Khrushchev Lied But What Is the Truth? - Roger Keeran on Grover Furr.

[ambition_def]

I'm posting this here for any and all interested or learned in Soviet History. As a relative novice in the history itself I do find it interesting and would like to present something I've read tonight regarding a more recent interpretation.

Grover Furr is a professor at Montclair State University. He specializes in medieval English literature. In 2011 a book he wrote was published. This book covers some rather extensive criticisms of Nikita Krushchev's famous 1956 speech before the 20th congress of the Soviet Union in an effort to reduce repression within the Soviet state. This followed his election victory. In his speech, Krushchev denounced Stalin's methods while simultaneously blaming Stalin for all the horrors of the government during the period. Furr posits that Krushschev not only painted Stalin as an autonomous tyrant but also maintains Stalin's innocence.

A counter criticism is offered here which I find to be quite good. The author of this criticism is Roger Keeran who is a policies coordinator at the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies. He is also a commie with the CPUSA to my knowledge.

I found this to be a great read so I'm posting it for you to read here.

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/boo...ruth-1246.html

[Lady Bastille]

I'm posting this here for any and all interested or learned in Soviet History. As a relative novice in the history itself I do find it interesting and would like to present something I've read tonight regarding a more recent interpretation.

Grover Furr is a professor at Montclair State University. He specializes in medieval English literature. In 2011 a book he wrote was published. This book covers some rather extensive criticisms of Nikita Krushchev's famous 1956 speech before the 20th congress of the Soviet Union in an effort to reduce repression within the Soviet state. This followed his election victory. In his speech, Krushchev denounced Stalin's methods while simultaneously blaming Stalin for all the horrors of the government during the period. Furr posits that Krushschev not only painted Stalin as an autonomous tyrant but also maintains Stalin's innocence.

A counter criticism is offered here which I find to be quite good. The author of this criticism is Roger Keeran who is a policies coordinator at the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies. He is also a commie with the CPUSA to my knowledge.

I found this to be a great read so I'm posting it for you to read here.

http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/boo...ruth-1246.html

Yes, I have heard of Mr. Furr and believe it or not - he is right. He DOES use primary resources. However, I'm willing to bet the counter-criticism simply is the typical "anti-Stalin" stuff that is popular in the West. Unfortunately for him, the evidence is not on his side.

Stalin is widely talked about in Russia, and he isn't condemned. Rather, he was the one to save the USSR from total collapse and without him, the war would not have been won. It seems Mr. Keeran never looked at the Soviet Archives himself, as other authors condemning Stalin have. As a matter of fact I have these links here:

http://alexander-slavros.deviantart....ions-228394483

And:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2008/Holmstrom.pdf

The former is written by a Russian born in the USSR who is very anti-liberal. The second debunks widely held myths. I'll tell you now that I myself am widely interested in the USSR's history. It is entirely defamed here in the West and I find that tragic. Besides, if Stalin was so evil, why do the Russians hold him in high regard, and why didn't they remove him from office?

[Coon Tasty]

Besides, if Stalin was so evil, why do the Russians hold him in high regard, and why didn't they remove him from office?

You clearly do not understand how a Personality Cult works.

[Lady Bastille]

You clearly do not understand how a Personality Cult works.

Weird how his adopted son had so many nice things to say.

Russians aren't stupid. They're not fooled easily. You can't fool people all of the time. The history behind Stalin is muddled. Most of the genocide stories were created after his death, by Khrushchev, or were done by methods the Soviets did not use. That was a personality cult.

Unfortunately you got the Western view of the USSR's history. I suggest looking at the sources provided here. I, too, thought he was a maniac, but he's nowhere near people like Nelson Mandela.

[CT NIGHAVEN]

Stalin was a very dark and powerful figure. There's little doubt that the rise of Nazi Germany made it absolutely essential for Russia to transform from an agricultural nation to an industrial nation, practically overnight. the question is, did the ends justify the means? Was it necessary for millions of innocent people to be tortured into forced confessions, and either executed or condemned to the sheer horror of the Gulag system in order to achieve those ends? Collectivist/Marxist ideology brought human suffering and misery to a level never before seen in human history. Was it any better than what the Nazis may have had in store for the Russian people? The tomes that have accumulated on my sagging bookcase shelves have brought me to the conclusion that the means were the ends, and the ends were in fact, the means. The power to impose your will on an entire, massive population was the foremost motivating factor, not nationalism, not greed, not fairness, but POWER, merely for the sake of power.

[CT NIGHAVEN]

I, too, thought he was a maniac, but he's nowhere near people like Nelson Mandela.

Now, I've got to call you out on that one, Luftwaffle. Nelson Mandela is not a 'people', it's a nigger.

[Lady Bastille]

Stalin was a very dark and powerful figure. There's little doubt that the rise of Nazi Germany made it absolutely essential for Russia to transform from an agricultural nation to an industrial nation, practically overnight. the question is, did the ends justify the means? Was it necessary for millions of innocent people to be tortured into forced confessions, and either executed or condemned to the sheer horror of the Gulag system in order to achieve those ends? Collectivist/Marxist ideology brought human suffering and misery to a level never before seen in human history. Was it any better than what the Nazis may have had in store for the Russian people? The tomes that have accumulated on my sagging bookcase shelves have brought me to the conclusion that the means were the ends, and the ends were in fact, the means. The power to impose your will on an entire, massive population was the foremost motivating factor, not nationalism, not greed, not fairness, but POWER, merely for the sake of power.

