Credibility of soviet sources

SLONIKSP wrote:

"Karjala I choose not to respond to you because you don't know how to engage politely. You aren't bothered with facts.... I remember when we had a discussion a few years back and you swore up and down that the Soviet Archives were filled with a bunch of lies. You were immediately told to provide evidence by several moderators here which Of course you failed to do but still continued your anti Russian rhetoric. To you anything Russian is bad and it doesn't matter what sources are provided to you which counter you claim. You are simply not fun to have debates with.

It' is very tough to prove anyone wrong when you provide few or no sources at all.
Edited by Sloniksp, 14 September 2014 - 08:45 PM."

In Finland we have a saying, maybe you have too(?), that "the forest answers in a same way you shout in there"...

The post above was written in an other thread now closed. While I'm not tryng to continue that conversation in which I presented several SOURCED posts with LINKS supporting my FACTS, I still feel I have to respond to this post addressed to my and referring to an older chain.

I tried to find that chain you mentioned but was not able to. However I can remember that soviet archive bit, which I think I answered to. But in case I didn't here's some support to my stand. These were the ones I found first but don't worry, I can find you more if you really want to...:

"DUBIOUS VALUE OF COMMUNIST ARCHIVAL INFORMATION

It is commonly supposed that archival information is inherently trustworthy because, after all, it is for internal use, and not for public relations or propaganda purposes. In actuality, archival information often lacks credibility, and Soviet archival information is especially notorious in this regard. Diana Dimitru, a professor of history at Ion Creanga State University at Moldova, comments, (quote) Scholars studying the Soviet Union were the first to point out the problems that Soviet documents pose as primary sources. They warned of various obstacles set up by an indoctrinated, centralized, secretive machine that produced immense but often confusing and misleading paperwork. The reliability of sources poses an enormous quandary for researchers of Soviet history, becoming most acute with materials produced during the Stalinist period. Scholarly convention advises the rejection of Soviet police interrogation records as truthful sources on committed crimes. (unquote) (p. 143).

The foregoing has unmentioned implications for the post-WWII Jedwabne trials (see below), as well as other issues. For instance, it reminds us that USSR archival sources (which affirm less than 400,000 Poles deported to the interior of the USSR in 1939-1941) should not automatically be believed over other sources (which affirm 1.2-1.5 million Poles thus deported)."

http://www.internationalresearchcenter.org/en/holocaust-forgotten-or-revisited/the-holocaust-in-the-east-local-perpetrators-and-soviet-responses-pitt-russian-east-european

"Reliability of statistical data “

"The deceptive figure". This is the translation of a widely cited article ("Lukavaia Tsifra") by journalist Vasilii Seliunin and economist Grigorii Khanin, in Novyi Mir, February 1987, #2: 181-202[19] ”
The quality (accuracy and reliability) of data published in the Soviet Union and used in historical research is another issue raised by various Sovietologists.[7][20][21][22]...
As with all Soviet historiography, reliability of Soviet statistical data varied from period to period.[22] The first revolutionary decade and the period of Stalin's dictatorship both appear highly problematic with regards to statistical reliability; very little statistical data were published from 1936 to 1956.[22] Notably, the 1937 census' organizers were executed and results destroyed altogether, and no further censuses were conducted until 1959.[24] The reliability of data improved after 1956 when some missing data was published and Soviet experts themselves published some adjusted data for the Stalin's era;[22] however the quality of documentation has deteriorated.[21]
While some researchers say that on occasion statistical data useful in historical research (such as economical data invented to prove the successes of the Soviet industrialization, or some published numbers of Gulag prisoners and terror victims as Conquest claims) might have been completely invented by the Soviet authorities,.[7]Data was falsified both during collection - by local authorities who would be judged by the central authorities based on whether their figures reflected the central economy prescriptions - and by internal propaganda, with its goal to portray the Soviet state in most positive light to its very citizens.[20][22] Nonetheless the policy of not publishing - or simply not collecting - data that was deemed unsuitable for various reasons was much more common than simple falsification; hence there are many gaps in Soviet statistical data.[21] Inadequate or lacking documentation for much of Soviet statistical data is also a significant problem.[20][21][22]"

