This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
No article on ru wiki?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
Balcer, I will get back to you on that later with a detailed response. -- Irpen 23:32, 1 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Did not you say "Western" academic historians? -- Irpen 06:27, 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)
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)
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)
, 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)
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 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)
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)
There are several above and I will add more to the article directly. -- Irpen 20:29, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I hope this helps. DGG ( talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Molobo ( talk) 20:05, 15 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I am not sure what needs to be cleaned up... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
No article on ru wiki?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
Balcer, I will get back to you on that later with a detailed response. -- Irpen 23:32, 1 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Did not you say "Western" academic historians? -- Irpen 06:27, 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)
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)
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)
, 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)
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 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)
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)
There are several above and I will add more to the article directly. -- Irpen 20:29, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I hope this helps. DGG ( talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Molobo ( talk) 20:05, 15 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I am not sure what needs to be cleaned up... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)