BBC Radio 4 - But They Are Only Russians

[The Idler]

BBC Radio 4 programme


But They Are Only Russians (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0196tyf)



Truth-tellers and cover-up artists: John Sweeney takes a classic example from Stalin's great famine of the 1930s which killed up to 10 million peasants, with a famous and feted journalist Walter Duranty reporting in the New York Times that there was no famine and very few deaths, and ridiculing another journalist, Gareth Jones (once David Lloyd George's private secretary), who had defied a state ban to go and see the suffering for himself, and reported the horrible truth. Duranty later won a Pulitzer; Jones was killed in China in mysterious circumstances.
In 'But They Are Only Russians' - a dismissive phrase used by Duranty when admitting privately to western officials that thousands were dying - John Sweeney investigates the truth-tellers and the cover-up artists, their motivation, their fate, and why it is that the public always finds it easier to believe in a fantasy rather than a reality.
Sweeney has been to Ukraine, following in the footsteps of Jones, and meeting a few aged famine survivors, who tell him of desperate hunger driving many to cannibalism. He visits and reports from Stalin's villa and one of his gulags, and observes that in Vladimir Putin's Russia, where only 'positive history' is promoted, Stalin is being rehabilitated and school-books reducing the history of the famine to half a page.
He talks to Doris Lessing, who confesses to having been duped into promoting Stalin's vision of society, and he hears how politically naive many celebrities of the time proved to be. As were intellectuals. Or useful idiots, as Lenin called them - who ignored or accepted, sometimes promoted, tyrannies and tyrants. He meets Gareth Jones' niece and Walter Duranty's biographer.
Sweeney brings the story up to date, by noting that some current world leaders act abominably or dubiously, even if not on Stalin's scale, and what they do is reported by the Durantys and the Jones - cover-up artists and truth-tellers.

[Rafiq]

Cool Liberalism, bro.

And the part about the textbooks is golden. Did you know that in my text book, there is not even half a page mentioning the massacre of the native americans? Did you know, that it doesn't even bother to mention all of the intentional(unlike the famine) U.S. massacres against the people's of other countries? And when it does, it justifies them? If anything, those Russian text books are a lot more legitiment than ones in the United States(and the UK), which don't even bother to mention the horrendous crimes committed by it's founders.

You're sick, and pathetic, Idler. You actually think that BBC radio is a legitiment source for criticizing Stalin? Bourgeois-Idealist shit is what it is. I take it you're just trying to start some kind of a shit storm, honestly.

[PhoenixAsh]

warning for this thread:

No flaming. Keep it civil no matter how stupid or idiotic a post may seem to you.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, I seem to have contradictory "thank-yous" going on here, but I'll agree first with Rafiq that Western genocide -- particularly of the Native Americans and Cold War populations -- is *severely* underreported, and is ongoing, especially in comparison to the anti-USSR finger-pointing that displaces attention from the crimes of neoliberalism / imperialist globalization.

But I'm not an apologist for Stalinism, either, and even if much of the criticism leveled at the former Soviet Union comes from even-more-guilty Western establishment types, facts are facts and we shouldn't excuse Stalin, et al, for committing atrocious crimes while consolidating power and *not* turning over full control of the country to the workers themselves.

[Rafiq]

They said the famine killed 10 million people... Wtf?

[Invader Zim]

Cool Liberalism, bro.

And the part about the textbooks is golden. Did you know that in my text book, there is not even half a page mentioning the massacre of the native americans? Did you know, that it doesn't even bother to mention all of the intentional(unlike the famine) U.S. massacres against the people's of other countries? And when it does, it justifies them? If anything, those Russian text books are a lot more legitiment than ones in the United States(and the UK), which don't even bother to mention the horrendous crimes committed by it's founders.

You're sick, and pathetic, Idler. You actually think that BBC radio is a legitiment source for criticizing Stalin? Bourgeois-Idealist shit is what it is. I take it you're just trying to start some kind of a shit storm, honestly.

What does a radio program on the famine under the Stalinist regime have to do with 'liberalism'? Do you actually understand the term or is it being used as perjorative because you think it sounds appropriate?


If anything, those Russian text books are a lot more legitiment than ones in the United States(and the UK), which don't even bother to mention the horrendous crimes committed by it's founders.

Given that you manifestly have not read any history books, period, what basis do you have to make that comparison?

[Invader Zim]

They said the famine killed 10 million people... Wtf?


Which is on the high end but still within the scholarly historical estimates.

[manic expression]

Are they still throwing around Conquest's lies? Not surprising in the least. Of course they'll likely tip-toe around the role of the kulaks, but once again, no surprises from the "Lying about Socialism is Fun and Easy" crowd.

[manic expression]

Which is on the high end but still within the scholarly historical estimates.
:laugh: The Black Book of Communism, probably the gold standard of anti-socialist slander, puts it at 6 million. Conquest puts it at 7. But the important thing is that double figures makes for a better advertisement, wouldn't you agree?

[Nox]

Hey - I'm not complaining. Normally people say he killed 30 million.

[Omsk]

Given that you manifestly have not read any history books, period, what basis do you have to make that comparison?


He was talking about school books,(elementary,high school?) i guess.

[danyboy27]

I think the biggest mistake is to think that Stalin killed all those people, has if he was always working alone all this time, has if there was nobody but stalin involved in all this.

