Mao did not cause the famine, China was a slave-feudal society where famine was a recurring feature due to underdeveloped agriculture and poor technology to cope with weather disasters. Famine was abolished under socialism during Mao’s time, just not overnight.
Wild Swans is a personal biography and anecdote, not an actual work of historical analysis.
Cambodia wasn’t socialist and the overwhelming majority of socialists condemn Pol Pot, so I don’t care to offer anything here.
All in all, you essentially have some of the worst of liberal academia combined with essentially historical fiction. That’s not a good basis for any historical analysis.
For the Soviet Union, I recommend the following works:
Also, are there any books critical of communism/stalinism/maoism/leninism you’d recommend? Figure I’ll stagger one pro one anti and find the middle. So far I have if any have major issues let me know and I’ll decide if they are worth my time.
Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History
Yang Jisheng, Tombstone
Orlando Figes, The Whisperers
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928
No, because I haven’t read anything critical of Marxism-Leninism that I’d recommend. Further, finding a “middle” between two ideas doesn’t translate into being more correct, or more nuanced. All of the works I listed do bring up real issues that exist within socialist states, so you already are getting a good, critical view.
Everything you’ve listed is heavily biased. None of it is neutral at all when I looked into them. Which is fine, but I’d like to read both. Not to be correct, just for full context. The second list I presented I haven’t read anything of but all are supposed to be more historical and less political.
Everything you listed was both biased and historically inaccurate, though. Every source is biased in some way, what’s important is recognizing what that bias is.
Ok I specifically chose books that based their information on historical documents provided by said governments. All of my current list are supposed to be the most historically driven, again, based on information obtained by the structures of power in question. You can dismiss them as fake or historically inaccurate but nothing supports that claim. Particularly the road to terror, everyday stalinism and history of the gulag.
The Gulag Archipelago is a work of fiction from a Nazi sympathizer, so that makes sense.
Even Wikipedia can’t hide that Timothy Snyder is a hack:
Omer Bartov wrote that “the book presents no new evidence and makes no new arguments”,[28] and in a highly critical review Richard Evans wrote that, because of its lack of causal argument, “Snyder’s book is of no use”, and that Snyder “hasn’t really mastered the voluminous literature on Hitler’s Germany”, which “leads him into error in a number of places” regarding the politics of Nazi Germany
Mao did not cause the famine, China was a slave-feudal society where famine was a recurring feature due to underdeveloped agriculture and poor technology to cope with weather disasters. Famine was abolished under socialism during Mao’s time, just not overnight.
As for Robert Conquest, he’s a hack who includes Nazis killed as “victims of communism,” as well as non-births as deaths.
Wild Swans is a personal biography and anecdote, not an actual work of historical analysis.
Cambodia wasn’t socialist and the overwhelming majority of socialists condemn Pol Pot, so I don’t care to offer anything here.
All in all, you essentially have some of the worst of liberal academia combined with essentially historical fiction. That’s not a good basis for any historical analysis.
For the Soviet Union, I recommend the following works:
This Soviet World (1936)
Human Rights in the Soviet Union (1984)
Blackshirts and Reds (1997)
Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend (Published in English in 2023)
And for China, the following:
China’s Millions (1965)
The East is Still Red (2023)
People’s Republic of China
Also, are there any books critical of communism/stalinism/maoism/leninism you’d recommend? Figure I’ll stagger one pro one anti and find the middle. So far I have if any have major issues let me know and I’ll decide if they are worth my time.
Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History
Yang Jisheng, Tombstone
Orlando Figes, The Whisperers
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928
Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism
Oleg Khlevniuk, The History of the Gulag
Arch Getty & Oleg Naumov, The Road to Terror
No, because I haven’t read anything critical of Marxism-Leninism that I’d recommend. Further, finding a “middle” between two ideas doesn’t translate into being more correct, or more nuanced. All of the works I listed do bring up real issues that exist within socialist states, so you already are getting a good, critical view.
Everything you’ve listed is heavily biased. None of it is neutral at all when I looked into them. Which is fine, but I’d like to read both. Not to be correct, just for full context. The second list I presented I haven’t read anything of but all are supposed to be more historical and less political.
All works are biased, learn some academic literacy. Especially after you posted a list of the most single minded anti communist propaganda imaginable
Yes, that’s why I want to read both… You don’t have to speak so aggressively. I didn’t say anything I listed wasn’t biased.
Everything you listed was both biased and historically inaccurate, though. Every source is biased in some way, what’s important is recognizing what that bias is.
Ok I specifically chose books that based their information on historical documents provided by said governments. All of my current list are supposed to be the most historically driven, again, based on information obtained by the structures of power in question. You can dismiss them as fake or historically inaccurate but nothing supports that claim. Particularly the road to terror, everyday stalinism and history of the gulag.
Lol, and you’re pretending you’re here in good faith
Where is the bad faith??? What does bad faith even mean to you?
Lol
Thank you! In a few months hopefully I’ll have a nicely balanced perspective.