Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose you read those things from western media.
Western media are extremely biased when they talk about "communist regimes" , as we all know. As a person who grew up in China I can tell you many reports about China are either misleading or inaccurate.
I suppose you read those things from western media.
Western media are extremely biased when they talk about "communist regimes" , as we all know. As a person who grew up in China I can tell you many reports about China are either misleading or inaccurate.
So, all Western media - from Canada to Australia - have an automatical bias, even a conspiracy for countries that happen to be communist? Why would they have that? Yes, some US-based right-wing media might have a bias, but why would for example Finnish State Broadcasting have it? If anything, most Western countries have a big curiosity for North Korea, as it is so unique and closed.
Sure, the media isn't flawless, and they do mistakes all the time. Western media does inaccurate reports about other Western countries too. Either by accident or misundestanding. If a Chinese newspaper comes to Finland I'm not sure that they would get all facts right.
What if I read it from a Communist newspaper? Or Swedish public broadcasting and the reporter was Chinese? You know, here in the West we have free media, and they don't have to follow a certain agenda. As we all know, China doesn't have free media, and I understand if you don't even know what the concept means. Actually, I live in the country which has the most free media in the world.
This doesn't really apply to the practical demographics of quality of life in the Soviet Union as it actually happened in history. If you interpret the OP from a conjectural timeline, the question arises as to where and how to draw the boundaries of modal conjecture.
This includes inquiries far beyond the scope of the topic, such as, "what is a fair comparison?", "do we exclude exceptional events in history?", "how stringent should the exclusion criteria be?", "could the state have handled crises differently?", and so on.
No, it is what it is, with all the calamities of that era taken into account.
Quote:
This objection won't apply to sources that were first published after the archival data was made available, such as Davies'.
Conquest, Yakovlev (among others), find that the archival data generally verifies their high estimates, barring some statistical criticisms. They don't seem to be dismissing the Vemskov thesis a priori in a biased bid to protect their original work.
Sorry, I don't pay much attention at what Conquest has to say any longer, after this statement of S. Wheatcroft;
"Conquest’ s response to these questions is disappointing, but not totally unexpected.
In principle, he agrees that older work `must be subject to major amendment’ as new
material becomes available. But in practice he is very resistant to changing his earlier
views, despite the overwhelming evidence that his earlier estimates, and his minor
`reassessments’ , are still far too high. His comment on my article suggests that he is
not really interested in the questions raised. He does not seriously discuss the
reliability of the data, with which he is clearly unfamiliar, and which he wishes to
dismiss out of hand.
In his br ief Comment, Conquest claims a lot. He claims that the argument of my
article is `fundamentally ¯ awed’ . He claims that I `claim to present the true,
ª archivalº totals for the victims of Stalinism’ and that this claim is `fallacious’ . He
claims that my sources can be reduced to three documents, which are incompatible,
incomplete and consciously faked. And he wishes to replace them by a set of other
less `detailed’ and less `precise’ figures, which he thinks are more credible, and
which, incidentally, support his earlier `higher’ estimates of the scale of the camps
and of mortality in the repressions. In a somewhat contradictory manner he admits
that `the estimates I [Conquest] arrived at on Kolyma were indeed excessive, and as
with other early estimates on the whole terror period, now that more is known they
must indeed be subjected to major amendment’ . But he then goes on to claim that `in
every other way my book remains a full and now fully verifed account of the
subject’ . His comment then goes on to attack me for what he considers to be my
`conceptual error ¼ on the system’ s casualties over the USSR as a whole’ . And in
conclusion he adds that he also doesn’ t like my continual refusal to accept that `Stalin
consciously in icted the 1933 famine’ , to which he addresses a few more comments.
Conquest’ s comments do not particularly disturb me. In fact, for those who can
read the nuances, it will be apparent that his criticism is relatively mild. After all, 17
years ago, when, as a young research student, I ® rst publicly addressed his misconceptions
over the scale of forced labour, he was far more outspoken. At that time he
accused me of `distorting’ and `inadequately checking’ statistical evidence, and of
using arguments which `amount to no more than a combination of sophistical algebra
and unwarranted parochial assumptions’ .2 This was in response to my argument that
his ® gure of eight million in the labour camps (nine million if you include prisons)
was incompatible with the arguments about the scale of the camps which had been
made earlier by Jasny, Timashev and Eason, and with an assortment of other evidence
that I listed. On the basis of a careful analysis of the nature of Soviet society and the
economy of the 1930s I concluded that it was impossible for there to have been more
than four to ® ve million in the labour camps in the late 1930s.3 This is a conclusion
that has now been totally vindicated, and that even Conquest occasionally accepts. I
did not expect Conquest to make an apology, or to acknowledge his error, but his
repeated insistence that the current figures have shown him to be correct on this
question is a little hard to swallow."
Well until 1976 North Korea was richer than South Korea since they received help from the USSR and the heavy industry was mostly in the north as they have more natural resources. South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world back then, like really the poorest of the poorest, Congo level of poor, while North Korea was doing ok, with a growing economy and stuff. That period can be called the golden age of NK.
Anyways back to topic I think it'd be worse to live in NK than in USSR. You hear some stories about how life was ok in Russia back then (and life wasn't nice in most places back then anyways, even European and Asian ones that are well-off today, like Ireland, Spain, Taiwan etc.), but the only kind of stories you hear from NK defectors is ultimate horror.
Thank you, I didn't know all that, but I still wonder how N.K. "golden age" would compare to S.U. "golden age."
So, my choice is obvious: definitely the USSR. Estonian SSR would be an obvious choice, but if I would be ethnically Russian I would probably choose Saint Petersburg. AFAIK city dwellers were in a better position than rural dwellers, and St. Pete was one of the wealthiest regions. The meritocracy worked better in the USSR, and the little guy wasn't as harrassed. I think the USSR had only selective censorship, when in NK it's total and all-consuming.
No, it is what it is, with all the calamities of that era taken into account.
Sorry, I don't pay much attention at what Conquest has to say any longer, after this statement of S. Wheatcroft;
Your first point is a non sequitur.
Wheatcroft's essay is a defensive polemic rather than a critical appraisal. You can tell by reading it that he meant it as apologia after his own work came under scathing criticism from Conquest. In fact, he doesn't sound like a very happy bunny at all.
At the end of the day, if you want to disprove Conquest's (revised) statistics, you also have to contend with the consensus of scholars who agree with him, such as Yakovlev, Volkogonov, Brent, Rosefielde and others.
Last edited by CTDominion; 09-18-2016 at 03:41 PM..
No, rather an absence of desire to get involved in discussion that brings no particular fruition.
Quote:
Wheatcroft's essay is a defensive polemic rather than a critical appraisal. You can tell by reading it that he meant it as apologia after his own work came under scathing criticism from Conquest. In fact, he doesn't sound like a very happy bunny at all.
People that follow common sense are not always the happiest of bunnies)))
Quote:
At the end of the day, if you want to disprove Conquest's (revised) statistics, you also have to contend with the consensus of scholars who agree with him, such as Yakovlev, Volkogonov, Brent, Rosefielde and others.
They were all writing/making their estimate earlier, before the archives were open.
Quote:
The best criticism you could probably level at Conquest is that his data is incomplete, but that doesn't really help your case.
Of course it's "incomplete" - the likes of Rummel want figures to be even more impressive, since it serves the purpose of anti-Soviet hysteria better, but those figures don't add up; otherwise as I've said, the S.U would have demographically collapsed during the WWII. Stalin, however, was not such big fool.
A disconnected phrase going off at a tangent probably isn't the most communicative way to say, 'I quit'.
Yes, I am not interested in going further here with the questions like
"what is a fair comparison?", "do we exclude exceptional events in history?", "how stringent should the exclusion criteria be?", "could the state have handled crises differently?", and so on."
They are a subject of their own, they'll require too much ground to cover and they are straying away from the main question - where one would prefer to live under the circumstances - the USSR or Northern Korea. It's that simple.
Quote:
We've gone over your argument about bias earlier. This kind of rhetoric is pointless without a systematic review to back up your claims.
What's a "systematic review?" Are you saying that someone has a proven data, every decade or so, of Soviet demographic statistics, or should we consider someone's estimates a "systematic review?"
Quote:
A total demographic collapse is unlikely, given that these are summative statistics over many years, including the pre-war and post-war periods. And there is evidence that the Soviet Union did suffer severe, undocumented demographic problems.
This particular census is not telling me much, except for that Stalin apparently ( as usual) was hoping for something "bigger and better" ( according to initial reports of his subordinates, apparently,) and the reality turned out worse than expected. ( Worse doesn't mean "devastating" though.)
For example he was saying that improvement of material situation of workers "led the population to breed much faster than in the old days. The birth rate is higher," but it was not a case, if you read on history of abortions in Russia ( or rather high rate of it, during Stalin's times including.)
This was a big part of demographic problems in Russia throughout Soviet times, and things got much worse WITHOUT Soviet system by the way.)
One good thing about this article was that it mentioned "Also, despite the expected number of living prisoners of the Gulag to be 4 million, only 2.6 million were accounted for."
These figures ( of Gulag inmates) coincide more or less with the latest archive figures rather well.
So no, from everything I know about the life in the Soviet Union, those humongous numbers of Stalin's victims are in the heads of historians, that would love to present their case "against Communism."
But that's not how the majority of Russians perceive those numbers. If those numbers were true, they'd be aware of what a pure disaster Stalin's times were, and what mortal danger they represented for the nation. But that was never a general view, and that means the collective memory of Russians perceive Stalin's times in a different manner - with all its good, its bad and the ugly, but not the kind of disaster that historians like Conquest are trying to present.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
