What do you think?
Rate this book
Khrushchev Lied
In his "Secret Speech" of February 1956 Nikita Khrushchev accused Joseph Stalin of immense crimes. Khrushchev's speech was a body blow from which the worldwide communist movement never recovered. It changed the course of history. Grover Furr has spent a decade studying the flood of documents from formerly secret Soviet archives published since the end of the USSR. In this detailed study of Khrushchev's speech he reveals the astonishing results of his Not a single one of Khrushchev's "revelations" is true! The most influential speech of the 20th century - if not of all time - a dishonest swindle? The very thought is monstrous; the implications for our understanding of Left history-immense. Basing their work on Khrushchev's lies, Soviet and Western historians, including Trotskyists and anticommunists, have effectively falsified Soviet history. Virtually everything we thought we knew about the Stalin years turns out to be wrong. The history of the USSR, and of the communist m
431 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
36 people are currently reading
1255 people want to read
About the author
Grover Furr
28 books146 followersGrover Furr (Dr. Grover Carr Furr III) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
He has researched and published extensive material on Soviet history (with an emphasis on the Stalin period) and on academic Sovietology from a critical perspective, for over four decades. Furr is a critic of anglophone and Western historiography of the USSR and of what he calls "the anti-Stalin paradigm" (a critique to which much of his bibliography attends).
He has researched and published extensive material on Soviet history (with an emphasis on the Stalin period) and on academic Sovietology from a critical perspective, for over four decades. Furr is a critic of anglophone and Western historiography of the USSR and of what he calls "the anti-Stalin paradigm" (a critique to which much of his bibliography attends).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
December 27, 2022
Definitive. The final word. Nobody has successfully refuted anything in this book. Please link me any evidence to the contrary. A masterclass in primary source reading. And no the charicature that this is some brainless Stalin hagiography (i.e. the flipside of the Stalin demonology Furr and others have gotten understandably annoyed with), doesn't hold water. There are actually some forceful criticisms of Stalin contained in this book. How can we not, Furr argues, hold Stalin and his administration at least partially responsible for laying the groundwork that allows for the rise of a monster like Khrushchev in the first place? This was a riveting and engaging piece of Soviet history that no buff (regardless of politics) should ignore.
June 10, 2016
The man who wrote this book is biased. I knew that before getting into it and I knew it even more well coming out. He frequents communist rallies and he has a politically motivated ambition to rehabilitate Stalin in particular. If I want to get a fair historical assessment of Hideki Tojo, I won't ask the leader of a Japanese Nationalist party just like I wouldn't ask this guy if I wanted a fair historical assessment of Stalin. With that said, I decided to read the book anyway out of morbid curiosity and it was certainly a different kind of read.
The main goal of the book isn't necessarily to disprove every accusation leveled at Stalin in Khrushchev's secret speech but rather to prove that for many of said accusations, the evidence does not exist. In some other cases, Furr shows that evidence released since the speech has proved some claims false and purports that (and he is likely correct on this count) Khrushchev and his cronies must've had access to this information at the time of the speech and so their claims are purposely deceitful and misleading. Of course, Khrushchev was not as much of a bumbling buffoon as many today believe and it isn't hard to perceive why a speech like this (even if everything Furr claims is false is so) would be politically opportunistic for him. In a few cases, Khrushchev doesn't even make accusations but rather makes implications and that's where things really get problematic.
To make a long story short, the book itself is incredibly deep in regards to history. If you aren't up to snuff on your Soviet history from the late '20s to the early '50s and all the figures that dominated those decades, this book will often lose you in the slog of details and hard-to-pronounce (and remember) names. You also won't find any real concessions on the part of Furr until halfway through the book (where he concedes that not "everything" Khrushchev claimed was incorrect) - I think I'm not alone when I say that these concessions would've been nice to read as an introduction before getting into the meat of the book. The other thing curious readers should note is that this book is strictly about the claims of the Khrushchev's speech - try as you might, the jury is out on the Gulags and the famines of the early '30s.
There are many, many, many references in which Furr cites and to be honest I'm not interested enough to go looking into them and fact-checking them or assessing their reliability. I'll leave that to the next batch of historians that decide to write a book in Stalin's defense. Because of this, I can't say with any sort of certainty how true the conclusions are that Furr comes to but I will say he has certainly convinced me that there are falsehoods in Khrushchev's claims and that he was an unabashed opportunist who in many ways was just as guilty as Stalin. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who isn't seriously interested in Stalin's era or Soviet history in general. This isn't easy reading and requires thoughtfulness to keep up with what Furr is talking about.
The main goal of the book isn't necessarily to disprove every accusation leveled at Stalin in Khrushchev's secret speech but rather to prove that for many of said accusations, the evidence does not exist. In some other cases, Furr shows that evidence released since the speech has proved some claims false and purports that (and he is likely correct on this count) Khrushchev and his cronies must've had access to this information at the time of the speech and so their claims are purposely deceitful and misleading. Of course, Khrushchev was not as much of a bumbling buffoon as many today believe and it isn't hard to perceive why a speech like this (even if everything Furr claims is false is so) would be politically opportunistic for him. In a few cases, Khrushchev doesn't even make accusations but rather makes implications and that's where things really get problematic.
To make a long story short, the book itself is incredibly deep in regards to history. If you aren't up to snuff on your Soviet history from the late '20s to the early '50s and all the figures that dominated those decades, this book will often lose you in the slog of details and hard-to-pronounce (and remember) names. You also won't find any real concessions on the part of Furr until halfway through the book (where he concedes that not "everything" Khrushchev claimed was incorrect) - I think I'm not alone when I say that these concessions would've been nice to read as an introduction before getting into the meat of the book. The other thing curious readers should note is that this book is strictly about the claims of the Khrushchev's speech - try as you might, the jury is out on the Gulags and the famines of the early '30s.
There are many, many, many references in which Furr cites and to be honest I'm not interested enough to go looking into them and fact-checking them or assessing their reliability. I'll leave that to the next batch of historians that decide to write a book in Stalin's defense. Because of this, I can't say with any sort of certainty how true the conclusions are that Furr comes to but I will say he has certainly convinced me that there are falsehoods in Khrushchev's claims and that he was an unabashed opportunist who in many ways was just as guilty as Stalin. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who isn't seriously interested in Stalin's era or Soviet history in general. This isn't easy reading and requires thoughtfulness to keep up with what Furr is talking about.
March 8, 2016
The lies Khrushchev told in his "Secret Speech" at the 20th Party Congress became the framework for the bulk of the myth-making about Stalin and Soviet history by western historians in the field. Essentially Khrushchev propagates the bulk of the fabrications that Trotsky employed to attack Stalin personally along with a number of new lies that served his own needs. One need may have been to cover his own very possible role in the Trotsky conspiracy to assassinate Stalin. This work debunking the lies and analyzing what they say about Khrushchev himself became the launching point for Grover Furr's quest to unravel the true history of the USSR between the death of Lenin and the death of Stalin, ignited by uncovering the extent of the lying by Khrushchev about that era, which was total. I read Khrushchev Lied after Blood Lies and Trotsky's Amalgams, with the latter being a very good book to refer to while reading through this thorough demolishing of the litany of lies told by Khrushchev.
January 16, 2017
Khrushchev lied is certainly a very detailed and thorough book in the sense that it goes in detail to refute every implication and argument Khrushchev makes. The Author had supported most of his claims with primary sources and left many links to those sources in his book so you can look them up online. The amount of detail that had went into this is indeed very extraordinary plus the fact that this author can speak fluent Russian among other languages certainly makes this book a worthy read on soviet history. However the book is also an very difficult read, it requires people to have a decent knowledge of Soviet history (especially Stalin-era events) prior to reading. On top of it all, but some evidence cited are not translated English. Overall it is a pretty good read with the only problem being the difficulty of it; which is understandable due to the topic this book discusses and I would definitely recommend it.
August 11, 2018
EAT SHIT KHRUSHSCHEV
May 12, 2018
First, let me state that the Kindle download is terribly formatted and very difficult to navigate and read.
Second, while I agree that Khruschev was also a murderous thug who survived the purges by being a Stalin sycophant much of what he said in the secret speech concealed his own behavior and he did in fact lie. But not about Stalin, about his own involvement in Soviet crimes.
But Furr's defense of Stalin is beyond absurd, how anyone rates this book highly is beyond my understanding.
Second, while I agree that Khruschev was also a murderous thug who survived the purges by being a Stalin sycophant much of what he said in the secret speech concealed his own behavior and he did in fact lie. But not about Stalin, about his own involvement in Soviet crimes.
But Furr's defense of Stalin is beyond absurd, how anyone rates this book highly is beyond my understanding.
April 25, 2023
I recommend reading the appendix featuring the entirety of Kruschchev’s speech first, then reading the main text (while also reading the other appendix with Furr’s extensive collection of primary document quotations). And then reading/skimming through the speech again.
Whatever you may say about the degeneration of the party throughout the course of the USSR, one thing should be certain to you by the end: Kruschchev was a vile and opportunistic piece of fucking shit, undoubtedly responsible for huge swaths of party members worldwide abandoning their parties and the communist movement based on the ghastly “revelations” of Stalin’s behaviors in his “Secret” speech. Moreso than any other tendentious moment in communist movements and regimes worldwide did Kruschchev lay a mortal blow to the thrust of world revolution, which was arguably around the corner in the 1950s otherwise.
The parts of the speech where he lays crimes at the feet of Stalin and Beria, are truly painful to read back after Furr’s thorough dispelling of their veracity. Kruschchev here is the king of projection, also, laying the blame for the mass repressions of the 30s on Stalin, he who called frequently for a lessening of such repressions, he who called for physical punishments and interrogations as a drastic exception, and for those using them as a rule to be punished as enemies of the people themselves; as revealed by the primary sources, Kruschchev was one of the first secretaries most responsible for repressions, first in Moscow and then in the Ukraine (at one point being denied a request to be allowed to arrest and execute even more people).
In addition, the whole thrust of the speech being about denouncing the “cult of the individual”, something Stalin decried and denounced himself frequently throughout his lifetime as the first secretaries such as Kruschchev propped it up! The speech is full of lies and distortions and quotes pulled in such a way as to deceptively reframe their context. And most notably and hilariously (and depressingly), when Kruschchev is not lying about this or that thing Stalin did, he is essentially quoting Stalin himself! When he goes on about the principles of Marxism-Leninism, when he goes on about the cult of the individual, when he goes on about following the path of Lenin, you can easily find in Stalin’s works the exact same messaging.
One small moment I found most revealing in the speech itself is Kruschchev saying that Stalin wanted “new workers to replace the old in the Central Committee”. Stalin frequently excoriated the bureaucratic tendencies in the party and sought the regeneration of the party through fresh blood, amongst other things. Kruschchev spins this as though it is proof of Stalin’s motive to repress many “honest Communists”; in fact, Kruschchev’s focus on the repressions has more to do with rehabilitating his fellow secretaries than it does with being genuinely concerned about repressions at lower levels. Understandable since Kruschchev himself repressed tens of thousands of “honest Communists” in Moscow alone— he sought the reinforcement of the bureaucratic apparatus of which he was firmly a part.
Whatever you may say about the degeneration of the party throughout the course of the USSR, one thing should be certain to you by the end: Kruschchev was a vile and opportunistic piece of fucking shit, undoubtedly responsible for huge swaths of party members worldwide abandoning their parties and the communist movement based on the ghastly “revelations” of Stalin’s behaviors in his “Secret” speech. Moreso than any other tendentious moment in communist movements and regimes worldwide did Kruschchev lay a mortal blow to the thrust of world revolution, which was arguably around the corner in the 1950s otherwise.
The parts of the speech where he lays crimes at the feet of Stalin and Beria, are truly painful to read back after Furr’s thorough dispelling of their veracity. Kruschchev here is the king of projection, also, laying the blame for the mass repressions of the 30s on Stalin, he who called frequently for a lessening of such repressions, he who called for physical punishments and interrogations as a drastic exception, and for those using them as a rule to be punished as enemies of the people themselves; as revealed by the primary sources, Kruschchev was one of the first secretaries most responsible for repressions, first in Moscow and then in the Ukraine (at one point being denied a request to be allowed to arrest and execute even more people).
In addition, the whole thrust of the speech being about denouncing the “cult of the individual”, something Stalin decried and denounced himself frequently throughout his lifetime as the first secretaries such as Kruschchev propped it up! The speech is full of lies and distortions and quotes pulled in such a way as to deceptively reframe their context. And most notably and hilariously (and depressingly), when Kruschchev is not lying about this or that thing Stalin did, he is essentially quoting Stalin himself! When he goes on about the principles of Marxism-Leninism, when he goes on about the cult of the individual, when he goes on about following the path of Lenin, you can easily find in Stalin’s works the exact same messaging.
One small moment I found most revealing in the speech itself is Kruschchev saying that Stalin wanted “new workers to replace the old in the Central Committee”. Stalin frequently excoriated the bureaucratic tendencies in the party and sought the regeneration of the party through fresh blood, amongst other things. Kruschchev spins this as though it is proof of Stalin’s motive to repress many “honest Communists”; in fact, Kruschchev’s focus on the repressions has more to do with rehabilitating his fellow secretaries than it does with being genuinely concerned about repressions at lower levels. Understandable since Kruschchev himself repressed tens of thousands of “honest Communists” in Moscow alone— he sought the reinforcement of the bureaucratic apparatus of which he was firmly a part.
April 11, 2024
Conspiracy theory masquerading as history.
August 30, 2024
In this detailed and lengthy volume, Professor Grover Furr exposes the utter fallaciousness of Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech', but his analysis leaves much to be desired. Owing to the disjointed manner of presentation there is a complete failure to elucidate what actually occurred during the Great Purge. The short-comings of this work are acknowledged by Furr himself when he states that: "The interested student will naturally want to know more than the mere fact that Khrushchev lied. Once convinced that Khrushchev's version of reality is false, she or he will want to know the truth - what really happened... the present study cannot satisfy that curiosity."
Yet the very limited explanation he does present is less than coherent. One example should suffice, when he is the discussing the torture and fabrication of incriminating material in the case of Robert Eikhe: "That fact does not necessarily suggest innocence on the part of Eikhe. Frinovsky admits that he and Yezhov fabricated cases against their own men, and had them shot as well, in order to avert any chance that they would "turn" on them when questioned by Beria." I don't find it to be particularly believable that Yezhov had his own men arrested, viciously tortured, and killed.
One unquestionably positive aspect of the book is its exposure of Khrushchev's extensive involvement in repressions himself, which make all of his morally-charged accusations against Stalin's terror twinge with hypocrisy. It is detailed how his successors approved over 90% of the appeals made by party members expelled by him during his time as head of the Moscow Oblast and city committee, including more than 12,000 who were expelled in the year 1937 alone, as well has how other party officials in the city associated with him were executed for their role in the mass repressions.
Perhaps we will have to wait until all of the relevant archival materials are made available to researchers before we can know the truth. For now, 'Khrushchev Lied' will remain but an impetus to further study.
Yet the very limited explanation he does present is less than coherent. One example should suffice, when he is the discussing the torture and fabrication of incriminating material in the case of Robert Eikhe: "That fact does not necessarily suggest innocence on the part of Eikhe. Frinovsky admits that he and Yezhov fabricated cases against their own men, and had them shot as well, in order to avert any chance that they would "turn" on them when questioned by Beria." I don't find it to be particularly believable that Yezhov had his own men arrested, viciously tortured, and killed.
One unquestionably positive aspect of the book is its exposure of Khrushchev's extensive involvement in repressions himself, which make all of his morally-charged accusations against Stalin's terror twinge with hypocrisy. It is detailed how his successors approved over 90% of the appeals made by party members expelled by him during his time as head of the Moscow Oblast and city committee, including more than 12,000 who were expelled in the year 1937 alone, as well has how other party officials in the city associated with him were executed for their role in the mass repressions.