In the circumstances in wich the soviet state was created, attrocities where bound to happen. That does not mean it was okay, but it help us to understand that the social and material condition deeply affect the creation and expension of a political and economical system.

[Invader Zim]

:laugh: The Black Book of Communism, probably the gold standard of anti-socialist slander, puts it at 6 million. Conquest puts it at 7. But the important thing is that double figures makes for a better advertisement, wouldn't you agree?

Only a person utterly ignorant of the historiography would cite the work of Courtois and his contributors as the gold standard of criticism against 'socialism' or even the Stalinist regime. Perhaps you should try acquinting yourself with the literature? Just a thought.

And Ellman put it at 8.5 million and that Rummel placed famine deaths during the 1930s at over 15 million, what is your point? That there are multiple estimates and 10 million is at the upper end of that scale? You know I could have sworn that is what I said in the first place... yep, it was. So again, what is your point?

PS. As for 'slander', what you actually mean is 'libel' or the broader 'defamation'.

[manic expression]

Only a person utterly ignorant of the historiography would cite the work of Courtois and his contributors as the gold standard of criticism against 'socialism' or even the Stalinist regime. Perhaps you should try acquinting yourself with the literature? Just a thought.

And Ellman put it at 8.5 million and that Rummel placed famine deaths during the 1930s at over 15 million, what is your point? That there are multiple estimates and 10 million is at the upper end of that scale? You know I could have sworn that is what I said in the first place... yep, it was.
Rummel is a shill for bourgeois "democracy". Ellman is in economics, not history.

So if what you said in the first place is based on their "findings", findings that out-anti-socialist the "Black Book", then yeah, what I said after what you said in the first place is what stands now.


PS. As for 'slander', what you actually mean is 'libel' or the broader 'defamation'.What about when it's said on the radio.

[rednordman]

I'm actually surprised that the BBC have decided to broadcast something like this. I think the most annoying thing about it is the whole 'communists know fuck all, and us capitalists where always right' tone that it is blatantly going to take. You know the one.."if you ever went to the soviet union you would all of a sudden see 'the truth' and lose your socialist beliefs and become ass-wiping conservative brown-nose' (if that makes any sense)...Liberals indeed.

[smk]

BBC Radio 4 programme


But They Are Only Russians (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0196tyf)

fascinating. :thumbup1:

[Invader Zim]

Rummel is a shill for bourgeois "democracy".

And what if I said that you are a shill for ultra-reactionary regimes so why trust anything you say? As you may note valueless ad hominem perjoratives don't help the debate. In fact all it does is shut down debate. The fact is there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Rummel's figures, such as the fact that he did no original research of his own and relied entirely on the figures and research of others which was largely produced prior to the opening of the Soviet archives, however cheap perjorative and vapid posturing isn't among them.


Ellman is in economics, not history.


You think that history is divorced from economics? Really? If so you are contradicting the basic tenets of Marxism. The fact is there is no reason why an economist studying the economics of a historical phenomenon cannot make worthy contributions to the historical literature. History and historians do not exist in a scholarly vaccum.



So if what you said in the first place is based on their "findings",

What I said earlier is that there is a scale of estimates ranging from relatively low to relatively high, and the figure being used by the BBC is within the upper bands of that scale. It is not a value judgement on any individual researchers findings.


findings that out-anti-socialist the "Black Book", then yeah, what I said after what you said in the first place is what stands now.

Except, of course, even if I were passing a value judgement labelling a historian as being 'anti-socialist' is not a rebuttle of their findings. In fact it is nothing more than a transparent red herring to evade addressing them.

[Yuppie Grinder]

10 million is maybe the smallest estimate I've heard from someone who wasn't a M-L. Normally people tell me 30 million.

[manic expression]

And what if I said that you are a shill for ultra-reactionary regimes so why trust anything you say?
Then you'd be incorrect, I don't support any reactionary regimes.


As you may note valueless ad hominem perjoratives don't help the debate. In fact all it does is shut down debate. The fact is there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Rummel's figures, such as the fact that he did no original research of his own and relied entirely on the figures and research of others which was largely produced prior to the opening of the Soviet archives, however cheap perjorative and vapid posturing isn't among them.It's not ad hominem when his political assumptions and their resulting conclusions are in question.


You think that history is divorced from economics? Really? If so you are contradicting the basic tenets of Marxism. The fact is there is no reason why an economist studying the economics of a historical phenomenon cannot make worthy contributions to the historical literature. History and historians do not exist in a scholarly vaccum.I don't think history is divorced from science, either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe whatever a zoologist says about the French Revolution.


What I said earlier is that there is a scale of estimates ranging from relatively low to relatively high, and the figure being used by the BBC is within the upper bands of that scale. It is not a value judgement on any individual researchers findings.The problem is that the "relatively high" estimates have no merit...they're so inexplicably absurd that they outdo the "Black Book" in their attempts to falsify the history of the Soviet Union.


Except, of course, even if I were passing a value judgement labelling a historian as being 'anti-socialist' is not a rebuttle of their findings. In fact it is nothing more than a transparent red herring to evade addressing them.I'm simply calling a spade a spade. "Historians" who have a declared interest in promoting bourgeois society (and, apparently, don't do any of their own research, relying on the figures of already-debunked writers) shouldn't be taken seriously. The only reason they are taken seriously is because they support the perversely hypocritical claims of the defenders of capitalism.

[Invader Zim]

Then you'd be incorrect, I don't support any reactionary regimes.

I think you missed my point.


It's not ad hominem when his political assumptions and their resulting conclusions are in question.

No, it is an ad hominem, because you are attacking his person as opposed to his argument, which you have entirely ignored. Furthermore, you have provided no evidence to show that his politics have determined the outcome of his research. And again, it isn't like there aren't plenty of valid reasons to question Rummel's work.


I don't think history is divorced from science, either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe whatever a zoologist says about the French Revolution.

A remarkably poor comarison, unless of course you are indeed attempting to divorse the economics of historical communities from history generally. The fact is Ellman has been published in more historical journals, been engaged in more serious debates within academic history and provided a greater contribution to the field of Soviet history than you or I are ever likely to provide. While you may choose to dismiss him based on the assumption that an economist who has published detailed studies on soviet agriculture during the 1930s cannot provide legitimate commentary on a famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, nobody else makes that assumption.

I would take your point if Ellman were not an acredited, published expert in the field of soviet agricultural economic history, but he is. For example, I have seen no reason to take anything Grover Furr has written on Soviet history seriously, because Furr is an expert not in that topic but in medieval humanist literature. he is moonlighting as a historian of the Soviet Union and his work has been roundly slated by those in the field who have actually bothjered to review his work. The same can be said of Clement Leibovitz, an expert in relativity and cosmology, but not British appeasement policy in the 1930s, and for that reason his work was also seriously problematic. But the main issue is that their work does not stand up to peer-review, not because of who wrote it but because of the lack of quality of the research. ANd there is a vast difference between that and an economist who is an expert in the economic history of the soviet union providing a study of the agricultural economics of the Soviet Union in the 1930s. His conclusions may well be open to debate, but not because he is an economist passing comment on a field of economic history in which he is an accredited expert. That would be foolish.

If the BBC program is to be criticised, it should not be because it picked a figure from within the scale of estimates, but because it did so without pointing out that there is a scale. Their crime, it appears, is one of of ommission not inclusion.


The problem is that the "relatively high" estimates have no merit

Well, so you say. But I can read Ellman's in a wide variety of peer-reviewed academic journals and monographs, just as I can read those from the lower end of the scale in similarly presigious titles. Furthermore the debate is still ongoing within academic circles, the fact that you think that one side of the argument has no merit is of little consequence and suggests to me that you need to keep abrest with modern Soviet studies.


they're so inexplicably absurd that they outdo the "Black Book" in their attempts to falsify the history of the Soviet Union.

You say they are absurd, but you provide no basis for that assertion. In fact you provide no reason to even believe that you have read any of these studies, absurd or otherwise.


"Historians" who have a declared interest in promoting bourgeois society (and, apparently, don't do any of their own research, relying on the figures of already-debunked writers) shouldn't be taken seriously.

That argument doesn't work, because not only does it go both ways but it is also manifestly untrue. Everybody has a bias, what is important is the quality of research and whether that can stand on its merits. In my view Rummel's cannot, because of specific methodology he applied to perform his survey. He relied on material without confirming, clarifying or contextualising it with archival research of his own, and more over the bulk of the material available to him was produced prior to historians gaining access to the relevent archives. That is a legitimate critique of the work, attacking the author is not. Just because a person holds bias does not mean that there research is automatically without merit and it is a fallacy to argue otherwise. There have been plenty of Marxist historians who have been taken seriously by even the most politically conservative historians because their research demanded it, and vise versa. While G. R. Elton was an arch reactionary it is hard to imagine any work, regardless of the politics of the author, who would not have to address it. Similarly, even the most evangelical rightwing historians of 18th century religion would have to deal with E. P. Thompson. In short dismissing a work out of hand because you don't like who wrote it is without merit.

[manic expression]

I think you have missed the point.
Then perhaps you can better illustrate it.


No, it is an ad hominem, because you are attacking his person as opposed to his argument, which you have entirely ignored. Furthermore, you have provided no evidence to show that his politics have determined the outcome of his research. And again, it isn't like there aren't plenty of valid reasons to question Rummel's work.Wrong, I am attacking his position in support of capitalist politics. I would prefer it if you didn't try to misrepresent my words.


A remarkably poor comarison, unless of course you are indeed attempting to divorse the economics of historical communities from history generally. The fact is Ellman has been published in more historical journals, been engaged in more serious debates within academic history and provided a greater contribution to the field of Soviet history than you or I are ever likely to provide. While you may choose to dismiss him based on the assumption that an economist who has published detailed studies on soviet agriculture during the 1930s cannot provide legitimate commentary on a famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, nobody else makes that assumption.I didn't change the standards of your claim, and thus it's a perfectly good comparison.

And as for serious debates within academic history, Conquest and and even someone like Robert Service has done the same, so in any progressives' book that counts for just about nothing. Essentially the only requirement for admission into those debates is that you cite anti-Soviet writers and say mean things about Stalin...so yeah, not much to brag about. When the well is filled with crazy juice, don't be surprised if I'm not impressed when someone drinks out of it.


I would take your point if Ellman were not an acredited, published expert in the field of soviet agricultural economic history, but he is.Conquest is an accredited, published "expert" and yet his history isn't history.


Well, so you say. But I can read Ellman's in a wide variety of peer-reviewed academic journals and monographs, just as I can read those from the lower end of the scale in similarly presigious titles. Furthermore the debate is still ongoing within academic circles, the fact that you think that one side of the argument has no merit is of little consequence and suggests to me that you need to keep abrest with modern Soviet studies.I think one side of the argument has a declared intention (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM) of making the USSR look bad and making capitalism look good, which is coincidentally true. Further, I think one side of the argument basis its claims on pathetic non-histories that have long since been debunked by more serious historians. Lastly, I think that one side of the argument is only given the time of day by anyone because they are useful to the purposes of the ruling class.

Not one of these points has been challenged by you, and there's a good reason for that.


You say they are absurd, but you provide no basis for that assertion. In fact you provide no reason to even believe that you have read any of these studies, absurd or otherwise.Conquest already went back and tried to revise his work...needless to say he thought it absurd enough to change.


That argument doesn't work, because not only does it go both ways but it is also manifestly untrue. Everybody has a bias, what is important is the quality of research and whether that can stand on its merits. In my view Rummel's cannot, because of specific methodology he applied to perform his survey. He relied on material without confirming, clarifying or contextualising it with archival research of his own, and more over the bulk of the material available to him was produced prior to historians gaining access to the relevent archives. That is a legitimate critique of the work, attacking the author is not. Just because a person holds bias does not mean that there research is automatically without merit and it is a fallacy to argue otherwise. There have been plenty of Marxist historians who have been taken seriously by even the most politically conservative historians because their research demanded it, and vise versa. While G. R. Elton was an arch reactionary it is hard to imagine any work, regardless of the politics of the author, who would not have to address it. Similarly, even the most evangelical rightwing historians of 18th century religion would have to deal with E. P. Thompson. In short dismissing a work out of hand because you don't like who wrote it is without merit.And once again, I'm not attacking the author, only his clearly stated intention of defending capitalist society.

Let's do some primary research right now: where did I attack Rudolph Rummel as a person? I said he was a shill for capitalism, which is precisely what his works suggest. Like I said, I'm calling a spade a spade: when an historian sets out with a political assumption firmly in hand and then relies on bad history that's already been shown to be wrong, then yes, I can dismiss his work, because it has no merit.

Again, you haven't challenged this basic point.

[Invader Zim]

Then perhaps you can better illustrate it.

I was pointng out that perjorative is not a substitute for argument.


Wrong, I am attacking his position in support of capitalist politics. I would prefer it if you didn't try to misrepresent my words.

That still doesn't attack his poistion. That attacks his politics, until you can show that his poisition on Soviet Russia is mistaken because of his politics, and not because of the far more obvious and pressing problems such as reliance on out of research, your point is irrelevent. Correleation does not equate causation. Just because he defends capital does not mean that his work is wrong, of if it is wrong, is wrong for that reason, post hoc ergo propter hoc is fallicious.


I didn't change the standards of your claim, and thus it's a perfectly good comparison.

I claimed that a widely published expert on soviet agricultural economics can be considered a legitimate authority on a famine in Soviet Russia during the 1930s. You have provided no reason to assume otherwise. In fact your assertion that he shouldn't be taken seriously because his title is 'economist' as opposed to 'historian', even though the two are light years away from being mutually excusive, suggests to me that you are just arguing for the sake of argument. If I said the sky was blue you would contradict me at the moment.

And no, a zoologist is not comparable to a economist (who specialises in historical communities) in terms of disiplinary proximity. Only a fool would argue that the gap between economics and history is just as wide as the gap between history and the scientific enquiry into, say, woodland ecology. Manifestly history and economics are part and parcel study into human interaction and society and thus have a considerable degree of overlap. The same point can be made of historical human geography and history.


And as for serious debates within academic history, Conquest and and even someone like Robert Service has done the same, so in any progressives' book that counts for just about nothing.

So what you are saying is that 'progressives' should ration their historical secondary literature only to the ideologically pure?

As for Conquest, you would do well to read him before discounting him. While his work is now out of date, and he has stubbornly refused to accept that fact, the work of Getty, etc. is no more or less cold hard fact. The fact is Getty, for example, is just as guilty of discounting evidence as Conquest is now. Neither can be accepted as the 'truth', it is not as if we are even capable of discovering.


Essentially the only requirement for admission into those debates is that you cite anti-Soviet writers and say mean things about Stalin...

Really? Well, why don't you submitt an essay bad mouthing Stalin into a single narrative and then send it to Europe-Asia studies and see how far you get?

I'll let you into a little fact, it isn't easy getting published into a peer-reviewed journal - you actually have to do some research, inconvinient though that maybe. Until you've tried yourself then really your opinion is valueless. And I am talking from experience.


Conquest already went back and tried to revise his work...needless to say he thought it absurd enough to change.

While Conquest certainly revisited his work on the purges, you are wrong in thinking he altered his primary conclusions (which, for the record, I do not find convinsing in the light of more recent scholarship), instead he (or one oe of his friends, I can't remember which) famously quipped that the new edition of the book should be entitled I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.


