What does Zig Forums think of Grover "Stalin did nothing wrong" Furr? Let's have a vote with explanation

Grover Furr epitomizes the "Stalin did nothing wrong" line

Based

I've only ever heard bad things about him from trots, historians, undergrad history majors, liberals, and conservatives.
He has openly stated that he could never find a "single crime" that Stalin committed during his time as general secretary. That makes him more suspicious than ignorant liberals who spout muh gorillions. Power is always bloody. You can't hold onto power as long as Stalin did and remain completely innocent. It's absurd.
Also, many of his readers engage in the stupidest mental gymnastics to defend Stalin. e.g., that Stalin hardly knew the true extent of the Great Purge, that Yezhov was the *true* instigator of the mass executions, etc., etc.
But considering the facts, specifically regarding the purge, it seems much more reasonable to conclude that Stalin simply wanted to consolidate power. Look at Lenin's last testimony: "remove Stalin as general secretary." And we're led by Stalinists to believe that, actually, all of the Old Bolsheviks who were executed/exiled in the late 30s were either all trotskyists, or wrongfully killed due to the psychotic actions of NKVD officer? Un-fucking-likely.
We don't need to engage in liberal histrionics about Stalin being a PURE EMBODIMENT OF EBIL, etc. But let's also be honest and not resort to ☭TANKIE☭ sophistry.

How is this mental gymnastics? Considering what we know of the clusterfuck these days, where the Kremlin would sometimes not get any reports at all, this can as well be true.

The USSR is not Lenin's property. Stalin got into his position by gathering overwhelming support. And why I agree with you that some innocent people got purged, there actually was a Trotskyte underground trying to overthrow the state. This was real, and happened during a time when the USSR was the most paranoid.

There is no proof the testament was authentic, even conservative historians like Kotkin dispute its authenticity. Likely a fabrication by Lenin's wife, because she hated Stalin.

I think he's produced some valuable work, yet even if his assertions that Stalin knew nothing of the Terror are true, this still serves to invalidate Bolshevik post-revolutionary organisational modes; after all, clearly there is something wrong with a system in which Yezhov can launch mass, illegal repressions right under the nose of the party.

Still, he does well to bring to light the Trotsky-Bukharinite plot to oust Stalin, and the truth of the accusations against the executed party members. I still think Tukhachevsky was wrongly persecuted, however, despite his questionable remarks regarding Germany.

Sounds good to me. If you trust any of those kinds of people you're a retard.

youtube.com/watch?v=ObD9OGsh498

everyone who voted 'fagot' is a closeted trot that never bothered to read the sources

Attached: brought to u by snek gang.jpg (800x365, 36.8K)

On this topic can someone rec me a good general history of the USSR?

revolution can't come soon enough

Based. I wouldn't have the balls to do this tbh. Defending stalin in front of a bunch of americans? Ok, as a turist. As a professor? Nah. Really based

...

D-did they call grover furr a "liberal"

oh i'm sure stalins bodyguard is a pretty credible source lol

Yes it is.

you're right some armchair at harvard def knew more about the situation than someone who has actually there

Attached: 6a2728438027bc11c124f66b49c05bde0366ec85c6b045715f3fb4abf1eef5de.jpg (1080x608, 77.66K)

There's plenty of reasons why someone that close to him would want to manipulate facts though. And he'd be in the perfect position to do so. Would be extremely naive to uncritically accept whatever he says

but western historians have absolutely no reason to manipulate facts? And wouldn't they be in the perfect position to do so? It would be extremely naive to believe western propaganda at face value.

The primary sources my guy

He was also anti-Zionist before it became radical chic to be one. I can't imagine how tough is must've been to be anti-Zionist in the US in 1988, the only country that's more Zionist outside of Israel is Macron's France.
msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/israel88.html

He also opposed the War in Afghanistan in 2001 didn't give into all the pressure to be a good American.

Damn, I didn't know. Based as fuck

The way he explains that Stalin did literally nothing wrong is to argue that he was asleep at the wheel. Basically he seems to have a clear a priori agenda, which is vindicating Stalin of any wrongdoing.
He seems like a hack.

I tried reading Blood Lies a while back. I liked what I was reading at first, the format of the book was great, but then he incestuously cites Tauger at every instance without ever citing anyone else. I know finding balanced sources on Soviet history is hard but damn. Needless to say that put me off from reading it and my liking of the book changed.

If you bothered to watch that five minute video that was posted earlier in the thread:
You would realize that he recognizes that Stalin made mistakes but did not knowingly do anything illegal or wrong.

Literally a meme author. I doubt anything he's written would pass the standards of a legit historian.

Man its thick with Trots in here. He pretty much blew the fuck out of the Establishment's golden boy in Eastern European Snyder (Timmy Snyder) and Academia didn't even take notice.

It wasn't even just that he refuted his arguments but he showed that he was blatantly lying and mistranslating and plagiarizing in literally dozens of instances. If Snyder had been writing in another field besides Eastern European history which is filled with anti-communist dogmatists rather than scholars he would have had his career ended in disgrace.

So, much for the integrity of academia and "legit historians"

Attached: Torky.jpg (2827x4134, 5.73M)

You're right, but I think a historical record that takes into account the bodyguard's testimony alongside a variety of other sources is more valuable than just that testimony and nothing else

Ummm…I've read all of Furr's books available in English except his newest one and there are literally hundreds of primary sources in each book. The print version of "Bloodlies'' has hundreds of pages of source material alone.

One of the current heroes of Marxism-Leninism