1. i am not a professional researcher. i study the soviet union out of a deep personal interest in the subject.
2. nothing i say, nor what anyone else says, is the final word. this is history and economics, hardly the bastions
of concrete fact.
3. bolshevism and soviet-style communism are purely russian events. that being the case, it is important to understand
that russians are not western europeans. by that i mean that russians have a history and culture that differs from
that of western europe. soviet history looks horrifying and bloody to the liberalized western eye, but it was
a continuation in the way things had been done throughout the history of the russian people. the horrors commited
by the bolsheviks/communists were only possible because of the previous history of the russian people. simliar
events could not have happened at the same time in england, france or the u.s. because the people in these countries
had been taught to resist such things. without rationalizing away stalin's terror against his own followers, a
major difference between stalin and many of the tsars was that the former had access to better technology.
4. i have a certain bias on this subject. everyone has a bias on this subject. however, i try to be inclusive of
all serious attempts to deal with this subject.
5. a bias that seems to be prevalent as of late is what i call the 'winners write history' syndrome. many recent
books on the subject try to show the history of the soviet union in the worst light possible. i do not deny that
many atrocities were committed in the name of "building socialism". however, to only focus on this aspect
of soviet history is unbalanced, inaccurate and rightly called propaganda ( in the pejorative sense).
6. don't assume that what you see is what you get on this web site.
7. am i a communist? only an american would care or ask.