I like the dude but obviously he also confirms my biases so who knows.
But the only people I see talking bad about him are usually trots and borgeouis historians, what do you all think?
I like the dude but obviously he also confirms my biases so who knows.
But the only people I see talking bad about him are usually trots and borgeouis historians, what do you all think?
I haven’t read much Furr, but as far as the common accusations of “historical revisionism” go…
ALL history books are attempts at historical revisionism. What else is the point of writing a history book if not to recontextualize and revise how we see historical narratives? Any “serious” historian that charges another historian with “revisionism” for offering counter-narratives is a clown.
That’s not to say that a scholar altering cold hard facts should go without challenge (that douchebag Stephane Courtois), but Furr doesn’t do this. Like others have pointed out, his work is well sourced, much of it from the Soviet archives, which when declassified disproved so many anticommunist myths.
Given Furr’s reputation though, I would only feel comfortable bring his name up in leftist circles. If you’re in a discussion with some left-sympathetic liberal on the cusp of a breakthrough and want to recommend an esteemed historian that challenges the “Evil Stalin” narrative, I’d recommend Ludo Martens.