Uncommon Knowledge: Part 2: Stephen Kotkin discusses Stalin’s consolidation of power

Recorded on July 29, 2015
As part 2 begins Lenin is dead and Stalin is trying to consolidate power. Although various people were vying for the position, Stalin had already effectively taken over Lenin’s job. Lenin’s last will and testament says bad things about all his successors, with Trotsky coming out the best, yet does nothing to dislodge Stalin from power. Stalin continues, through hard work and cunning, to gather power but also because people believed that he stood for the principles of the revolution.

[@FORTEPodcast]

This is the prestige of KZbin,- to be able to hear the great historians/ authors speak about their area of expertise uninterrupted!

[@tomaszserafin5386]

This was absolutely thrilling. Stephen Kotkin has a gift for presenting knowledge in a very captivating manner.

[@DWHalse]

See your adroit words three years later have an impact. Great post!!

[@tommyodonovan3883]

I thought it was Joe Pesci

[@BDub793]

I could listen to Stephen Kotkin talk for hours. What an incredible interview, and I look forward to the future installments.

[@synon9m]

Your welcome

[@matthiasscherr4233]

I am still stunned. I hope for Volume 3. And I love how Kotkin describes history as a landscape.

[@cybnblau]

Stephen Kotkin is the go-to guy for Stalin. I do feel satisfied that my initial preconceptions were not countered - the communists were indeed plain old communists after all.

[@robertrichard6107]

He got on the Raygun gate keeper network when he mixed Marx up with the Communists I think. Robinson couldn't get him to touch the third rail about Marx's statement of religon which the west misconstrues.

[@dalegribble4308]

cybnblau go to mainstream narrative maybe. Read source material. Also maybe read Marx because communism doesn’t explain what you’re saying. In fact it’s a straw man statement

[@sparkomatic]

Excellent discussion. Mr. Kotkin is an engaging speaker. Almost as if Joe Pesci were a historian. :-)

[@mpoiset1]

My cousin Stevie

[@smersh007]

I thought the same thing

[@ericcarlson3746]

even more engaging in his addresses and interactions with an audience.

[@GeorgeSemel]

@@mpoiset1 It's that Northern New Jersey thing.

[@GeorgeSemel]

@joe jitsu Coming to a theater near you, The Life and Times of Steve Kotkin, starring Joe Pesci as Steve Kotkin. Robert De Nero as the Dean of Princeton, Directed by Martin Scorsese was written by Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola!

[@KyleOrdwayChannel]

The masterfully eloquent level of pure knowledge that Stephen Kotkin displays in this interview and furthermore in the book, is utterly mind-blowing and invigorates a level of appreciative inspiration for those instilled with the depth to observe it; pure excellence.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

completely biased and foolish comment. There is no such thing as "pure" excellence, but it shows your lack of rational and measure.

[@firstal3799]

That is a perfectly valid usage. It seems you do not have understanding of language usage at all. Also offensive personl

[@walterm.robertsiiiphd2157]

This is a good demonstration of what is the difference between what a student can get at an Ivy League institution as opposed to at a lesser institution: the professors at these places are the equivalent of "hall of fame" athletes. Heavy-hitters who can light up the mind of an ambitious undergraduate or train for "pure excellence" a gifted graduate student. One does not become professor of History at Princeton for nothing.

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

GO TRUMP.

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

@@walterm.robertsiiiphd2157 Of course you don't become a professor at Princeton for nothing- they make a shit-ton of money! And those graduate students don't get to work under them for nothing, either. They get to work their asses off doing the good professor's research and very often writing for them, and don't doubt this guy has an army of grad students slaving for him. How else do you think he "finds the time" to do so many book promos (sorry, "interviews") and "think-tank" lectures. Those conservative think-tanks pay-out handsomely, too, provided they like what they hear, like, "Stalin was evil. Stalin was a Communist.Communism is evil. Ergo, anyone to the left of Mitch McConnell is an EVIL COMMUNIST!!!".

[@TastyBurgerFilms]

find someone who will look at you the way peter robinson looks at stephen kotkin

[@countchocula2169]

Tasty Burger Productions hahaha

[@lotsofsports2251]

TBP12: Pure gold.

[@annascott3542]

Omg yes! I actually rewinded (rewound?) twice to catch another glimpse of this: 25 min. Love it!

[@PresterMike]

Lol

[@jonbornholdt1790]

He looks at everyone that way. It's annoying.

[@briteness]

Dr. Kotkin is a superb scholar and Peter Robinson may be the best interviewer out there. I keep coming back to this conversation because the arguments and evidence presented here are essential for an accurate understanding of 20th century history, but not only that. They also help us to understand the nature of some of the dangers we face today.

[@Jackmono1]

Really great that you did this. I read "Stalin" a few weeks ago. It is the best biography on Stalin ever written. One of the best biographies overall.

[@einarsveinbjorn3725]

Absolutely brilliant historian and great speaker.

[@melflo4651]

Dr. Kotkin is the man!

[@mikemccarthy9456]

Excellent work and commentary. Volumes 1 & 2 are great, waiting for #3!

[@nomdeplume4543]

Kotkin’s discussion is so much better than his lectures.

[@StephenPaulTroup]

One of the best descriptions of how both structural context and individual actors are at play i the evolving history of man. 28:21-29:35

[@mikegan73]

I really enjoy listening to Stephen Kotkin, he seems to know his subject very well, and conveys that knowledge and understanding with great clarity that's very compelling and easy to listen to. Of course Stalin is a very fascinating character which in itself is going to make this an interesting conversation, but Kotkin is a powerful story teller. I am persuaded to buy his book.

[@roryoconnor5700]

Funny how? Just kidding, incredible and engaging interview. That period of history is fascinating.

[@cluelessinky]

Rory O'Connor You mean funny like a clown? Are you calling me a clown?

[@oldlogin3383]

Stephen Kotkin has an answer for everything. In a really good way. He barely hesitates in any reply.

[@PresterMike]

Beautiful interview. I loved this one and the two following ones that came out earlier this year. So insightful and engaging. I’m definitely going to buy his books now

[@Djamestm]

One of the coolest conversations I've ever heard. Bravo!!!

[@sbaumgartner9848]

Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. Mr Kotkin knows how to explain a complex historical subject to us lay people. Thank you so much. And thank you Peter as well.

[@JoseighBlogs]

You can see and hear the enthusiasm for his subject. And, it rubs off enthrallingly to make Mr Kotkin's summation of his story of Josef Stalin so accessibly understood in the two-part recordings. Riveting. Of course, Mr Robinson's own quaint insightful questioning with accompanying oftentimes glorious cruciform gesticulating delivery has one eager to hear more and more from the historian with a grin on his face throughout.

[@wieslaw54]

great conversation...thank you for sharing...

[@morleyevans]

Kotkin is a superb story-teller. That is what history is.

[@charleswinokoor6023]

I concur. It’s an excellent interview and worth watching again.

[@paulbillingham6769]

I found myself literally applauding near the conclusion of this interview.

[@fmayer1507]

Let's remember what Keke Geladze, Stalin's mother asked him: "Joseph - who exactly are you now?" "Do you remember the tsar? Well, I'm like a tsar", replied Stalin. "You'd have done better to have become a priest" was her response to her son Stalin, Reference: Radzinsky, E. (1997), Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives.

[@mikedavies3592]

Mr Kotkin you are a seeker of truth I watched both part one and part two it was fascinating. The other thing I noted was how little ego you displayed throughout the discussions, this you accomplished with logic and reason well done sir Thank you

[@chauncypopperstein76]

Great Interview

[@louthurston8088]

Unforgetable.

[@DoctorSuezz]

All of these are absolutely amazing and remarkable!

[@tarekfarmer8025]

Great conversation.

[@dougvanscoy2842]

Very much appreciate these converstations. Thank you!

[@jayfelsberg1931]

I must say this is an impressive series and I will certai ky hunbt the books. And, I am amazed that this brilliant historian is still at Princeton.

[@jasonsmith-by3ji]

Thanks for posting, this is a great video.

[@lenoskes749]

Truly wonderful!

[@PJ-ns6um]

"Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world history. He began as a small clerk, and he has never stopped being a clerk. Stalin owes nothing to rhetoric. He governs from his office, thanks to a bureaucracy that obeys his every nod and gesture.". -A. Hitler

[@mickcraven980]

Great finish.