Perhaps we will have to wait until all of the relevant archival materials are made available to researchers before we can know the truth. For now, 'Khrushchev Lied' will remain but an impetus to further study.
April 7, 2019
uncompromisingly thorough. if you have any doubts about several things about joseph stalin, krushchev's "secret speech" is the ultimate source of criticism and the origin of many claims about him. furr undertakes a massive effort to fact-check each and every one of his claims, to find nothing surprising to many ml's- the speech contains nothing but lies! furr prints each claim and goes through the soviet sources and archives and cites each and every source he uses to put these myths to rest.
January 2, 2016
Excellent book, Not light reading. Based on research and documents including Soviet archives. Will give an entire new prospective on this period in history and it effects on what we are living though today
July 5, 2017
A really good piece of Historiography about the Stalin Era period, shedding some myths that are regarded as absolute truth by Western historians.
I highly recommend it
I highly recommend it
April 20, 2025
«Nada positivo, democrático, o liberador puede ser construido sobre un fundamento de falsedad. En vez de revivir un movimiento comunista, y un Partido Bolchevique, que se había extraviado de su verdadero curso a través de graves errores, Khrushchev lo estaba matando.»
El 25 de febrero de 1956 en una sesión cerrada del XX congreso del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (PCUS), Nikita Khrushchev pronunció su famoso “Discurso secreto”, que empujaría a la URSS y al movimiento comunista internacional en una espiral descendente hasta el colapso que ya conocemos.
En su discurso acerca de “los efectos perjudiciales del culto a la personalidad”, Khrushchev criticó duramente al ya fallecido Stalin, descubriendo su figura cruel y sanguinaria. También le acusó de un numero de injusticias y le achaca la responsabilidad sobre las represiones masivas que se hicieron en los años 30, donde muchos cuadros comunistas fueron ejecutados injustamente (lo que popularmente se conoce como “La Gran Purga”).
Durante décadas, este discurso del que fuera Secretario General del PCUS ha sido la piedra de toque de la crítica al periodo llamado “estalinista”, y ha sido la base de una buena parte de las críticas hacia la URSS, y mas concretamente hacia la figura de Stalin.
Y entonces, en 2014, apareció un profesor norteamericano de literatura inglesa medieval llamado Grover Furr.
Furr, historiador de profesión, aprovechando las informaciones y documentos que el gobierno ruso ha ido desclasificando a lo largo de los años se propone contrastar la veracidad de las afirmaciones hechas por Khrushchev en este “discurso secreto”.
Lo que Furr encuentra y expone en este libro es que las 61 afirmaciones que hace Khrushchev en su discurso son o bien demostrablemente falsas, o omiten un contexto esencial, o se hacen sin aportar ninguna prueba o testimonio que los corrobore. En definitiva, que Khrushchev mintió.
El libro no se propone esclarecer la verdad definitiva de lo ocurrido, ni exculpar a Stalin de los errores cometidos, sino mas bien demostrar que esta pieza fundamental de la imagen que tenemos de Stalin es una falsificación, y que por lo tanto su figura debe ser reexaminada con el rigor histórico que se merece.
Aunque me ha gustado la lectura, este es un texto bastante técnico, lleno de citas a fuentes primarias y se puede hacer harto pesado para cualquiera que se acerque a el sin conocer bastante sobre la historia de la URSS en los años 30-40.
Quizá lo mas interesante es el apartado de conclusiones, en las que Furr expone cuáles podrían ser las motivaciones de Khrushchev para mentir en este discurso.
Se proponen fundamentalmente tres: 1) Khrushchev estaba intentando cubrirse las espaldas por el enorme papel que el mismo había jugado en las purgas (consolidándose como uno de los líderes que mas ejecuciones masivas firmo personalmente), 2) Khrushchev quiso cambiar el rumbo político que Stalin estaba tratando de establecer en la URSS (reforma democrática y pérdida de centralidad del partido comunista sobre la política, economía y cultura, poniéndolas en manos de soviets electos democráticamente), conservando así los privilegios de la burocracia del partido, y 3) Khrushchev (y gran parte del liderazgo soviético de la época) querían empujar a la URSS a políticas económicas (ya iniciadas bajo el liderazgo de Stalin) que acabarían por establecer el capitalismo de estado y frenar el avance hacia un modo de producción comunista.
A pesar de su naturaleza controvertida por tratar sobre la figura de Stalin, creo que libros como este están cobrando mas relevancia en la actualidad, y que son lecturas necesarias para tratar de esclarecer la historia del siglo XX, mas allá de los relatos que venimos recibiendo desde los medios de comunicación masivos en los últimos 30-40 años.
Conforme vamos aprendiendo mas sobre esta época, mas evidente se hace que la visión que teníamos era tremendamente parcial, por no calificarla directamente de propaganda.
El 25 de febrero de 1956 en una sesión cerrada del XX congreso del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (PCUS), Nikita Khrushchev pronunció su famoso “Discurso secreto”, que empujaría a la URSS y al movimiento comunista internacional en una espiral descendente hasta el colapso que ya conocemos.
En su discurso acerca de “los efectos perjudiciales del culto a la personalidad”, Khrushchev criticó duramente al ya fallecido Stalin, descubriendo su figura cruel y sanguinaria. También le acusó de un numero de injusticias y le achaca la responsabilidad sobre las represiones masivas que se hicieron en los años 30, donde muchos cuadros comunistas fueron ejecutados injustamente (lo que popularmente se conoce como “La Gran Purga”).
Durante décadas, este discurso del que fuera Secretario General del PCUS ha sido la piedra de toque de la crítica al periodo llamado “estalinista”, y ha sido la base de una buena parte de las críticas hacia la URSS, y mas concretamente hacia la figura de Stalin.
Y entonces, en 2014, apareció un profesor norteamericano de literatura inglesa medieval llamado Grover Furr.
Furr, historiador de profesión, aprovechando las informaciones y documentos que el gobierno ruso ha ido desclasificando a lo largo de los años se propone contrastar la veracidad de las afirmaciones hechas por Khrushchev en este “discurso secreto”.
Lo que Furr encuentra y expone en este libro es que las 61 afirmaciones que hace Khrushchev en su discurso son o bien demostrablemente falsas, o omiten un contexto esencial, o se hacen sin aportar ninguna prueba o testimonio que los corrobore. En definitiva, que Khrushchev mintió.
El libro no se propone esclarecer la verdad definitiva de lo ocurrido, ni exculpar a Stalin de los errores cometidos, sino mas bien demostrar que esta pieza fundamental de la imagen que tenemos de Stalin es una falsificación, y que por lo tanto su figura debe ser reexaminada con el rigor histórico que se merece.
Aunque me ha gustado la lectura, este es un texto bastante técnico, lleno de citas a fuentes primarias y se puede hacer harto pesado para cualquiera que se acerque a el sin conocer bastante sobre la historia de la URSS en los años 30-40.
Quizá lo mas interesante es el apartado de conclusiones, en las que Furr expone cuáles podrían ser las motivaciones de Khrushchev para mentir en este discurso.
Se proponen fundamentalmente tres: 1) Khrushchev estaba intentando cubrirse las espaldas por el enorme papel que el mismo había jugado en las purgas (consolidándose como uno de los líderes que mas ejecuciones masivas firmo personalmente), 2) Khrushchev quiso cambiar el rumbo político que Stalin estaba tratando de establecer en la URSS (reforma democrática y pérdida de centralidad del partido comunista sobre la política, economía y cultura, poniéndolas en manos de soviets electos democráticamente), conservando así los privilegios de la burocracia del partido, y 3) Khrushchev (y gran parte del liderazgo soviético de la época) querían empujar a la URSS a políticas económicas (ya iniciadas bajo el liderazgo de Stalin) que acabarían por establecer el capitalismo de estado y frenar el avance hacia un modo de producción comunista.
