Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by notyoueither

this new research that has been concluded by American and Russian historians

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17367

A Scholar For Stalin
By Rocco DiPippo
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 16, 2005


Although not a historian, Furr frequents the “Historians of American Communism”, a scholarly forum inhabited by experts on Communism like Robert Conquest, John Earl Haynes and Robert W. Cherny. Participants in the forum generally find Furr’s positions to be absurd...

Of course they find his positions to be absurd; look at the participants, "experts on Communism"!

People in Russia don't find these folks either entertaining or humorous, much less credible.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Colon™
The only thing that made Stalin better than Hitler is that he beat the crap out of Hitler.

The only thing that made Stalin better than Hitler is that Hitler declared war on us.

Both were evil, evil men. The fact that one was our ally and one was our enemy doesn't change that.

[Propaganda]

Funny thing is, Furr also visits H-Net Russia discussions, and the likes of J. Arch Getty don't find him to be absurd.

[Colon™]

Maybe he has Furr on ignore.

[Propaganda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Page_Magazine

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Propaganda
Funny thing is, Furr also visits H-Net Russia discussions, and the likes of J. Arch Getty don't find him to be absurd.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0310&week=b&msg=ZpflVSfyNLj50chUKSGtcg&user=&pw=

From: Mark Kramer
List Editor: haynes@mail.h-net.msu.edu
Editor's Subject: Politicizing Soviet Studies (Kramer)
Author's Subject: Politicizing Soviet Studies (Kramer)
Date Written: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:22:17 -0000
Date Posted: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:22:17 -0000


Having been out of the country for the past week or so, I returned to
find, on this list about American Communism, an extended series of
exchanges about Soviet historiography. It's certainly true that
interpretations of history are bound to change (or at least to be
challenged) over time as new evidence becomes available, as perspectives
change, and as new analytical approaches become fashionable. This is
generally a healthy process and should be welcomed, despite the occasional
instances of charlatanism. The release of new evidence from the former
Soviet archives can help us narrow the parameters of debate about key
aspects of Soviet history, but it will never prevent new interpretations
from arising.

This doesn't mean, however, that "anything goes" and that there are no
useful parameters for a scholarly discussion. There will, for example, be
endless debates about the American Civil War, but someone (e.g., Lyndon
LaRouche) who claimed that the Civil War did not occur at all would be in
the realm of fantasy and would have nothing useful to contribute to the
historiography. Similarly, Grover Furr's claims about specific aspects of
Soviet history too often move into the realm of absurdity and reflect a
lack of familiarity with the documentation that has emerged over the past
10-12 years. For example, Furr asserts:

Books arguing that, e.g., the USSR was not guilty of the
"Katyn" massacres of Polish officials . . . simply
are not, and CAN not be published [in the United States],
because such conclusions are "beyond the pale." I suspect
that a scholar who even seriously entertained such ideas
could not get a job in the field of Soviet history in the
US or UK.

Furr is right that a "scholar" espousing this thesis would very likely not
get a job in Soviet history and that books promoting this argument would
face a hard time of getting published (at least by any respectable press),
but that has nothing to do with a conspiracy to maintain "Cold War
orthodoxy," as Furr implies. It has to do with the documentary evidence
that has become available -- evidence that overwhelmingly bears out the
circumstantial evidence that has long been available to show that the
Polish officers were shot in March 1940 under Soviet occupation. In
October 1992, many crucial documents about the Katyn Forest massacres were
released from the Russian Presidential Archive. These include the March
1940 memorandum from Lavrentii Beria outlining the groups of senior Polish
officers who had been captured, with the recommendation that they all be
shot. Across the front of the memorandum are four large, handwritten
signatures approving Beria's recommendation -- those of Stalin,
Voroshilov, Molotov, and Mikoyan. A notation in the margin indicates that
Kalinin and Kaganovich also endorsed the executions. Among the other
documents now available are memoranda indicating that subsequent leaders
of the USSR, from Khrushchev through Gorbachev, were made aware of Soviet
responsibility for the Katyn Forest massacre (and of Stalin's explicit
approbation of the shootings) but decided to keep all the documentation
under tight seal. It was not until after the Soviet Union collapsed that
the documents finally were released.

In light of the evidence that has emerged, no serious scholar can argue
any longer that the Soviet occupying forces were not responsible for the
mass executions in Katyn Forest. Nor can any serious scholar argue that
this was done without Stalin's direct approval.

Wacky arguments certainly can be published in this country (that's what
fringe publications are for), but few people are going to pay them much
heed.

Mark Kramer
Harvard University

[notyoueither]

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0310&week=c&msg=q/XWdNZ2Qjnp/dO37864FA&user=&pw=

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Politicizing of Soviet Studies (Furr)


Could Grover Furr supply us with any of the evidence that Mukhin has
"unearthed" to demonstrate that the Soviets were not responsible for the
Katyn Forest executions? And would Prof. Furr accord the same level of
deference to the "evidence" that David Irving unearthed to demonstrate
that there were no crematoria at Auschwitz or that most of the Jewish
victims of the Holocaust actually died of disease? While historians
always have to be open to new evidence, they are not required to abandon
their moral values or common sense at the gates of graduate school.

Any academic discipline has gatekeepers and standards- that, after all,
is part of the meaning of the word discipline. No one is arguing that
David Irving or Mukhin should be prevented from writing whatever they
want. Only that they are cranks and frauds (in Irving's case, asserted
by a British judge after a lengthy trial demonstrated his misuse of
documents and violation of standards of historical methods). In a
similar spirit, it would be very instructive to learn from Prof. Furr the
details of how Stalin was "very determined to institute more democratic
rule in the USSR, in the 30s and afterwards." By killing several
million people? By developiong a multi-party system? Or freedom of the
press? I understand the reaction of some members of this list that
ideological debates should not intrude onto matters of scholarship. But
it seems to me that these assertions raise very serious moral and
ideological issues not terribly different from those raised by the David
Irving case.

Harvey Klehr

[VetLegion]

notyoueither, everyone "knows" Stalin was a bad guy. It's not cool and it's not fun to take that side in a debate. Try defending Stalin, it's a better challenge. In any case, please don't clutter the thread with mindless copy pasting.

[notyoueither]

Try defending Stalin

Why? Why don't you start a thread arguing that thalidimide was a useful drug for pregnant women if you enjoy crashing into parked cars so much.

And sorry that reality does not meet the needs of propoganda, but apparently not everybody 'knows'. There are still nuts like Furr and Prop running around.

[KrazyHorse]

This thread is great.

[Dinner]

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe Stalin was anything other then a butcher and totalitarian dictator. They don't call it Stalinism for nothing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe Stalin was anything other then a butcher and totalitarian dictator. They don't call it Stalinism for nothing.

Oerdin, meet Propaganda.

[Saras]

This is Apolyton at its best. Sans Serb. Serb would make this complete.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by notyoueither

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0310&week=b&msg=ZpflVSfyNLj50chUKSGtcg&user=&pw=

From: Mark Kramer
List Editor: haynes@mail.h-net.msu.edu
Editor's Subject: Politicizing Soviet Studies (Kramer)
Author's Subject: Politicizing Soviet Studies (Kramer)
Date Written: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:22:17 -0000
Date Posted: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:22:17 -0000


Having been out of the country for the past week or so, I returned to
find, on this list about American Communism, an extended series of
exchanges about Soviet historiography. It's certainly true that
interpretations of history are bound to change (or at least to be
challenged) over time as new evidence becomes available, as perspectives
change, and as new analytical approaches become fashionable. This is
generally a healthy process and should be welcomed, despite the occasional
instances of charlatanism. The release of new evidence from the former
Soviet archives can help us narrow the parameters of debate about key
aspects of Soviet history, but it will never prevent new interpretations
from arising.

This doesn't mean, however, that "anything goes" and that there are no
useful parameters for a scholarly discussion. There will, for example, be
endless debates about the American Civil War, but someone (e.g., Lyndon
LaRouche) who claimed that the Civil War did not occur at all would be in
the realm of fantasy and would have nothing useful to contribute to the
historiography. Similarly, Grover Furr's claims about specific aspects of
Soviet history too often move into the realm of absurdity and reflect a
lack of familiarity with the documentation that has emerged over the past
10-12 years. For example, Furr asserts:

Books arguing that, e.g., the USSR was not guilty of the
"Katyn" massacres of Polish officials . . . simply
are not, and CAN not be published [in the United States],
because such conclusions are "beyond the pale." I suspect
that a scholar who even seriously entertained such ideas
could not get a job in the field of Soviet history in the
US or UK.

Furr is right that a "scholar" espousing this thesis would very likely not
get a job in Soviet history and that books promoting this argument would
face a hard time of getting published (at least by any respectable press),
but that has nothing to do with a conspiracy to maintain "Cold War
orthodoxy," as Furr implies. It has to do with the documentary evidence
that has become available -- evidence that overwhelmingly bears out the
circumstantial evidence that has long been available to show that the
Polish officers were shot in March 1940 under Soviet occupation. In
October 1992, many crucial documents about the Katyn Forest massacres were
released from the Russian Presidential Archive. These include the March
1940 memorandum from Lavrentii Beria outlining the groups of senior Polish
officers who had been captured, with the recommendation that they all be
shot. Across the front of the memorandum are four large, handwritten
signatures approving Beria's recommendation -- those of Stalin,
Voroshilov, Molotov, and Mikoyan. A notation in the margin indicates that
Kalinin and Kaganovich also endorsed the executions. Among the other
documents now available are memoranda indicating that subsequent leaders
of the USSR, from Khrushchev through Gorbachev, were made aware of Soviet
responsibility for the Katyn Forest massacre (and of Stalin's explicit
approbation of the shootings) but decided to keep all the documentation
under tight seal. It was not until after the Soviet Union collapsed that
the documents finally were released.

