In the light of Prof. Kramer's remarks about my posts -- "absurdity" is
 a strong word -- I hope I may be permitted to reply.

 >  Similarly, Grover Furr's claims about specific aspects of
 >  Soviet history too often move into the realm of absurdity and reflect a
 >  lack of familiarity with the documentation that has emerged over the
past
 >  10-12 years.

 I would like to assure Kramer -- he refers to me by my last name alone,
 so I hope I may be permitted to do likewise -- that his statements are
 unfounded.

 I wrote (in part):

 >         Books arguing that, e.g., the USSR was not guilty of the
 >         "Katyn" massacres of Polish officials . . . simply
 >         are not, and CAN not be published [in the United States],
 >         because such conclusions are "beyond the pale." I suspect
 >         that a scholar who even seriously entertained such ideas
 >         could not get a job in the field of Soviet history in the
 >         US or UK.

 Kramer's reply refers to documents published in 1992, with which I'm
 quite familiar.

 Kramer then states:

 >  In light of the evidence that has emerged, no serious scholar can argue
 >  any longer that the Soviet occupying forces were not responsible for the
 >  mass executions in Katyn Forest.  Nor can any serious scholar argue that
 >  this was done without Stalin's direct approval.

 These statements of Kramer's illustrate my point, which was that a
 Cold-War orthodoxy constrains -- I would say, cripples -- the study of
 Soviet history in the West. Another example of this is Prof. Horowitz's
 jibe at the work of Arch Getty the other day on this list.

 It is simply not the case that anyone who disagrees with Kramer is not a
 "serious scholar." This is precisely the language used by those who
 continue to put ideological -- that is, politically-motivated --
 limitations on the study of Soviet history, as I contended.

 Serious questions have been raised as to the genuineness of a number of
 documents suddenly discovered -- or, "discovered" -- during the last
 years of the USSR, including those purporting to "document" the Katyn
 executions.

 Known forgeries, such as the Eremin letter, were published during the
 Gorbachev period by Soviet journals as though they were not only new,
 but genuine. It is not "wacky" -- to use a word inserted into this
 discussion by Kramer -- to wonder whether others may have also been forged.

 Kramer stated that my post "reflect(s) a lack of familiarity with the
 documentation that has emerged over the past 10-12 years." I will not
 insult him in a similar way by claiming that he is ignorant of the
 arguments that, for example, the Katyn documents in question are forgeries.

 But here, again, is my point. No possible argument is going to convince
 Cold Warriors that their basic premises are false. Prof. Conquest, for
 example, has proved impervious to twenty years of criticism of his
 claims by professional historians in the mainstream journals, and to
 outright rejection of his "research" on the Ukrainian famine.

 The study of Soviet history remains highly politicized, and the
 "consensus" that exists in the West is an enforced one, reflecting the
 Cold-War, anti-communist origins and history of the field of Soviet
 studies in the West.

 It is neither "wacky" nor irresponsible to question this enforced,
 politicized, Cold-War consensus. On the contrary: it is healthy to do
 so. And it is _excellent_ that this consensus IS being questioned in
 Russia -- where, after all, the stakes are much higher, since the
 history of their own country is of far greater importance to Russians,
 and the former Soviet peoples generally, than it is to others.

 I myself do not care, one way or the other. If the Soviets shot all the
 Polish officers at Katyn and the other two camps, I'd like to know it.
 It would not change the way I look at the world, or challenge my values
 --  scholarly, political, or otherwise. The problem is that those
 scholars who expound the reigning orthodoxy, the "Cold-War consensus",
 cannot honestly make this same claim.

 Finally, I would like to make a plea for the language of mutual respect
 on this list. Terms such as "absurd", "wacky", "fringe", etc., -- those
 used by Kramer -- serve no useful analytical purpose. They are terms of
 abuse only. Their continued use threatens to turn discussions on this
 list into exchanges of insults and recrimination. I suggest that they be
 banned.

Sincerely,

 Grover Furr
 Montclair SU





--

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS