Talk:Douglas Tottle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Historical revisionist

I have moved this talk section from Talk:Historical revisionism (political) as currently no entry for Douglas Tottle exists on that page and it may help someone turn this article from a stub into a full page. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Scrib I moved your contribution here from the Article for further discussion because I have reverted it twice and I do not want to get into a revert war:

Many Historians, Communists, Socialists, and others have been reexamining evidence in regard to the so-called forced famines and some 20 millions killed in the gulags of the Soviet Union. One of the people most cited for this case is Douglas Tottle, a Canadian journalist who wrote the book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism which discusses how William Randolph Hearst a multi-millionaire owner of much media colaborated with the Nazis to blame them for a 1932 Famine. Tottle claims that this frauded evidence was later taken up by the CIA for use during the Cold War and used by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent and Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer) to again slander the Soviet Union. Much of this same information was used by a member of the Communist Party of Sweden to disprove the famines and 20 million killed. This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists
  • "Many Historians" is a weasel phrase who are these historians? Do you have a source which lists them?
  • "to the so-called forced famines" I object to Wikipidia making this assertion. Most historians recogise that the famines were in a large part created through political circumstances, and were not the result of a natural disaster.
  • You cite a Wikipedia page called "Douglas Tottle" which was created by Scrib. Which contains an external link to http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm that states:
A world wide library search reveals that this book is only present in 28 libraries, only one of them a public library, the rest being academic libraries. Of the 28 library locations possessing the book 14 are in America.

This source http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/serbyn4.htm says:

Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today's famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.

I am not qualified to state whether Tottle is right or if the link above is correct. But I have some real problems with the rest of the paragraph.

  • "by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent" Many academics worked for the intelligence services during WWII (What is the point of intelligence services if they do not employ intelligent people?). To emphasise this over his academic background is disingenuous.
  • "Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer)" Why not "(winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize in literature)" instead of "Fascist sympathizer"?
  • "This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists" Are any Marxist-Leninists left? Which of them have cited Tottle this year? Which Maoists have cited Tottle this year?

I think that this is an interesting subject but it is better covered by paraphrasing sources like http://www.faminegenocide.com/2003-competition/01-maslo's_ukrainian_famine_of_1932-1933.html

Still others, such as Canadian trade union activist, Douglas Tottle, argue along traditional Communist lines, that reports of the famine and its impact on Ukraine have been exaggerated and are simply part of western propaganda campaigns directed against the Soviet Union.

Which I think sums it up suscinctly. Philip Baird Shearer 8 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

I'm still learning how to work with the different codes so bare with me.

  • "Many Historians" is a weasel phrase who are these historians? Do you have a source which lists them?

You make a good point, I will edit this section.

  • "to the so-called forced famines" I object to Wikipidia making this assertion. Most historians recogise that the famines were in a large part created through political circumstances, and were not the result of a natural disaster.

Tottle's book disagree with this. Prehaps the way it was worded makes it apear un-neutral. Prehaps it could be reworded to something like "what are said to have been forced famines"?

A world wide library search reveals that this book is only present in 28 libraries, only one of them a public library, the rest being academic libraries. Of the 28 library locations possessing the book 14 are in America.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. Please elaborate.

Not exactly a widely distributed book. At least with a revisionist like David Irving his works are widely available. Philip Baird Shearer
Tottle is a self-confessed famine-genocide denier. No longer able to negate the famine as such, Tottle questions its genocidal character. Traditional famine-denial has been updated to famine-genocide denial, but the essence of the ideological trappings is the same. Today's famine-genocide deniers are the spiritual heirs of the first famine negators, Stalin and those who helped him carry out the most heinous of crimes against the Ukrainian nation or to deny its existence.

This is a single source which could easily be said as bias. It is a Ukrainian site which promotes the idea of a forced famine. Of course they would not protray somebody like Tottle as somebody who is contributing to historical truth.

Agreed but I put this in to show that most historians think his views are a minority. I choose that article as it was the first one I came accross (with Google) which was hostile to Tootle, not because it was by anyone who I know of as a respected historian. Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"by Robert Conquest a former British secret service agent" Many academics worked for the intelligence services during WWII (What is the point of intelligence services if they do not employ intelligent people?). To emphasise this over his academic background is disingenuous.

But Robert Conquest isn't simply an "academic". From my knowledge he actually worked in the MI5 and later retired to become an academic professor. Although I'm not sure how correct that is.

many (most?) of Oxbrige worked for MI5 (Spy catchers), MI6 (Spys) or some other government agency during World War II, less stayed on after the war, but it was not unusual. On his Wikipedia page, the description of his life suggests that if he was working for MI6 it was during his time in Bulgaria between 45 and 48. He worked for the FO IRD deparment for the next 8 years (which may have been part of MI6 (I don't know)), his Wikipedia page says that "Conquest's time with the IRD has sparked some controversy, becoming a favourite topic of many critics (particularly on the political Left) who claim that his later historical work was intentional anti-Communist propaganda. Generally, these assertions are viewed with skepticism by other historians who have studied Conquest's work." Philip Baird Shearer

"Alexander Solzhenitsyn (a Fascist sympathizer)" Why not "(winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize in literature)" instead of "Fascist sympathizer"?

Well why not "Fascist sympathizer"? He was. It's factual, although I can see how it seems a bit hostile and bias. Prehaps something like "Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who is criticized for being a Fascist sympathizer".

Why not just leave out all descriptions. If someone wants to kown about Conquest or Solzhenitsyn they can follow the link to the respective pages. See meta:wiki is not paper Philip Baird Shearer

"This source is cited a lot by Marxist-Leninists and Maoists" Are any Marxist-Leninists left? Which of them have cited Tottle this year? Which Maoists have cited Tottle this year?

There are many MLists and Maoists left. As a member of the International Communist Movement I can vouge for this. To name a MList or a Maoist who has cited Tottle would be difficult since it's mostly done by MLists over internet forums or in general discussions with others. There aren't very mant "major" MLists of Maoists, who cited Tottle, that would be known by the average reader. Although several Communist parties have mentioned him in their papers or internet sites.

I think this information should be added to the article, with revisions of some of the problems you pointed out. I will work with it a little tonight to tomorrow and present a new copy to discuss. Although, please respond to some of the questions and concerns I posted here.Scrib 10 July 2005, 04:54 (UTC)

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posting to talk pages and wikipedia will automagicaly add your username and a date stamp.
The point about Historical Revisionism is that the revisionist is putting forward a minority view (If it is the major then it is not revisionism). So please phrase the paragraph as others have, eg "Jack Chick's Nazi inquisition theory". This makes it clear that the views expressed are those of a revisonist "historian" not thoses of the majority of historians. Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)