Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov

Spelling

Is it possible his name can be spelled differently in English? There is only one publication reffering to him in print [1], and what's more suprising I found no hits on Google Scholar (I'd expect his publications would be at least reviewed few times - many journales review notable non-English publications).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This person has not yet been acknowledged by Western readers. Alternative spellings are Meltiukhov, Meltjukhov... but these don't hit either.--Constanz - Talk 06:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a very few german hits by meltjuchow.--Constanz - Talk 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Meltiukhov. the form with i in the middle is used.--Constanz - Talk 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ru?

No article on ru wiki?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no article about him in Russian Wiki. However, he is notable enough to be invited for interview to Radio Free Europe in Moscow.Biophys 04:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Suvorov

Last statement in this article is actually not supported. Please provide exact reference. To the contrary, Meltukov is usually criticized by Stalinist "historians" for supporting (at least partialy) Suvorov.Biophys 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Biophys -- the statement you deleted was unreadable, I just didn't know what to make of it. Now at least it looks coherent. But I agree, it would be good to clarify the relationship between Meltyukhov and Suvorov -- after all, they treat more-or-less the same subject, from a somewhat similar angle. Is there a point of disagreement between them, and if so, what exactly? Turgidson 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

See here and here for some serious criticism of his works and POV. This should be noted in the article, I believe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is moved from my talk. --Irpen 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have not yet made any comments to the evidence that the works of Meltyukhov, specifically his Soviet-Polish Wars, is questionable as reference. In particular, there is a review by Peter Cheremushkin (Moscow State University). In Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center) he states: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

And here is the passage in question from his book ([2])

Когда выяснилось, что пленных польских офицеров в подавляющем большинстве невозможно использовать в интересах СССР, 15 131 человек (в основном офицеры и полицейские) были расстреляны весной 1940 г.{895} Одновременно на основании того же решения Политбюро в тюрьмах Западной Украины и Западной Белоруссии были расстреляны 7 305 человек.

Безусловно, решение судьбы пленных польских офицеров стало военным преступлением советского руководства. Однако как уже отмечалось, именно такое «простое» решение в значительной степени было предопределено всем ходом советско-польских отношений 1918-1939 гг., в том числе и гибелью около 60 тыс. советских военнопленных в польских лагерях в 1919-1921 гг. Думается, что эта трагическая тема в отношениях между нашими странами должна решаться на основе взаимности. Как нынешнее российское руководство признало ответственность прежнего советского руководства за это преступление, так и польское руководство, видимо, должно признать вину тогдашних польских властей за гибель [416] советских военнопленных. Как заявил министр иностранных дел Польши В. Бартошевский, «в убийстве польских офицеров никто не обвиняет весь российский народ. Мы виним только непосредственных исполнителей и их политических наставников»{896}. Вероятно, именно эта позиция должна быть применена и к Польше. Во всяком случае объективное изучение этого вопроса и соответствующее политическое заявление польских властей скорее всего позволят закрыть эту трагическую страницу нашей общей истории.

Now, first of all, Meltyukhov is wrong about the 60,000 prisoners "lost" in Polish camps. Here is the text from our Wikipedia article illustrating the real situation (Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924))

The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated from 80,000 to 85,000 and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matvejev). They also show that the cause of death were various ilnesses and epidemics (Spanish flu, typhus, cholera and shigellosis), which were at that time rampant throughout the whole of Europe and caused hundreds of thousands of death not only among POWs, but also among fighting soldiers and civilian population.[1].

Anyway, there is an obvious difference between prisoners dying from epidemics and prisoners being executed in cold blood by a shot to the head.

At any rate, the whole idea of justifying the murder of 20,000 Poles in 1940 as an understandable payback for the murder of "60,000" Russians in 1920-1921 is simply repellent and utterly immoral. By making his argument, Meltyukhov has put himself beyond the pale. He cannot be considered a serious, unbiased historian worthy of being cited in Wikipedia. For me personally as a Pole, his comments simply turn my stomach.

In the light of this damming evidence, I believe references to his works must be removed from Wikipedia. We must do this just like we would remove the works of any historian who would attempt to justify any mass murder as justifiable payback for a perceived past historical wrong. Basic standards of human civilisation and morality demand this. A person propagating such sick views has no place in civilised discourse.

Still, I would like to do it in an orderly manner, without revert wars and long debates. In short, I would prefer to have your approval before I proceed. I look forward to your comments. Balcer 04:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Balcer, see also comments above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I will get back to you on that later with a detailed response. --Irpen 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Let me also mention that there are serious issues with Meltyukov's other book, Stalin's Last Chance. It advocates the highly controversial and largely discredited view that the Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany in 1941. That view has never been accepted by serious Western scholars. Propagating it puts Meltyukov in the same boat as Victor Suvorov, another famous writer whom nevertheless no one would mistake for a serious historian. I find our article on this book questionable on notability and other grounds. I detailed my concerns in Talk:Stalin's Missed Chance.Balcer 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that Meltukhov does not justify execution of Polish officers. He only tells that execution was possibly seen by the Soviet authorities as revenge for Russians allegedly killed in Poland. He may be right or wrong, this can not be seen as justification of Katyn.Biophys 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct. neither does he support or can be compared Suvorov's myths. I have discussed this recently, let me find a link. --Irpen 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Однако как уже отмечалось, именно такое «простое» решение в значительной степени было предопределено всем ходом советско-польских отношений 1918-1939 гг., в том числе и гибелью около 60 тыс. советских военнопленных в польских лагерях в 1919-1921 гг. Думается, что эта трагическая тема в отношениях между нашими странами должна решаться на основе взаимности.

Where does it say "Soviet authorities" in those sentences? Could one of you provide a translation of the above passages? I admit my Russian is imperfect. Balcer 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He did not tell exactly: "Soviet authorities". These are nuances. He did not mean: "It was O'K to execute them". But he almost tels: "the desire of Russians to execute them can be understoodBiophys 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got it right then. And there is precisely the problem. To illustrate the situation, imagine the following: a German historian of World War II 'almost' writes: "the desire of Germans to exterminate the Jews can be understood". What do you think the response of civilised people should be to this?Balcer 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the promised link were M vs Suvorov was discussed. I remembered discussing this with a Polish editor and Balcer's assertion above that Meltyukhov supports Suvorov led me to think that my discussion was with Lysy, since I often confuse these two editors. --Irpen 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued here. Several notes. First, Mel'tyukhov is unquestionably an authority of the military history of the 20th century in Russia. He is a frequent guest at ultra-liberal (by Russian standards) Radio Svoboda (here he actually aargues with Suvorov, also here and here) and Echo of Moscow (see this set of programs. He is cited by the non-governmental Russian language media elsewhere like by the Deutsche Welle,[3] NY-based American Russian mainstream Vestnik[4],[5], etc.

Do you imply that Russian ultra-liberal radio only invites ultra-liberal guests? I did not say Suvorov and him have the same views, so argument is expected. Guess what, David Irving gets some interviews here and there as well (here is one he recently did for Russian TV), so those links do not tell us much. Incidentally, Irving was also considered for a time an authority on Hitler, until his horrifying views on the extermination of Jews and his attempts to whitewash it discredited all his previous works. Balcer 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Balcer's claims, nowhere he "justifies" anything, that's for one. Secondly, his number of Soviet victims in Polish camps is simply outdated. His book was published in 2001, the report Balcer refers to was published in 2004. More later. --Irpen 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Meliukhov put the events of 1919-1921 and 1940 next to each other and then say that "our countries" must handle them on a "reciprocal" basis, hence he is setting up a moral equivalence between them. This implies that the later event justifies the former.

It is this attempt to set up a moral equivalence between the events that is abhorrent (the fact that the 1919-1921 event did not even happen only makes it worse). Balcer 05:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that equivalence hypothesis is your own speculation. I see nothing of this sort here. Of course these are events that has to be judged by their own merit. His work, however, is about neither of them but about history that included both these tragic events. Now, when I say "both" am I also drawing moral equivalence? --Irpen 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to make you understand this is to give another example. Imagine a German historian writing the following in 2001.

"Germans Nazis killed over 20 million Russians in 1941-1945, and that was crime. Still, such a "simple" understanding of events was predetermined by the whole motion of Soviet-German relations in 1918-1941. In 1944-1945, 3 million Germans were killed in Soviet atrocities. It seems that this tragic theme in our relations must be addressed on the basis of reciptoricity.

How would you feel about the credibility of such a historian? Balcer 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Melt has been heavily criticized for his bias and for such 'speculation' by academic reviews in Western academia and by Polish and Russian academics. We have yet to find a single academic source challenging those reviews or even positivly reviewing his work. You will have to do better to try to rebuke them then to show that he was interviewed by a few stations. As Balcer said, Irving had quite a few interviews too - that doesn't make his works any more acceptable in the academic community.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me "heavy criticism" by academic reviewers in Western Media. So far you found only one critical review in Russian which actually does not say what you claim it does. --Irpen 06:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Peter Cheremushkin (Moscow State University). In Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center) he states: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?"

Metlyukov is rather obscure, so one is not going to find dozens of articles in Western publications critical of him. However, the fact that at this point the only one that we found is so heavily critical is telling. Balcer 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Novak's paper from international conference in Ukraine.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did not you say "Western" academic historians? --Irpen 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Published in Western academic journals is good enough. Or do you intend to play semantics? Sure, we can do it: he was criticized by Western and Polish academic publications and by Russian and Polish academic writers. Your turn: he was invited to Russian radio shows...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no Western journals above. I see a Polish and a Ukrainian one with one Russian and one Polish author. Besides, he is not called "a Stalinist" where you claim he is. Let's separate his opinions from factual statements in his books which are generously supplied with dates, numbers, facts, tables and references. Historian opinions is a tricky business anyway. Facts of academics are unquestionably WP:RS. We even use facts from Encyclopedia of Ukraine written by Kubiyovych who was a Nazi collaborator and organizer of the Ukrainian Waffen-SS units while I thoroughly avoid any of his "opinions" being used. Finally, I read the only review of his work in the Western journal. It is very neutral and respectful. --Irpen 06:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want to use Meltyukhov's book "Polish-Soviet Wars" on Wikipedia as reference, it should be demonstrated that it is valid (non-biased etc). Clear examples of academic publications which voice serious concerns with his work have been listed. If we want to use his work as reference, those must be balanced by other academic publications which counter them and reassure us about his reliability.

So, Irpen, since you are the only one at this point in the discussion who wants to keep those references in, there is a simple task for you. Please provide us with reliable academic references (reviews etc.), which would reassure use we can trust Metlyukhov's work. The ball is in your court at this point.

The main book of his that is at issue is "Soviet-Polish Wars", so academic reviews that would certify its quality would be ideal. Balcer 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

R. C. RAACK, "Preventive Wars?", The Russian Review 63 (January 2004), 134–37

This review of "Stalin's lost chance" is linked to the article already. --Irpen 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another positive and respectful review:

Mikhail Meltiukhov. Upushchennyy Shans Stalina [Stalin's Lost Opportunity.] Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels. The Journal of Historical Review, volume 20 no. 5/6 (September/December 2001), p. 59. Melttyukhov is also significantly cited many times in Alter L. Litvin, "Stalinism: Russian and Western views at the turn of the millennium", Routledge (2005), ISBN 041535108 and David E. Murphy, "What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa", Yale (2005), ISBN 0300107803 both indexed at google books. I can continue the list if necessary. --Irpen 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you have to be joking with this one. The Journal of Historical review is non peer-reviewed journal published by Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial outfit. Do you really believe being reviewed favorably by such journals boosts any author's credibility? Obviously it does the reverse. Balcer 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected about IHR. Other refs above remain valid and I will add more to it. --Irpen 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no Western journals above. How many times do we have to point to InterMarium (published by Columbia University ) for you to notice it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out any confirmation of Intermarum's even existence? I can't find any info on it online. Is it off-line only journal? Thanks, --Irpen 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article. Journal (at columbia.edu).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents here. I have to admit I do not understand the politics, and many of the nuances behind Meltyukhov's stance -- part of the reason being I cannot read Russian. As I said elsewhere, I find his thesis from Stalin's Last Chance intriguing, and an interesting subject of debate. On the other hand, some of what I read above is disturbing. Does he indeed condone the massacre of Polish officers at Katyn in 1940 by the NKVD? If that's the case, such a stance would put him beyond the pale, at least in my book. But I see that the issue of how Meltyukhov treats the subject is open to interpretation, and it all hinges on nuances that may be lost in translation. Could this issue be clarified, so that everyone can follow it better? Thanks. — Turgidson 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote in full the key two consecutive paragraphs from an article in Intermarium, publication of the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center.

Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way from Stereotypes to Reconciliation [6] by Peter Cheremushkin, Moscow State University.

Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that "nothing wrong happened at Katyn". Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939. This historian believes that the Soviet-Polish military confrontation between the two World Wars was a natural sequel to the struggle the Russian and the Polish states have waged for ages - "the fight for political influence over the region". Meltyukhov sees this situation in its historical context, the post-Versailles world, where he believes that Soviet Russia was acting correctly by standing up for its geopolitical interests in the region. This point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940.

Of course, such new publications may be explained by the pluralism of a democratic society. But can this point of view be correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?

Here we have a credible, Russian academic condemning Meltyukhov's "Soviet-Polish Wars" book for its Stalinist and neoimperial POV. If Irpen or anyone else wants to use that book as a reference in Wikipedia, he must provide other academic publications exhonerating Meltyukhov's book in this regard. Otherwise we must conclude that it is not reliable as a source. Balcer 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Balcer, for the detailed explanation. Now the issue is much clearer. I'd say, let's not rush to conclusions, though, and try to dig deeper into this, to make sure. I personally am open-minded about this, and I'm looking forward to hear more arguments pro and con on the issue, if anyone cares to expand on it. Sounds like a good debate to have, for a variety of reasons. Turgidson 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On that note I'd like to add that Melt. is certainly knowledgable historian in terms of WWII and I see no problem with using him to reference uncontroversial information. However since academic sources point his 'stalinist and neo-imperialist' bias, and skewed interpretations of Russian relations with the West (including Poland) (These conflicts are, for him, fragments of eternal Western aggression against Russia. When Russia (in this case, Soviet Russia) comes into conflict it is only to take what is rightfully hers.); therefore we should not be using him in controversial cases. PS. One question to Irpen: can you briefly describe reliability of publishers' of Melt.'s works?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for positive reviews of Soviet-Polish Wars

, positive reviews of Soviet-Polish Wars by reputable academics are needed here, to counter the negative reviews cited above. It may be that Meltyukhov is very knowledgeable about Soviet military history. It is the reviews quoted above that find Stalinist bias in his works, specifically Soviet-Polish Wars, which need to be countered here.Balcer 13:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please note we are not discussing the Stalin's Missed Chance, so interviews he got on account of it are completly irrelevant. SMC seems to had a decent grip on the military angle (Soviet army, plans) - those are not questioned. It's Melt. comments on other things where his 'Stalinist and neo-imperialist' bias are criticized that are the issue, and thus he shold not be cited for them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As the requested validating reviews of Soviet-Polish Wars by Meltyukhov have not been provided, I have removed references to this work from Pinsk massacre. This article has just been featured on the Main Page via DYK, so it is incumbent upon us to make sure that no questionable references are used in it. Just imagine the furor that would ensue if for example the press were to discover that a book justifying mass murder by an author with a Stalinist outlook was used as a reference on Wikipedia. Balcer 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. A group of editors launch a campaign to dismiss the work of a historian in toto because it does not fit their POV and without any conclusive evidence move now to remove all refs to him throughout wp. While I've seen steps like these from Piotrus before, I expected better from Balcer. The misinterpretation above, deliberate or not, is a low blow and will not be accepted. --Irpen 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So instead of providing reviews as requested you are now denying we provided any evidence - despite the fact that we have two academic reviews in preceeding section. This is not going to fly, Irpen: provide requested reviews or face the fact that academic community does not hold Melt. works in high regard.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous Piotrus. You are not going to impeach the work of a scholar by two reviews by obscure authors in obscure publications. Try more. --Irpen 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the particular book of this scholar is a valid reference. Balcer 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, an academic with multitude of publications in the field is by default a reliable source unless he is proven to be a clown. Two obscure pieces of criticism in Polish publications while much more western sources give respectful reviews of his work is not enough. And I agree with you to discount IHR's review as useless. --Irpen 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some evidence for this multitude of publications? So far the only works by Metlyukhov that I am aware of are Stalin's Missed Chance and Soviet-Polish Wars. Furthremore, so far the only valid review quoted in support of his work is from The Russian Review 63 (January 2004). This does not really square with your claim above of many Western sources giving respectful reviews. Balcer 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several above and I will add more to the article directly. --Irpen 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is only one validating review above, as far as I can see, now that the IHR review has beeen dismissed as invalid. Being cited by other authors in other books is not a review. Balcer 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A historian being cited as a source by a another reputable historian is certainly a validation, at least to some degree, unless such citation is made in a restrictive form (like "even a pro-Soviet author Joe Doe[ref] admits that...) Here this is certainly not the case. --Irpen 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Being cited by other authors helps, but reviews by other authors are much more suitable for establishing credibility. Can we find more than one of them or not? These really are essential to your claim, as since you have not presented any positive reviews for Soviet-Polish Wars, you are relying on the argument that Meltyukhov is a widely respected scholar with a solid reputation. Well, if he is, there should be much more than just one positive review of his works to prove it.

Incidentally, is the review in The Russian Review available online anywhere? Balcer 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ex. here. Please note its a review of the Stalin's Lost Chance. Upushchennyi shans Stalina. I will try to obtain a copy soon, at that point we don't know if the review is positive or negative; and in either case it is not of the book in question (which has so far been mentioned twice with very negative reviews).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have said before that I have read the review. It states that the book is "substantially researched" and "representative of current research and controversy in international discussions". The scientific reviews are rarely full of praise. I would certainly call this review professional and respectful. As for this being a different book, once we have the historian established in the field among his peers, his work is an acceptable source.

The problem with sourcing historic articles to newspapers (like some often do) is lack of credentials of their authors. I would have no objections to using newspaper articles written by otherwise established scholars and won't require producing a review to each article published in Rzech Pospolita provided that its author is a historian, otherwise a respectable academic. --Irpen 04:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject of Mikhail Meltyukhov here. I am sorry, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a single positive review of an author is not enough to establish the credibility of all his works over his entire lifetime. Again, if an author is really well respected and trusted in the field, he will get numerous positive reviews (certainly more than one). Obviously, if an author receives some severely critical reviews, the need to present a significant number of positive reviews becomes all the greater.

Finally, all the reviews of Stalin's Lost Chance would merely establish Metliukhov's expertise on the German-Soviet conflict in 1941. His expertise, and more importantly objectivity, in the field of the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 would remain an open question, with the negative reviews putting that expertise in severe doubt.Balcer 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He is concidered a specialist in Soviet military history, of which the WW2 is a part but not all of it. --Irpen 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I am at my university computer, I have access to The Russian Review and saw the review essay in question. In discusses three books, and Meltyukhov's gets merely two paragraphs. It simply lists what the book contains, without any explicit comment as to the quality of the book.

However, after reading the review I think the quality of the reviewer himself is in question. Just read his last paragraph:

Authors with views as different as those of Bonwetsch, Mel'tiukhov and Magenheimer all agree that more evidence needs to be found before the entire history of Stalin's bellicose adventurism can be clarified. That assertion, in which they are now joined by countless other historians, leads me to add my voice to the demand that the current Russian government open its archives for the Soviet period to all qualified independent scholars , instead of solely to ranking neo-Stalinist relics in officially sponsored Muscovite research agencies, and to their friends.

So, according to the reviewer (R. C. Raack is Professor of History Emeritus, California State University, East Bay), official Russian historians are neo-Stalinist relics, and I guess they cannot be trusted. Now I don't believe that myself, but hey, what do I know, here is a highly respected scholar (according to you) who believes this. If we are serious about using academic sources, I suppose we would have to put his statement into current articles about Russian historiography. Any thoughts on this conundrum, Irpen? Balcer 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalin's drive to the West, 1938-1945 : the origins of the Cold War is the most recent book of Prof. Raack, published in 1995. Here is its summary:

Exploiting new findings from former East Bloc archives and from long-ignored Western sources, this book presents a wholly new picture of the coming of World War II, Allied wartime diplomacy, and the origins of the Cold War. The author reveals that the story - widely believed by historians and Western wartime leaders alike - that Stalin's purposes in European diplomacy from 1938 on were mainly defensive is a fantasy. Indeed, this is one of the longest enduring products of Stalin's propaganda, of long-term political control of archival materials, and of the gullibility of Western observers. The author argues that Stalin had concocted a plan for bringing about a general European war well before Hitler launched his expansionist program for the Third Reich. Stalin expected that Hitler's war, when it came, would lead to the internal collapse of the warring nations, and that military revolts and proletarian revolutions like those of World War I would break out in the capitalist countries. This scenario foresaw the embattled proletarians calling for the assistance of the Red Army, which would sweep across Europe. The book further shows that the wartime disputes between Stalin and his Western allies originated over the postwar redisposition of the territories Stalin had gained from his pact with Hitler. The situation was complicated by the incautious, unrestricted commitment of support to the Soviet Union first by Churchill and then by Roosevelt, and wartime circumstances provided cover to obscure these diplomatic failures. The early origins of the Cold War described in this book differ dramatically from the usual accounts that see a sudden and surprising upwelling of Cold War antagonisms late in the War or early in the postwar period.

Hmm, this sounds controversial. But if Irpen is of the opinion that Prof. Raack is a first rate scholar, whose single review can establish a reputation of a historian and all his works, then I guess the views in that book can be fully accepted and used for citations in Wikipedia. Wow, if that's the case, a number of our articles are in for major rewriting. Balcer 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now obtained a copy of that article and concur with Balcer on all points.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What's so controversial about what Prof. Richard C. Raack says? Sounds well-argued to me, and in sync with what Mikhail Meltyukhov writes in Stalin's Missed Chance. In fact, some of this strategy was laid out very explicitly in Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939, which, according to the WP article on the subject, "formed the basis for the Nazi-Soviet pact of non-aggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact". So what exactly is the issue being disputed here? Turgidson 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is a review of Raack's book: Hugh Phillips, Russian Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 519-520 doi:10.2307/131817. The author of the review says: "A boundless and well-deserved hatred of Stalin suffuses Raack's discussion of the Soviet-German war. Indeed, the author observes that Stalin was "as evil" as Hitler, a view increasingly accepted by academics." Prof. Hugh Phillips concludes: "Raack has produced a passionate and scholarly indictment of Stalinism and a valuable addition to the literature of the Cold War". Sounds like a good endorsement of Raack's book to me, published in one of the top journals on Russian Affairs. Furthermore, why would such an ardent anti-Stalinist as Prof. Raack endorse Mikhail Meltyukhov, if the latter is a "Stalinist and neo-imperialist", as asserted somewhere above? I think we all understand the issues better now, thanks to the discussion on this (and related) talk pages, but there is still something amiss in all this. So I think it's better to reserve judgement and not jump to conclusions before things get clarified — as WP:BLP urges us to do. Turgidson 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Prof. Raack endorses Meltyukhov. His review is rather cautious, and he clearly states that the three authors reviewed present widely divergent views, without saying which one of those views is right. It may also be that Raack is simply not aware of Meltyukhov's other works, as he does not make any comment on his body of work besides Stalin's Missed Chance.

Anyway, at this point I have not read Raack's book so personally I am not in any position to say for certain whether it is controversial or not. However, it does seem to me that the summary points in that direction, as in general any work which overturns previous opinions held by the majority easily generates controversy.