If I may,

It was Buharin, not Stalin, responsible for the deaths. It was not millions, but approx. 640,000, and THIS is recorded. As for the Gulag, it is Russian for correctional facility. It is said that Stalin sent people to the Gulag, instead of shooting them on the spot, and these people were traitors, murderers, what have you.

Thousands, not millions were victims, courtesy of Trotsky's acolytes. They are the scumbags. Stalin would actually disapprove of Obama's "socialism". He is a very dark figure, but the personal testimony by his own adopted son would surprise a lot of people. Stalin's bad rep came form Trotsky, and that man WAS a Marxist fucker. He called his own people, the white Russians, niggers. That, to me, is outright human bashing. Solzhenitsyn said the same thing.

Solzhenitsyn survived the Gulag, and many German POWs wrote books on the Gulag, admitting it was better than their own prisons.

There's a saying: "To read too many books is a bad thing." In this case, the books written on the USSR are a thing of mystery, as very few people ventured there. I've read that some scientists who opposed the "consensus" that is ruining science fled to the USSR and had their theories accepted.

Stalin's theory said that you can't force people together, the opposite of multiculturalism. He wanted the identity of Russia to remain, as well as keep the other socialist states have their own identities. The primary evidence proves that Khrushchev was the one to ruin the image of Russia and her sister states, and that he was the one to give the Marxist ideology a bad name. That said, Marx never considered human emotion, and he himself hated niggers.

[Lady Bastille]

Now, I've got to call you out on that one, Luftwaffle. Nelson Mandela is not a 'people', it's a nigger.

You're right. I must've been thinking too heavily on the USSR, hehe.

[Lady Bastille]

@ CT I've mentioned the population/Gulag thing before. There are official Gulag documents from the archives that show how many were put in and how many died. Surprisingly, the prisoners were given holidays, and many of them did live. Unlike American prisons, the Gulag said: "You did a crime. Now work for them, instead of sitting on your lazy ass all day."

When it comes to the Nazi/Soviet thing, you got finger pointing on either side, that's for sure. But the Russians always had a habit of respecting the enemy, and treated the German POWs fairly well. However, the Nazis (not all, mind you) hated the Russians more than the Jews, and subjected them to conditions that are unspeakable.

When it comes to the "20-30-40-60 million killed" thing, it changes every time, so that should already raise some red flags. A lot of innocent people died, yes, but not by Stalin. Churchill had some nice things to say about him, as did FDR.

Stalin himself loved reading, and he had his own criticisms of Marxism. That said, Cultural Marxism, not the original Marxism, is the scourge. No question about that.

Ambition_def has some nice sources worth checking out. Mr. Furr has also spoken with Russian historians that are known for telling the truth.

But as a bonus point, both Stalin and Che Guevara -a Stalinist - weren't fond of niggers. So we can't entirely hate them for that ;)

[CT NIGHAVEN]

@ CT I've mentioned the population/Gulag thing before. There are official Gulag documents from the archives that show how many were put in and how many died. Surprisingly, the prisoners were given holidays, and many of them did live. Unlike American prisons, the Gulag said: "You did a crime. Now work for them, instead of sitting on your lazy ass all day."

When it comes to the Nazi/Soviet thing, you got finger pointing on either side, that's for sure. But the Russians always had a habit of respecting the enemy, and treated the German POWs fairly well. However, the Nazis (not all, mind you) hated the Russians more than the Jews, and subjected them to conditions that are unspeakable.

When it comes to the "20-30-40-60 million killed" thing, it changes every time, so that should already raise some red flags. A lot of innocent people died, yes, but not by Stalin. Churchill had some nice things to say about him, as did FDR.

Stalin himself loved reading, and he had his own criticisms of Marxism. That said, Cultural Marxism, not the original Marxism, is the scourge. No question about that.

Ambition_def has some nice sources worth checking out. Mr. Furr has also spoken with Russian historians that are known for telling the truth.

But as a bonus point, both Stalin and Che Guevara -a Stalinist - weren't fond of niggers. So we can't entirely hate them for that ;)

Living conditions varied from one Gulag to the other, and from one period of time to the next. Skilled labor was in high demand, and those with the most valuable skills would typically wind up in more comfortable accomodations. Unskilled labor was more expendable, and was treated as such. Food rations were often based on unrealistic work quotas. The less work you got done, the less food you got. The less food you got, the weaker you became. The weaker you became, the less work you got done. So once you got behind the eight ball, you were basically walking dead. Political prisoners were treated much more harshly than common criminals, and were, by and large, innocent of any crimes at all. While estimates vary greatly among historians (many self-serving) the general consensus is that upwards of 25,000,000 lives were flushed down the Gulag system. No matter how much one tries to sugar-coat it, those who lived did so because they were allowed to.