Thanks for all the remarks! Here are a few replies. I’ll be brief.
Mike Ely wrote:
“Give us a short, simple list of your evidence for this global Trotsky-Bukharin-Nazi conspiracy. You can’t because it didn’t exist.”
Either you have not studied the materials or you don’t remember them.
There were a series of inter-related conspiracies. There’s a huge amount of evidence of this. Some of this evidence is unquestionable – e.g. Trotsky’s and his son’s correspondence about the “bloc” – their word – of Zinovievites, Trotskyites, and others. But there’s lots more too.
Re: Bukharin: he never claimed to have been in touch with Germans or Japanese. But he was for sure involved in a terrorist conspiracy.
See Furr and Bobrov, “Nikolai Bukharin’s First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka”, at http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Furr_Bobrov.pdf for the evidence just about Bukharin that was available a few years back.
There’s lots more evidence that does not directly concern Bukharin, who was only one figure among many.
We have lots of evidence about the Military conspiracy and its interrelationship with the other conspiracies. For non-Soviet evidence of this see the late Alvin Coox’s two-part article on Genrikh Liushkov and the Japanese in _Journal of Slavic Military Studies_, 1998.
Full references for this and other useful stuff is in my article, “Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan”, at http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf
Mike Ely wrote:
“He is trying to prove something which is false, and there is mountains of evidence of many kinds about what actually happened.”
There is NO evidence that the Moscow Trials were frame-ups. None! ALL the evidence we have supports the hypothesis that these conspiracies were genuine.
Mike Ely wrote:
“For those interested in the actual history of this period, I would urge you to read J. Arch Getty’s book “Road to Terror”…”
Getty wrote this book 13-14 years ago. We have a huge amount more evidence, more documents from former Soviet archives, now than he had then.
Read it! You’ll learn something. And you will find nothing that disagrees with what I have written.
“The record of Bukharin’s performance at the trial shows that he attempted to give way on certain points while refusing to concede on others,…”
That’s true. But this isn’t:
“…and this was done in a way which strongly suggested a coerced confession.”
Had he been “coerced” he’d have confessed to everything. Instead he fights like hell on some points while confessing to other capital offenses.
Read the evidence in our article (cited above).
Bill Martin: Thanks for your sensible and supportive remarks! I don’t recall meeting you, but hope to have the opportunity before long.
One point: You wrote:
“Prof. Furr, on the other hand, at least contributes to our understanding of the complexity of the Stalin period, and to an understanding that there is more to what happened than the capriciousness of a one-person dictatorship.”
Stalin was not a “dictator” in any sense of the word. Wheatcroft, one of the very best historians of this period around, wrote an article almost a decade ago calling Stalin’s collective style of working “Team Stalin”.
“Dictator” is simply a shibboleth of respectability – you _have_ to say it, in order to be “acceptable” to anticommunists and Trotskyists.
“But the purges were an insane outburst of paranoia…”
No, they were not! You are ‘begging the question” – assuming that which must be proven.
You are voicing the “respectable anticommunist / Trotskyist viewpoint”. It’s completely wrong, and there has never been any evidence to support it.
“Stalin’s paranoid visions of Nazi agents everywhere…”
True nonsense! That there were, in fact, a large number of foreign agents in the USSR, is acknowledged by bourgeois historians. For example: Jeffrey Burds, in _Journal of Contemporary History_ 42 (2007), 267 ff.
“Furr’s thesis is only of utility as an example of how Leftists need to wary of getting sucked into a wish to confirm their old biases off of doctored versions of the past. That can’t lead anywhere towards the future, and a comparison with Creationism is entirely appropriate.”
PSM is not familiar with the research on these topics, but pretends that he is.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Anticommunist historians (and Trotskyist historians) do little but lie about Soviet history and Stalin.
Meanwhile, they all admire each other – yes, the anticommunists cite the Trots respectfully all the time, and the Trots return the favor. All are interested in anticommunist, and specifically in anti-Stalin lies.
Parallel with Mao: the same kind of thing is going on re: China and Mao. There’s a leapfront contact to “prove” Mao “killed” 20, 30 40, 45 million people in the famine, not to mention elsewhere.
The reality is this: I have been investigating “anti-Stalin” allegations intensively for the past decade. To this point, NOT A SINGLE ONE of them can be verified, and most can be DISproven.
That’s the situation. Obviously, many people on the “Left” find this inacceptable, intolerable.