number of famines including your cited Bengal famine (in and without India). 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:C1A4:2F3F:AA28:A1DD (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned User:Poundofdonuts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing,_good_or_bad User:Eshuark is the sockJack90s15 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Please add this book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forsaken:_An_American_Tragedy_in_Stalin’s_Russia

The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis is a 2008 book published by Penguin Books. It is a story of thousands of Americans immigrating to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The vast majority of these Americans were executed or sent to the Gulag by the Joseph Stalin government.

In the see also section. Moscowdreams (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording on sources that are all after the fall of the soviet union

I made an edit here about the wording in the lead [8]. The current wording is "Those historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 3 million[source year 1993][source year 1996][source year 1990][source year 2002] to nearly 9 million.[source year 2011] Some scholars still assert that the death toll could be in the tens of millions.[source year 2009][source year 2008][source year 2004]"

But this looks really problematic because all of the sources are by historians after the fall of the Soviet Union and the some are even more recent with claims in the tens of millions. See above for the dates of the sources. The wording should be neutral, because it makes it seem like the estimate of tens of millions are outdated when they seem to be more recent in the literature. They are all valid and reflect variations among historians since there is apparently no consensus in the literature on the totals.

As such my new wording was neutral and non-judgmental - "Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated that death tolls range from approximately in the millions [source year 1993][source year 1996][source year 1990][source year 2002][source year 2011] to the tens of millions.[source year 2009][source year 2008][source year 2004]" If no objections to the neutral wording, I will re-insert. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the content dispute, your proposed wording "...death tolls range from approximately in the millions" makes no sense. A range goes from one number to another. It is also not useful to give range boundaries that are as vague as "approximately in the millions" even if you had two of them. I suggest you find a different wording. Railfan23 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Understandable. I just building off from what was there. I could adjust it to "Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated death tolls to range from few million [sources] to tens of millions [sources]." I think that makes more sense and is pretty neutral. It is just a tweak I am suggesting. Not a massive change. If no issues, I will adjust on the article eventually. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramos1990 it's worded like that to show how it varies from different historians like how the pre 1991 estimates were higher and after how they started to get a little bit lower with the archival estimates its showing a Equal view point with the estimates made by reputable scholars,

In 2011, the historian Timothy D. Snyder, after assessing 20 years of historical research in Eastern European archives, asserts that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million (rising to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account)[56][7]

The release of previously secret reports from the Soviet archives in the 1990s indicate that the victims of repression in the Stalin era were about 9 million persons. Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million based on their own demographic analysis and from dated information published before the release of the reports from the Soviet archives.[63] American historian Richard Pipes noted: "Censuses revealed that between 1932 and 1939—that is, after collectivization but before World War II—the population decreased by 9 to 10 million people.[64] In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Robert Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, at least 15 million people were killed "by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors".[65] Rudolph Rummel in 2006 said that the earlier higher victim total estimates are correct, although he includes those killed by the government of the Soviet Union in other Eastern European countries as well.[66][67] Conversely, J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft and others insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by "revisionist" scholars.[68][69] Simon Sebag Montefiore in 2003 suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people[70]

Some of these estimates rely in part on demographic losses. Conquest explained how he arrived at his estimate: "I suggest about eleven million by the beginning of 1937, and about three million over the period 1937–38, making fourteen million. The eleven-odd million is readily deduced from the undisputed population deficit shown in the suppressed census of January 1937, of fifteen to sixteen million, by making reasonable assumptions about how this was divided between birth deficit and deaths."[71]

Some historians also believe that the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities are unreliable and incomplete.[1] In addition to failures regarding comprehensive recordings, as one additional example, Canadian historian Robert Gellately and British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore argue that the many suspects beaten and tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not to have been counted amongst the executed.[72][73] Conversely, Australian historian Stephen G. Wheatcroft asserts that prior to the opening of the archives for historical research, "our understanding of the scale and the nature of Soviet repression has been extremely poor" and that some specialists who wish to maintain earlier high estimates of the Stalinist death toll are "finding it difficult to adapt to the new circumstances when the archives are open and when there are plenty of irrefutable data" and instead "hang on to their old Sovietological methods with round-about calculations based on odd statements from emigres and other informants who are supposed to have superior knowledge".[74][3]Jack90s15 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

its Showing how pre-1991 Estimates were higher and how after the Collapse of the USSR historians started to make lower Estimates and its also showing how higher Estimates are still quoted like 20 million and up so its showing a NPOV with that is why it says Some scholars still assert that the death toll could be in the tens of millions Jack90s15 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at my first comment. The dates show that the more recent sources show higher numbers where as the older sources show lower numbers. I put in the source dates to show clarity. I am not favoring one over the other in my edit. The previous wording was biased towards lower numbers when clearly other more recent studies say differently. There is no consensus on the numbers clearly form the disagreement among the sources themselves.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC

2 Source is not showing anything for the overall death toll? The first one has a pay wall and this was already discussed and agreed upon previously on the talk pageJack90s15 (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Clearly there is no historical consensus on the matter and the sources show that they are numerous estimates form low to high. The sources cited for low millions are: Getty 1993, Wheatcroft 1996, Wheatcroft 1990, Ellman 2002, Snyder 2011 - these are all old studies and only the Snyder one is recent. The sources cited for tens of millions: Rosefielde 2009, Brent 2008, Yakovlev 2004 - these are pretty recent studies. Plus ALL of these studies were done after 1991, so your argument of some being outdated or using pre-1991 estimates make no sense. Why would you want to say that "Some scholars still assert..."? This wording makes it seem like you are downplaying newer studies when you shouldn't be downplaying any of these sources. They are all valid and different. Stick to neutral wording.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Brent bases his blurb in the introduction on literally nothing. No footnote, no citation, nothing. And this is not elaborated on in the body of the book at all. Just one sentence in the introduction. Rosefielde actually cites 8.1 million deaths for Stalin based on archival data on page 19, which includes all famine victims as "terror starvation" (hotly disputed by other scholars). Remove these "terror starvation" victims and his numbers look much like the other scholars who utilize archival data. Rosefielde's 20 million estimate comes from what he refers to on the same page as possible "higher testimonial fatalities," meaning relying on non-academic memoir sources and similar methods as Conquest. Lastly, Yakovlev openly states his estimate is based on nothing but his own assertions, literally, and flatly rejects archival data. Let me quote the relevant text: "My own many years and experience in the rehabilitation of victims of political terror allow me to assert that the number of people in the USSR who were killed for political motives or who died in prisons and camps during the entire period of Soviet power totaled 20 to 25 million." He is not an actual scholar but a politician with an axe to grind, especially given that his policies helped bring down the USSR. And his book was originally published in 2002, not 2004, the same year Ellman's work was published. Your statements that lower estimates come from "old" sources where as higher estimates come from more "recent" sources is quite disingenuous, especially given the implication that newer means better. The "old" studies, with the exception of the one from 1990, are all based on evidence from Soviet archives, with data sets, tables, graphs etc demonstrating how they get to their estimates based on real evidence, with Ellman's being perhaps the most comprehensive. Just look at the level of scholarship in the sources you favor, which is totally lacking and largely based on opinions of the authors or at best memoir sources, and compare those to the peer-reviewed and data filled papers of Wheatcroft, Ellman and Getty from the 1990s, when the archives were opened up to academics for study of the Stalin period. The "old" sources are clearly superior in every way to the more "recent" sources you appear to favor.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)