Stalin apologetics

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Tankie)
Jump to: navigation, search
Join the party!


Icon communism.svg
Opiates for the masses
From each
To each

Stalin apologetics is actually a thing. Some Western communists seriously deny that Joseph Stalin was the murderous dictator he is extensively documented as having been.

The motivation is based on standard my enemy's enemy logic, combined with the idea that the revolution required and requires a strong leader, and Stalin was certainly that. Therefore, his flaws must be papered over, for the good of all.

Stalinists, and similarly authoritarian communists, are often referred to by the derogatory epithet tankies.

Stalin apologists call people who disagree with them "revisionist" — particularly their mortal enemies, the Trots — and themselves "anti-revisionist". (This is very much like TERFs calling themselves "gender critical" and white power advocates calling themselves "race realists".) If talking about non-communists, they will use the curious phrase construction "right-wing liberal".[1]

In Russia, Stalin is highly thought of by a worryingly large percentage of the population in the modern day (although a rather lesser proportion would want to live in a country actually ruled by Stalin).[2] This is best understood as a form of nationalism distinct from Western communist apologism.


[edit] Argument tropes

The most common arguments are:

  • It's all propaganda!
  • Loss of central control — it was Stalin's subordinates, not him! (rehashing the "Good Tsar with evil advisors" — and "If only the Tsar knew about this" — tropes of Romanov Russia)
    • NKVD acting alone — basically, this comes down to blaming the entire Great Purge on Yezhov, though this causes problems trying to explain the atrocities carried out by Lavrentiy Beria (though, given the horror stories about his personal life that came to light in 2003, he probably didn't need Stalin to encourage him), Genrikh Yagoda, and to an extent, Felix Dzerzhinsky (though he was active under Lenin).
  • Farm collectivization totally works, but Lysenkoism is rubbish, so it failed.

It is important to keep in mind that before World War II and the Cold War, believing everything Stalin said about himself and the Soviet Union was completely standard in Western progressive circles. It became less so as the Cold War progressed and more details of what he was actually doing came out, and completely untenable with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of extensive source documents.

[edit] Particular atrocities

None of these happened or will be discussed. But his victims deserved it anyway, even though it all just happened naturally, and WHAT ABOUT AMERICA, HEY? LOOK AT AMERICA'S PRISON POPULATION! IRAQ WAR! JAPANESE INTERNMENT CAMPS! TRAIL OF TEARS! YOU LYNCHED NEGROESWikipedia's W.svg!

[edit] Holodomor

Stalin apologists play down or outright deny the Holodomor, the starvation of large chunks of Ukraine.

The Holodomor may or may not technically qualify as an attempted genocide (though the UN, EU and Ukraine all regard it as one). So Stalin apologists will ride that lack of unanimity for all it's worth. Note, however, that the equation goes:

The debating tactics closely resemble those of Holocaust deniers, because it's very closely analogous: denial of an extensively documented attempted genocide. You'll see attempts to minimise the numbers, with the implication that the number might be zero, or to assert that it was unintentional or entirely natural (e.g. plant rust diseases that those mere peasants were too stupid to spot, being, er, farmers). Or, "best" of all, that the Kulaks deserved it.

Since Robert Conquest[4] doesn't refer to the Holodomor by the term "genocide", this will be literally the one topic on which a tankie will decide, well, maybe Robert Conquest wasn't so bad after all.

Holodomor denial takes many forms. The most offensive is arguably outright denial of its existence by those like Maoist Rebel News. That is quickly debunked by some maths.[5]

Mark B. Tauger (an apologist, though an actual historian) is a popular source among apologists. He claims that the famine was an accident and unavoidable, but his data is of dubious origin and selection criteria,[6] and Tauger does not offer an argument why his "data" is representative of all collective farms in Ukraine, not just the farms from which he got his data.

[edit] Kulaks

The kulaks were originally the richest independent farmers, risen from the peasantry. Lenin had condemned them as class enemies, "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine."[7]

Stalin, wishing to collectivise, expanded the official definition of "kulak" to any peasant owning land or livestock; any peasant selling surplus goods on the market could be labeled a kulak. In practice, any peasant who did not provide grain to quota particularly the artificially high quotas of 1929-1933, was labeled a kulak. Not appearing to be starving was taken as evidence of hoarding.

On 30 January 1930, the Politburo approved the extermination of kulaks as a class. Soviet archives published in 1990 show 1,803,392 people being sent to labour colonies and camps in 1930 and 1931, with 1,317,022 actually reaching the destinations. 389,521 "kulaks" and their relatives died in labour colonies from 1932 to 1940. Read Nazino affairWikipedia's W.svg for a sample.

A serious Stalin apologist will, at some point, come out with "the kulaks deserved it". When humans with any sense of proportion react with outrage and disgust, they will often then try to justify Stalin's actions, deny them, or both simultaneously.

[edit] The Gulags

The Stalin Society maintains that the gulags were only for offenders who had committed serious crimes (economic, rape, homicide, etc.)[8] — perfectly ordinary prisons for deserving criminals, not forced labor camps that dissenters were shipped off to arbitrarily. In reality, people could be sent to the gulags for even minor offenses.[9]

The current estimate of the gulags' death toll is 1,258,537 from 1934 to 1953, and roughly 1.6 million from 1929 to 1953.[10]

[edit] The Great Purge

The Stalin Society claims only (only!) 100,000 people were executed during the Great Purge.[11] The actual number is 681,692,[12] but that's just Western bourgeois propaganda.

Stalin personally signed 357 execution warrants which authorized the execution of 40,000 individuals, 90% having been confirmed executed.[13] Historian Oleg V. Khlevniuk said in his book Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle regarding the Great Purge: "… theories about the elemental, spontaneous nature of the terror, about a loss of central control over the course of mass repression, and about the role of regional leaders in initiating the terror are simply not supported by the historical record."[14]

Stalin hand-picked Nikolai Yezhov to accomplish what Yagoda could not. Yezhov carried out his new position with ruthless efficacy.[15]

Stalin apologists blame the NKVD being out of control.

[edit] Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

The more sophisticated Stalin apologists will argue that while he may have done some nasty things, it's all right because he was an anti-fascist and the Soviet Union was vital in taking down Hitler. This will often be contrasted with the appeasement pursued by Western bourgeois powers.

But while Stalin clashed with Hitler during the Spanish Civil War, he didn't let this get in the way of doing a deal with the Nazis when it suited him. Having first ordered his subordinates to "purge the ministry of Jews,"[16] Stalin got down to business. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on 23 August 1939. Less than three weeks later, Germany invaded Poland and the much-maligned Chamberlain promptly declared war on Hitler. Stalin waited a few more weeks before declaring war… on Poland. In celebration of their victory, the Wehrmacht and Red Army held two joint parades in Brest-Litovsk and Minsk, Belarus. As a further show of solidarity, Stalin handed over some German Communist exiles to Hitler, who promptly sent them to the concentration camps.

Stalin stuck to his agreement with Hitler, to the extent that he refused to mobilise the Red Army even when it was apparent to everyone else that Operation Barbarossa was in the making. French Communists, who would after Barbarossa become the backbone of the Resistance, were ordered at the time not to resist the Germans in the portion of France they occupied or the Vichy government elsewhere (temporarily) in France.[17][18] Similarly, other Communist parties in Nazi-occupied Europe had been ordered to work with the Nazis, but then had to go underground at the beginning of Barbarossa when all Communist parties were outlawed and their members risked being sent to the camps if caught by the Nazis.

The Stalin apologist line is typically either that Stalin knew that Hitler would eventually attack and bought the USSR some time (this is the 20/20 hindsight version and it glosses over the fact that Stalin refused to acknowledge that Hitler had actually broken the pact during the first hours after the actual invasion had begun and was furious at army officers who reported the massive onslaught). Another excuse stems from the Soviet propaganda of the time, which claimed that the pact had pre-empted a sinister capitalist/imperialist plot, which had tried to get the USSR and the Third Reich into a war with each other to weaken both to the benefit of especially Britain and France. (While it's undoubtedly true that the leaders of Britain and France would have been more than happy to watch the two totalitarian regimes slug it out, how this wishful thinking would actually have led to a Russo-German war in the absence of the pact is unclear.)

The best spin to put on the sordid affair that was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is to view it as Stalin's recognition that collective security and trying to build a common anti-Nazi front was unrealistic in the wake of appeasement, but at best the pact was a temporary measure, resting on several rather optimistic assumptions, e.g. that the Wehrmacht would not be able to defeat the Western Allies (a prospect hugely improved by the removal of the risk of a two-front war involving the USSR), or that if the Third Reich did manage to pull this off, it wouldn't turn on the Soviets next. While the pact did buy Stalin time and a buffer zone in Poland, he squandered both by the disastrous war with Finland[19] and lack of preparations for a Nazi invasion. Even worse, as a consequence of the pact, the USSR would end up on its own, facing the vast majority of the Nazi war machine after it had been honed in the Polish, Scandinavian, Benelux and French campaigns by which time it was also backed by the resources of the Nazi-occupied countries.

[edit] Katyn massacre

In 1940, the Soviets murdered an estimated 22,000 Polish military officers they had captured after invading the eastern part of Poland at the start of the Second World War. The Katyn massacre — so called because it took place in the forest of the same name — was authorized by Stalin and five other members of the Politburo in an order to execute 27,500 Polish "nationalists and counterrevolutionaries" created at the request of Beria.[20][21] The executions were carried out by the NKVD; Vasili Blohkin, the NKVD chief executioner, shot 7,000 of the prisoners himself. Documents coming to light since the dissolution of the USSR undeniably confirm Stalin's involvement with the Katyn Massacre.[22]

When the mass graves in Katyn were discovered, they were used by the Nazis to attempt to smear the USSR. The Soviets, in turn, appointed a commission that blamed the incident on the Nazis.[23]

Stalin apologists ignore questions on the topic, blame the NKVD for being out of control or blame the Nazis. Both these objections are absurd: Stalin knowingly signed the orders, which undermines the argument that the NKVD acted alone or that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre.

The Stalin Society attempts to cast doubt upon the authenticity of documents implicating Stalin in the massacre.[24] They offer unsourced "eyewitness" testimony of locals seeing German soldiers at the scene or being pressured by German soldiers to blame the shootings on the Soviets. They then claim:

Moreover, pathologists who examined the bodies in 1943 concluded that they could not have been dead longer than two years. Furthermore, documents were found on some of the bodies which had obviously been missed by the Germans when they doctored the evidence. These included a letter dated September 1940, a postcard dated 12 November 1940, a pawn ticket receipted 14 March 1941 and another receipted 25 March 1941. Receipts dated 6 April 1941, 5 May 1941, 15 May 1941 and an unmailed postcard in Polish dated 20 June 1941. Although all these dates pre-date Soviet withdrawal, they all postdate the time of the alleged murder of the prisoners by the Soviet authorities in the spring of 1940, the time given as the date of the supposed massacre by all those whom the Germans were able to bully into giving false testimony.

No citation is given to these supposed items or their discovery.

[edit] NKVD National Operations

Yezhov and Stalin sharing insights, USSR, 1937

Stalin was fond of shifting around, or just killing, entire ethnic groups in the Soviet Union that he considered "reactionary" rather than "progressive". Operations included the Greek Operation (an organised mass persecution that Greeks considered a "pogrom"), the Korean Operation (in which ethnic Koreans were moved from the far east to Kazakhstan), the German operation (1937-38), and the Polish Operation.

The Polish Operation, implemented by NKVD Order No. 00485,[25] was probably the worst. It led to the execution of 111,901 Poles resident in the Soviet Union. The original text of the order appears to target Polish spies but was interpreted by the NKVD as "absolutely all Poles" — a straight-up ethnic cleansing. Timothy Snyder estimates (conservatively) that 85,000 of the executed individuals were ethnically Polish,[26] and the rest were suspected Poles.

Stalin himself even said, "keep on digging out and clean out this Polish filth." [27]

Apologists don't mention the Polish Operation and tend to claim not to have heard of it, with the default excuse being how totally out-of-control the NKVD was, and a second one of claiming that the idea Stalin was targeting Poles is ludicrous.

[edit] Estimating total deaths

Some apologists argue that the total number of Stalin's victims is unknown (which is true as the documentation is lacking for some areas) or that the total estimated number is shrinking (which it has been). They use this to attempt to discredit the scholarly research placing the death toll around 20 million, not including deaths from WW2, trying to imply that a decreasing or foggy estimate might reasonably end at a trivial number. (100,000 is apparently a trivial number, as noted above.)

