tributors have managed to do a lot with little, and some others have very rich data sets; especially Marc Junge and Daniel Müller, as well as co-editor Kotljarchuk, in his excellent chapter on media and propaganda during the Great Terror. (One minor grumble: to see serious scholars use the phrase “what we call today fake news” (113) gives a certain academic dignity to a phrase that is little more than a lazy, casual insult, and something far short of a concept. News has no doubt been sometimes inaccurate, or downright false, since news began – as well as being sometimes genuine and truthful. I would not feel very comfortable in that particular “we”). Given the above-stated problem with sources, it must be said that the ambitions of this volume, to offer new avenues of research into the treatment of nationalities and religions during the Great Terror has succeeded admirably. This is a tribute to the methods employed by the writers; field research in the absence of documentary materials, and micro-historical scaling, both of area and group, but also precise periodisation, and finally, by quite simply asking the right questions.

中文翻译：

---

拜占庭和维京世界

tributors 成功地做到了很多，其他一些人拥有非常丰富的数据集；尤其是 Marc Junge 和 Daniel Müller，以及共同编辑 Kotljarchuk，在他关于大恐怖期间媒体和宣传的精彩章节中。（一个小小的抱怨：看到严肃的学者使用“我们今天所说的假新闻”（113）这个词，赋予了这个词组一定的学术尊严，这个词只不过是一种懒惰、随意的侮辱，与概念相去甚远。毫无疑问，自从新闻开始以来，新闻有时是不准确的，或者是彻头彻尾的错误——以及有时是真实的和真实的。我不会对那个特定的“我们”感到很舒服）。鉴于上述消息来源的问题，必须说这本书的野心，为大恐怖期间的民族和宗教待遇提供新的研究途径取得了令人钦佩的成功。这是对作者所采用的方法的致敬；在没有文献资料的情况下进行实地研究，以及区域和群体的微观历史尺度，以及精确的分期，最后，通过非常简单地提出正确的问题。