Most Helpful Customer Reviews
236 of 260 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Stalin's apologists in academia exposed, January 12, 2004
This review is from: In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage (Hardcover)
The statement made in the Publisher's Weekly review that "this uncompromising manifesto" compares Left-wing historians' sympathy for American Communism to Holocaust denial is not entirely accurate. While much of the book does focus on the blindness of academia to facts about the American Communist Party being a subversive tool of the Kremlin and revelations from the Soviet archives about the extent of Soviet espionage in America (Leftists often attempt to deflect the issue with red herrings about "McCarthyism." Just check out the negative reviews), what Haynes and Klehr do compare to Holocaust denial is the continued whitewashing of Stalinism by radical left-wing revisionists such as J. Arch Getty, Robert W. Thurston, Gabriel Kolko, Theodore Von Laue, Fredric Jameson, Eric Foner, Barbara Foley, Grover Furr and others. Actually, they are probably worse than holocaust deniers because their defense and/or denial of Stalinist mass murder largely goes unchallenged, unlike Holocaust revisionism. And, as the book says: "The number of apologists for the former Soviet Union and its mass murders dwarfs the handful of aberrant pro-Nazi academics in America." (pg 13)
Von Laue defends Lenin, Stalin and the totalitarian murder machine they created: "How then are we to judge Stalin? Viewed in the full historical context Stalin appears as one of the most impressive figures of the twentieth century." "Regard for individual life was a necessary sacrifice in Lenin's ambition to enhance life in the future." "The specific design of Soviet totalitarianism has perhaps not been sufficiently appreciated. However brutal, it was a remarkable human achievement despite its flaws." (pg 24-26) This apologist for mass murder is a "professor" and one of the authors of a much used history book.
Kolko, another revisionist whose books were widely assigned as college texts, justifies the cold and calculated murder of 21,857 Polish reserve officers and intellectuals stating "Whoever destroyed the officers at Katyn had taken a step toward implementing a social revolution in Poland." He also states that "Katyn was the exception" in Soviet behavior and "its relative importance....must be downgraded very considerably." (pg 21) Exception? Apparently Mr. Kolko has conveniently forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of Polish citizens deported to the gulag during the Nazi-Soviet pact and the 110,000 ethnic Poles residing in the USSR who were executed during the Great Terror.
Thurston, a professor at Miami University of Ohio, claims that Stalin "was not guilty of mass first degree murder from 1934-1941 and did not plan or carry out a systematic campaign to crush the nation." (pg 24) The aforementioned Katyn massacre (1940) is a perfect example of mass first-degree murder. The order to execute the Poles came from the Politburo of the Soviet Communist Party and was signed by Stalin himself. Historians have also found orders from Stalin approving the murder of old Bolshevik comrades and setting execution quotas for the secret police.
Furr, an English professor at Montclair State University, praised the blood-drenched Communist revolutions in Russia and China: "The greatest historical events in the twentieth century - in fact, in all of human history - have been the overthrow of capitalism and establishment of societies run by and for the working class in the two great communist revolutions in Russia and China." (pg 27) Anyone who has read about Lenin's "Red Terror" and Mao's "campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries" knows these weren't "great historical events," but bloodbaths of horror.
Can one honestly say that these examples don't compare to Holocaust revisionists and their whitewashing of Hitler? These apologists for tyranny and deniers of genocide should be just as reviled as David Irving and his ilk, and should not be accepted in American higher education.
I addition to this book I'd recommend A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander Yakovlev, an excellent work of history that tells the truth about the criminal nature of Lenin, Stalin and the USSR and The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois et al, which exposes the bloody legacy of Communism from around the world.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
55 of 63 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Eye-Opening Book, April 19, 2004
This review is from: In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage (Hardcover)
I write about the history of American space policy and strategic reconnaissance and one of the things I strive to do is dig into archives and find newly available sources to further our understanding of events. So I was interested in this book because one of the themes is how some historians of American communism and labor are actually _not_ interested in newly available information because it threatens their worldview. I find it amazing that historians are not trying to get as much of this information as possible. But there were other amazing aspects of this book. I was aware of people who long denied the brutality of communism. There are certainly many people in academia right now who still write glowing commentaries on Fidel Castro, for instance. But I was not aware that there are current tenured professors of history who write glowingly of Joseph Stalin. Some of the quotes in this book from these people are jaw-dropping (some of them have been reproduced in other reviews on this website). I think that Haynes and Klehr are right to note that it is amazing not only that these people exist, but that some of them hold (or held) prominent positions in academia. They are correct in noting that Holocaust-deniers and Nazi-sympathizers are rare and regularly suppressed by the historian community whereas people who hold equally repugnant views about communism are often held in high esteem by their colleagues. I attended the Venona conference that they mention, and have read some of their previous works. I am also somewhat familiar with the academic study of the Hiss and Rosenberg cases, where some individuals insisted for decades of their absolute innocence, but are now shown to be massively wrong. As recently as a few months ago the New York Times printed a mopey article that complained that the real travesty was not that the Rosenbergs ran a spy ring that provided the Soviet Union with vital secrets, but that they were executed in a show trial. But I must fault Haynes and Klehr somewhat on their misuse of the terms "traditionalists" and "revisionists." They admittedly create these terms as shorthand for the groups they are discussing, but this introduces problems to the discussion, because these terms already have their own meanings within the historical community. And they aren't really accurate anyway. History that is properly done is by definition revisionist, for it attempts to revise our understanding of events. And Haynes and Klehr in many ways are seeking to revise the previously popular view of subjects such as the Communist Party of the USA with new sources and sophisticated interpretation. So doesn't that make them "revisionists" as well? But this is only a small criticism. This is a fascinating book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
64 of 77 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fabulous debunking of liberal nonsense, October 6, 2004
This review is from: In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage (Hardcover)
I hate to say it, but the liberals got it wrong AGAIN. (OK, maybe I don't hate it that much, really...)
Despite the complete victory of the U.S. and its capitalistic, free allies in the Cold War, these far-left academics refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong. They still cling to the radical notion that Americans who joined the Communist Party did it just because they believed in "social justice" or "progressive politics" -- instead of the truth, which is, as Haynes & Klehr have shown in their research, that many American Communists were spies for the Soviet Union and wanted the U.S. to be defeated in the Cold War.
Reading someone like Ellen Schrecker (one of Haynes and Klehr's primary villians) makes you realize just how out of touch these people are with reality. She lives in a fantasy world where, somehow, believing that the good guys won the Cold War is a form of "triumphalism," to quote from the title of her latest offering.
Haynes and Klehr have, admittedly, written a polemic, though a well-researched one. Other works of theirs have already systematically demolished the airy suppositions of those who argue American Communists weren't so bad.
I can't say enough good things about this. Buy it now!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
