Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Juliane Fürst, ‘Prisoners of the Soviet Self?—Political Youth Opposition in Late Stalinism’, Europe‐Asia Studies, 54, 3, 2002, pp. 353–375; Hiroaki Kuromiya, ‘Political Youth Opposition in Late Stalinism: Evidence and Conjecture’, Europe‐Asia Studies, 55, 4, 2003, pp. 631–638; and Juliane Fürst, ‘Re‐examining Opposition under Stalin: Evidence and Context—A Reply to Kuromiya’, Europe‐Asia Studies, 55, 5, 2003, pp. 789–802. Note for example ‘Sektanty’, in Alla Tumanova, Shag vpravo, shag vlevo … (Moscow, 1995), pp. 142–149, a book Fürst uses. For such an interaction and its impact on Ukrainians see for example Volodymyr Zabihai, Zustrich z Ukrainoyu: spohady (Sevastopol, 2001). This statement does not seem right; see ‘Prisoners …’, pp. 353, 354, 356, 358, 366 and 369. Pace Fürst, there are cases in which the police took the trouble to fabricate organisations and their programmes and leaflets. See for example the case of the ‘People's Liberation Party’ in Stalino and the ‘Union for the Liberation of Nations’ in Izmail, both in Ukraine (Tsentral'nyi derzhavnyi arkhiv hromads'kykh ob”yednan' Ukrainy, f. 1, op. 24, spr. 3699, ark. 12). Three were executed in the ‘Union’ case. For the KPM (no member of which was executed even though charged with terrorism), she accepts Zhigulin's 1961 claim in a poem that its members ‘were guilty as charged’ (‘Re‐examining …’, p. 796). Ulanovskaya's story about the stenogram of the discussion on terror (‘Re‐examining …’, p. 797) is based on the case files she read under arrest (Nadezhda i Maya Ulanovskaya, Istoriya odnoi sem'i (New York, 1982), p. 322). Alla Reif states that Gurevich's talk on ‘terrorism’ was ‘not very serious’, a ‘silly childish play’, and in her interrogation she noted the reason for the creation of a separate society by Gurevich being a conflict over tactics (agitation versus propaganda) (Tumanova, Shag vpravo …, pp. 53, 88 and 99). The confessions on the alleged terrorist plots were read by the defendants before the trial and were presented to the court, so Pechuro's testimony to Fürst (‘Re‐examining …’, p. 798) seems unreliable. Susanna Pechuro's account, probably coloured by other accounts, is available in Polish, ‘Pierwsza próba buntu’, Karta (Warsaw), 1998, 26, particularly p. 110 on the use of ‘individual terror’. In addition, I would like to draw the attention of the reader to new works that now cast serious doubt on the reliability of the time‐honoured interrogation records and ‘confessions’ of the Dcembrists; see N. D. Potanova, ‘Osnovanie k rassledovaniyu deyatel'nosti “tainogo obshchestva” v kontse 1825: fal'sifikatsiya dela’, Problemy sotsial'nogo i gumanitarnogo znaniya, vyp. 1 (St Petersbung, 1999), and N. D. Potanova, ‘ ”Chto est’ istina?”: kritika sledstvennykh pokazanii i smena istoricheskikh paradigm. (Eshche odin vzglyad na problemu “dvizheniya dekabristov”)', Istoricheskie zapiski, 3 (120) (Moscow, 2000). Sometimes the reader cannot verify Fürst's evidence. For instance, she provides no documentary or other reference to the allegedly terrorist Democratic Youth of Russia and Ukraine (‘Prisoners …’, p. 373, n. 73).