In light of the evidence that has emerged, no serious scholar can argue
any longer that the Soviet occupying forces were not responsible for the
mass executions in Katyn Forest. Nor can any serious scholar argue that
this was done without Stalin's direct approval.

Wacky arguments certainly can be published in this country (that's what
fringe publications are for), but few people are going to pay them much
heed.

Mark Kramer
Harvard University

His reply:

From: "Grover Furr,Fastmail"
List Editor: Haynes@mail.h-net.msu.edu
Editor's Subject: Politicizing of Soviet Studies (Furr)
Author's Subject: Politicizing of Soviet Studies (Furr)
Date Written: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:55:40 -0000
Date Posted: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:55:40 -0000

In the light of Prof. Kramer's remarks about my posts -- "absurdity" is
a strong word -- I hope I may be permitted to reply.

> Similarly, Grover Furr's claims about specific aspects of
> Soviet history too often move into the realm of absurdity and reflect a
> lack of familiarity with the documentation that has emerged over the
past
> 10-12 years.

I would like to assure Kramer -- he refers to me by my last name alone,
so I hope I may be permitted to do likewise -- that his statements are
unfounded.

I wrote (in part):

> Books arguing that, e.g., the USSR was not guilty of the
> "Katyn" massacres of Polish officials . . . simply
> are not, and CAN not be published [in the United States],
> because such conclusions are "beyond the pale." I suspect
> that a scholar who even seriously entertained such ideas
> could not get a job in the field of Soviet history in the
> US or UK.

Kramer's reply refers to documents published in 1992, with which I'm
quite familiar.

Kramer then states:

> In light of the evidence that has emerged, no serious scholar can argue
> any longer that the Soviet occupying forces were not responsible for the
> mass executions in Katyn Forest. Nor can any serious scholar argue that
> this was done without Stalin's direct approval.

These statements of Kramer's illustrate my point, which was that a
Cold-War orthodoxy constrains -- I would say, cripples -- the study of
Soviet history in the West. Another example of this is Prof. Horowitz's
jibe at the work of Arch Getty the other day on this list.

It is simply not the case that anyone who disagrees with Kramer is not a
"serious scholar." This is precisely the language used by those who
continue to put ideological -- that is, politically-motivated --
limitations on the study of Soviet history, as I contended.

Serious questions have been raised as to the genuineness of a number of
documents suddenly discovered -- or, "discovered" -- during the last
years of the USSR, including those purporting to "document" the Katyn
executions.

Known forgeries, such as the Eremin letter, were published during the
Gorbachev period by Soviet journals as though they were not only new,
but genuine. It is not "wacky" -- to use a word inserted into this
discussion by Kramer -- to wonder whether others may have also been forged.

Kramer stated that my post "reflect(s) a lack of familiarity with the
documentation that has emerged over the past 10-12 years." I will not
insult him in a similar way by claiming that he is ignorant of the
arguments that, for example, the Katyn documents in question are forgeries.

But here, again, is my point. No possible argument is going to convince
Cold Warriors that their basic premises are false. Prof. Conquest, for
example, has proved impervious to twenty years of criticism of his
claims by professional historians in the mainstream journals, and to
outright rejection of his "research" on the Ukrainian famine.

The study of Soviet history remains highly politicized, and the
"consensus" that exists in the West is an enforced one, reflecting the
Cold-War, anti-communist origins and history of the field of Soviet
studies in the West.

It is neither "wacky" nor irresponsible to question this enforced,
politicized, Cold-War consensus. On the contrary: it is healthy to do
so. And it is _excellent_ that this consensus IS being questioned in
Russia -- where, after all, the stakes are much higher, since the
history of their own country is of far greater importance to Russians,
and the former Soviet peoples generally, than it is to others.

I myself do not care, one way or the other. If the Soviets shot all the
Polish officers at Katyn and the other two camps, I'd like to know it.
It would not change the way I look at the world, or challenge my values
-- scholarly, political, or otherwise. The problem is that those
scholars who expound the reigning orthodoxy, the "Cold-War consensus",
cannot honestly make this same claim.

Finally, I would like to make a plea for the language of mutual respect
on this list. Terms such as "absurd", "wacky", "fringe", etc., -- those
used by Kramer -- serve no useful analytical purpose. They are terms of
abuse only. Their continued use threatens to turn discussions on this
list into exchanges of insults and recrimination. I suggest that they be
banned.

Sincerely,

Grover Furr
Montclair SU

There are two schools of thought to the Stalin question. To question the prevalent paradigm, is it wrong? Twenty years ago, Robert Conquest was considered the source for history on "Communism" and today, he has been disproven, in both statistical analysis and theory (see: Steven Wheatcroft on Ukrainian famine, J Arch Getty on Soviet penal statistics), yet his outdated theories(just look how he calculated "excess deaths" using flawed population growth statistics) are still taken as fact. Why is that?

Fact is, new information has and is being researched all the time, and old information reexamined. Unfortunately, not all of the information is ever published, because it's too "scholarly". Makes for a boring read, doesn't it?

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This thread is great.

Stick that thumb back in your mouth, Ebert.