[@ricadojzuloaga7613]

Peter Robinson is the best interviewer,bar none. He is able to extract the most out of his excelent guests

[@garym2879]

I love Uncommon Knowledge, and these two episodes with Stephen Kotkin are great. He's so knowledgeable and well spoken. However, how is it that while I listen to him, I can't stop thinking about Joe Pesci?

[@planetcaravan2925]

Thanks mr Pesci

[@kschuman1152]

Fascinating. Another person mentioned that the professor reminds him of Joe Pesci. I was noticing that his voice and manner of speech reminded me of someone, but only after watching both videos did I realize it was the famous actor! At the beginning of the first video I was skeptical, thinking "History is not a science, and concludes whatever the historian wishes it to conclude..." but listening further, I found S. Kotkin persuasive, at least in so far as the evaluation of certain issues clearly benefit from the (relatively) recent availability of information from the Soviet archives. Much of what he brings forward seems cogent. I also appreciate his simple common sense (which, apparently, many academicians still lack) in apprehending the monstrousness of Stalin's activities, which, if there were such a thing as hell, would ensure the General Secretary a spot in the lowest & most unpleasant part ... This I think is something which any intelligent person should acknowledge, and beyond that find instructive in understanding that Marx oversimplified the dialectic of history, very importantly failing to see that an all powerful state contains potentials far darker than alternative systems of politico-economic social organization. For me the jury is still very much "out" on free market capitalism, but at least it only results in a considerable amount of injustice and misery as opposed to mass murder and total repression. The clear lesson of history, if there is one, is that we humans are profoundly vulnerable to making terrible mistakes & lack a real capacity to distinguish right from wrong... and should therefore avoid, to the extent possible, ideology of any extreme kind, and especially try to recognize that the manner of determining what ends are fine and beneficial to society is that there are ways to reach them that are consistent with broadly moral principles.

[@19battlehill]

Stephen Kotkin is a true American Patriot --- He believes in the rights of the individual, and their right to freedom . BRavo Professor Kotkin!!!

[@CloverPickingHarp]

Excellent interview

[@knockshinnoch1950]

Fascinating discussion.

[@DwRockett]

Really interesting interview

[@enricodilorenzo4453]

I just love the Hoover institute

[@Mdebacle]

Now my theory: Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin came from outside (from the south) of the countries they ended up ruling. The outsider's view gave them an advantage. They could see details the insiders could not.

[@johnc4774]

A wonderful discussion. Is it only me or does Stephen Kotkin remind anyone else of Joe Pesci?

[@PresterMike]

Yes! Lmao I was thinkin that

[@DWHalse]

I posted the concurrence before reading your post.....great analogy John. Love them both

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

Don't know, but I'd say he reminds Robinson of Rock Hudson!

[@paulbrown3639]

Not as much as your comment reminds me of the one above it aha

[@brianhumek4452]

My son has six months left of home schooling and I just now find the Hoover institution videos?

[@tyrpamplona]

Excellent

[@noszagh]

Wonderful illuminating presentation by Mr. Kotkin, who in some ways remind me of Joe Pesci.

[@dogdriver70]

man Im lovin this

[@jimjones9491]

Brilliant! These guys do all the hard work and I get the facts :-)

[@joannebailey8277]

wish I could take one of Stephen's classes. That was interesting,

[@mrjones7222]

Thank u!!!

[@aardvark1956]

YES, bring on volumes 2 & 3! At last a man with VALUES who isn’t afraid to say so!

[@peterallemano8098]

A very worthwhile conversation; thanks very much to both of you, gents! Best wishes, P.A.

[@Betty-qd8st]

Is there a part 3 ? This is interesting 🍿

[@Ronbo710]

Brilliant. I haven't read his books yet. Does he mention Ivar Smilga at all?

[@gerhardmoeller774]

Terrific interview! I just bought Kotkin’s volumes one and two of Stalin. Is volume three available?

[@drakeequation521]

Very thorough and seems to agree with a former propaganda minister of the USSR to a degree - but not entirely. In a bit of a different twist from Krotkin's view, Vrobiev insisted that Christianity=Marxism. One gives rise to the other and vice-versa. Even Kotkin has the same persuasive, trustworthy personality and facial expressions that Stalin once had. Yet, there are many other takes on Stalin. Stalin was quiet at meetings but was a very good listener.

[@7_red24]

Events of history always redound to the choices of individuals. And those choices always are informed by specific ideas and ideologies.

[@jem5231]

You mean the world is shaped by the reactions of powerful individuals to circumstances. Choice is an illusion. Choice is a word we use when we find it convenient to ignore causality outside of our field of observation. An expert is someone who specializes in a narrow field, while ignoring the world around it.

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

Kotkin opens up a whole new level of understanding of stalin, beyond anything most of us knew before.

[@r.blakehole932]

This Stephen Kotkin reminds me a lot of an older Michael Malice. The mannerisms, the way of speaking, the depth, etc.

[@L0j1k]

The biggest mistake is putting Stalin in a class of his own: He was human. The worst possible thing is to imagine that we -- individually, every one of us -- is not capable of genocide. Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Federation Starship Enterprise said it best when he said, "The seed of violence is within each of us."

[@DaveBassDotCom]

Wow. Home run.

[@Rushmore222]

I never knew that Joe Pesci was such a brilliant historian on the Soviet Union.

[@casparcoaster1936]

as an old stoner, but an armchair historian, I am always impressed by this guy, having grown up in Baltimore, I respect dudes from jersy (would vote for C Booker before any woman I have seen run, except that black lady from Chicago, who lost her nerve, or Rosa Park, or Opra) never listened to anyone as easy to understand, this guy should teach people to teach

[@SESTOFIORHEM]

Would be great to get him together with Jung Chang to talk about Stalin’s death and Mao’s role or lack there of in it.

[@svendbosanvovski4241]

Interesting observation from 5:23 on the so-called Lenin Testament. The article by Krupskaya, Lenin and Trotsky, in the link below at p 516 seems to reinforce Stephen's analysis: www.marxists.org/history/usa/culture/pubs/wm/1925/v4n11-sep-1925.pdf

[@ryansyler8847]

I love how the host at the end tries to take a swipe at different understandings of history and the Professor Kotkin has to explain to him (almost as he as to explain to a smug undergraduate) the different frameworks under which history can be studied. The left and the right (which the host seems to represent as he took several right-wing cheap shots in part 1 of this interview) both look at the world in this binary good/evil or right/wrong perspectives when the truth is so much more nuanced. Professor Kotkin, I think, brilliantly synthesizes differing understandings of history and shows how they are complementary and not mutually exclusive. This is something I try to teach my own students. I'd like them to be able to think when they get to Professor Kotkin's classroom rather than parrot the politically acceptable buzzwords and cliches that their team, whether right or left, currently finds convenient.

[@alexandershorse9021]

"at dictatorship he had an aptitude" lol

[@davidtrindle6473]

Why struggle to separate individual “agency” from circumstances? It’s a false separation. For each of us the individual and the circumstances are impossible to divide. There is no discernable boundary line between the so-called individuals and the circumstances it appears to operate within and upon. Can any honest person find such a boundaryline for them-“selves?” Look for such a thing and you will not find it.

[@austin7037]

Who are you?

[@fellowcitizen]

Tarantino really takes this dialogue to the next level

[@alant5757]

Political history is not in vogue... because the truth hurts and we can’t have that now... can we. Sad..... Wonderful interview

[@markpower5756]

Kotkin is excellent. I especially like his take that Stalin was a committed communist - this is an essential understanding him. I'm not sure about the interviewer's insistence that claiming Stalin was evil is a controversial. I think this is a mainstream view.

[@DWHalse]

Is Kotkin a Joe Pecie a dead look and sound alike?? Makes him credible from the start!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh and great video by the way!!!

[@tommyodonovan3883]

You're a funny guy.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

I also am shocked that a tenured Princeton professor acknowledges communism as evil. As Isaiah I am shocked that perhaps not everyone has bowed the knee to Baal. I grew up in Castro's Cuba and as an American citizen I weep at the direction of the country that blessed my life by allowing me to come here as a child.

[@artoffugue333]

The greatest men are the Truth tellers.

[@tommyodonovan3883]

"No man...no more problems." -Stalin

[@tommyodonovan3883]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,.... Is what happens when a madman gets totalitarian control a few act like Caesar (Trump) but most act like Nero/Kubli Khan/Tamure the Lame....

