but the fact that it got out into the West allowed it to become fodder against the Soviet Union.
This is an incorrect reading of history. It was leaked to the West in the same way it was sent to 0.1% of the Communist party. To pour poison through the Communist party because if they'd released the speech in its entirety the grass roots masses would've lynched the Kruschevites
So they sent it to all the top cadres of the Communist Party who were told under no circumstances to let normal members know about it. This demoralised and paralysed the entire party and ensured the pro-Stalin communists (ie. of real socialism) could never rise to remove the revisionists
Domenico Losurdo goes over this specific point in Chapter 1 of his book on Stalin, How to cast a God into Hell
And Grover Furr wrote an entire book examining the Secret Speech and checking each statement of the 52 statements made by Kruschev and every single one of them was a lie, a fabrication or rumour and conjecture. In some of the cases Furr points out how they were actually the fault of Kruschev.
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK
William Bland came to the same conclusion as the 2 above and in his book RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE USSR he points out how step by step the Kruschevites privatised the economy and disparaged Central Planning they did so in Soviet economic textbooks with attack phrases like "Central planning is a Stalinist holdover we must move past" and "organising Soviet enterprises to the profit motive must be done to move past the Stalin era" etc.
With this you see casting a God into hell to then nullify his policies was the true aim rather than some introspection into the party about events like the Yezchovchina
single major historian of Stalin and his leadership, including many who did a lot to overturn the lies of Conquest and his ilk, agree with Furr
And pray tell, where do these historians come from? Are they neutral historians devoid of ideology....or are they liberals and conservatives seeking to perpetuate their ideology?
The bourgeoisie turns everything into a commodity, hence also the writing of history. It is part of its being, of its condition for existence, to falsify all goods: it falsified the writing of history. And the best — paid historiography is that which is best falsified for the purposes of the bourgeoisie. Witness Macaulay, who, for that very reason, is the inept G. Smith’s unequalled paragon.
-Engels
Historians are bought and paid for and the intelligence services of the West use them to falsify history (such as Conquest who worked for a literal British Anti-Communist division whos' job was to sit around writing rumours about the Communist movement and Soviet Union in particular)
Anne Applebaum sits on the Atlantic council etc. Anthony Beevor was in the military, Robert Service was a British diplomat etc.
I could go through all of these supposed neutral historians who're tied to the British or American state by many thin tendrils
It is a product of American hegemony that most history in the West is written by bourgeois professors from the United States
I actually started as a Trotskyite. I wanted to read Grover Furr to see what the stupid Stalinists had to say. And after Furr made the point to never trust a single historian and read their footnotes I poured over the footnotes of all of his books (believing him to be a liar).
And after reading many a rebuke of Furr by supposed "mainsteam" historians I've come to the conclusion that the only reason they don't like him is because he uses Soviet archival evidence from private diaries and letters that weren't released until after the collapse of the Soviet Union but "nonetheless they were Communists so they must've been lying all the time".
This is an incorrect reading of history. It was leaked to the West in the same way it was sent to 0.1% of the Communist party. To pour poison through the Communist party because if they'd released the speech in its entirety the grass roots masses would've lynched the Kruschevites
So they sent it to all the top cadres of the Communist Party who were told under no circumstances to let normal members know about it. This demoralised and paralysed the entire party and ensured the pro-Stalin communists (ie. of real socialism) could never rise to remove the revisionists
Domenico Losurdo goes over this specific point in Chapter 1 of his book on Stalin, How to cast a God into Hell
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WS8cCjXDgdJaXFrkW9b1ldY3xlwiPPQ89AwZo53Amlk/edit
And Grover Furr wrote an entire book examining the Secret Speech and checking each statement of the 52 statements made by Kruschev and every single one of them was a lie, a fabrication or rumour and conjecture. In some of the cases Furr points out how they were actually the fault of Kruschev.
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK
William Bland came to the same conclusion as the 2 above and in his book RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE USSR he points out how step by step the Kruschevites privatised the economy and disparaged Central Planning they did so in Soviet economic textbooks with attack phrases like "Central planning is a Stalinist holdover we must move past" and "organising Soviet enterprises to the profit motive must be done to move past the Stalin era" etc.
With this you see casting a God into hell to then nullify his policies was the true aim rather than some introspection into the party about events like the Yezchovchina
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
deleted by creator
And pray tell, where do these historians come from? Are they neutral historians devoid of ideology....or are they liberals and conservatives seeking to perpetuate their ideology?
-Engels
Historians are bought and paid for and the intelligence services of the West use them to falsify history (such as Conquest who worked for a literal British Anti-Communist division whos' job was to sit around writing rumours about the Communist movement and Soviet Union in particular)
Anne Applebaum sits on the Atlantic council etc. Anthony Beevor was in the military, Robert Service was a British diplomat etc.
I could go through all of these supposed neutral historians who're tied to the British or American state by many thin tendrils
It is a product of American hegemony that most history in the West is written by bourgeois professors from the United States
I actually started as a Trotskyite. I wanted to read Grover Furr to see what the stupid Stalinists had to say. And after Furr made the point to never trust a single historian and read their footnotes I poured over the footnotes of all of his books (believing him to be a liar).
And after reading many a rebuke of Furr by supposed "mainsteam" historians I've come to the conclusion that the only reason they don't like him is because he uses Soviet archival evidence from private diaries and letters that weren't released until after the collapse of the Soviet Union but "nonetheless they were Communists so they must've been lying all the time".