Still, from my previous encounters with Irpen, it does appear to me that Raack's views would be highly disagreable to him. In that light, he has a choice. If he accepts Raack as an authority, I will concur and with his blessing, use his book to make wide ranging edits to current Wikipedia articles on relevant subjects (which certainly don't at this point reflect Raack's outlook). On the other hand, if he would take the view that in light of this new information Raack is too controversial to be used as a major source for Wikipedia, then he may well be too controversial to establish Metlyukhov's reputation. I look forward to Irpen's response to these points. Balcer 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll be also waiting to hear Irpen's opinion. We've had our differences of opinion in the past (quite pronounced, in fact), but I think we've kept them as civil as possible under the circumstances — at least, that was my impression. It would be interesting to hear where he comes down on this issue — as you say, this could have further ramifications, so it's important to weigh the matter carefully and impartially. Turgidson 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Two respectable scholars have noted his significant bias in Melt's Polish-Soviet Wars, and until positive reviews of this work or declarations or no-bias or bias of the earlier critics can be found, this work in particular and Melt.'s works in general should not be used as a source where his bias can be affecting the quality of his work. If his Stalin's Last Chance got ok reviews, this work can be used - but Polish-Soviet Wars should not. Please note that the mentioned two respectable scholars criticize Melt.'s bias (and his works) in general, so an ok review of another of his book is not on the same level of endorsement.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you're not the censorship commission and it's not your job to decide whether one can use references or not. Meltyukhov is, by policy standards, a reliable source. We're not dismissing Glantz because some reviews call him Pro-soviet. If you think that some particular point deserves a comment about a potential bias, use the magical phrase in the tune of "However, some critics dispute this point and point XXXXXX's bias towards...". A WP article is a synthesis of various authors with different points of view and it should never be constructed by eliminating stuff, only by adding. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Glantz is considered an authority in the field, and one can easily find many reviews which praise every single one of his major works. This is not the case here. For Meltyukhov's Soviet-Polish Wars, we have two very negative reviews condemning the book for extreme bias, and not a single positive review suggesting that the book is reliable. Instead of accusing editors of censorship, it would be better to find those positive references which prove the reliability of that book. If not, please point me to the part of RS policy which asserts the the work of some authors is considered reliable even if all the reviews of it are very negative. Balcer 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If such a policy existed, we wouldn't have stuff like Victor Suvorov used as references in some articles. Simply put, nothing is clearly defined on the subject. And unless you want to change the policy, let's stick with what we have. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that references to Suvorov should be removed (except of course from articles discussing him or his books directly). Please point me to any general history article where he is used as a reference, and I will work to put a stop to that. Balcer 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Cheremushkin here?

Cheremushkin is not a historian. Why is he considered a competent enough judge of a historian's work? And isn't the reference to his affiliation misleading? It doesn't matter if his from the MSU, as a non-professional his opinion is as good as that of any random poster on the internet. Fkriuk 01:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cheremushkin is an academic and an expert on Polish-Russian relations, published (unlike Melt.) in Western academic journal and seems quite a reliable and credible source. One does not has to be a historian to criticize historians, if their work is related (like Metl.'s) to areas like political sciences or international relations. Cheremushkin does not criticize historical aspects of Melt's works but the political/international relations aspects of his work.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I can't confirm any existence of any Peter Cheremushkin at the MSU. Here's the list of faculty, and he isn't there: http://www.journ.msu.ru/?chp=pages&id=128&folder_id=98 Secondly, there seems to be a Peter Cheremushkin, a press office employee at the US Embassy in Moscow. Is he by any chance the same person? Thirdly, according to Wiki entry on him, which comes from unknown sources, Cheremushkin specializes in journalism, not "political sciences or international relations". If he criticized Meltiukhov's journalist work, then his opinion would matter. I also don't understand in what way modern "political/international aspects" of Meltiukhov's work are relevant to his assessment as a historian. He wrote about the first half of the 20th century. Cheremushkin wrote about now. Fkriuk 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheremushkin paper was published in a reliable source, unlike Melt's. Nowak, even more established scholar, discusses Melt's works and their errors, he even uses as strong a term as 'falsehoods'. Please read the relevant papers, and stop waging a revert war.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for stopping the revert war if you start discussing the issues here, rather than continuously reverting the one change that I made. Cheremushkin paper is not on the same topic as Meltiukhov's -- there is a 50 year gap between them. Also, Meltiukhov has written at least 3 books that I remember, as well as about 3 articles that I was able to find. All in reliable historical journals. Meltiukhov's work has been cited by David Glantz, for example, in "Stumling Colossus". As opposed to Cheremushkin, who is apparently not an academic anymore, published exactly one article not in his area of expertise and in a barely known Polish (even if affiliated with an American University) journal, and attacks Meltiukhov in yet another area out of his expertise. As for Nowak, he might've written another review of Meltiukhov, but the one cited here dedicates exactly one paragraph to Meltiukhov and does not mention any details. If you want to use Nowak, than use a different source, not the current one. If you insist on using the current source, then the claim that Nowak criticized Meltiukhov for "inaccuracies" cannot be accepted. Fkriuk 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

General BLP problem

The article suffers from a severe BLP problem and it is time to clean it up. More than half of the text is devoted to criticism added my Piotrus from Cheremushkin and Nowak.

Meltyukhov is a reliable and respectable mainstream scholar whose works are cited both in Russian and in English works published by the most respected Western military historians. In addition to David Glantz (you can't really be much more mainstream than Glantz), Meltyukhov's works are also cited by Albert L. Weeks (in Stalin's other war Page xi), Ian Kershaw and Moshe Lewin (in Slalinism and Nazism, p.102), Heinz Magenheimer (in Hitler's War p. 55), etc. Even a Polish group of authors who published Katyn: A Crime Without Punishment, a book on an extremely sensitive topic, refer to Meltyukhov's work completely neutrally just like all other scholars [7]. So, we are talking about a serious historian whose article clearly falls under a BLP protection. What we have is giving an undue weight to derogatory criticism of Meltyukhov's work. I am removing this stuff from Meltyukhov's article per WP:BLP. --Irpen 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:BLP noticeboard. I believe that academic criticism is highly relevant, and should stay - it also helps ensure that people will be less likely to use extremist works as a source. PS. Recapping discussion from last year, M. has written some decent works, but then he wrote heavily nationalistic Soviet-Polish Wars, which was then extensively cited by you until we found those negative reviews and were able to remove this source, which despite your claims is not mainstream, but highly biased (Katyn justifications, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, an obscure review by a Polish author is not enough to disqualify the author of such standing like Meltyukhov. You were "able" to remove this source by resorting to this extremely harmful tactic of poisoning his own article while it went unnoticed and then employing the IM-coordinated revert warring. Trouble is that what you were trying to do to Meltyukhov (just like Gross and earlier Garsva) falls under one of the strongest policies of Wikipedia WP:BLP. You are not helping by calling him "extremist" here as well. --Irpen 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, I called his (single) work extremist (per reviews by reliable scholars), not him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Meltukhov is absolutely not "a reliable and respectable mainstream scholar". I have seen his chapter in one of recent books. He now became a typical Soviet-style propagandist, just like other "historians" who wrote the widely criticized textbook of Russian history ordered by Putin.Biophys (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion, Biophys, has less weight than those of multiple authors who cite Meltyukhov, see above. Piotrus finds one Polish scholar's obscure derogatory review worth to occupy half of the article space and creates an article on another, otherwise non-notable person, to prop up the value of that review. Since this is not the first time of using the article space to assail the scholars in order to strike their works, I find it is important to write up a section on these BLP violations at the ArbCom's evidence. --Irpen 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only confirm that assertions by Andrzej Nowak (cited in this article) precisely reflect the essence of Meltukhov writings. He denies and justifies Stalinism crimes, which is not very much different from Holocaust denial. Sure, a lot of people cite "revisionists" (falsificators) of history like Arch Getty.Biophys (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He is not cited by revisionists but by the authors like David Glantz, Albert L. Weeks, Ian Kershaw, Moshe Lewin, Heinz Magenheimer, etc. When these scholars cite his works, they do not cite him as an example of revisionism but, to the contrary, refer to him as to any other mainstream works. I suggest you refrain from bashing a living scholar even at the talk page. Not only it is BLP, your own personal opinions (just like mine), have no value. Once I am done with the BLP section for an evidence page, other scholars like Jan T. Gross) also fell victim of similar tactics, I will take this to the BLP board. --Irpen 20:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Important correction, Irpen: his early work is cited, his later work is criticized. And he is not cited to justify Katyn or portray Poland as a warmonger invading peaceful Soviet Russia, which is what his (modern) works were being used to justify on Wikipedia. And FYI, I've already taken this to BLP board. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, his earlier and later works are both cited, see above. "Criticized" comes from an obscure review that you made a source of more than a half of the article's text. Additionally, you created an article to somehow assert notability of a person who authored another review. This is going to AfD as soon as I write the evidence section. --Irpen 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is standard situation. Some historians criticize his research; others support him (as Irpen said). Then one can simply make a "Criticism and support" section.Biophys (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not work, Biophys. His research being cited by other well-respected authors is certainly a recognition but we do not normally add to authors "His works is cited by ...." If the author is notable, he is of course cited and this goes without saying. But "criticism" from one obscure "review" being half of the article (and adding the validity to such criticism by creating an article on a non-notable person who authored such review) is exactly what BLP is about. --Irpen 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it does work per WP:NPOV. If you can cite alternative sources that prize research by Meltukhov, please do. This way you can balance the article. But I personally did not see anyone who told that research by Meltukhov is great. Citing someone is one thing; prizing or criticizing is something different.Biophys (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Pietrus to comment.

1. Cites to Cheremushkin should describe him a a journalist. M. is an academic historian, and it would be assumed academic reviews of him are similarly by historians, so this must be cited. It does affect one view of C's criticism.
2. Nowak's criticism should be limited to the central poins of the book, not the peripherial historical background.
3. It will be reasonably assumed by anyone likely to read this article that a Russian writer on Russian history is likely to have a Russian point of view on relations between Russian and Poland, and analogously for a Polish writer. It would be very helpful to try to find some negative criticism from other sources.
4. Academic criticism of an academic is not in violation of BLP.
5. Whether an academic's views can be used to defend Stalinism is irrelevant to whether his views are correct. That "arguments such as his can be used" to defend any particular evil deed is not relevant criticism or wording or argument for any question at all--it's guilt by innuendo. That he uses an argument to justify something in particular might be, if relevant and documented and fairly quoted. Plato's political views can be used to justify totalitarianism, but that does not make him a Stalinist.
6. Whether an academic is a Stalinist (or even a Russian nationalist) politically requires more than that his view can be used to defend Stalinism. Some of the refs. quoted to support this characterisation above do not differentiate this or waffle.
7. In fact, even if an academic was a Stalinist, that does not prevent him from being right some of the time.
8. As for positive citation, some of the refs quoted in 1.1 will probably do to provide some balance. The extent to which an academic is cited by other workers is something I always add to articles on them, especially if their notability is questioned, and is considered a major factor in AfD discussions. There are no reliable numbers for this material, as there would be for Western language Science, but some indication is useful. It would help if one could honestly say positive citations, but to do that one would need a quote.

I hope this helps. DGG (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You can not refer to substantiation of what is the modern view by referring to other Wikipedia articles. You must cite real sources, and neutral ones at that. It would be much better not to try to discuss who is right about numbers of prisoners or other such issues.

Questions: Chermushkin is also affilated with the Moscow State University [8] and his work critical of MM was published in an academic outlet ([9]). Are we sure he is just a journalist in this context? I have never disputed that MM is being cited by some, what was disputed is that 1) there are no positive reviews of his work(s) and 2) he is not a reliable sources on Polish-Russian relations. By all means, feel free to trim the criticism of him to an extent that you see as resonable. The current section is too long, I agree, but was necessary to ensure that MM would not be cited as a neutral, mainstream source for P-R relations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the core of the problem is that the authors reviewed him based on works and information about military decisions, not in regards to his later works that deal with Poland and Soviet occupation.

--Molobo (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a difficult issue - RFC? I would say that the frequency of an author's citations and re-citations - this author has a lot - speak to credibility, even if they are not directly praised. But the balance question needs wider community input. Novickas (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to object the following opinion by DGG: "Russian writer on Russian history is likely to have a Russian point of view on relations between Russian and Poland, and analogously for a Polish writer. It would be very helpful to try to find some negative criticism from other sources.". There is no any "Russian view" about this, and Meltukhov does not express this view. Different people have different views on this subject, no matter if they are Russian, Polish, or American. But very few of them expressed any views about Meltukhov research, because few know anything about his research.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So, guys, once you get an opinion from an editor you asked to comment and don't agree with such opinion you dismiss it? The articles remains a BLP violation. Moreover, several times at this very page Piotrus spells out the intention of his editing of the article. Rather than making it a better biography of the subject, Piotrus makes it clear that his intention is to affect the usability on Wikipedia of the source he wants to dismiss. Such approach clearly contravenes the sated Wikipedia goals. --Irpen 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We dismiss what? DGG wrote, quote: "Academic criticism of an academic is not in violation of BLP.". He DID suggest trimming the section down, and we can discuss that, but please, don't misrepresent his position. I am all for a civil discussion of what needs to be trimmed down or for expansion of the article (I've asked you over a year ago for links to positive reviews of his work, for example, and we are still waiting).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, the primary assessment of the academic's work is not the "reviews", which sometimes do not even exist, but his being cited by his peers (and how he is cited.) Meltyukhov is cited extensively by the most mainstream authors. Being cited is just "normal" for any respectable scholar and such information as "He is cited by ... and ..." is ridiculous to include in any articles. The entire criticism section is based on a single reviewer. This is certainly over the top.