A pesar de su naturaleza controvertida por tratar sobre la figura de Stalin, creo que libros como este están cobrando mas relevancia en la actualidad, y que son lecturas necesarias para tratar de esclarecer la historia del siglo XX, mas allá de los relatos que venimos recibiendo desde los medios de comunicación masivos en los últimos 30-40 años.
Conforme vamos aprendiendo mas sobre esta época, mas evidente se hace que la visión que teníamos era tremendamente parcial, por no calificarla directamente de propaganda.
January 23, 2025
I’ve read 3 other books dealing in a similar subject by Grover Furr, 2 of them were awful, 1 was alright. But I’d say none are really worth your time. Khrushchev Lied, however, is. Though it’s still quick to drag on after a bit, and has a few issues, I found the information itself to be far more worthwhile. It somewhat addresses the bigger points in the other books under a better scope (on purges, personality cult, Trotsky, Ezhov, etc). What I think helps this one is that it flows far more neatly as a narrative, and focuses on Khrushchev as the main narrative rather than Stalin.
The general point essentially breaks down the entire “Secret Speech” and draws not only from Soviet archives but makes comparisons to other historians’ (including anti-communist ones) work on the USSR and its leaders to corroborate why most of that speech was bullshit. It then delves into the motive behind it, and brings parallels to Khrushchev’s crimes himself and how his rise to power worked so well. That speech is widely seen as what played the largest role in the anti-Stalin paradigm that runs rampant in the west, and somewhat set the tone for this Mandela-effect type way of thinking we never see the end of. Legit, for being an author I’m not a fan of, this is incredibly well researched and has a lot of reference in the appendix worth noting throughout the read. It also makes a point to say that many of the accusations are based on nothing, and reinforces that some parts of history are unknown and get filled with whatever convenient slop someone decides to cook up. Thus we can’t conclude guilt or innocence in certain scenarios, and one false statement doesn’t always make the opposite true.
My issues mainly lie in how dry much of this is, and certain semantics around the author, especially the few times I disagree with his take. The big one was justification of ethnic deportation, which is worth its own discussion, but I don’t think it was handled particularly well. The issue with this type of book is that it almost dives too deep into every facet to the point that on discovering truth, you also invent misconceptions in their own right to cover your own ass. Nothing awful, but worth noting.
The general point essentially breaks down the entire “Secret Speech” and draws not only from Soviet archives but makes comparisons to other historians’ (including anti-communist ones) work on the USSR and its leaders to corroborate why most of that speech was bullshit. It then delves into the motive behind it, and brings parallels to Khrushchev’s crimes himself and how his rise to power worked so well. That speech is widely seen as what played the largest role in the anti-Stalin paradigm that runs rampant in the west, and somewhat set the tone for this Mandela-effect type way of thinking we never see the end of. Legit, for being an author I’m not a fan of, this is incredibly well researched and has a lot of reference in the appendix worth noting throughout the read. It also makes a point to say that many of the accusations are based on nothing, and reinforces that some parts of history are unknown and get filled with whatever convenient slop someone decides to cook up. Thus we can’t conclude guilt or innocence in certain scenarios, and one false statement doesn’t always make the opposite true.
My issues mainly lie in how dry much of this is, and certain semantics around the author, especially the few times I disagree with his take. The big one was justification of ethnic deportation, which is worth its own discussion, but I don’t think it was handled particularly well. The issue with this type of book is that it almost dives too deep into every facet to the point that on discovering truth, you also invent misconceptions in their own right to cover your own ass. Nothing awful, but worth noting.
June 16, 2024
Khrushchev's "secret speech" delivered before the 20th Congress of the CPSU was the final culmination of the great conspiracy against Stalin which had seen the murder of Stalin and several other Bolsheviks and the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union.
Grover Furr's book does a great job of cutting through the lies and falsifications concocted to give a political defence to Khrushchev and Co.'s conspiracy and some of the details relayed by Furr about the events that directly followed the assassination of Stalin add to just how this circle of degenerated, semi-Trotskyite elements advanced following the successful murder of Stalin.
The book certainly lives up to its title of proving all the falsity of all the "revelations" of Khrushchev in 1956, even showing that sometimes Khrushchev would later in life contradict his own claims! And all of this is done with meticulously cited sources and over a hundred pages appendixes further refuting Khrushchev's claims, much to the dislike of the apologists of capitalist restoration.
