i relied on the studies that had been done, and steven wheatcroft who is a deemographer who comes to the figure of roughly 3.5. i looked at the recent, and i emphasize ukrainian historiography, done by ukrainians in ukraine, who believes it was an event which gives you the range of 3 and 3.5 million. that's what ukraines are arguing for. my best was about 3.3 million. the difference between the famine and other events of the terror and other important elements, we don't have kill records. we don't have quotas. we don't have the kinds of figures which are ever going to resolve the dispute. when i say 3.3 million, that's an estimate in my sense of the holocaust are not estimated. those are calculations based on records and other reliable and important sources. 3.3 million is always going to be an estimate. i'm not going to say it's right. what i will say it's within a range of a few hundred thousand of being right. i would be very surprised if that turned out not to be the case. what i'm saying here, by the way, is entirely uncontroversial among people who look at the subject. whatever

i relied on the demographic studies that have been done, and the very long demographer of steven wheatcroft. i looked at ukrainian historiography on the subject. don't by ukrainians in ukraine, that believed they were done by a distinct event. that's what ukrainians and ukraine are arguing for. now in my best estimates that was 3.3. now the difference between the famine and other events like the terror or even important elements like the holocaust, we don't have kill records. we don't have quotas and the kinds of figures which are ever going to resoft the dispute. when i say 3.3, that's an estimate in the sense that numbers for parts of the holocaust or terror are not estimates. those are calculations on other local and reliable and important sources. 3.3 million is always going to be an estimate. it's within a range of a few hundred thousand of being right. i would be very surprise first-degree -- surprised if that turned out not to be the case. it's entirely controversial on the people that look at the subjects, whatever their commitments might be. >> i was wondering why you didn't not us