[@tommyodonovan3883]

& Hillary Clinton

[@anakemp3063]

" a crazy, lunatic ideology". -- Stephen Kotkin

[@laviliterthefirst]

Wish Hoover would do an online store with Hoover Tower, Sowell, Friedman, Uncommon Knowledge Shirts and bumper sticker/posters. We could really use some branding on our side and Hoover is a perfect fit, Imagine college kids wearing Friedman or Sowell shirts rather then Che, Hoover Tower rather then a Hammer and Sickle, Uncommon Knowledge rather then the daily show! I know it might not be something Hoover thinks is appropriate for a Think Tank but it would be a big start in creating the pop branding leftists have done.

[@senselessnothing]

+Mojokilljoy ricklesmits Che, I roll my my eyes everytime.

[@countchocula2169]

Mojokilljoy ricklesmits actually a good idea. Design them online and sell them yourself.

[@charmainet5955]

I'm not even an American but as an admirer of many thinkers Hoover Institution has hosted what would I give to have their quotes on my car.

[@judithsmith8014]

@@charmainet5955 You can make your own now-a-days and advertise your own political position. But then again you might need to insure your car. lol. Hmmm, better still, just educate your own children and friends.

[@PresterMike]

I completely agree!!!!

[@jamesgorman5692]

I think Stalin might know more about Stalin than anybody whoever lived.

[@user-sl8mm5kl7h]

Sometimes we have a blindspot for our biggest deficits. But I do agree, the statement was a little heavy on the hyperbole.

[@AzureSymbiote]

Why did you reupload this?

[@HooverInstitution]

+AzureSymbiote We recorded a new introduction to differentiate part 2 from part 1.

[@yungfaas6688]

13:42

[@HeatintheHeartland]

17:40 - 17:45: This is excellent advice and should be applied to any organization or phenomenon. Due to current events, I'm struck by how this is precisely what is *not* being done with regard to the IS and the proliferation of terrorist attacks in the West and around the world. If we take seriously and study the ideologies, politics and source documents of given movements, we can better comprehend, diagnose and anticipate their exponents' actions, and, most likely, save a lot of trouble in the long run. Point being, we cannot properly engage or counteract what we do not understand.

[@jrboston7018]

Nice exchange. Two points: 1) Stalin's mustache hid the contemptuous micro expressions of his lips that were shown in earlier pictures. He thought he was smarter than everyone else. And he looked down on others and didn't particularly care for people as a whole. It was all an act. The childhood photo of Stalin - before he had the 'stache - shows you everything you need to know about him as a human amongst humans. 2) Kotkin never comes around and says why Lenin and Stalin's ideas were wrong - and obviously wrong. They believed in Marxism and that people would be motivated to act based on their social class. Perhaps if they had read Freud a little more closely and correctly they would have understood human nature in a more nuanced, profound way. Marx pitched his analysis at the wrong level. And these guys - Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky - believed those simplistic ideas and executed the wrong ideas. And way too many people. If only that other Vlad had caught a clue...

[@remfrancis]

Political intelligence would be a better term than political history and it should be an academic discipline made up of all the necessary disciplines that provide us with this human faculty, including political history of course.

[@freorocker]

I've always wondered why Lenin appointed Stalin to General Secretary when he knew Stalin's true nature, knew his true motives. Surely Lenin would have considered the grave consequences of appointing Stalin to such an influential & tactical position. It's highly unlikely Stalin's rise to power could have taken place without him becoming General Secretary.

[@lexbor3511]

One thing is to grab the power, another to rule the country. Lenin had his team that played its role in grabbing the power in Russia. Some of them became less effective in the executing this power. Stalin was a workaholic and at that time the post General Secretary was a position of a huge routine staff to be done everyday that most of talented revolutionists and theoreticians were incapable of doing effectively. And more important - they did not want these routine, boring position. And no, Lenin and nobody else had no idea who are they dealing with. All they saw is a moderate workaholic who is sometimes rude but its not a big deal. A bit speculative, but anyway - Stalin was a Georgian and Georgia was influence by Persian and Byzantium cultures of intrigue all its history. Russians (Russian Jews) just did not had a chance because they were complitly blind to this type of manipulations and because they stereotyped Georgians as simple, emotional, not very smart, naive but honest people.

[@countchocula2169]

Richard Parapar he didn't know. Stalin bowed to power i.e. Lenin.

[@kanki7037]

First of all,Lenin himself ordered recorded mass shootings and hangings of peasants and others to make an example of ;and control people into submission and thereby achieve what he thought is necessary.So he is no saint and violence like mass murdering was thought unavoidable and even necessary by most of the Russian communists even someone like Trotsky , atleast by the most ideological ones.But Stalin took it to such psychopathic levels that it is horrifying.

[@sadobserver7123]

Lenin "knew Stalin's true nature, knew his true motives". Accept for a moment Kotkin's research - Stalin was a true believer in communism (even in private), and Stalin was a successful doer. Presume that Lenin knew Stalin was ruthless in pursuit of the advance of communism. Also accept that as Kotkin's research shows, even the inner circles didn't begin to see the sociopath until 4+ years after Lenin was out of the picture. Acknowledge Lenin as a true believer and who better to carry the mission to the future realization of communism after a strong dictator is able to destroy the impediments to that realization.

[@heathcliffearnshaw1403]

Question to Stephen Kotkin: who was the very first person that Stalin killed and when?

[@thecapitalist1502]

This was as excellent interview , although I wished that the Moderator/ host guy would shut up and allow the expert to actually speak. Professor Kotkin has certainly established himself as an expert.

[@countchocula2169]

the capitalist1 lol you have to get used to him. I was really annoyed with him at first too for doing just that

[@carlabroderick5508]

Stalin has never charmed me, ever.

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

Anyone else notice how all the "intellectuals" out here gushing about "excellence" have so much difficulty spelling the word correctly?

[@JohnKobaRuddy]

But then again these people still believe Stalin killed 20,50,60,100 million people despite kotkin even saying 6 million and even that’s too high

[@samuelecherubin1543]

best moment 18:47

[@secretaryofstate1]

24.00

[@peterivankovich5998]

Stephen Kotkin, I`m bringing up a point not of whether Stalin was bad or good, but whether your research work can be judged as entirely unbiased. For example, the people who helped you out with the Russian archives, were they chosen for their anti-Stalin proclivities or pro-Stalin folks` opinions, too, were included in your book? I`m still beginning to plow my way through your masterpiece. I`ve read books by Doris Kearns Goodwill and she`s a dishonest writer. I once came out even on Minnesota Public Radio. I personally checked out her reference notes in her book Team of Rivals what touched upon anything to do with Russia. I even sent copies of some passages from the book to some acquaintances in Russia and Belarus who were knowledgeable about matters at hand. They researched and then they laughed - she makes it up! And they gave me the advice not to be brainwashed by American books.I myself researched some references and quotes at the back of the book. For instance, I ran down an article in a Finnish newspaper at the turn of the century that Doris cited as proof that Leo Tolstoy had been to the Caucasus and met with the Chechen warriors who asked Leo to tell them about the most heroic man in the world - Abraham Lincoln. Tolstoy obliged them. This is in Doris` book. In the actual old newspaper article the story was about Tolstoy speaking to the Finish audience (Finland being a part of the Czarist Empire back then) about his turning to Orthodox religion and expounding on why he had completely and irrevocably given himself over to the truthful way of life - Orthodox religion. (And Tolstoy went about his religious faith so hard that the Russia Orthodox Church ended up excommunicating him. As the Catholics say about their exceedingly pious people - he`s holier than the Pope.)

[@PresterMike]

God I love listening to conservative historians I cannot read or listen to leftist historians anymore. At all

[@WarHammer1989]

Mikado The Great because getting history and facts right is not the leftists first priority. Instead, it’s “how can I spin this historical event to fit my modern political view?”

[@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016]

+Mikado The Great - if a historian is considered conservative or "leftist", that is a bug, not a feature. Good historians report facts, not push political ideology.

[@DGK284]

@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016Yes, the truth is the historian's goal; a goal that, though difficult to achieve, is best met by objective analysis, not through an ideological lens.

[@DWHalse]

That's because they always massage it to fit Marxist doctrine and hope their listeners don't know or want to research factual history!! Great post Mikado!!

[@maniacal_engineer]

REEEEEEEEEEEEE The only reason you don't like progressive historians is because you are a REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@dougrees6777]

This confirms what I've long believed: in Stalin we're dealing with a mass murderer who had a first-rate mind. Throughout his career, people underestimated Stalin, and they paid for it dearly.

[@thefreeaccount0]

Nope...in Stalin we are dealing with a person who had a first-rate mind. He just happened to be a mass murderer.

[@animus5975]

This man loves his job