well he's been at this sort of thing for like 15 years now and he's already established as something of a hack. He's not a historian, he's a medieval literature critic. He's more correct than an average reactionary or liberal academic, of course, but he's otherwise just some really aggressive weird dude.
To be fair he's not nearly as bad as some people think. I've read Khrushchev Lied and it's pretty good. I think he just likes arguing. He's our version of a debatebro.
Whenever he comes up in conversation I always recommend people read his paper on Katynn Forest because it changed my mind and is pretty damning of previous journalism on the topic as his argument is based on newer forensic evidence and almost impossible to argue against.
every time I think the title of weirdest guy possible has not yet been achieved, someone on this website reveals a guy even weirder and more horrible than I thought imaginable.
I think medieval literature criticism would require more historical literacy than everyone on this forum has. I don't understand why people bring this up except that they've heard someone else say it (like they've heard someone else say that he's a hack).
Never seen someone actually address Furr on anything, it's always just "lol Grover Furr"
well he's been at this sort of thing for like 15 years now and he's already established as something of a hack. He's not a historian, he's a medieval literature critic. He's more correct than an average reactionary or liberal academic, of course, but he's otherwise just some really aggressive weird dude.
To be fair he's not nearly as bad as some people think. I've read Khrushchev Lied and it's pretty good. I think he just likes arguing. He's our version of a debatebro.
Whenever he comes up in conversation I always recommend people read his paper on Katynn Forest because it changed my mind and is pretty damning of previous journalism on the topic as his argument is based on newer forensic evidence and almost impossible to argue against.
I'll check it out, thank you
deleted by creator
every time I think the title of weirdest guy possible has not yet been achieved, someone on this website reveals a guy even weirder and more horrible than I thought imaginable.
I think medieval literature criticism would require more historical literacy than everyone on this forum has. I don't understand why people bring this up except that they've heard someone else say it (like they've heard someone else say that he's a hack).
deleted by creator
Perhaps it does. But that literacy seems to not carry over to his works about the USSR