diff --git a/objects/31/31524242a3a0fa432962c4946172f4bd07988ed02d3884112a84c296a74cc8e6/sanitized-html-v5-e261985692e781ab/document.html b/objects/31/31524242a3a0fa432962c4946172f4bd07988ed02d3884112a84c296a74cc8e6/sanitized-html-v5-e261985692e781ab/document.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8b41c04aca4a941e9b0b9a360f133eaf029c16b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/objects/31/31524242a3a0fa432962c4946172f4bd07988ed02d3884112a84c296a74cc8e6/sanitized-html-v5-e261985692e781ab/document.html
@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+
+
+
+Furr Letter to Prof. Domenico Losurdo, December 2012
+
+
+
+
+
Dear Professor Losurdo:
+
+
Here are my thoughts on your exchange with Nicolas Werth.
+
+
I'll begin with Werth. He is an inveterate anticommunist. I have caught him in one or
+two blatant lies, though not in this exchange with you.
+
+
In my opinion, Werth's intervention here rests on some misconceptions, no doubt
+deliberate ones:
+
+
+
Werth refers to "the archives", and especially to the 7-volume series on the
+ "Tragedy of the Soviet Countryside", as though their existence resolved
+ anything. It doesn't.
+
+
+
I have possessed a copy of this 7-volume work since it was published. It is a useful
+compilation of primary documents. But documents, in themselves, prove nothing, and the
+same is true of this collection.
+
+
+
Werth refers repeatedly to "the peasants." There was no such group. The
+ Russian (and Ukrainian, etc.) peasantry was sharply differentiated. For example, a huge
+ number had no land at all. Another large number had very small parcels of land. They were
+ called "batraki" (the landless) and "bedniaki" (the poor, either
+ landless or with very little land).
+
+
+
These peasants lost nothing by entering kolkhozes or sovkhozes. So the notion that
+collectivization was a "war against the peasantry" is a smokescreen.
+
+
+
Collectivization did not cause the famine of 1932-33. That was caused by bad weather
+ conditions. Both Davies and Wheatcroft and Mark Tauger - the greatest scholars in the West
+ on this subject - agree here. Tauger believes that Davies and Wheatcroft exaggerate the
+ extent to which collectivization was one of several primary causes, and attributes the
+ famine primarily to bad weather.
+
+
+
+
Collectivization was a great success in that it stopped the periodic famines that had
+ plagued Russia (including Ukraine) every 3-4 years for a millennium. The famine of 1932-33
+ was the very last such famine - except for that of 1946-47. Wheatcroft has recently argued
+ that this was caused by catastrophic weather conditions and not by Soviet government
+ mismanagement.
+
+
+
Viewed in this light, collectivization in the USSR was one of the greatest feats of
+social reform of the 20th century, alongside the industrialization of the USSR. It saved
+millions of lives that would have been lost in future famines, which would have continued
+to recur with regularity.
+
+
Of course, it also enabled industrialization and victory in WW2. That was no small
+accomplishment. But even setting this aside, collectivization stopped the endless cycle of
+famines, saving millions.
+
+
In addition, one must say this: those whom the famine of 1932-33 killed were from all
+classes of the peasantry, the rich as well as the poor. In previous famines, rich peasants
+had thrived, merchants had hoarded grain for higher prices, and only the poor had starved.
+This, no doubt, is one of the reasons collectivization is so hated by Werth and
+reactionaries generally: it removed the privilege of the rich and protected the poor.
+
+
Bukharin's plan could not possibly have permitted industrialization, and therefore
+would have meant that the Nazis would have won the war. In addition, the capitalist
+elements in the countryside were growing rapidly under the NEP. This would have continued.
+Incidentally, Trotsky's plan was the same as Bukharin's here.
+
+
+
Werth refers to the "massive importation of American grain" in the '70s and
+ '80s. So what? Collectivization stopped periodic starvation, as it was supposed to do. See
+ the famous quotation from Stalin, as he talked to Winston Churchill.
+
+
+
In a famous passage in his memoir of World War II, Hinge of Fate, Churchill quoted
+Stalin as saying:
+
+
+
+
"Ten million," he said, holding up his hands. "It was fearful. Four
+ years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary for Russia, if we were to avoid periodic
+ famines, to plough the land with tractors."
Russia and the Ukraine are far more northerly than is the USA. The point is that,
+having industrialized, the USSR could pay for the importation of grain when necessary.
+Collectivization allowed for industrialization and stopped the cycle of famines.
+
+
+
Werth is completely wrong about the "mass murders of 1937-1938." These were
+ not in the least a "prophylactic cleansing" - though this explanation is the one
+ being promoted now by anticommunists generally.
+
+
+
I've done a lot of research on this and intend to write a book on it in the future. For
+now, see my article here:
Here I have included links to all the interrogations of Ezhov that have been made
+public, along with translations of them into English, as well as to some other
+interrogations. They are very enlightening.
+
+
In a recent volume of documents on 1937-1938 (in Russian) Khaustov, an inveterate
+anticommunist, concedes that Stalin believed the reports Ezhov was sending him about bands
+of rebels and oppositionists. Arch Getty showed a decade ago that Ezhov murdered far more
+people than the Politburo ever contemplated. It was Ezhov, not Stalin and the PB, that set
+"quotas" for arrests and executions. Stalin and the PB had called for
+"limits."
+
+
+
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been demonized by the anticommunists and crypto-Nazis in
+ Eastern Europe, aided by their allies elsewhere. But they have it completely wrong.
+
Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia were colonial possessions of Poland, obtained by
+ conquest from Soviet Russia in 1921 and then "settled" by Polish
+ "settlers" (osadniki), largely former military officers, in order to
+ "Polonize" them.
+
Ukrainians and Belorussians were a majority in these areas but Poland progressively took
+ away their rights to use of their languages, to schooling in those languages, to
+ government employment, and in general discriminated against them in many ways.
+
The large Jewish population of these areas was similarly subject to official
+ discrimination.
+
Poland added to this imperialist conquest when it took the Teszczin area way from
+ Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich sell-out in 1938.
+
Finally (for now): The Soviets did not send in the Red Army until September 17, 1939,
+ after the Germans had informed them that, in their view, Poland as a state no longer
+ existed. This meant that Germany would not abide by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact division
+ of spheres of influence. The Germans officially warned the Soviets that "new
+ states" - i.e., a pro-Nazi Ukrainian Nationalist state - would arise in W. Ukraine
+ and W. Belorussia if the Red Army did not come in.
+
he Germans were, in fact, correct - Poland as a state had ceased to exist when its
+ government, along with its military leadership, interned itself in Rumania on September 17
+ 1939.
+
+
+
+
+
I have a long article, with 17 or 18 web pages of evidence, on this question at
+
+
http://www.tinyurl.com/furr-mlg09
+
+
The article is the first link on the left. All the other pages are evidence.
+
+
Note that Winston Churchill agreed with the Soviet incursion into what had formerly
+been Eastern Poland.
+
+
The Germans almost seized Moscow and Leningrad as it was! If the USSR had not entered
+former Eastern Poland, the Wehrmacht would have started its invasion much closer to the
+Soviet heartland than it did and most likely captured Leningrad and Moscow.
+
+
To sum up:
+
+
+
The "Danilov volumes" prove nothing, though they are useful as any collection
+ of documents is useful;
+
+
+
+
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not only salutary, but essential. Far from a crime or an
+ "invasion", the USSR acted as any state would have done in entering Western
+ Poland to keep the Wehrmacht as far as possible from its pre-1939 borders.
+
+
+
+
Collectivization was a success in ending the endless cycle of famines and in permitting
+ industrialization.
+
+
+
+
Collectivization did not cause the famine. No doubt the famine would have been less
+ severe if it had not coincided with collectivization. But that was almost sure to happen
+ anyway. The main thing is: This famine was the LAST famine.
+
+
+
+
The "Terror" - really, the Ezhovshchina - of 1937-1938 was the result of
+ Ezhov's conspiracy, along with that of some of the First Secretaries. Of course it was
+ horrible. But Stalin and the PB did not undertake it.
+
+
+
I should mention here that, in my Russian-only book (with my Moscow colleague Vladimir
+Bobrov) I have an essay in which I show that Bukharin knew about Ezhov's conspiracy but
+did not mention it in his interrogations or at trial. If Bukharin, Rykov, et al. had done
+this, Ezhov could have been stopped and the mass murders either avoided or curtailed.
+Bukharin's, and the Right's, responsibility for Ezhov's mass murders has not been pointed
+out elsewhere.
+
+
When you read the MS of my Kirov book you will note that we have much evidence that the
+conspiracies alleged in the three public Moscow Trials, plus the Tukhachevsky trial, did
+exist - they were not at all "fabrications" by Stalin or anyone else.
+
+
+
+
As for your own contribution, I must be honest: I find it to be excellent!
+
+
You have certainly made arguments that I have not encountered elsewhere, and have not
+thought of myself.
+
+
I would like to translate it into English and circulate it - that is, if you agree.
+
+
Also, do you have a version in Italian? I would like to send it to some friends in
+Italy.
+
+
I like very much your response about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: "s'il y a course
+au
+compromis avec Hitler, Staline l'a perdue". Imagine anyone objecting to the Soviets
+signing the M-R Pact in the face of Munich!
+
+
I would only add that the M-R Pact was not only defensible - it was essential, and
+quite probably saved the USSR, and thereby all of us, from defeat in the war.
+
+
That said, there are a few points where I would disagree with you somewhat. They all
+boil down to this: In my view, you cede too much to Werth, every single one of whose
+claims is false.
+
+
Trotsky, for example. All the evidence we now possess points to Trotsky's having been
+guilty of all the charges made against him in the Moscow Trials. This includes a good deal
+of evidence from the Trotsky Archives at Harvard and at the Hoover Institution, as
+discovered by Pierre Brou�, a famous Trotskyist.
+
+
I would disagree that collectivization was "La p閞iode la plus horrible est celle
+de la collectivisation de l'agriculture." As I stated above, in my view it was a
+triumph.
+
+
Naturally the Bolsheviks made many errors in carrying it out. They were the first; it
+had never been done. Pioneers always make errors; in fact it is impossible to be an
+innovator without making errors.
+
+
The Chinese and North Vietnamese learned from these errors, and carried out
+collectivization in different ways. The end result was, I think, fewer casualties. But
+they had the Soviet example to learn from.
+
+
For "most horrible" I'd vote for the Ezhovshchina - which, as I have argued
+above, Werth and all the other anticommunists falsify. Werth has absolutely no evidence
+that it was an attempt at "nettoyage prophylactique" - this is just verbiage. It
+was a disaster, of course, but a disaster for which Bukharin, so sacred to the
+anticommunists and to Khrushchev in his day, bears significant responsibility.
+
+
I do not agree that "the Stalin period" was a "horror". I think you
+do not really agree either.
+
+
But of course it was tragic, in that errors were made that led to socialism being
+sidetracked, and then betrayed altogether. It led to Khrushchev - and Khrushchev and his
+ilk were nourished during the Stalin period. Therefore, obviously, reactionary
+developments were taking place. We need to study to discover what they were.
+
+
But in sum, I think your essay is excellent! I know that Werth will not accept a word
+of it.
+
+
So much the worse for him. His father, Alexander Werth, was an honest observer, in my
+estimation, and his books are well worth reading today, all of them. Nicolas Werth's are
+what I call "propaganda with footnotes."
diff --git a/objects/78/785ff145359de506ac06185a0256b7038fa8566c04ac2cae368fc5e782d63680/sanitized-html-v5-9c1bcdcfbeda1692/document.html b/objects/78/785ff145359de506ac06185a0256b7038fa8566c04ac2cae368fc5e782d63680/sanitized-html-v5-9c1bcdcfbeda1692/document.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f6664759dc56db01e607d0db3db8c951b803315
--- /dev/null
+++ b/objects/78/785ff145359de506ac06185a0256b7038fa8566c04ac2cae368fc5e782d63680/sanitized-html-v5-9c1bcdcfbeda1692/document.html
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+
+
+
+
+System Requirements and Chinese Display
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Platform and Software Requirements
+ 系统平台及软件配置
+
+
+
+
Platform Requirements
+ 系统平台
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows® 98
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows NT® 4.0 (SP 6a required)
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me)
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows 2000 (SP2 Recommended)
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows XP Professional
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Windows XP Home Edition
+
+
+
+
Software Requirements
+ 所需软件
+
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
+ Internet Explorer 6.0 or later
+
+
+
Hardware Requirements
+ 硬件配置
+
+
+
+
Minimum hardware
+ requirements 硬件最低配置
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ CPU Required
+
+
+ RAM Required
+
+
+
+
+
Pentium 90 MHz*
+
64 MB**
+
+
+
+
+
* Or the
+ minimum CPU required to run the operating system, whichever is higher.
+ ** Or the minimum RAM
+ required to run the operating system, whichever is higher.
+
+
+
+
Recommended hardware
+ requirements 建议的硬件配置
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ CPU Recommended
+
+
+ RAM Recommended
+
+
+
+
+
Pentium 90 MHz or
+ faster
+
128 MB or higher
+
+
+
+
Diskspace
+ 所需硬盘空间
+
+
+
+
+
80MB
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Chinese Display in non-Chinese
+ Microsoft Windows Platforms
+
+
+
+
+
To view the
+ Chinese Cultural Revolution Database: Please make sure you have installed the Chinese (Simplified)
+ Text Display Support and Chinese (Simplified) Text Input Support for the IE
+ 6.0. A copy of English version Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1(For English
+ Edition Windows Only) is put under
+ the folder "IE6SP1_EN" on the CD-ROM, run the ie6setup.exe, and follow the
+ instructions shown on screen and accept the default settings. The Chinese (Simplified) Text Display
+ Support and Chinese (Simplified) Text Input Support will be installed for
+ the IE on the Microsoft
+ Windows® 98/ME platforms. On other platforms, when you run the
+ Chinese Cultural Revolution Database for the first time, Windows will prompt you to insert the
+ Windows setup CD-ROM, once the Windows setup CD-ROM is inserted, the supports
+ will be installed automatically.
+
+
+
+
+
+
中文Microsoft
+ Windows 平台
+
+
+
+
+ 系统必须安装Microsoft
+ Internet Explorer 6.0或更高的版本。本光盘已附有一份简体中文版Internet Explorer 6.0
+ SP1（只可安装在简体中文Windows），在“IE6SP1_CN”目录下（繁体中文版Internet Explorer 6.0
+ SP1在“IE6SP1_TW”目录下，仅适合繁体中文Windows），运行ie6setup.exe，然后根据指示进行安装。
封面信息：Critique capitalism, act as a socialist. da pi zi ben zhu yi da gan she hui zhu yi Reference 0094-001M Printed in February 1976 Dimensions 21x30 inches 55x75 cm medium size
+
+
");
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/objects/d3/d30b404780807c498d952df6e56c8874e08ca1e68ac3916dfa0f22e298315981/sanitized-html-v5-322dd78608743fe1/document.html b/objects/d3/d30b404780807c498d952df6e56c8874e08ca1e68ac3916dfa0f22e298315981/sanitized-html-v5-322dd78608743fe1/document.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74c3b64200b568b72bfeb67ae946840152ee4256
--- /dev/null
+++ b/objects/d3/d30b404780807c498d952df6e56c8874e08ca1e68ac3916dfa0f22e298315981/sanitized-html-v5-322dd78608743fe1/document.html
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+
+
+论坛终极右侧广告
+
+
+//ADCRM
+
+
+
+
+document.domain="china.com";
+/* ads */
+var allcookies = document.cookie;
+// Look for the start of the cookie named "version"
+var pos = allcookies.indexOf("area=");
+var value = "";
+// If we find a cookie by that name, extract and use its value
+if (pos != -1)
+{
+var start = pos + 5; // Start of cookie value
+var end = allcookies.indexOf(";", start); // End of cookie value
+ if (end == -1) end = allcookies.length;
+ value = allcookies.substring(start, end); // Extract the value
+}
+if (value.length < 1)
+{
+ document.write('<\/script>');
+}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ chinaadclient_getaddata(['CH_JSCLUB_WZLZ_10002','CH_JSCLUB_AN_10001','CH_JSCLUB_HZH_10001','CH_JSCLUB_WZL_10002','CH_JSCLUB_WZL_10003','CH_JSCLUB_WZL_10004','CH_JSCLUB_HZH_10002','CH_JSCLUB_WZLZ_10003']);
+
+
diff --git a/objects/e0/e0f95ea3e3f9d086133cda4ae2d7642c0be0c76caedbd49f909b6edd368f5009/sanitized-html-v5-1de7053ba7c20289/document.html b/objects/e0/e0f95ea3e3f9d086133cda4ae2d7642c0be0c76caedbd49f909b6edd368f5009/sanitized-html-v5-1de7053ba7c20289/document.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8204cceee548fa085c313b7090c10096e87f554c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/objects/e0/e0f95ea3e3f9d086133cda4ae2d7642c0be0c76caedbd49f909b6edd368f5009/sanitized-html-v5-1de7053ba7c20289/document.html
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+
+
+
+"Katyn Memorial Day" is an anticommunist fraud
+
+
+
+
+
"Katyn Memorial Day", April 13, Is An Anticommunist Fraud!
+
+
Dear friends:
+
+Today, April 13, is "Katyn Memorial Day." This is the day that Polish
+nationalists, and anticommunists everywhere, commemorate the murder by the Soviets --
+"Stalin" -- of 22,000 Polish prisoners of war in April - May 1940.
+
+And IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
+
+This is an anticommunist lie. It was invented by the Nazis in 1943, and taken up by all
+the capitalist powers during the Cold War.
+
+In 1990-1992 two fanatic anticommunists, Gorbachev and Eltsin "admitted" Soviet
+guilt.
+
+I believed it myself for a few years. Then for a longer time I was agnostic, believing
+that "We just can't know -- there's too much conflicting evidence."
+
+But now we know that this story simply cannot possibly be true. I published the reasons
+why in _Socialism and
+Democracy_ last August:
+
+"The 'Official' Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven? Discoveries at a German Mass
+Murder Site in Ukraine."
+
+A preprint version is here:
+
+http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_katyn_preprint_0813.pdf
+
+
+It wasn't me who made the discoveries that utterly disprove the "Katyn" story.
+
+Polish and Ukrainian archeologists did that. They found things they never expected to
+find, and certainly hoped no one would ever find.
+
+And now they are keeping quiet about it.
+
+Yes, the Poles, the Ukrainians, and the Russians too, are keeping this secret. This, the
+biggest World War 2-related discovery of the past several years, is simply hushed up, a
+real "conspiracy of silence."
+
+"Katyn Memorial Day", April 13, is a good day to tell the world:
+
+"Stalin Is Inocent! The Soviets Are Not Guilty of Killing The 22,000 Polish
+POWs!"
+
+This isn't going to stop the anticommunists. Of course not!
+
+Since when have anticommunists cared about the truth?
+
+Capitalist Poland has spent at least $500 miillion on hundreds of memorials all over
+Poland, and three of them in Russia.
+
+They aren't going to allow a little thing like historical truth spoil their wonderful
+anticommunist orgy!
+
+So we should do our best to spoil it for them. Today is a good day to tell the world:
+
+"The 'Katyn Massacre' Is An Anticommunist Fraud!"
+
+Spread the word!
+
+Sincerely,
+
+Grover Furr
There are certain assumptions one can make, with a high degree of certainty, regarding Grover Furr’s Khrushchev Lied. The first is that, had Furr written a similar book in any area of historical specialization other than Soviet-era studies, Khrushchev Lied would be immediately hailed as a work of major significance. Had Furr succeeded in proving that Thomas More’s biography of Richard III was pure invention and that, far from being Shakespeare’s resentful deformed villain, Richard was a kindly and benevolent monarch; or had Furr demonstrated that Tacitus consciously twisted his account of the Julio-Claudians in order to willfully defame the first Roman emperors; had Furr, in short, managed to definitively prove that a major historical source, one on which the interpretation of an entire epoch is often based, was fraudulent, Furr and his book would have been catapulted to the center of scholarly debate. There would have been workshops and symposia; indeed, a special issue of the American Historical Review would have likely been printed, featuring essays arguing pro and con Furr’s findings. Needless to say, that has not been the case, for the simple reason that Furr’s book deals with Soviet history, specifically with the history of the Stalin period; and here different rules apply.
+
Despite the advance praise for Khrushchev Lied offered by Soviet-era specialists such as Robert Thurston and Lars Lih, one searches in vain for any scholarly journal reviewing the book. Indeed, aside from comments posted on online political blogs, of both Left and Right, it would appear that the historical profession has chosen to ignore Khrushchev Lied. This is the second assumption one could have safely made. Khrushchev Lied directly challenges the anti-communist, Cold War paradigm still dominant in academia. Not only that, Furr manages to demonstrate that one of the essential documents on which that paradigm rests is a tissue of lies. Not only historical interpretations are at risk here, but academic reputations, and entire careers as well. Thus, a conspiracy of silence has descended on a book that merits the widest possible readership and discussion.
+
Again, in and of itself, this is nothing new. Baldly put, any book that presents a positive interpretation of the Stalin period or that disputes the conventional wisdom that the Soviet head of state was a blood-soaked megalomaniac will have a difficult time finding a publisher. This is not to say that there have not been a number of non-paradigmatic studies of the Stain era published. Books by Getty and Kirkpatrick, to cite just two authors, have put a dent in the dominant view of Stalin and his government held in academia. However, there is a question of balance and accessibility. For example, in the years since the collapse of the USSR, there has been a tidal wave of studies of the Stalin years published in Russia. Some of these studies are critical of Soviet policy during that period, others praise those same policies. Interestingly, none of the those supportive of the Stalin regime are translated into English; while a number of Russian works hostile to Stalin or the Soviet experience of the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s have been issued by major American publishers.
+
Of all the recent reassessments of Soviet history, Grover Furr’s Khrushchev Lied strikes at the very heart of Cold War history, Nikita Khrushchev’s famed “Secret Speech” to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Presented to a closed session of the Party Congress on 25 February, 1956, Khrushchev’s speech, putatively, denounced Stalin’s many “crimes” and lay bare the former Soviet leader’s reign of error and terror. Khrushchev’s denunciations of Stalin caused a crisis in the world communist movement, providing, as it seemed to, an “insider’s” confirmation of all the worst accusations raised by anti-communists for decades. An immediate result of Khrushchev’s efforts was the political isolation of his opponents within the Soviet Communist Party, Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich, etc., who still upheld Stalin’s legacy. A longer-term consequence was a split within international communism, with those who seemingly defended Stalin, led by Albania and China, breaking with the Soviet Union and those parties worldwide which hewed to the new Soviet line. Furthermore, the “Secret Speech” became a cornerstone of modern history, and the main documentary buttress for anti-Stalin interpretations of Soviet history and politics.
+
Furr set for himself the task of examining each and every one of the accusations Khrushchev leveled at Stalin (and Beria as well) and examining, point by point, their veracity or falsity. The conclusion he came to is evident in the title of the book. Furr divides Khrushchev’s charges into nine general categories, ranging from “Lenin’s Testament” to Stalin’s supposed complicity in the Kirov assassination, to Stalin’s supposed mismanagement of the Soviet war effort in World War II to Stalin’s last years when he, according to Khrushchev, was planning a major purge of his oldest associates and collaborators. In determining his findings, Furr based himself exclusively on primary sources and archival materials, many of which he has scanned and uploaded for public review athttp://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/kl/bibliography.html.
+
The essence of Furr’s investigation is the claim that not one accusation leveled by Khrushchev against Stalin and Beria is true. Not one. Indeed, Furr becomes the accuser, in turn, and charges Khrushchev with consciously and maliciously warping the truth about Stalin for political gain. Furr provides a mountain of documentation refuting Khrushchev. So much so, that, in fact, this becomes the book’s main shortcoming. Furr is so painstaking and meticulous in marshalling his evidence that the reader is often numbed by the sheer volume of documents, quotes, and citations he provides. This is not a book for the casual reader or for anyone not versed in Soviet history. However, despite its non-reception in professional historical circles, Khrushchev Lied is an essential work of Soviet history. Moreover, it is a work that not merely solidly proves its premise; but one that stands out as a courageous effort to restore historical truth and balance.
+
Khrushchev Lied is solid in its research, thorough in its method and scope, sound in its judgments and conclusions, and deserving of the highest praise. It is a book every serious student of Soviet history and politics must read and grapple with. It is, in a word, a major contribution to historical science.
This is a good review.
+Reblogged this on Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture.
+