Overall, a first-rate book in exposing and defeating the revisionist, semi-Trorskyite spell that has fallen over the communist movement since 1953.
Grover Furr's book does a great job of cutting through the lies and falsifications concocted to give a political defence to Khrushchev and Co.'s conspiracy and some of the details relayed by Furr about the events that directly followed the assassination of Stalin add to just how this circle of degenerated, semi-Trotskyite elements advanced following the successful murder of Stalin.
The book certainly lives up to its title of proving all the falsity of all the "revelations" of Khrushchev in 1956, even showing that sometimes Khrushchev would later in life contradict his own claims! And all of this is done with meticulously cited sources and over a hundred pages appendixes further refuting Khrushchev's claims, much to the dislike of the apologists of capitalist restoration.
Overall, a first-rate book in exposing and defeating the revisionist, semi-Trorskyite spell that has fallen over the communist movement since 1953.
February 18, 2023
This book took a while to get through—not because it's poorly written or disorganized or anything like that, but simply because it's incredibly dense and assumes that the reader has at least some background knowledge re: contemporaneous events and high-ranking Soviet personalities/statesmen. Even if the reader is somewhat familiar with the relevant events and personalities, the book contains lots of information to process that will likely have even the most informed reader frequently consulting the web/other texts to supplement his/her reading.
Khrushchev Lied is not an easy read, but it is a necessary one, especially when it comes to discovering Truth and debunking anti-communist propaganda and anti-Stalin myths that are propagated by the ruling class via the capitalist-owned media and other bourgeois institutions (both nominally public and private).
Khrushchev Lied is not an easy read, but it is a necessary one, especially when it comes to discovering Truth and debunking anti-communist propaganda and anti-Stalin myths that are propagated by the ruling class via the capitalist-owned media and other bourgeois institutions (both nominally public and private).
April 11, 2022
Very cohesive refutation of the claims that Khrushchev made in his infamous speech. Furr is careful not to overstep what his aim is and thus solely deals with the claims made by Khrushchev, rather than wider allegations attributed to Stalin. There are some dubious parts of the book which I need to go back over and check (mainly claims about deportations and Beria) but overall a very good read.
November 16, 2024
An extremely thorough dissection of the falsehoods of Khrushchev’s ‘Secret Speech’. Very much calls into question his motives, the reality of Stalin’s era of the USSR, and the betrayal of the revolution. A must read to peering through Western anti Stalin propaganda.
September 9, 2020
It's a great analysis, backed by vast amount of evidence and premises, with conclusions categorized reliably as outright lies and simple disregards for truth.
May 23, 2022
A must-read to dispel the 'known truths' via PRIMARY sources — not hearsay as Khrushchev had done.
August 9, 2024
I think Furr provides some good evidence for his claims, but his prose is lacking; ironic given that he’s an English professor. Often times he’ll spend 20 pages defending his claims in an abstract way when he could be presenting evidence which bolsters his argument.
July 18, 2025
El libro es denso, pero merece la pena si te interesa la política y la historia, sea cual sea tu ideología.
December 4, 2025
خروشچف دروغ گفت آن وقت خود گروور فر دروغ نگفت ؟!
October 31, 2025
Grover Furr, a master of fallacies, will lead you to believe that the Bubonic Plague was a blessing on humanity, since it had eventually brought on the renaissance. Take your meds people. If you want to read up on Stalin, it would be better to pick up a book written by an historian whose specialty is the history of the USSR, and not by a disgraced schizo historian, whose specialty is the medieval ages. Maybe the fact that Furr's higher-education had revolved around kings and tyrants is what led him to be enamored by Stalin's "great man" image.
May 23, 2024
Lectura indispensable para empezar a dilucidar entre la fina línea de los real y la ficción. Una lectura troncal para para las personas que deseen poner en cuestión las incoherencia y narrativa impuestas por las democracias liberales respecto el XX congreso del PCUS y la figura de Stalin.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews