he had that big dick/mass murderer vibe
Stalin Biographies
Christian Gonzalez
Elijah Baker
Kotkin's kind of funny, because I think he takes the opposite tactic that other anti-communist historians do when it comes to the socialist states and Stalin. The typical approach for decades was to assume that they were disingenuous, something approximating the Nazi belief that bolshevism was actually a jewish plot. So Stalin didn't believe in communism, he just used it to build power. This can kind of serve as a warning, communism is all a lie and you can't trust anybody in power, which is why we need capitalism, individualism, and a weak state (except when it comes to the military and police)!
But Kotkin reaches his anti-communism by saying no, Stalin was an authentic communist, and so were many of the other revolutionary leaders at that time. They all believed in it strongly, and they frequently acted based on ideological goals to spread revolution or defend the ground it had gained. Of course, Kotkin points to Stalin's response during the internal party debate about whether or not collectivization would be too difficult to carry out of (paraphrasing) "Why did we have a revolution if we aren't going to be communists?" To Kotkin, the fact that Stalin carried out atrocities in the name of real communism is exactly why communism is bad, because any tragedies to Stalin's name can truly be said to be tragedies of communist ideology.
Which is why Kotkin is a good writer about Stalin. He puts some charged words in here and there, passes some judgement, but overall he is very honest about Stalin because he wants you to know that he wasn't a cartoonish sadist, and that he usually had a justification for how whatever he was doing served the interests of Soviet and global communism.
Justin Long
Yeah this. I would add that unlike other anti-communist historians, Kotkin doesn't deploy Trotsky's critiques either. So there's an interesting situation where anti-communist and communists can read his books and take different conclusions from them.
Personally, I think Stalin presents some problems for communists and I agree with Kotkin that the atrocities were carried out in the name of real communism and so on. But I also see Stalin as this Robespierre-like figure. See, from that, anyone who can rub a few brain cells together can see that saying that communism = Stalin doesn't really tell you much; it'd be like saying liberal republics = Robespierre. It happens to be true but it's also just not that interesting. There are not many people these days losing sleep over how they're going to deal with the "Robespierre question" or what that means for liberal democracy.
Kayden Brooks
I cringe so hard everytime Kotkin talks about how communists don't care about "freedom", but generally Kotkin is the greatest non communist commentator on communism.
Mason Diaz
there's also Sheila Fitzpatrick who seems pretty honest and dispassionate to me
Hunter Fisher
Cucked tier
"Nuance" tier
☭ტანკერი☭
Pub Quiz tier
Think these are probably the names you'll mostly encounter around the discussion.
Ayden Reed
ftfy
Tyler Sanchez
Conquest is liar, he is author of the "muh bajilions killed by Stalin himself" and even he lowered the number of victims at least twice during his life.
Montefiore is popular thanks to myth of "2 million german women raped by Red army".
Both retards.
Austin Reyes
Wasn't it just nazi propaganda that popularized the myth?
Levi Thompson
Ludo Martens