This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 5 June 2007 (corrected my out of memory quotes to be exact by double checking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:38, 5 June 2007 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (corrected my out of memory quotes to be exact by double checking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Stub‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Russia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Spelling
Is it possible his name can be spelled differently in English? There is only one publication reffering to him in print , 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 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 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 ()
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 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 Misplaced Pages 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..
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, NY-based American Russian mainstream Vestnik,, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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:
- R. C. RAACK, "Preventive Wars?", The Russian Review 63 (January 2004), 134–37
Mikhail Meltiukhov. Upushchennyy Shans Stalina 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)
- 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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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
Irpen, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)
- Incidentally, is the review in The Russian Review available online anywhere? Balcer 20:55, 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)
Categories: