Great interview, thank you for your analysis! It would be nice, nevertheless, that you could link some of the references mentioned along the podcast. Thanks!
The serious works of Grover Furr helped me to understand that Stalin who all western people think they "know" is a fabricated cartoon, not the real man. Just like the relation between Santa Clauss and the real bishop it is supposed to represent.
There is a minor error in your summary, the quote from Anna Louise Strong refers to the new constitution of 1936, not "early in his rule" in 1925. Stalin obviously had great leadership skills before that point, so perhaps an example from the period from 1917-25 would be more appropriate at that point in the summary.
Grover Furr's work is full of poor analysis, incorrect citations, and cherrypicking all bent toward serving his ideological purpose. This is the kind of stuff that we hate bourgeoisie media for perpetuating, we should not be encouraging in our analysis of history.
This is a lie! I never do this. But the results of my research are unacceptable to Trotskyists, Social-Democrats, and outright anticommunists. So, rather than face the truth as shown by the best primary-source evidence, they lie about it -- as this person is doing.
I have searched the internet for ANY post with ANY EVIDENCE that I use "poor analysis, incorrect citations, and cherrypicking." There are no such posts. Evidently, none of those whom my research displeases have been able to find any.
But I am always open to criticism. Why? Because I want to know the truth. I am NOT interested in promoting any ideological agenda. If Stalin committed crimes, I want to know about them! I have been looking -- hard! -- for evidence of such crimes for many years now. I have yet to find even ONE "crime."
Leon Trotsky, by contrast, lied over and over again, and conspired with fascists, the Germans, the Japanese, and his own followers. There is a great deal of evidence of this, and I have published much of it in my books. Another book of mine about Trotsky's collaborations will shortly be published, and -- in a couple of years -- I will have yet another one.
I challenge the person who posted the dishonest comment above to cite any EVIDENCE that I have done what he claims.
Dr. Furr, how come you don't go for peer-reviewed publications? Not saying peer-review is the only valid form of knowledge, but there is a huge historiography of the Stalin era -- a "revisionist" one (not in the ML revisionist sense) that to a great degree even contradicts the Khruschev claims. E.g., about Stalin's capacity as a military leader, the emerging consensus is that he was very much a capable and present military leader.
Which of the broad points do you contest? The anti-Stalin paradigm does exist, the Holodomor is unfounded and unsupported by serious scholars, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a defensive pact precipitated by the West's failure to ally against Germany.
I'm sure you could point out flaws with the finer points of his analyses; but the big picture he paints is far, far more accurate than the bourgeois paints - its practically night and day.
Yeah, Grover Furr talks about this in the first 5 minutes. Screaming "Stalin" is enough. They don't bother going through of the finer points. So, if he cherry picked an incorrect citation, please tell us where it is and we can do more research to investigate the truth.
God bless grover furr. the mans a legend
Legand ? Perhaps myth creator might be more appropriate!. Particularly the one about an 'anti-Stalin paradigm'
Great interview, thank you for your analysis! It would be nice, nevertheless, that you could link some of the references mentioned along the podcast. Thanks!
The serious works of Grover Furr helped me to understand that Stalin who all western people think they "know" is a fabricated cartoon, not the real man. Just like the relation between Santa Clauss and the real bishop it is supposed to represent.
There is a minor error in your summary, the quote from Anna Louise Strong refers to the new constitution of 1936, not "early in his rule" in 1925. Stalin obviously had great leadership skills before that point, so perhaps an example from the period from 1917-25 would be more appropriate at that point in the summary.
Thanks. I will fix it.
Grover Furr's work is full of poor analysis, incorrect citations, and cherrypicking all bent toward serving his ideological purpose. This is the kind of stuff that we hate bourgeoisie media for perpetuating, we should not be encouraging in our analysis of history.
This is a lie! I never do this. But the results of my research are unacceptable to Trotskyists, Social-Democrats, and outright anticommunists. So, rather than face the truth as shown by the best primary-source evidence, they lie about it -- as this person is doing.
I have searched the internet for ANY post with ANY EVIDENCE that I use "poor analysis, incorrect citations, and cherrypicking." There are no such posts. Evidently, none of those whom my research displeases have been able to find any.
But I am always open to criticism. Why? Because I want to know the truth. I am NOT interested in promoting any ideological agenda. If Stalin committed crimes, I want to know about them! I have been looking -- hard! -- for evidence of such crimes for many years now. I have yet to find even ONE "crime."
Leon Trotsky, by contrast, lied over and over again, and conspired with fascists, the Germans, the Japanese, and his own followers. There is a great deal of evidence of this, and I have published much of it in my books. Another book of mine about Trotsky's collaborations will shortly be published, and -- in a couple of years -- I will have yet another one.
I challenge the person who posted the dishonest comment above to cite any EVIDENCE that I have done what he claims.
Thank you professor Furr for responding! The problem is that people love screaming "revisionist" without providing any evidence to their claims.
Your results are also unacceptable for any legit historian
Dr. Furr, how come you don't go for peer-reviewed publications? Not saying peer-review is the only valid form of knowledge, but there is a huge historiography of the Stalin era -- a "revisionist" one (not in the ML revisionist sense) that to a great degree even contradicts the Khruschev claims. E.g., about Stalin's capacity as a military leader, the emerging consensus is that he was very much a capable and present military leader.
Which of the broad points do you contest? The anti-Stalin paradigm does exist, the Holodomor is unfounded and unsupported by serious scholars, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a defensive pact precipitated by the West's failure to ally against Germany.
I'm sure you could point out flaws with the finer points of his analyses; but the big picture he paints is far, far more accurate than the bourgeois paints - its practically night and day.
Yeah, Grover Furr talks about this in the first 5 minutes. Screaming "Stalin" is enough. They don't bother going through of the finer points. So, if he cherry picked an incorrect citation, please tell us where it is and we can do more research to investigate the truth.