unfortunately our automatic revisionism detector scrubbed liam from most of this episodeAdam Something on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamSomethingTIC...
Was that a settled question? Just taking a glance at the wikipedia page:
Historian Stephen Kotkin argued that the evidence for Lenin's authorship of the Testament is weak and suggested that the Testament could have been created by Krupskaya.[5] However, the Testament has been accepted as genuine by most other mainstream historians ... Kotkin's argument was specifically rejected by Richard Pipes
On Kotkin's page:
Kotkin pointed out that the purported dictations were not logged in the customary manner by Lenin's secretariat at the time they were supposedly given; that they were typed, with no shorthand or stenographic originals in the archives, and that Lenin did not initial them;[21][22] that by the alleged dates of the dictations, Lenin had lost much of his power of speech following a series of small strokes on December 15-16, 1922, raising questions about his ability to dictate anything as detailed and intelligible as the Testament[23][24] and that the dictation given in December 1922 is suspiciously responsive to debates that took place at the 12th Party Congress in April 1923.[25]"
Kotkin's isn't Grover Furr, he seems to otherwise be critical of communism, so I dunno.
Besides, Lenin wasn't King of Russia, he doesn't get to just decide who's allowed to succeed him or not. I'm not too familiar with how the Soviet government was organized internally, but I assume organs like the Central Committee and the Politburo would have played a role in questions like this.
I mean Kotkin not being Furr is a plus in his favor. I'd say Lenin certainly considered it and probably would have done so if not for his stroke, but that it doesn't mean much since the citation is iffy and Lenin certainly didn't remove Stalin from power before he died. He 100% could have wanted to, but well if wishes were horses
Yeah, that's why I mentioned it, if it was something by Furr it'd be more easily dismissed, but Kotkin seems to be a respected historian in western circles.
Was that a settled question? Just taking a glance at the wikipedia page:
On Kotkin's page:
Kotkin's isn't Grover Furr, he seems to otherwise be critical of communism, so I dunno.
Besides, Lenin wasn't King of Russia, he doesn't get to just decide who's allowed to succeed him or not. I'm not too familiar with how the Soviet government was organized internally, but I assume organs like the Central Committee and the Politburo would have played a role in questions like this.
I mean Kotkin not being Furr is a plus in his favor. I'd say Lenin certainly considered it and probably would have done so if not for his stroke, but that it doesn't mean much since the citation is iffy and Lenin certainly didn't remove Stalin from power before he died. He 100% could have wanted to, but well if wishes were horses
Yeah, that's why I mentioned it, if it was something by Furr it'd be more easily dismissed, but Kotkin seems to be a respected historian in western circles.