"Credibility

Not all areas of Soviet historiography were equally affected by the ideological demands of the elite; additionally, the intensity of these demands varied over time.[22] The impact of ideological demands also varied based on the field of history. The areas most affected by ideological demands were 19th and 20th century history, especially Russian and Soviet history.[25] Part of the Soviet historiography was affected by extreme ideological bias, and potentially compromised by the deliberate distortions and omissions. Yet part of Soviet historiography produced a large body of significant scholarship which continues to be used in the modern research.[26] For example, Soviet works on Byzantium, created and published in Soviet Union, are held in high regard."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

As far as military there are two types of sources, the first for public consumption, is very unreliable, since it reflects the party line. The 2nd level is the type that David Glantz saw and is very good from what I understand. While it was important to tell the public the party line, Stalin would not tolerate shoddy work, he liked original sources. Any one who did a poor job in a presentation in which he had to make a decision risked the Gulag.This means that the private documents that the army leadership had access to would be reliable. This is especially true for military studies. This does not mean the officers were able to use it well.

 

Sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Not unlike German sources, Allied sources & postwar sources.
'Ideology' existed worldwide, always has, and still does, and influences all historiography & sources no matter the period.

 

IMHO,this is a wastage of time : the rule is : for information about Germany:use German sources (with the needed caveat),for the SU: use Soviet sources(with the needed caveat).That the Soviets falsified data about the Gulag is possible/probable,but ,this is irrelevant,unless there are non Soviet sources which are more reliable .

Exemple : one can argue that the Soviet figures about the 1931 famine were not reliable,but the Ukrainian figures also are not reliable .


:for the Winterwarne should use Finnish sources only for the number of Soviet POW,for the Soviet KIA and WIA/MIA,one should use Soviet sources :if they are nor reliable ::well,one has to accept it .

 

You're not suggesting most might already attempt to make informed choices when using sources are you, LJAd?
Placing them in context and all that?
Who'd have thunk it!

 

Sirs,

I must repectfully ask, if the only sources that are credible are the one coming from their own country, WHY do you, Lj and Von Poop, continue to treat German sourcing as a pack of Goebbels inspired lies?

Why, do you treat Soviet sources as completely credible, when their capicty for distortion and lies are quite well known.

Are you indulging in a little bit of political correctness, hoping to draw more Russian posters in?

Do you honestly feel that historians under the Stalin regime had MORE credibility, as Mr. rogers has stated?

The amazing thing about reading a Russian account in english is the length to which the writers go to paint the best possible picture of russian people. When I read stuff by Americans, or Brits, or even Germans, this is completely absent. Sometimes, especially the Brits, will go all out to portray the British Army as a bunch of ordinary 'gobs', jst hangin' about, trying to do as little as possible.

The interviews I've seen with surviving Russians always tell how heroic everybody was, how efficient they were at killing fascists, how their comrades asked for nothing else but bread, sleep, and bullets due to shortages, which are always borne 'cheerfully'. I usually switch off after the first few paragraphs of this nonsense.

Am I expected to believe all this from a country that still struggles to be a European partner, is still shunned by it's neighbours, and is still over concerned that the west does not acknowledge its role in WW2, even though we all know that the Soviets played a bloody HUGE role in making it all happen!

 

1) No one is saying that the German sources are a pack of lies .

Personally, I deplore that the Anglo-saxon historians are restricting themselves to German sources translated in English, or the post war crap from Liddell Hart and associates .

But,that does not mean that we should accept the lies of defeated German generals as Guderian and Manstein .I am hurrying to say that the memoirs of Zjukov are not better .

There are a lot of serious German sources available : Germany and WWII:in English if one is rich,in German if one takes the trouble to learn German;the works from Jonas Scherner,...


2) The last sentence is totally of topic :the Russian attitude in 2014 has no place in this thread .

3) No one is saying that Russian sources are completely credible .The point is that there are no other sources about Russia . May I remind you that the CIA informations about the SU were proved to be false in 1989.

4) It is obvious that you are suffeting from an ilness which is still spreaded in the US : you have forgotten that the Cold war is over ,since 1989.

 

That you have seen...
There are more things in heaven & earth.

I don't care what the source is; there will be potential positives about it's veracity, and potential negatives.
One of the very processes of history is this interpretation & striking of a balance with regards to the documentary, visual & 'social' record.

To flat out accuse someone (as Karjala is attempting here in this rather sly way) of only using one ideological source/view, while plainly doing exactly the same yourself, is laughable.

WW2's historiography really has laboured under some peculiar sources for years - all those German generals chanting 'it wasn't me' while being interviewed by the US postwar for just a start.
Serious WW1 historiography seems to have got fully into the swing of looking harder at the more uncertain issues. I for one am enjoying WW2 increasingly getting the same sort of treatment,

 

??? Mush of the information the CIA had on the USSR was proven correct in the period after its fall. Some of course was proven wrong as well but blanket statements like the above are rather useless for just such reasons.

 

Unwise of you : I challenge you to present your German sources,and I will give mine ,and than,we will see who has the most German sources .

 

The CIA failed to predict the fall of the SU ,and when it collapsed, the CIA was showed with its trousers down .

 

Wrong. 10 years before the Soviet Union collapsed the CIA was predicting significant problems coming to a head in the time frame in which it collapsed. While it wasn't clear just what would happen that far out it was clear that the USSR was headed for serious problems.

 

A stopped watch is right twice a day.

 

Which given it's lack of context is a rather worthless comment.

 

Depending on the circumstances is could be right as few as 0 times and as many as 4.

 

Gentlemen,

The Cold War may be over.

But the political circumstaces in Russian Fed remain unchanged.

They still have a dictatorship, (in all but name).

They still have a cult of personality.

They still have an ongoing war over there own border expansion.

They still have a private sector thats permanently short of goods and services.

They still have ethnic enemies all over europe that hate their guts.
Their business community is even more corrupt than it has ever been.

So whats the difference? A few Westerners allowed into the country now? Anything else? Oh yes, they can host a soccer tournament, and a winter olympics.

 

The problem of course is, how and when to know if the source is (close to) correct or not. Some sources are correct, some altered/twisted and some outright falsified.

Don't agree with your view that the sources for internal use only are/were automatically correct. Failing/making mistakes/not meeting the targets was very dangerous in Stalin's USSR. That's why everybody in every level wanted to show desired results.

If the reality did not meet the wishes, the documents were created to please "Uncle Joe". And if/when this was made on consequtive levels also the falsifying multiplied.

The Cold War WAS over, but is not any more, since 2008..

If you read my post again, you will notice that I used several sources. I see no point including any Russian propaganda sites, which serve only that purpose and as everybody (outside Russia) knows, are full of "it". If you insist, I can find more sources backing my view.

 

I was referring more to your overall demeanour, mate.
So wedded to one particularly dogmatic view that even the slightest point against that view apparently causes pain. The mind almost completely closed to any chink in that particular historiographical armour.
Stand for black & white all you like; the world's 100 shades of grey.

 

With respect, There are no absolutely accurate sources period, in any nation or governmet available to the general public. Some are indeed better than others, but nothing collected and prepared by human hands can ever be so.

I have a personal experience in this when researching the fate of a neighbor's relative who went missing during the "Nordwind" operation in the Saarbrucken region.

The official army records were very imprecise and showing him as a KIA several days later than he actually was despite after action reports. This was understandable as he was attached to a ad hoc replacement platoon slotted into line literally a hour before a vigorous German assault which resulted in the capture of much of this platoon, him being one of them. Somewhere between his capture and the turning over of these prisoners to Higher German authority he was killed, likely by US friendly fire from either a mortar or artillery fire upon a crossroad. His date of death was given one day prior to his remains being found which was several days after his capture and at least 3 days after the other members of the captured platoon was recorded as official PoW's by the German Army.

Clearly they made a "guesstamate" as to when he was actually killed and even post war history records compiled by the divisions official historians never reconciled the differing accounts.

Of the three major allied nations I would call the Soviet records perhaps the most suspect, but not very far from most Axis records, especially if you use post war accounts provided by people with agenda's to promote. Deep down however there are accurate day to day reports had to be as the SU did wage a effective war against a determined enemy.

If you only took as gospel the Anglo-American propaganda view of the war, you too would be deeply misled.

 

I have trawled through a few military diaries and am amazed at what is left out or not mentioned. Ergo it didn't happen. Official records will only record what they want you to know. Propaganda by omission.
I am sure most governments follow this line.