Further, you repeatedly assert that your motivation in editing this article is your drive against using a particular source in Wikipedia rather than the author's bio in its own right. It is a clear violation of WP:POINT and BLP. --Irpen 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oleg Nikolaevich Ken about Mikhail Meltyukhov in review of Russian historiography

Oleg Nikolaevich Ken a Russian scholar( Ph.D., historian, scientific secretary of European University, St.-Petersbourg and other positions) made a review regarding the state of modern research on Poland's history in XX century in Russian historiography. He identifies key events and their treatment by Russian scholars. Melthyukhov's works are presented by him as reaction to modern reseach in Russia exposing Nazi-Soviet collaboration and soviet crimes. His work is according to Oleg Ken based on 'neo-imperialism', and used by Melthyukhov to conceal uncomfortable facts of Soviet history and to whitewash Soviet crimes. He notices that such line of history teaching is now becoming standard in Putin's Russia. The review is titled " Co chcą wiedzieć o Polsce XX wieku współcześni historycy rosyjscy?" it was presented at Kraków conference of foreign historians researching Polish history and re-published in monthly publication called Arcana 5 (83) 2008 . Oleg Ken published several works on Soviet history and relation to Poland. However he sadly will not contribute further to review of Polish-Russian history as he was found dead in his home apartment.--Molobo (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, can we stub article about Dr. Ken? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is certainly needed, go ahead. Very notable historian. Colchicum (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is simply waste of time. This Meltyukhov proposed no interesting concepts, he made no discoveries. Would you read the History of Communist Party by Ponomarev? I would not. This man does not deserve a minute of our time.Biophys (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's an editor who would like to reference much of P-R history and relations based on MM's POV... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC) PS. Examples of where MM was used to push fringe POV: Talk:Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz#Cruelty (where MM was used to defame the person in question) and Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Recent Irpen's edit/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Polish Vandalism/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#On shortening the article (where MM was used to supply refs for dubious "acts of vandalism of the Polish army").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with Meltukhov?

Piotrus, I understand that you do not like this man for a very good reason. Let's consider a citation from his "Soviet-Polish wars." (Мельтюхов М.И. Советско-польские войны. Военно-политическое противостояние 1918—1939 гг. — М.: Вече, 2001.) this link. (Russian text: Безусловно, решение судьбы пленных польских офицеров стало военным преступлением советского руководства. Однако как уже отмечалось, именно такое «простое» решение в значительной степени было предопределено всем ходом советско-польских отношений 1918—1939 гг., в том числе и гибелью около 60 тыс. советских военнопленных в польских лагерях в 1919—1921 гг.)

Simplified translation: "No doubts, Katyn massacre was a war crime by the Soviet leadership. However, as I noted before, this "simple" decision was predetermined by the entire history of the Soviet-Polish relationships during 1918-1939, including deaths of 60 thousand Soviet POWs in Polish camps in 1919-1921. said Meltukhnov. Biophys (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is probably the most shocking of his statements, but together with several others, it was noted in the academic critics present in this version of the article (if they are trimmed down, they should be moved here).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. So, this is not only citation of Meltukhov himself. Peter Cheremushkin and Andrzej Nowak also tell about the same problem. This "academic" tells the following: yes, that was a war crime, but the war crime is something justifiable, perhaps even reasonable. The second part of the statement belongs not to the history as science, but to pure propaganda, something that could be said by Joseph Goebbels who was obviously a propagandist rather than an "academic". Using Meltukhov as a source about Soviet-Polish relations would be like using Joseph Goebbels to justify Holocaust in article Holocaust, although it would be fine to cite Goebbels in article about Holocaust denial or in his own BLP article. I personally believe that an "academic" who justifies rather than research the crimes against humanity, like summary executions of civilians or unarmed POWs, do not belong to the scientific community, no matter if they justify 9/11, Holocaust, Red terror, or Katyn massacre.

But this should be placed in a context. The Meltukhov's position is fully shared by a few other Russian "academics" who wrote last textbook of Russian history (they explain this more openly than Meltukhov). In that regard, they went even further than Stalinist propaganda. Stalin simply denied that Katyn massacre was committed by the NKVD. But modern Neo-Stalinists tell that it was not anything special to commit the massacre.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The interesting question is raised by WP:UNDUE. Nazi (antisemitic...), Soviet or nationalist Russian POV may not be the most reliable (to say the least), but they are still notable. Where do we draw the line with regards to question are such POVs notable in articles not about themselves? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's consider this as an WP:UNDUE issue. How many people in a Western audience would believe that Katyn massacre was a right thing to do? Only a very small minority. Can we consider an "academic" who promotes such views a mainstream historian? The notability is also important. If one wants to use specifically a Russian historian for patriotic reasons - why not? But let's use historians who are widely known in Russia (like Edvard Radzinsky), not the people no one knows about (like Meltukhov).Biophys (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in this text Meltyukhov justifies the Katyn massacre or says that it was the right thing to do. Please avoid making nonsensical claims, especially when you source is to the text that is in plain view. --Irpen 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic reviewers of his work cared to disagree (and some Wikipedians did too). How come you deny this over and over? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, especially if he used the word that translates to "however". Grey Fox (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, not academic reviewers but a single reviewer. Next, we all know how to read. An elementary act of reading comprehension does not constitute original research. An author who says that the Red Army excesses in Eastern Europe at the close of WW2 constitute crimes but they cannot be viewed outside of the larger context of the events does not justify them in any way. S/He simply gives a complete picture. --Irpen 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with one aspect of DGG's commentary - the number of Russian POWs, since it has been used to discredit MM. MM's citation of 60,000 POWs looks to have taken place (2001) before the joint commission's report (2004, per page properties [10]). That commission was a bilateral good-faith effort to resolve the numbers - its very existence demonstrates that historians disagreed. Timing needs to be clarified; if MM cited 60K after that report was issued, please establish that. Novickas (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And what about editors who ignore the more recent sources and continue to cite old ones which suit them better?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I support you here, actually. If superior sources contradict the inferior ones (be it for age or other reasons), one cannot cite them in a way that gives them equal weight. We've been through that at multiple articles. --Irpen 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this denial by Irpen is telling. Let me simply replace a couple of words in the statement by Meltukhov: "However, as I noted before, this "simple" decision of Jewish question was predetermined by the entire history of Jewish communist violence." That was said by Nazi ideologists. It is obvious that Meltukhov provided the number of dead Soviet POWs to justify this internationally recognized Soviet war crime. And even this number was wrong, as clear from the link by Novicas. Nothing has been "predetermined". They could easily let these people go or sent them to settlements in Siberia, as they actually did with many other Polish officers.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently deny your insinuation about myself, Biophys, and it is time for you to stop offensive stuff around. As for Meltyukhov's wanting to "justify", that is nowhere in his statement which includes no words of this sort. Personally, I disagree with his assessment but I make no judgment of this statement beyond what it actually says. It may be wrong but there is no "justification" of any sort. And a single obscure review by his opponent does not make it that way either. And, as pointed out several times by Novickas and myself, the 60,000 number is out of whack based on the 2004 joint commission finding. This finding did not exist in 2001. --Irpen 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC) As for Meltyukhov's wanting to "justify", that is nowhere in his statement which includes no words of this sort.

Wikipedia can't be sourced on Wikipedians statements. Oleg Ken writes that Meltyukhov white-washes Soviet/communist crimes and tries to conceal uncomfortable facts. This can be sourced.--Molobo (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article seems to reflect one point of view or in other words, to give too much weight to arguments of one side. The criticism section - unduly bulky - relies heavily on just two reviews. Curiously enough, in Cheremushkin's article only one paragraph is dedicated to criticism of a book by Meltyukhov. Now, the author(s) of the criticism section here has/have for some reason regarded it necessary to copy this whole paragraph into the footnote here. The same trick has been done with the second source (Andrej Nowak). Nowak has written a critical paragraph on Meltyukhov and the whole paragraph has diligently been copied here. A false impression may arise that Meltyukhov's work is reviewed thoroughly by the two historians, but this is not the case. It seems to me that someone has just been furthering a cause of Melytukhov criticism here.

We shouldn't discard works of a serious historian just for his biases in one book, considering that (as Biophys has emphasized) such views are mainstream in Russia. His other works have great merits. --Miacek (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowak has two works where he discusses MM works in more details, and the second of them devotes several pages to critique of his work.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense to summarize those other sources in the criticism section. And I do suggest shortening the present section. --Miacek (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As the Polish sources provided in the article also indicate, the objectivity and neutrality of Meltyukhov's newer publications seems to have constantly decreased after 2000. As pointed out in Russian forums, Meltyukhov's revised edition of Stalin's Missed Chance (2008) shows an alignment with official Soviet/Russian myths.
What used to be 'Soviet aggression against its Western neighbours' in the year 2000 edition, has now been revised into 'enlargement of the territory of the USSR' etc. Such 'revising' goes even so far that he has replaced some Khruschov-era Soviet titles with similar titles from Stalin era, e.g. "Агрессия фашистской Германии в Европе. 1933-1939". М.,1963 has now been replaced with "Империалистическая агрессия против Польши в 1939 году", М., 1952 with citations concerned thus accordingly 'refined'. This is funny and sad at the same time... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of Meltyukhov's note

I am not sure what needs to be cleaned up... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Check what DGG told you more than 2 years ago. Meltyukhov's works are cited by Estonian authors, too, obviously not all of his stuff is awfully ideological. It's simply undue to go into such details like Bar Confederation etc. I took a quick look into the book Nowak criticized and I can say that the details some of you Polish guys have listed in the article are quite undue. Bar confederation for example is mentioned just once there in the introduction (1768 г. Россия добилась, чтобы в Речи Посполитой некатолики были уравнены в правах с католиками, но это не умиротворило страну. Барская конфедерация организовала борьбу с православным населением, которое тоже взялось за оружие. В условиях Русско-турецкой войны 1768-1774 гг. барские конфедераты фактически действовали на стороне турок. Лишь в 1772 г, им было нанесено поражение под Краковом.) Just link Nowak's document, summarize a few points and that's it. No-one is bound to use Meltyukhov any more as a serious source for Polish-Soviet wars, no reason to carry on the fight (Irpen has retired long time ago!).

It's enough if you mention the POWs controversy and point out that according to Nowak M. tries to paint Poles as eternal aggressors with Russia always being the victim (btw, many Russian scholars share similar sentiments regarding POWs, so it's perhaps not that easy (Russian nationalist POV vs. Polish = Western mainsream POV). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Another matter from your note: Nikolai Kuzmin Kruszenije trietjego pochoda Ententy (1958) or Paweł Olszański's Riżskij dogowor (1969) is not exactly correct. M. doesn't use titles like “Kruszenije trietjego pochoda Ententy”, you should've tried to look up the titles. It's Кузьмин Н.Ф. Крушение последнего похода Антанты. М., 1958 in fact. One should fix those. Meltyukhov didn't cite Polish titles, but Russian ones (cf. http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov2/app.html#489). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not good with transliterations or such, by all means, please fix what you can. I think that now that the detailed criticism is off in a note, there are no problems with UNDUE or such. Of course, the article does need a lot of expansion - on his views and (positive or negative) criticism by others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote request

For this article statement, attributed to Andrej Nowak: "In another example, he [i.e. Meltyukhov] claims that 60,000 Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war, and all Polish POWs were returned safely — ignoring the recent finding of both Polish and Russian historians..."

Nowak's book was published in 2004 (Amazon gives month as January), as was the joint PL-Russian publication [11] (month not given). I see the assertion that M. continued to promulgate the higher number of POW casualties after the commission's findings as a serious BLP matter. Please support this with a direct quote from the book. Novickas (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Publication dates indeed suggest he might not have been aware of the new findings. However, it would be interesting to see if those claims are repeated or corrected in any new works/editions. Till somebody can confirm either with the source, I support rewording (and have in fact reworded the text to clarify the issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Novickas (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mikhail Meltyukhov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203511/http://publicist.n1.by/articles/1941/1941_reviz_meltuhov.html to http://publicist.n1.by/articles/1941/1941_reviz_meltuhov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)