We are a grumpy lot, I found the answers quite revealing , I used AI to try and understand Russian in it's context. It may be wrong , but the short answer as I understand it , to my questions at least , was that the search was sloppy and early errors had been made. AI notes that it was easier to be sloppy because it avoids responsibility.
We can see from the other questions and replies the logic of the discovery of the den and the handling of the of the bodies, first into sleeping bags liners, then rubber bags and then man handled into the helicopter. The ravine 4 body positions would have arrived at the morgue in a very different state as to how they were found. A small chance of some cross contamination too.
AI below if you're interested.
Here is a more literal, closer‑to‑the‑Russian rendering of Askinadzi’s answer to Question 23.
This version keeps the Russian structure, tone, and implications intact — without smoothing it into natural English.
---
⭐ Literal English Translation of #23
> “The entire history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ shows that no one, even now, can understand what this force really was… the force that the group was unable to overcome. From this come the many versions — from more or less plausible to outright absurd.
>
> It very much looks as though, during the search, someone was constantly directing us onto a false path — starting with slipping in, supposedly, their tracks, and ending with the blurring of the search strategy. After all, Atmanaki had already paid attention to the little fir trees with their tops cut off that led us to the den, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the literal meaning
To keep it literal, I preserved:
- “направлял по ложному пути” → “directing us onto a false path”
(idiomatic in Russian for misleading/confusing, not necessarily malicious)
- “подсовывания, якобы, их следов” → “slipping in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
- “размывания стратегии поисков” → “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, confusion)
- “кому-то была нужна” → “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic phrasing meaning: someone benefited from the chaos, not a killer)
This version stays as close to the Russian as possible without becoming unreadable.
Hyper‑literal translation of #23
> “All the history of ‘Dyatlov‑studies’ says that no one up to now can understand what represents in reality the force… which the group was not able to overcome. From here also the mass of versions — from more‑or‑less plausible to openly absurd.
>
> Very similar to (it seems very much like) that someone during the search all the time was directing them onto a false path — beginning from the slipping‑in, supposedly, of their tracks, up to the blurring of the search strategy. After all, about the little fir trees with cut‑off tops, which led us to the den, Atmanaki had already paid attention, and Blinov noted this too, but these thoughts remained only thoughts.
>
> The lack‑of‑system of the search process was needed by someone.”
---
⭐ Notes on the hyper‑literal meaning
This version preserves:
“направлял по ложному пути”
→ “directing onto a false path”
(does not imply a villain; can mean confusion, misdirection, poor leadership)
“подсовывания, якобы, их следов”
→ “slipping‑in, supposedly, their tracks”
(he is criticising misidentification, not claiming planted evidence)
“размывания стратегии поисков”
→ “blurring of the search strategy”
(loss of clarity, muddling)
“кому‑то была нужна”
→ “was needed by someone”
(Soviet bureaucratic idiom: someone benefited from the chaos — usually meaning officials avoiding responsibility)
Here’s the thing, — when Askinadzi says:
“Бессистемность процесса поисков кому‑то была нужна.”
“The lack of system in the search process was needed by someone.”
…he is not talking about killers, saboteurs, or attackers.
In Soviet bureaucratic language, that phrase has a very specific meaning.
It means:
“Someone in authority preferred chaos because it protected them.”
Not because they were hiding a crime —
but because order creates responsibility, and responsibility creates blame.
Let me break down the logic in a way that fits the 1959 Soviet context.
---
⭐ 1. Sloppiness protects people from accountability
In the Soviet system:
- If you document everything properly → you can be blamed for mistakes.
- If you run a tight, systematic search → you can be held responsible for failures.
- If you follow procedure → you can be punished for not following it perfectly.
But if everything is:
- chaotic
- undocumented
- contradictory
- improvised
- confused
…then no one can be blamed, because no one can prove who made which decision.
This is what “benefited someone” means.
---
⭐ 2. Chaos prevents a clear chain of responsibility
If the search is sloppy:
- no one can say who missed what
- no one can say who failed to document the tent
- no one can say who misinterpreted tracks
- no one can say who ignored the cut trees
- no one can say who gave the wrong orders
In a system where careers could be destroyed for “incorrect actions,”
chaos is safer than clarity.
---
⭐ 3. It also protects the leadership from criticism
Maslennikov, Tempalov, and the local authorities were under pressure.
A systematic search would have revealed:
- procedural mistakes
- poor coordination
- missed clues
- contradictory decisions
- lack of proper documentation
A chaotic search hides all of that.
So “benefited someone” =
benefited the people in charge, because it prevented scrutiny.
---
⭐ 4. It also prevents Moscow from asking uncomfortable questions
If the search had been:
- well‑documented
- systematic
- precise
- professional
…then Moscow could have asked:
- Why was the tent not photographed properly?
- Why were the tracks not measured?
- Why were the cedar and ravine scenes not secured?
- Why were decisions inconsistent?
- Why were search groups not coordinated?
But if everything is a mess, the answer becomes:
“It was chaos, comrade. Hard conditions. No one’s fault.”
That is a very Soviet way to avoid trouble.
---
⭐ 5. It does NOT imply a conspiracy or staged evidence
This is important.
In Russian, the phrase:
“кому‑то была нужна”
does not imply:
- murderers
- attackers
- secret agents
- staged scenes
- planted bodies
It implies:
- bureaucratic self‑protection
- avoiding responsibility
- covering incompetence
- not wanting to be blamed
It’s about administrative psychology, not a hidden enemy.
---
⭐ 6. So how could sloppiness benefit someone?
✔ It prevents blame
✔ It hides mistakes
✔ It avoids paperwork
✔ It avoids Moscow’s scrutiny
✔ It protects careers
✔ It avoids having to explain failures
✔ It lets everyone say “we did our best”
In short:
Sloppiness = safety.
Order = danger.
That’s the Soviet logic.
Topic: 100 questions to Askinadzi (Read 2288 times)