Grover Furr's only academic credentials are as a teacher of medieval history. He is therefore well acquainted with the torture methods and the rituals of the Inquisition, of which Stalinism developed its own version, for similar purposes. Like an inquisitor, Furr is devoted to proving witches do exist.
Furr's argument is that "there is not now nor has there ever been any evidence that the Moscow Trials defendants were in reality innocent, compelled or persuaded by some means (threats to them or against their families, loyalty to the Party, etc.) to testify falsely". He doesn't explicitly say they weren't coerced, but rather that coercion itself doesn't prove their confessions are false. People can be tortured into saying the truth in some cases, is Furr's thesis. Also, the absence of any further evidence, apart from confessions obtained through coercion, does not mean someone is not guilty, because sometimes people commit crimes and no evidence is gathered. This is always the type of argument put forth by Furr, recurring to elementary logic to prove nothing, to talk about mere abstract possibilities, disregarding history itself. Obviously the burden of proof lies with the accusing party, if there is no evidence that the old bolsheviks were fascist collaborators, the Stalinists have to find it and prove their case, and this they have never been able to do. Furr's way of thinking resembles very well that of an inquisitor, a mediocre fanatic of a counterrevolutionary cult.
No comments:
Post a Comment