And once again, I'm not attacking the author[/QUOT]

Well... yeah.. you are. You ignored any argument he, Conquest, Service or anybody else may have made, and instead discounted their conclusions because you find their politics, which an aspect of their personality, objectionable. That is attacking the author. Like I said, there is plenty of legitimate scope for attacking the conclusions of these individuals. Their politics are irrelevent to that, and their politics do not necessarily imply that they are incapable of producing and honest and compelling contribution to the histography. As noted, for that same reason, extremely reactionary historians also had to accept the work of Hill, Hobsbawm, Thompson, Hilton, Rapha Samuels, etc.

[QUOTE=ME]
Let's do some primary research right now: where did I attack Rudolph Rummel as a person? I said he was a shill for capitalism

Actually you said he was a 'shill for bourgeois "democracy"', whatever that might be. I would argue, more specificaly, that he is actually a libertarian ideologue. But the point is that this revelation is not carte blanche to dismiss his conclusions out of hand, the fact that his work is out dated, not based on sufficent primary research, and contradicted by more modern scholarship is on the other hand a reasonable, impersonal, and more over relevent attack on his conclusions. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if Conquest should say as much, we should reject the assertion that the Battle of Waterloo occured in 1815. After all, his politics demand he must be lying or trying to re-write the past, right?

[manic expression]

I was pointng out that perjorative is not a substitute for argument.
"Shill" is entirely in line with his argumentation and purpose. We'll see more of this at the end of the post.

Avoiding that is not a substitute for argument.


That still doesn't attack his poistion. That attacks his politics,
His politics have nothing to do with his position?


I claimed that a widely published expert on soviet agricultural economics can be considered a legitimate authority on a famine in Soviet Russia during the 1930s. You have provided no reason to assume otherwise.
Here's your reason: Robert Conquest.


And no, a zoologist is not comparable to a economist (who specialises in historical communities) in terms of disiplinary proximity. Only a fool would argue that the gap between economics and history is just as wide as the gap between history and the scientific enquiry into, say, woodland ecology. Manifestly history and economics are part and parcel study into human interaction and society and thus have a considerable degree of overlap. The same point can be made of historical human geography and history.
You were the one who failed to specify as much beforehand. Your fault, not mine.

As for your new definition, then I suppose we should listen to whatever some psychologist says about the Ming Dynasty, since their field is "part and parcel study into human interaction", no?


So what you are saying is that 'progressives' should ration their historical secondary literature only to the ideologically pure?
I spoke nothing of purity, I only spoke of hackery, something in which "Sovietology" is performing synchronized swimming.


As for Conquest, you would do well to read him before discounting him. While his work is now out of date, and he has stubbornly refused to accept that fact, the work of Getty, etc. is no more or less cold hard fact. The fact is Getty, for example, is just as guilty of discounting evidence as Conquest is now. Neither can be accepted as the 'truth', it is not as if we are even capable of discovering.
Why would I read it if it's out of date (a nice way of saying debunked)? If I wanted to endure some aimless anti-communist rhetoric I'd find the nearest Tea Party meeting and save myself the time and money.


Really? Well, why don't you submitt an essay bad mouthing Stalin into a single narrative and then send it to Europe-Asia studies and see how far you get?
No, you missed one part of it: citing anti-Soviet writers. If I submitted an essay that cited heavily from Conquest, Rummel and Ellman and other like-minded "historians" and then said mean things about Stalin...yeah, it would be taken seriously. In fact, that's most of what Robert Service's schtick is and he gets published just fine.

No, really, Service puts condescending comments about eastern European bricklayers in the subtext of his photo sections. Really, he's that much of a hack...and yet he gets taken seriously by people who, like him, don't deserve to be taken seriously.


I'll let you into a little fact, it isn't easy getting published into a peer-reviewed journal - you actually have to do some research,
Someone forgot to tell Mr. Rummel that. You pointed out his lack of original research. In spite of it, he still gets taken seriously by the anti-Soviet portions of academia because his writings make for good back-patting. Since you didn't look into the link I posted, here's a nice example of what this thinker has to say (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM) on the US overthrowing democratic governments it didn't like:

Yes, but this was during the Cold War and was part of the largely successful policy to contain communism, particularly Soviet power. Mistakes were made, actions were taken which in hindsight many democrats are embarrassed about. Even then, there was no military action between democracies.

Now, here, Rummel is trying to tell us that democracies (so defined as capitalist countries with governments he likes) have never taken military action against other democracies (at least not since the early 19th Century). Well, when confronted with military action against democracies by the US, how does he respond? "Mistakes were made", "people are embarrassed". Right, that's the ticket! :laugh: What a joke...no, Rummel, mistakes weren't made, because imperialism doesn't like it when governments start giving control of resources to the people. That's why those actions were taken...something he refuses to acknowledge because...he's a shill.

But of course, Rummel has learned well from his teacher Robert Conquest, and has not missed the imagined opportunity to badmouth the Soviet Union. "Oh, yeah, Arbenz was overthrown by US force...but it was Stalin's fault!" :laugh: Nice try, Rummel, but no, taking down the democratically-elected governments of Guatemala, Iran and Chile (among others) wasn't out of some instinct of self-defense by the US, it was an act of outright aggression against governments who didn't play ball to US imperialist policy.

This, though, exposes a more insidious tactic employed by Rummel: he defines "democracy" only along the lines of submission or collaboration with imperialism. Genuinely democratic countries that don't line up with US imperialism are discounted from the "democratic" category because his definition is set upon distinguishing between countries he likes and those he doesn't. Nowhere does he deal with the idea that just maybe other socialists learned from the experience of getting elected through capitalist elections and then being thrown out of the country by force because you didn't surrender to US interests. Just maybe, socialists learned that capitalist democracy is a complete sham, and that the interests of the masses can only be defended through the force used upon them.

"But that's not democratic!" Rummel mumbles. And why? Well, because he's a shill.

I'd stop here but taking this fool apart is just too fun and too easy. From later in the interview, talking about the importance of supporting "democracy":

Because it will take the investment of much resources by the United States and other democracies to help nations democratize. Russian alone needs tens of billions in aid to further democratization.

What he means is that Yeltsin needs more help shelling the Russian Parliament building, grafting money for his family of thieves and impoverishing the people of the Russian Federation. Yes, this is how "nations democratize"...opposition to imperialism is crushed and elections are bought by the rich.

So not only has he shamelessly launched into apologetics for anti-democratic coups against uppity Latinos who didn't know their place, he wants more imperialist oppression! He wants more US interference in the affairs of the people of the world. He wants more capitalist control. He wants less democracy. And why? Because...at long last...he is a shill.

-----------------------------------------------

So yes, Invader Zim, Rummel is a blind, hopeless shill for imperialism and you need only look to his own words to confirm that.

[Omsk]

Here's your reason: Robert Conquest.

Conquest is known for his un-supported accusations and many simplified points,and a lack of evidence to support his points.



1. Making comments with no proof.

2. When he does cite, it's a rogue's gallery of anti-Stalinist fanatics. Relies very heavily on the most rabid Rightists

3. He ticks off shootings, jailings, and exilings as if the persons were automatically innocent.

4. Almost never goes into the details or facts of any cases.

5. Never allows the prosecution's evidence to be presented.

6. Particularly absurd accounts come from Orlov and Kravchenko.

7. Overwhelming use of secondary sources.

8. Uses all the rumors and scuttlebutt he can find.

9. Never shows one example of where Stalin caused a killing of an innocent person whom he knew was innocent.

10. Many times he gives a very superficial, biased presentation of an incident and quickly moves on.

11. Gives a trivial incident and then says the person involved was later arrested, implying he was arrested for the trivial incident.
For example: At a meeting of the Kiev Academy of Sciences, for example, someone denounced professor Kopershinsky. Another Communist scientist, Kaminsky remarked, "Where class instinct speaks, proof is unnecessary." He, too, was later arrested.
Moreover, readers simply must accept the assertion that someone was arrested.

12. Uses the word "purged" incorrectly and doesn't know what a purge is.

13. A lot of reports from anti-Stalin (glasnost) papers but not quoted from the original source.

14. Almost never do two sources report the same act.

15. Statements are not from opening archives but opening up archives to Rightists to spread their poison.

16. The trials really bother Conquest.

17. Always an assumption that anyone in jail is there for political reasons.

18. He often ignores testimony in the major Moscow trials as if it didn't exist.

19. Jumps from topic to topic topic with quick insinuations and no proof's

20. Uses material in novels as if it were actual history

21. Conquest's writings reek with words like: seems, probable, probability, appears, presumption, perhaps, probably, no doubt (when there is doubt), presume, might have, implausible, we can envisage, possible, reported, reportedly, stories, unofficial reports, believed to have been, is said to have been, rumors have emerged, seem to have been, presumed, if, it has recently been speculated, and are said to have.


CONQUEST MAKES ANTI-STALINIST ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH NO PROOF IS PROVIDED

When he [Kaganovich] himself was removed in 1957 [from the Politburo] he telephoned the victor [Khrushchev] and begged not to be shot.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 13


If Bukharin in the Politburo had spoken up against the Shakhty trial, if Trotsky in exile had denounced the Menshevik trial--if they had even objected not to the injustice as such,...
A.) What injustice? Where is the proof that there was an injustice?

It is true that those who did not confess and were shot secretly, demonstrated not merely a higher courage but a better sense of values.
a) To whom is he referring? What evidence does he have for these alleged secret shootings?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 28


This killing [of Kirov ] has every right to be called the crime of the century. Over the next four years, hundreds of Soviet citizens, including the most prominent political leaders of the Revolution, were shot for direct responsibility for the assassination....
a) What hundreds of citizens?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 37


Stalin's plan succeeded, and his colleague [Kirov] lay dead in the Smolny corridors.
a. What plan and where is the evidence for same.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 41


Nine other men who had been present, including... Rumyantezev, were arrested. They were under arrest, or some of them were by Dec. 6 [following Kirov 's murder]. "Severe" interrogation methods were employed.
A] What is his evidence for this?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 46


There were rumors, to put it no higher, that fellow prisoners had seen Kotolynov at the time of his interrogation, badly scarred and beaten.
a) Rumors are evidence?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 48


No doubt, in a general way, Stalin favored silencing those who knew his secrets.
a. Proof?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 50


His [Stalin] opponents, on the whole, only realized his implacability too late. But it is unnecessary today to labor the point of Stalin's unscrupulousness or yet the extreme vindictiveness of his nature.
a) No evidence is provided for his alleged implacability, unscrupulousness, or vindictiveness. The statement is just made and the author moves on.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 56


