View the H-Russia Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Russia's November 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Russia's November 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Russia home page.
Mr Brennan wrote: > Mr. Furr, you are truly shameless. You actually have the temerity to > claim to be just an impartial seeker of historical truth? Mr Brennan, I am indeed, as you say, "an impartial seeker of historical truth." The fact that you disagree with my conclusions is _not_ evidence to the contrary! Yes, I have "the temerity" -- to disagree with you! > You have proven yourself over and over again to be a bald-faced defender of one > of the most murderous and brutal regimes to ever exist in human history. Nonsense! It is simply that you disagree with my conclusions, but refuse, for some reason, to discuss with me on the basis of evidence. Instead, you choose insults! But insults prove nothing -- about me, anyway. > According to your posts on H-Russia and on your website, you claim the > following: > > 1. That the Soviets were likely not responsible for the massacre of > 22,000 Polish officers at Katyn The Germans -- Hitler -- tried to blame all such deaths on the Soviets. Then the Soviets tried to blame all such deaths on the Germans. Then, during the Cold War, the officially-sanctioned anticommunist viewpoint was Hitler's viewpoint, which then became the "Cold War" viewpoint. But there are more possible viewpoints than the "Hitler" viewpoint and the "Soviet" viewpoint. In my judgment, the evidence suggests both the Soviets and the Germans shot Poles, at different times and for different reasons. My conclusion is tentative. I'm ready to change it if and when new evidence, or better readings of the current evidence, should be produced. > 2. That Khrushchev's revelations in the Secret Speech of 1956 were "anti-Stalinist lies" In my book, _Antistalinskaia podlost'_ (Moscow: Algoritm, 2007) I demonstrate conclusively, on the evidence, that virtually every single "revelation" of "crimes" by Stalin and Beria that Khrushchev made in the infamous "Secret Speech" of February 25, 1956, was false. Khrushchev did indeed do nothing but lie in this speech. That's what the evidence shows, and so that's what I conclude -- on the basis of the evidence. I have discovered that Khrushchev has no defenders! No one claims that even a single one of my conclusions is incorrect. It appears that no scholar believes Khrushchev told the truth in the Secret Speech! BTW, I have never used the term "anti-Stalinist lies." The title of my book, _Antistalinskaia podlost'_, was mandated by my publisher, who rejected my proposed title: "Khrushchev Lied." The English version of my book, to be published in January 2011, will carry the original title. > That the Moscow trials of the late 1930s and the military purges were > actually justified because most of the defendants, such as Marshal > Tukachevsky and Leon Trotsky, actually were German, Polish, or Japanese > agents There is overwhelming evidence that Tukhachevsky & Co., and Trotsky too, were conspiring against the Soviet government and acting in concert with Germany and Japan. Naturally this is discomfiting to some people. But that is what the evidence shows. > That the Stalinist collectivization of agriculture, which lead to > millions of death and turned the world's leading exporter of grain into > the world's leading importer, was a correct and successful policy. Mr Brennan, you do not understand either collectivization or what I have written about it. Here's a recent interview (again, the title is that of the editors, not mine): http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=22947 > That the brutal treatment of various nationalities in the Soviet > Union, especially but not limited to Ukrianians, was justified to > preventing "anti-Soviet terrorism" This is false. I have not written anything about Soviet treatment of Ukrainians. Though if you mean the "Holodomor", or "man-made" or "deliberate" famine in the Ukrainian SSR, it is a fact that there is no evidence to support it. > You are no different and no better than a Holocaust denier. You compare me to a Holocaust denier because I disagree with -- you? Mr Brennan, some humility, please! Mr McIntosh writes: > I have seen scores of statements by Grover Furr over the past ten years or so wherein he certainly has taken a position. Certainly I "take positions" on many questions. As do you, Mr McIntosh! Not about Katyn, though. > He has consistently taken the position that the Soviets and Stalin were blameless . Neither Stalin nor anyone else ought to be blamed for things he did not do. So, how do we find out what Stalin did, and for which he is therefore responsible? Do not "decide" on the basis of "Political Correctness", bias, prejudice, preconceived ideas, or any such subjective factors. Study the evidence! The sad fact is that, in the field of Soviet history, there are some powerful voices who want discussion of certain topics to be "taboo", beyond discussion. Katyn is one of those topics. If you do as I have done, and inform others of new developments that may cast doubt upon Soviet responsibility, some people will attack you personally and accuse you of "defending Soviet massacres". What are those who hurl insults afraid of? I think it's reasonably clear. The purpose of these, and of personal attacks generally seems to be to discourage anyone from closely scrutinizing the evidence.I think that is because the evidence against the Soviets in the Katyn massacre is far from conclusive. I state on my webpage devoted to the Katyn issue, http://www.tinyurl.com/katyn-the-truth that, in my opinion, the evidence currently available suggests that the Soviets shot some Poles and the Germans later shot others. Putin opined that the Soviets may have done so in retaliation for the deaths of 60,000 or so Russian POWs at the hands of Poland in 1920-21.Maybe he's right, maybe not. We don't know. But the point of those who hurl insults seems to be: Even discussion of this issue should be "beyond the Pale." With this I strongly disagree. I think "Katyn" is a fascinating historical question -- one of the most fascinating, as well as most contentious, in Soviet history, if not in all of 20th century history. Therefore intelligent, evidence-based discussion of it would be very useful. However, discussion of this issue would certainly raise in the public mind the possiblity that the Soviets may not have done this. After all, if experts disagree, then the question may be fairly regarded by non-experts as not settled. I believe that is what those who attack me do not want They want this matter to be regarded as _settled_! But it is not settled. Hence the cries of rage and the personal attacks whenever anyone writes about anything that might encourage critical discussion of this issue. If my posts, including the present one, have done anything to open up the Katyn issue for broader discussion _based on the evidence_, that is worth the price of a few personal attacks. Grover Furr
|