Yeah I mean I'm not shocked that a Cato Institute historian has no interest in defending the Bolsheviks; however, it's definitely effective in dispelling a piece of Nazi propaganda that's been repeated for the last 80 years.
Certainly, I'm as red as it gets and I still cringe when I read people blaming the famine on "kulaks" who owned something like ~2 acres of farmland & a cow.
deleted by creator
Yeah I mean I'm not shocked that a Cato Institute historian has no interest in defending the Bolsheviks; however, it's definitely effective in dispelling a piece of Nazi propaganda that's been repeated for the last 80 years.
Kotkin is like the only major historian that actually read the archives so he's all we got for now.
Why is that the case? Do other historians not have access to the archives?
deleted by creator
Certainly, I'm as red as it gets and I still cringe when I read people blaming the famine on "kulaks" who owned something like ~2 acres of farmland & a cow.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
:jesse-wtf:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Hobsbawn as well
This book is very much raw history. It is not pop history. If you are up for that, then read it. I don't really know any other sympathetic biographies
deleted by creator
You aren't going to find any serious history or pop history sympathetic to Stalin. It's something you have to just deal with it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator