[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-40934-en":3,"doc-seo-40934-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":21,"is_downloadable":21,"audit_status":21,"page_count":22,"language":23,"language_code":24,"site_id":25,"html_lang":24,"table_of_contents":26,"faqs":27,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},40934,13056703019662,"Evangeline","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253a8e92610077?_k=1778726343310543188",8,"Research & Report","Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: Comparability and Reliability of Archival Data—Not the Last Word","An academic scholarly exchange addresses disputes over the reliability and comparability of archival evidence concerning victims of Stalinism and the Soviet secret police. Stephen G. Wheatcroft responds to Conquest’s comment by challenging claims about the accuracy of victim totals, the adequacy of source documents, and the credibility of alternative figures used to support earlier estimates of camp scale and mortality. The discussion centers on methodological rigor, verification of data, and the interpretation of major claims regarding forced labour and the 1933 famine, emphasizing that earlier conclusions require careful amendment as new archival material emerges.","EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 51 , No. 2, 1999 , 315±345  \nVictims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival DataÐ Not the Last Word  \nSTEPHEN G . WHEATCROFT  \nCONQUEST ’ S COMMENT ON MY LAST ARTICLE in this journal1 raises some important questions for our profession. Are we going to progress in our level of understanding? Are we going to respond positively to the new circumstances in which large amounts of detailed archival materials are available? Are we going to try to critically assess the reliability of these data? Are we going to try to provide credible indicators of the Soviet experience that we can compare with other societies?  \nConquest ’ s response to these questions is disappointing , but not totally unexpected. In principle , he agrees that older work `must be subject to major amendment ’ as new material becomes available. But in practice he is very resistant to changing his earlier views, despite the overwhelming evidence that his earlier estimates, and his minor `reassessments ’ , are still far too high. His comment on my article suggests that he isnot really interested in the questions raised. He does not seriously discuss the reliability of the data, with which he is clearly unfamiliar, and which he wishes to dismiss out of hand.  \nIn his brief Comment , Conquest claims a lot. He claims that the argument of my article is `fundamentally ¯ awed ’ . He claims that I `claim to present the true ,ª archivalº totals for the victims of Stalinism ’ and that this claim is `fallacious ’ . He claims that my sources can be reduced to three documents, which are incompatible, incomplete and consciously faked. And he wishes to replace them by a set of other less `detailed ’ and less `precise ’ ® gures, which he thinks are more credible, and which , incidentally , support his earlier `higher’ estimates of the scale of the camps and of mortality in the repressions. In a somewhat contradictory manner he admits that `the estimates I [Conquest] arrived at on Kolyma were indeed excessive , and as with other early estimates on the whole terror period , now that more is known they must indeed be subjected to major amendment ’ . But he then goes on to claim that ` in every other way my book remains a full and now fully veri® ed account of the subject’ . His comment then goes on to attack me for what he considers to be my ` conceptual error ¼ on the system ’ s casualties over the USSR as a whole ’ . And in conclusion he adds that he also doesn ’ t like my continual refusal to accept that `Stalin consciously in¯icted the 1933 famine ’ , to which he addresses a few more comments. Conquest ’ s comments do not particularly disturb me. In fact, for those who can read the nuances, it will be apparent that his criticism is relatively mild. After all, 17  \n0966-8136/99/020315-31 $7.00 Ó 1999 University of Glasgow  \n316 STEPHEN G. WHEATCROFT  \nyears ago , when , as a young research student , I ® rst publicly addressed his misconceptions over the scale of forced labour , he was far more outspoken. At that time he accused me of `distorting ’ and `inadequately checking ’ statistical evidence, and of using arguments which ` amount to no more than a combination of sophistical algebra and unwarranted parochial assumptions ’ .2 This was in response to my argument that his ® gure of eight million in the labour camps (nine million if you include prisons) was incompatible with the arguments about the scale of the camps which had been made earlier by Jasny , Timashev and Eason , and with an assortment of other evidence that I listed. On the basis of a careful analysis of the nature of Soviet society and the economy of the 1930s I concluded that it was impossible for there to have been more than four to ® ve million in the labour camps in the late 1930s.3 This is a conclusion that has now been totally vindicated, and that even Conquest occasionally accepts. I did not expect Conquest to make an apology , or to ","cbCaipbcoenxjnhY","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipbcoenxjnhY","pdf",344273,4,1,31,"English","en",105,"# Core questions about archival evidence\n## Reliability and comparability of archival data\n# Response to Conquest’s critique\n## Challenges to source claims and casualty totals\n## Forced labour estimates and methodological reassessment\n# Implications for scholarly interpretation","[{\"question\":\"What central issues does Wheatcroft raise about Conquest’s comment?\",\"answer\":\"Wheatcroft questions whether archival data reliability is assessed critically and whether credible indicators can be produced for comparison across societies, arguing that Conquest resists updating earlier views despite new evidence.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Wheatcroft challenge Conquest’s claims about archival totals and sources?\",\"answer\":\"Wheatcroft argues Conquest’s portrayal of Wheatcroft’s work is inaccurate and that Conquest dismisses the reliability questions without serious engagement, while Wheatcroft asserts the archival totals and methods require careful scrutiny.\"},{\"question\":\"What is Wheatcroft’s position on forced-labour camp estimates?\",\"answer\":\"Wheatcroft contends that his lower-range estimates for late 1930s forced-labour camp populations have been vindicated by later analysis and that Conquest’s insistence on higher figures remains difficult to accept in light of the evidence.\"}]",1783316926,78,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":25,"language":24,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":28},"victims-of-stalinism-and-the-soviet-secret-police-comparability-and-reliability-of-archival-datanot-the-last-word","",{"@graph":36,"@context":85},[37,53,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/victims-of-stalinism-and-the-soviet-secret-police-comparability-and-reliability-of-archival-datanot-the-last-word/40934/",{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":54,"author":55,"headline":13,"publisher":57,"fileFormat":60,"inLanguage":24,"description":14,"dateModified":61,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":60,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":56},"Person",{"url":41,"name":58,"@type":59},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-20","2026-07-06",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"What central issues does Wheatcroft raise about Conquest’s comment?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"Wheatcroft questions whether archival data reliability is assessed critically and whether credible indicators can be produced for comparison across societies, arguing that Conquest resists updating earlier views despite new evidence.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"How does Wheatcroft challenge Conquest’s claims about archival totals and sources?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"Wheatcroft argues Conquest’s portrayal of Wheatcroft’s work is inaccurate and that Conquest dismisses the reliability questions without serious engagement, while Wheatcroft asserts the archival totals and methods require careful scrutiny.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"What is Wheatcroft’s position on forced-labour camp estimates?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"Wheatcroft contends that his lower-range estimates for late 1930s forced-labour camp populations have been vindicated by later analysis and that Conquest’s insistence on higher figures remains difficult to accept in light of the evidence.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":58,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":25},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,110,115,120,123,128,131,135],{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},30,"research-report",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":130},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":134},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":138},19,"General","general"]