She [Stalin's wife] seems to have obtained most of her information from students at a course she had not been allowed to take, and they were arrested as soon as Stalin found out.
a. Is any information or proof provided
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 58


With the exception of Zinoviev, Stalin was the only non-"intellectual" in Lenin's leadership.
a) Would Conquest like to match his knowledge of history and literature with Stalin?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 61


He [Stalin] won his position by devious maneuver.
a) He provides no evidence for this whatever.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 62


There can be no doubt that Stalin pursued his grudges implacability, even after many years.
a) Conquest doesn't provide evidence that grudges existed to start with let alone implacability.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 66


It is true that anyone Stalin had a personal grudge against was almost automatically included on the death list,...
a) Conquest provides no evidence that there was a personal grudge against anyone nor does a provide any evidence of a death list. He just utters these slanders and moves on.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 67


We do not need to posit a conscious long-term plan to say that in a general way the drive for power was Stalin's strongest and most obvious motivation.
a) What is his evidence for this slander? Certainly none is provided.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 69


It is said that she [Lenin's wife, Krupskaya] was in fear for her life in her last few years.
a) Said by whom? And what is the evidence that there is any validity?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 73


...the Kirov murder conspired various groups to talk of, and even to plan, in an amateurish passion which was no match for the police of the new regime, the killing of Stalin. Either way, such circles were now invariably arrested and shot.
a) To whom is he referring? Who was shot?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 78


He [Stalin] had developed direct control of the Secret Police and had set up other mechanisms of power responsible to himself alone and capable, given careful tactics, of overcoming the official hierarchy of Party and State.
a) Does he provide any evidence for this? Of course not.

His [Stalin] operatives were accustomed to the use of torture, blackmail, and falsification--if as yet mainly on non-Party figures.
a) Is any evidence provided for this? Again, of course not.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 79


He [Reingold] was interrogated for three weeks, often for periods of 48 hours at a time without sleep or food, by Chertok.
a) Is any evidence provided for this? No.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 83


Stalin went on to write that the Revolution was quite prepared to throwaway "great names," including Gorky 's, if necessary.
a) Does Conquest provide any evidence of this threat to Gorky 's life made by Stalin? No. Because there is none.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 86


Stalin was not adverse to having people murdered and his respect for literature was not such as to prevent his disposing of many other Russian writers of repute. We shall consider this suspicion later.
a) He not only accuses Stalin of murder but even admits it's a conjecture based on mere suspicion.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 87


Again, the selective assassination of NKVD of defectors and of other political enemies in the West was soon to become routine. And Stalin himself--had organized the killing of Kirov .
A] What evidence is provided for these slanders? None of course. What evidence is there that Stalin organized the killing of Kirov ? None.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 106


There is no doubt that threats to the family--the use, that is, of hostages for good behavior--was one of the most powerful of all Stalin safeguards.
a) There most certainly is doubt and Conquest most assuredly provides no proof of this accusation.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 127


The absolutely certain way for a defendant to get himself shot was to refuse to plead guilty.
a) Not a shred the proof is presented to justify this slander.

The only chance of avoiding death was to admit to everything, and to put the worst possible construction on all one's activities.
a) Another unsubstantiated slander.

At the August 1936 Trial moreover, the defendants that actually been promised their lives and had reasonable expectation that the promise would be fulfilled.
a) Where is the evidence for this?

The same promise was evidently made to Pyatakov and others in the second trial.
a) "Evidently" is pure guesswork.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 128


The principle had become established that a confession was the best result obtainable. Those who could obtain it were to be considered successful operatives, and a poor NKVD operative had a short life expectancy.
a) Where he is his proof for this comment?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 131


The new trial did not have the immediate and obvious aims of the first. The motives remaining are plain enough. First, revenge....
a) And what is his proof for this?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 147


Although the Zinoviev trial was full of evident falsehoods,....
a) Such as what? Conquest is hard-pressed to provide one.

Sabotage, by Pyatakov and his subordinates, was most implausible.
a) Why?

As we have said, a plot designed to break the Government by terrorist acts could scarcely divert its energies, and risk exposure, by a vast network of people blowing up mines and causing railway accidents, simply to weaken the economy and sow distrust of the Government
a) Why not?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 149


He [Ordjonikidze] had been double-crossed. Personally involved in the negotiations before the Pyatakov Case, he had had Stalin's assurance that Pyatakov would not be executed.... When Pyatakov was arrested, Stalin told Ordjonikidze, "Pyatakov will not be executed."
a) No evidence is provided for this.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 167


It is now no longer disputed that Stalin did in fact procure Ordjonikidze's death.
a) Not a shred of evidence is produced to prove this.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 170


All the accused eventually confessed under torture.
a) Not a shred of proof is provided for that slander.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 202


Confessions in the longer-drawn-out affairs were in part obtained by promises not to kill the surviving dependents.
a) Again not a shred of evidence is provided. Just slanderous accusations.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 274


[A commander of Stalin's bodyguard mumbled that she [his wife] had said she would get rid of a picture of Stalin that hung in their new flat. For this, she got eight years.
a) Where is the evidence for this nonsense?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 274


Recaptured prisoners were always brutally manhandled, and almost invariably shot.
a) Again no evidence is provided.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 323


On the night of March 2, "special measures" were taken. The interrogators dislocated his [Krestinsky] left shoulder, so that outwardly there was nothing to be seen.
a) No evidence provided whatever.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 352


We can presume that they [Kamkov and Karelin] were in fact executed for their alleged part in the plan to assassinate Lenin, and similarly with Ossinsky,...
a) No proof whatever. “Presume” dominates his propaganda.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 374


...Stalin procured the death of both the others (Kirov and Ordjonikidze) by devious, though differing, means....
a) Again no evidence whatever.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 388


Bessonov's liquidation is reported to have occurred in Orel prison,...
a) "Is reported" is not proof.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 395


Bela Kun was taken to the Lefortovo, where he was tortured.
a) No evidence
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 403


But Stalin had for some time been shooting prominent Central Committee members without such formality,...
a) What members and where is the proof?
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 422


During the winner, various arrests were carried out, Corps Commander Rokossovsky had been beaten senseless and dragged off to prison,...
a) No proof
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 429


Of four of the fallen leaders, it has now been specifically said that they were tortured (Rudzutak, Eikhe, Kossior, and Chubar).
a) Said by whom and what is the evidence.
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York : Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 439

In fact, if we are to believe Conquest at key junctures, he must offer more, or in some cases, any, evidence. Among his unsupported assertions in his response is that life in a totalitarian country is roughly comparable to being at a warfront. To support this notion in The Great Terror, he quoted only the memoirs of Robert Graves on English soldiers in World War I. We need more than that, but the memoirs I cited show something very different. (I find the totalitarian model in general, increasingly rickety, but I will spare us that issue here.) Another assertion: "the Soviet Union in a goodish year like 1935 is comparable to one of the most repressive dictatorships of today." This must be shown, but I have found indications to the contrary. Another: peasants were "major victims" in 1936-1938. Perhaps, but we need more proof....
Thurston, Robert W. "On Desk-Bound Parochialism, Commonsense Perspectives, and Lousy Evidence: A Reply to Robert Conquest." Slavic Review 45 (1986), 241.

[Ocean Seal]

This article is utter shit.


Truth-tellers and cover-up artists: John Sweeney takes a classic example from Stalin's great famine of the 1930s which killed up to 10 million peasants, with a famous and feted journalist Walter Duranty reporting in the New York Times that there was no famine and very few deaths, and ridiculing another journalist, Gareth Jones (once David Lloyd George's private secretary), who had defied a state ban to go and see the suffering for himself, and reported the horrible truth. Duranty later won a Pulitzer; Jones was killed in China in mysterious circumstances.


The estimate IIRC is 7 million. Why not cite the fact that the United States by omission never tells its dealings with corrupt and often brutal regimes to destroy the people.

How often do you hear it mentioned that 287 million people have died from starvation since India's independence.





In 'But They Are Only Russians' - a dismissive phrase used by Duranty when admitting privately to western officials that thousands were dying - John Sweeney investigates the truth-tellers and the cover-up artists, their motivation, their fate, and why it is that the public always finds it easier to believe in a fantasy rather than a reality.
Sweeney has been to Ukraine, following in the footsteps of Jones, and meeting a few aged famine survivors, who tell him of desperate hunger driving many to cannibalism. He visits and reports from Stalin's villa and one of his gulags, and observes that in Vladimir Putin's Russia, where only 'positive history' is promoted, Stalin is being rehabilitated and school-books reducing the history of the famine to half a page.


Kind of like how no one ever calls our early presidents slave owning scumbags who enslaved a whole race of people and killed a whole other. Don't be ridiculous. Of course Putin and the Russian ruling class aren't big fans of Stalin. This is pathetic bourgeois exceptionalism.





He talks to Doris Lessing, who confesses to having been duped into promoting Stalin's vision of society, and he hears how politically naive many celebrities of the time proved to be. As were intellectuals.

Let me ask you something. Is this Stalin


http://www2.educ.usherbrooke.ca/projets/fpt223/2009/proj036/images/jafarm%C3%A9chant.gif



Who with his scepter "dupes" people into promoting his vision of billions of dead bodies and complete iron fisted control? And they are naive for supporting Stalinism, but someone adept at politics for supporting capitalism? I suppose that we should all be moderates. When we go to work we should stay away from those evil Stalinist union organizers who want nothing but to turn our great free country into a dictatorship. Remember when economic hardship hits its best to tighten the belt (TM) and not let those leftists get to us. Because they want to give us dictatorship yeah. And only the naive follow radicals in a bad economic climate.







Or useful idiots, as Lenin called them
Liberal "leftists" are the useful idiots of capitalism. And Lenin never fucking said that phrase. Its from Die Hard or something. But I guess blockbuster movies are history textbooks to the BBC.






- who ignored or accepted, sometimes promoted, tyrannies and tyrants. He meets Gareth Jones' niece and Walter Duranty's biographer.

Zomg guise tyranny. Oh noes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

^Totally not bullshit.




Sweeney brings the story up to date, by noting that some current world leaders act abominably or dubiously, even if not on Stalin's scale, and what they do is reported by the Durantys and the Jones - cover-up artists and truth-tellers.

Obviously proof that Chavez and Castro lied about improving living standards and are actually killing off opposition while the drink the blood of babies. Hopefully America can intervene and save the people.

[rednordman]

This article is utter shit. I see you actually read the article. Well done.