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”.