Talk:Dmitri Volkogonov

Reason for disputed tag: Here is an example of the horribly biased prose this article contains: "Even with the Soviet edifice crumbling around his ears, the Soviet leader stubbornly clung the Lenin cult." As you can see, it makes an unsourced claim ("stubbornly clung to"--I doubt it since Gorbachev was actually the first to really loosen political control, what with the glasnost and all), as well as use of decidedly POV language ("cult"). Not all of the article is this bad, but it is rather heavily infested with similar non-neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.247.151 (talk • contribs) .

I've tried to soften the language somewhat. If you still have problems feel free point them out and add the tag back.--Cherry blossom tree 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am very surprised how the authors of this article wrote a terrible article about Volkogonov, idealizing him as much as possible and not noticing the negative aspects of his biography, although first I will note that the figures about repressions in the Red Army in this Wikipedia article are overstated and have long been exposed, see... http://wiki.istmat.org/%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%84:%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5% D0 %B7%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0 %B0% D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1% 80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F , and this statement by Lenin about the kulaks is another unconfirmed and unconfirmed statement, the same as Stalin's alleged speech of August 23, long exposed by the Russian historian Sergei Sluch, like many other unproven facts and statements in his supposedly "historical" works of Volkogonov , and finally, the authors of this article do not talk at all about the fact of his biography, which is completely shameful for Volkogonov, namely, participation in the dispersal of the Supreme Council in September 1993 Цйфыву (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

В октябре 1993 года принимал активное участие в разгоне Съезда народных депутатов и Верховного Совета России, будучи помощником замминистра обороны Константина Кобеца. Заместитель руководителя оперативной группы по штурму Верховного Совета. (По свидетельству вице-спикера ВС Ю. Воронина, в разгар расстрела Белого Дома он заявил ему по телефону: «Ситуация изменилась. Президент, как Верховный главнокомандующий, подписал приказ министру обороны о штурме Дома Советов и взял всю ответственность на себя. Мы подавим путч любой ценой. Порядок в Москве будет наведён силами армии».)(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%B2_%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B8_%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%94%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5) Цйфыву (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

And in general, where did the information come from that he wrote a book about Stalin in 1983 and they even supposedly managed to ban IT, no normal source confirming

I didn’t find this information, he wrote and released the book at the very end of perestroika, but he began to look for material on Stalin and Lenin from the beginning of the 80s, this has long been known Цйфыву (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added a 'rewrite' tag as the article is not only lacking citations, it remains ridiculously biased. The idea that Volkogonov lamented 'the fall of Stalin' had to be removed entirely, as it is completely false. Volkogonov decried Stalin's effects on Russia and to assert otherwise is to misinterpret his work.

It is further doubtful that he can be called an 'admirer of Lenin,' given that he writes in The Rise & Fall of the Soviet Empire that 'the scar Lenin left on the face of civilisation is deep.'

To write that 'Volkogonov is not without criticism from his colleagues and then provide one example seems very tenuous, and the section on Hiss is unclear and potentially irrelevant without clarification. The article follows this with two baseless assertions that he was 'criticised,' without any substantiation, the second being particularly subjective. 'Capitalist and Stalinist lies and falsifications'? Volkogonov remains a major Cold War authority, and his access to Soviet archives remains more or less unparalleled. This article is far more worthy of covering that and the contribution he has made to how the Cold War is considered. His works bear no political agenda that I could discern, are remarkably reasoned and impartial, and if support for the 'Stalinist lies' claim cannot be found it will have to be removed. Musikxpert (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added a major rewriting of the section on Alger Hiss. Clearly, the person(s) writing this section had personal bias in favor of Hiss -- or had missed the final, critical information from Volkogonov. Either way, the quote from the New York Times sets the record straight very clearly. (Let's see how long its inclusion will be left standing.)--Aboudaqn (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Something seems to have happened to citations about Alger Hiss: now, numerous block and single quotes from a variety of people who wrote on the topic through the New York Times appears. --Aboudaqn (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aboudaqn (talk), I didn't have a problem with your edits. Your description of the events were accurate and sourced. When I expanded the article on Dmitri Volkogonov and added sources the section on Alger Hiss seemed to be given undue weight as it stood because it was mostly about Hiss and not Volkogonov so I edited it down to a summation of what had been written on the topic. Evenrød (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

For anyone trying to understand the history of the Soviet Union, and specific people Volkogonov wrote about, i would advise reading his documents with a sceptical outlook. I would argue that being familiar with a number of historical figures, one tends to realise, that fanatical followers of any idea come in two flavors: First kind are die hard and passionate idealists like Che Guevara or Hitler that merge their identity with their beliefs and are incapable of it up. Second type are borderline psychopaths, that are capable of cloaking themselves in ideology for personal advantages, and have no moral safeguards to prevent them from doing terrible things. They don't need to justify to themselves.such actions with ideology, because of they naturally don't have empathy. Those people can switch on a dime and not go throughout identity crisis, because they never actually believed or required any ideology. Whatever serves them best at the moment, is what they become, betraying anything with no remorse as no longer relevant. KGB was notorious for finding such chameleons very useful. Hopefully I don't need to spell it out further. 2601:201:8001:790:D946:C4E2:C71B:E51D (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"KGB was notorious for finding such chameleons very useful" where and when did he find them, give at least one example Цйфыву (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply