Furr is a nutjob and Kotkin is a hack.
If you want to study real historical work on the Stalin era, read books by J. Arch Getty and R.W. Davies. E.H. Carr is probably good, but I haven't read his work. The above authors not only cite sources for their work but also provide huge amounts of data and statistical info to back up their views. Kotkin cites huge numbers of sources but gives no indication he has actually read them.
You can find a review of Kotkin's work here:
wsws.org
I haven't read Furr yet, but so far the only attacks on him and his opinions are never given any substance. They're just "he's a historical revisionist" "he's a hack" "he's a nut job" "his claims are absurd" but nobody ever says how so. This gives me more incentive to read his works in a more open minded light than anything. At the very least, every time Furr advocates shill him, they at least reference the fact that he combs every claim and tries to find sources as close to primary as possible. The wikipedia page on him, for example, says critics claim he's a "historical revisionist" with nothing to back it up. But if history is recorded incorrectly, then obviously it must be revised.
Grover Furr's function is to act more like a lawyer. If the Makarov doesn't fit, you must acquit and they never proved Stalin shot those people (he most definitely shot those people though)
His biggest problem is uncritically accepting that the Moscow Trial "confessions" were legitimate. Leaving aside the inherent absurdity of lifelong revolutionary leaders supposedly joining Hitler to "reintroduce capitalism", there is ample historical evidence refuting them - alleged meetings with Trotsky when he was actually in another country, etc.
Well, let's see. Grover Furr's claim to fame is stating that Stalin literally did nothing wrong and that the people arrested and shot during the Great Purge were all guilty (even when the people doing the arresting were secretly trying to kill innocent people to discredit the regime.) Like the other user says, he uses confessions as part of the evidence even though it's obvious that some of these confessions make zero sense. Furr goes to any extreme to exculpate Stalin that he builds vast conspiracy theories that men like Nikolai Yezhov (head of the NKVD) were actually working against Stalin by arresting and executing large numbers of people! Wouldn't it have been easier to just kill Stalin himself rather than try to discredit the regime by doing a bad job?
You need to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. The idea that Furr "combs every claim" and studies critically every source is just an opinion. My opinion is that Furr does exactly what FinnishBolshevik does - which is to comb evidence to find exactly what he wants and then build an argument around that, while ignoring anything that contradicts said evidence.
Shouldn't it be self-evident that he's a historical revisionist when he claims that everyone except Stalin was a liar and a criminal? He says that Khrushchev lied, Trotsky lied, those around Stalin lied, other historians have lied… Grover Furr's entire strategy is character assassination. Even people like Keeran have criticized Furr for being so one-sided he loses track of the truth.
All people that Furr refers to in his books.
That's bullshit. The refutation you're mentioning is ignoring the use of couriers between Trotsky and others. Moreover there IS evidence of them being honest. Hell there is evidence of actual repentance by some members.
That's a gross exaggeration if I've ever heard one. Not to mention that the Great Purge was neither started by Stalin nor controlled by him. it's like saying President Eisenhower was directly responsible for the McCarthy Trials.
Yes and they were caught and put on trial for that, and moreover many people who were framed were pardoned, such as General Rokossovsky. However the revision and amendment and pardoning of all falsely accused requires a thorough investigation into each individual. That's nearly a million people to check of which most were NOT in fact innocent. They started this process in 1939 and was interrupted by the war, and was picked up afterwards.
Except that its confirmed by people like J.Arch Getty
Because Stalin was the figure of the USSR, you think him being killed randomly when nothing was in place would result in Yezhov getting into power?
Except that people have tried and failed to give him anything more than a nit-pick reply to his arguments. You can claim
Another exaggeration.
Because he did. This is confirmed by other historians than Furr.
Among other things like slander. His book on Stalin is a pretty good demonstration of that.
And they have, or was Bloodlands and its Holodomor rubbish written by a non-historian?
His critiques are shallow and beat around the bush just like you.
If you have so many grievances. Write up a nice essay on it and email Furr. His email is public and he has replied to criticism before.
Thanks for at least saying something other than "No, Grover Furr a dum dum and wrongbad."
In what universe would you equate Dwight Eisenhower with Joseph Stalin? Eisenhower was not a dictator. He did not enjoy a massive cult of personality. He had not presided over the arrest and execution of virtually all old members of his party. Please try to engage with reality.
lmao, so Stalin & co. were fine with people being rounded up en masse for two years before finally putting a stop to the terror but later they didn't have time to rehabilitate everyone because THEY WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT PROPER PROCEDURE.
"people like Getty" - what people would these be? Because I can assure you that Getty doesn't believe Yezhov was part of a giant conspiracy working on behalf of Polish landlords, English capitalists, German fascists, etc.
According to Furr's conspiracy theory Yezhov's goal may not have been to take power at all but rather to help the Germans take power via coup d'etat. If you want the logic explained, you'll have to ask Grover Furr…
Grover Furr's arguments consist almost entirely of nitpicking, moving goalposts, and whataboutisms.
Grover Furr has stated, and I quote:
"Today, we know that Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s men were lying in virtually everything they wrote about Stalin."
When Keeran called him out on his bullshit, Furr responded:
"But there is an even greater distortion in Keeran’s words here, for he claims that my study is “a strained effort to argue that every Khrushchev allegation was simply a lie. ” This is more than just false. It is what every anticommunist accuses me of…"
So which is it? Does Furr think that Khrushchev lied about "virtually everything" or not? His response to Keeran is precisely to nitpick and move goalposts. He even equates Keeran with anti-communists, lmao. Are we beginning to see a pattern?
Maybe I'll send him some pamphlets on mental health resources.
Look at Grover Furr's "rejoinder to Roger Keeran":