URL;
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/stalin/97020
This article is written by Nick Bendel, a member of suite101.com, a website on which people can post their journal entries and articles, which are copyrighted. He was born in Australia and has a Bachelor of Media degree, and his article focuses on the murder of Kirov and the involvement of Nikolayev and Stalin in the murder. According to this article, Stalin to some extent had a grudge against Kirov, for a number of reasons. Many people in the Soviet Union felt that Stalin's policies were too harsh and Kirov, although generally a supporter of Stalin, did not approve of some of his methods, and a lot of people wanted Stalin to be replaced by Kirov. An example of this was in 1932 when Stalin demanded that one of his critics, Ryutin, be execited, and Kirov and the others in the party overrode his demand. Instances like these and the fact that Kirov was starting to win support at the expense of Stalin, were reasons why Stalin would have wanted to see Kirov dead, and Nikolayev, who was a very unstable man and had a grudge against the way the party handled some things and treated him, had the means to physically murder Kirov. It's stated here in the article that Nikolayev was able to get past security on the night that Kirov was murdered due to Stalin, who in some way manipulated security. This information and source is pertinent to what we're studying in class because we have read about Kirov's murder and were asked to look at the evidence and decide who was involved, and why. This article gives me more background information that allows me to make the connections for myself. There is one key limitation to this source, and that is the lack of background sources quoted with each specific piece of information stated to back up the author's point. For instance, he is, as far as I know, not a professor or a historian, and although what he is saying sounds accurate and plausible, he hasn't quoted any other sources IN his writing, but rather put a bibliography at the end, making it difficult to know if his claims come directly from the sources he used, or whether he threw information into the journal entry that is not directly from another source, since there are no footnotes for specific claims made. This is the main thing that would make me skeptical about trusting the information here, even though it's consistent with what we have learned in class.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/stalin/97020
This article is written by Nick Bendel, a member of suite101.com, a website on which people can post their journal entries and articles, which are copyrighted. He was born in Australia and has a Bachelor of Media degree, and his article focuses on the murder of Kirov and the involvement of Nikolayev and Stalin in the murder. According to this article, Stalin to some extent had a grudge against Kirov, for a number of reasons. Many people in the Soviet Union felt that Stalin's policies were too harsh and Kirov, although generally a supporter of Stalin, did not approve of some of his methods, and a lot of people wanted Stalin to be replaced by Kirov. An example of this was in 1932 when Stalin demanded that one of his critics, Ryutin, be execited, and Kirov and the others in the party overrode his demand. Instances like these and the fact that Kirov was starting to win support at the expense of Stalin, were reasons why Stalin would have wanted to see Kirov dead, and Nikolayev, who was a very unstable man and had a grudge against the way the party handled some things and treated him, had the means to physically murder Kirov. It's stated here in the article that Nikolayev was able to get past security on the night that Kirov was murdered due to Stalin, who in some way manipulated security. This information and source is pertinent to what we're studying in class because we have read about Kirov's murder and were asked to look at the evidence and decide who was involved, and why. This article gives me more background information that allows me to make the connections for myself. There is one key limitation to this source, and that is the lack of background sources quoted with each specific piece of information stated to back up the author's point. For instance, he is, as far as I know, not a professor or a historian, and although what he is saying sounds accurate and plausible, he hasn't quoted any other sources IN his writing, but rather put a bibliography at the end, making it difficult to know if his claims come directly from the sources he used, or whether he threw information into the journal entry that is not directly from another source, since there are no footnotes for specific claims made. This is the main thing that would make me skeptical about trusting the information here, even though it's consistent with what we have learned in class.
No comments:
Post a Comment