  • Holodomor — 3.9 million deaths due to starvation [28]
  • Great Purge — 681,692 executed [29]
  • Gulags — 1.6 Million [30]
  • NKVD Polish operation — 111,901 executed [31]

[edit] Other apologetics

[edit] Industrialization

Some apologists will defend the atrocities by arguing that the gulags, purges, and so forth were all necessary for industrialization: that mass collectivization and escalation of the class conflict with the Kulaks (which ironically was supported by Trotsky and the Left Opposition) was necessary to defeat Hitler and industrialize the USSR.

Robert Service argues that continuation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) would have brought about the same level of production in its mines and factories as was brought about by collectivization and rapid industrialization. [32] Other historians have concurred that, had the NEP been maintained, higher living standards and the ability to withstand invasion would have been possible. [33] If only they had listened to Bukharin.

[edit] Apologists

[edit] E. H. Carr

An English journalist and historian with the interesting distinction of being an apologist for Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Although he later regretted defending Hitler in the 1930s, he remained a staunch supporter of Stalin until his death in 1982. Among other things, he declared that the Kulaks deserved it, that Stalin's success in making the Soviet Union outweighed any misdeeds, attacked the Polish Government-in-Exile for asking that the Red Cross investigate the Katyn Massacre, claimed that Stalin did not want a puppet government in Poland, and … well…[34]

It was Marshal Stalin who, consciously or unconsciously usurping Woodrow Wilson's role in the previous war, once more placed democracy in the forefront of Allied war aims.

Despite being an unabashed groupie for murderous autocrats, Carr enjoyed considerable acclaim during his lifetime.

[edit] Joseph E. Davies

U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1936-1938. His 1941 book Mission to Moscow was made into the 1943 film of the same name at the behest of Franklin D. Roosevelt (!) because World War II. Stalin is a kindly grandfatherly sort who only wants world peace, Finland was invaded because Stalin really cared about the Finns and wanted only to protect them from the imminent Nazi invasion, and the Great Purge victims were all guilty as charged of plotting to break up the Soviet Union in a plot instigated by Germany and Japan and led by Trotsky. To add insult to injury the House Un-American Activities Committee blacklisted the scriptwriter and others involved in that film during the darkest 1950s, even though they had made the film as a patriotic act of World War II propaganda.

[edit] Walter Duranty

New York Times correspondent in Stalin's day. Very into being feted in Moscow. Called anyone reporting on the Holodomor a fascist.

[edit] Grover Furr

The Stalin apologist par excellence. A professor of medieval English (read: not History) at Montclair State University, he has written many books about Russian history, some of which bears a resemblance to actual events, and are published by small left-wing presses rather than any sort of academic publisher. Furr has no credentials as a historian.

He also accepts admissions of guilt (and fascist conspiracy) made during the Purge show trials as actual evidence, then asserts some massive fascist conspiracy to undermine the USSR without providing any historical documentation from Nazi Germany that would support his assertion.

Stalinists will cite Furr as academic credibility — look, a professor! — for their views, and try to get you to debate the quality of Furr's scholarship (as if that determines the truth of the historical consensus on Stalin), ignoring that he is a minor fringe academic whose historical work is outside any peer review and, when he does manage to publish it in scholarly venues, does so in some of the lowest ranked and least impactful ones.

There was some controversy in 2012[35] when some Trotskyist revisionists libertarians recorded him telling a class that Stalin murdered nobody whomsoever and committed no crimes.[36][37] (For that last, it helps if you're the dictator and get to define "crime".) The libertarians were baiting him, but he said it. The libertarians were attempting to use this as evidence of liberal bias in the political beliefs of academics, and never mind that liberalism and libertarianism are near-twins compared to Stalinism.

In any discussion involving communism or the USSR, citing Grover Furr as a credible source loses you the argument immediately and gets you laughed out of the room.

[edit] Tankies

Serious devotees of Soviet Union apologetics are referred to by the derogatory epithet tankies, after the tanks that rolled into Hungary when they dared leave the Soviet Union's loving hugs. This term was coined by other communists who didn't agree with such actions and originated as a term for the Communist Party of Great Britain when they followed the Kremlin line.

The term is routinely used concerning Stalin apologists. Because he was dead by the time the tanks rolled, they will often claim the word properly refers to someone other than them — though approximately nobody goes along with this. You'll also see it being used for Mao apologists, North Korea apologists, Nicolae Ceausescu apologists, Berlin Wall apologists, and those who cheered the June Fourth Incident Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Other groups get called "tankies" if they take an authoritarian line. There are actually tiny Trotskyist groups that supported military "intervention" in Hungary, e.g. the Marcyites.

[edit] Modern Russian Stalin apologists

Quite a lot of modern-day non-communist Russians — and not just Russian nationalists — are disconcertingly apologetic toward Stalin: he was a strong leader, he won World War II, shit happens along the way, nostalgia, crazification factor.[38]

If you can read Russian, the Encyclopedia of Russian Civilisation[39] is an amazing window into the thought processes involved in modern-day Russian quasi-fascism — pro-Eastern-Orthodox, anti-Jewish, anti-Masonic, anti-Communist and anti-democratic. There are no articles about any Soviet leader other than Stalin;[40] even Lenin is mentioned only in passing as a Jewish, anti-Russian (!) and anti-Christian criminal.

Stalin, Iosif Vissarionovich, a Georgian Bolshevik. From late 1930s — a Russian statesman, and the military leader of the Russian people during the Great Patriotic War … The mighty Russian civilization spiritually subjugated itself to the Bolshevik leader and sanctified his activity with positive content … By eliminating the Bolshevik old guard, Stalin did not only struggle for power but also redeemed his guilt in front of the Russian people…

Curiously, given his status among Russian nationalists, Stalin (unlike Lenin) was not Russian, but Georgian.

[edit] Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin has described Stalin as an "effective manager". Putin "told teachers to avoid history that 'makes your hair stand up' — meaning no mention of executions, starvation from forced agrarian collectivization, purges, mass deportations and gulags."[41]

[edit] Stalin apologists

CPGB (ML) on a May Day march in 2011. A great big banner of Uncle Joe will convince the proletariat, no worries!
  • Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (not the other three CPGBs). Also North Korea apologists. Reporter Johann Hari attended a meeting and noted about 30 people attending who were primarily "elderly to the point of decrepitude."[42]
  • New Communist Party of Britain, who left the original Communist Party of Great Britain in the 1970s for not being quite tankie enough, have a whole series of tributes to Stalin on their website.[43]
  • Maoist Rebel News (Jason Unruhe), who (besides whitewashing Stalin) pushes the envelope all the way to overt North Korea apologism.[44]
  • Stalin Society — UK — "The Stalin Society was formed in 1991 to defend Stalin and his work on the basis of fact and to refute capitalist, revisionist, opportunist, and Trotskyist propaganda directed against him."
  • Stalin Society Pakistan — "Refuting anti-Stalin propaganda & lies through Research & Advocacy"
  • Stalin Society of North America — The Society "serves as an educational and research organization devoted to studying and popularizing the life, work, and legacy of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin."
  • The U.S. Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist party, says their vision of a future society is based on all the good things about the Soviet Union, with the side note that they want to forgo whatever bad things arose from the Soviet system. In effect, this is a rhetorical strategy to get your mind to think that there were enough really great things about the Soviet system and that the bad things were very few (and possibly just amoral mistakes, even unrelated to mass murder and mass torture).
  • The U.S. Party for Socialism and Liberation, heavily Marcy-influenced, insists that the bad stuff associated with the Soviet Union is actually just Western propaganda.[45]

[edit] See also

[edit] And now: Music

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. However, left-wing pejorative use of the word "liberal" is not a practice unique to Tankies: It's common for American progressives to despise "liberals" in what they see as a Democratic Party that's moved too far right.
  3. This is not to deny that the British invoked laissez-faire capitalism to justify perpetuating the famine and doing nothing to prevent a million Irish deaths from starvation. "Some have classified the famine as an act of genocide (the term was not in use at the time). [John] Kelly calls this charge 'discredited,' but his portraits of some of the more insufferable English statesmen are withering… Charles Edward Trevelyan was a civil servant at the Treasury who oversaw much of the British response. God had 'sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson,' he declared, and it 'must not be too much mitigated.' Some time later he wrote that the famine was a 'direct stroke of an all-wise Providence.' Malthusianism was much in the air in those days, and men like Trevelyan saw the famine as, among other things, a means of transforming Ireland by reducing its population and the number of small farms." New York Times review of: The Graves Are Walking, by John Kelly.
  4. Author of The Great TerrorWikipedia's W.svg, which sets out in detail the case for Stalin as murderous tyrant. The second edition, which benefited from Perestroika-era document releases, could reasonably have been subtitled I Fucking Told You Didn't I, Why Yes I Believe I Did.
  6. Dr. David Marples. "Debating the undebatable? Ukraine Famine of 1932-1933". 
  7. Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight! (V.I. Lenin, 17 January 1925)
  8. camps
  10. Steven Rosefielde. Red Holocaust. Routledge, 2009. ISBN 0-415-77757-7 pg. 67 "…more complete archival data increases camp deaths by 19.4 percent to 1,258,537"; pg 77: "The best archivally based estimate of Gulag excess deaths at present is 1.6 million from 1929 to 1953."
  11. to death
  12. Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Richard Pipes, pg 67
  13. "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 – 33 Revisited". Europe-Asia Studies 59 (4): 663–693. June 2007. 
  14. Oleg V. Khlevniuk. Master of the House: Stalin and His Inner Circle. Yale University Press, 2008. ISBN 0-300-11066-9 p. xix
  15. Faria, MA (December 29, 2011). "Book Review of Stalin's Loyal Executioner: People's Commissar Nikolai Ezhov, 1895-1940 by Marc Jansen and Nikita Petrov". Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  16. Herf, Jeffrey (2006). The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust. Harvard University Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 0-674-02175-4.
  17. Crowdy, Terry (2007). French Resistance Fighter: France's Secret Army. p10. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-076-5.
  18. Jackson, Julian (2003). France: The Dark Years, 1940–1944. p115. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-925457-6.
  19. The poor performance of the Red Army was largely due to Stalin having had large numbers of its officers executed or sent to the gulags.
  20. Brown, Archie (9 June 2009). The Rise and Fall of Communism. HarperCollins. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-06-113879-9. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  22. David Remnick (1994). Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-679-75125-0. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  23. Fischer, Benjamin B. (1999–2000). "The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field". Studies in Intelligence (CIA) (Winter). Retrieved 25 July 2014
  26. Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00239-0.
  29. Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Richard Pipes, pg 67
  30. Steven Rosefielde. Red Holocaust. Routledge, 2009. ISBN 0-415-77757-7 pg. 67 "…more complete archival data increases camp deaths by 19.4 percent to 1,258,537"; pg 77: "The best archivally based estimate of Gulag excess deaths at present is 1.6 million from 1929 to 1953."
  31. Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00239-0.
  32. Robert Service (2009) The Penguin History of Modern Russia: From Tsarism to the Twenty-First Century. p. 275: "Nor can it be wholly discounted that the USSR would have been able to achieve about the same volume of output from its factories and mines if the New Economic Policy had been maintained."
  33. Holland Hunter & Janusz M. Szyrme. Faulty Foundations: Soviet Economic Policies, 1928-1940. ISBN: 9780691600802
  34. Edward Hallett Carr, The Soviet Impact on the Western World, p.2
  36. The video. "I'm gonna answer you, I'm gonna answer you, I'm gonna answer you, I'm gonna answer you. What you said is bullshit! It's wrong, It's a Lie! The history of the Soviet Union is the most falsified! American History is falsified. Alright, I lived in Canada for a number of years, the Canadian school system falifies Canadian history. But of all the falsifications that go on in the school systems of this world, Soviet history is falified the most. I have spent many years researching this, and similar questions and I have yet to find one crime! Yet to find one crime! That Stalin commited. I know they all say he killed 20 to 30 to 40 million people, Its bullshit!"
  37. Libertarian writeup.
  39. Энциклопедический словарь русской цивилизации
  40. Сн-Ся (Энциклопедический словарь русской цивилизации)
  41. In one country, a Josef Stalin revival is under way by Jack Epstein (May 7, 2015 Updated: May 8, 2015 11:07am) San Francisco Chronicle
  42. Johann Hari: The horrors of the British Stalin Society
Personal tools