What are the best scholarly books and databases quantifying religious persecution fatalities in the USSR?
Executive summary
The literature accessible in the provided reporting points to a mix of scholarly monographs, institutional hearings, and fragmented archival compilations as the most reliable routes to quantifying fatalities from religious persecution in the USSR, but it also makes clear that no single, uncontested database emerges from these sources and that figures remain disputed [1] [2] [3]. Reliable work therefore requires triangulating peer‑reviewed books, archival projects such as state and museum yearbooks, and investigative hearings rather than relying on popular summaries or partisan compilations [1] [3] [2].
1. Why the question is hard: contested numbers and politicized sources
The sources supplied repeatedly show that casualty totals related to religious persecution are contested and that even Soviet internal statistics were invoked selectively, raising methodological doubts; Wikipedia reproduces widely circulated tallies (for example, “28 bishops and over 1,200 priests” executed early after the Revolution) but also flags scholarly questioning of some studies’ quality [4] [3] [5]. That combination—official Soviet records, post‑Soviet compilations, and popular summaries—creates wide divergence in estimates and requires caution in treating any single number as definitive [3] [5].
2. Best scholarly books identified in the reporting
Among the books mentioned in the supplied material, edited scholarly volumes and specialist monographs that synthesize archival evidence are the strongest starting points: the JSTOR entry for The Dangerous God indicates a scholarly collection addressing Bolshevik religious policy and its consequences and therefore functions as a focused academic treatment of persecution, collusion, and resilience [1]. The CUNY doctoral dissertation “Soviet Religious Policy and Reform, 1917–1943” is cited as a detailed archival study of early Soviet anti‑religious campaigns and is useful for methodological discussions of state statistics and arrests [5]. Journalistic histories and scholarly syntheses—cited in commentary such as the Acton piece that references Hellmut Andics’ archival‑based estimates—are supplementary, but the reporting suggests they are less methodologically unified than peer‑reviewed monographs [6] [1].
3. Databases, yearbooks and archival compilations to consult
The reporting points to institutional compilations rather than a modern, consolidated online database: for example, Soviet‑era yearbooks from institutions like the Museum of History of Religion and Atheism and serialized publications on atheism and religious policy were used to compile statistics and should be treated as primary documentary sources [3]. The CSCE congressional hearing transcript is another curated collection of testimonies and documentary evidence that assembles regional and periodized claims about persecution and fatalities, making it a useful compiled source for researchers [2]. The reporting does not, however, identify a single public digital database that definitively quantifies fatalities across the entire Soviet period, signalling a gap in publicly accessible, harmonized data [2] [3].
4. How to approach the sources critically
The supplied material emphasizes the need for cross‑checking: Soviet internal statistics are cited in academic theses but their reliability is questioned by scholars and even some Soviet‑era academics [5] [3]. Popular or partisan outlets (for instance online forums or Conservapedia) produce dramatic but unverified totals—such as the claim of “as many as fifty million Orthodox believers” dying—which the reporting treats as non‑scholarly and needing corroboration [7] [8]. The soundest practice shown in the sources is to prioritize peer‑reviewed books, archival yearbooks, and oversight hearings while flagging where numbers originate and how they were compiled [1] [3] [2].
5. Practical reading list and next steps based on available reporting
Begin with the scholarly edited volume signaled by JSTOR (The Dangerous God) for thematic and archival synthesis, supplement with focused archival dissertations like the CUNY thesis on policy and reform for methodological detail, and consult institutional compilations such as the Museum of History of Religion and Atheism yearbooks and CSCE hearing documents to assemble primary counts and witness evidence [1] [5] [3] [2]. Use popular summaries only as leads, not as evidence, and be explicit about provenance and methodological caveats when citing casualty totals [3] [7].