Tax Paid Prof Says Commie Stalin Never Committed Any Crimes

Here is a heartwarming tale of your education tax dollars at work. At a recent school event at a New Jersey public university, a tax paid professor said that Joseph Stalin, the murderous head of the Soviet Union during the WWII era, never committed any crimes against humanity. “I have yet to find one crime that Stalin committed,” the professor yelled at students.

The comments were uttered by Grover Furr, a professor in Medieval English at Montclair State University, a public university in New Jersey. The event at which Furr appeared was billed as a “Campus Debate,” and also featured libertarian professor Yuri Maltsev and conservative professor David Tubbs.

The exchange occurred between an audience member and the erstwhile professor who in his most genteel manner denounced as “bullshit” any claims that Stalin and the Soviet regime was responsible for genocide.

The professor went on to claim that widely known Soviet history as well as U.S. and Canadian history are all “falsified” and wrapped up telling the audience that we should all have socialist medicine.

At least most of the audience booed this nut case as herd in the video. Still, some applauded and it’s sad that any students at all would applaud such craziness.

Furr has been making these fringe claims for years and is responsible for perpetrating on the world a book he subtly titled Khrushchev Lied. In this laughable excuse for historical investigation, Furr attempts to exonerate both Stalin and communism saying that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev lied when in a 1956 speech he admitted and apologized for Stalin’s crimes against humanity.

Of course, there is little question at all among historians that the Soviets, Stalin and other communist regimes were responsible for the deaths of upwards to 150 million of their own people. Many famous books such as The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others attest to the true murderous history of communism. As Gabriella Hoffman notes, there is even a newer book by Stanford Professor of History Norman Naimark that suggests that Stalin is guilty of multiple genocides.

Professor Furr is decidedly on the finge with his theories. As some might say, this professor’s cheese has slid off his cracker.

Montclair State is a public research university situated in Essex County, New Jersey, a deep blue area that serves as a home away from home for many of the liberal media’s leading lights. With so many extremely left-wing folks milling about the place, it’s no wonder some didn’t think that professor Furr’s comments were outrageous.


Who ever posted the original video I referenced in this story removed it from YouTube. So, I found a different video that has a bit less of what I transcribed below, but it is of the same event.

Transcript of exchange

Audience member: Yes I have a question for the, uh, the liberal, uh, spokesman. You said that, uh, the idea of communist mass killings was baloney….

Professor Furr: It’s baloney.

Audience member: … or something to that word. Yet in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, the Premiere of the Soviet Union, apologized to the Communist party for the killings that were done by Stalin under his personality cult.

Professor Furr: Yep.

Audience member: So he conceded that there were a lot of murders. And I have a question for you. Was Khrushchev lying? Or if you concede that there were state murders under Stalin, uh, do you see that that’s a continuing tool under communist regimes?

(Here the moderator notes that Furr’s book was titled Khrushchev Lied.)

Audience member: … the consensus number seems to be between 100 and 150 million killed by communist regimes. And I’m wondering, communism wasn’t successful do you think maybe there’s an optimum number that, if enough people were killed that it would be successful? Maybe a billion? Two billion?

Professor Furr: Well, that’s not a serious question.

Audience member: Actually it is, mass murder is a…

Professor Furr: And I’m gonna answer it.

Audience member: … it’s a tool of the communist regimes, so they thought it worked.

Professor Furr: And I’m gonna answer it.

Audience member: Did they not do it enough?

Professor Furr: And I’m gonna answer you, OK? Finished asking? I’m going to answer you. (raising his voice) What you said is BULLSHIT! It’s all, it’s a lie.

The history of the Soviet Union is the most falsified… American history is falsified. Alright? I was in Canada for a number of years, the Canadian history is falsified. But of all the falsifications that go on in the school systems in this country and this world, Soviet history is falsified the most.

I have spent many years researching this and similar questions and I have yet to find ONE CRIME, yet to find ONE CRIME, that Stalin committed. I know, they all say, you know, 20 and 30 and 40 million people, it’s BULLSHIT.

Audience member: Was it Goebbels that said it’s the big lie that’s successful?

Professor Furr: Goebbels said the big lie is successful and THIS IS THE BIG LIE!

Audience member: There ya have it.

Professor Furr: This is the big lie, that the communists, that Stalin killed millions of people and that socialism is no good. Just a word about socialist medicine… you should have it too.

Audience Boos heartily

NBC: Hey That Lincoln Movie Reminds Us of How Great Obama Is
Foodstamps Surge to All Time High, Biggest One Month Growth Ever Recorded
  • ackwired

    Freedom is messy. All kinds of goofy ideas are competing for attention. But freedom and open competition does work better than censorship.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yes, this is edition #213 of Warner complaining about the First Amendment.

      • jim_m

        I missed where he said that the idiot should not have the right to say whatever idiotic beliefs he has. The complaint is that tax dollars are used to fund this jackass disseminating his bullshit.

        Too bad that like many leftists, you confuse the right to say what you want with the right to be paid by the government to say it.

        • herddog505

          Completely agree. The left (you know: the people who want to bring back the “Fairness” Doctrine) likes to cry “censorship!” when other people refuse to pay for their horsesh*t.

          If this clown wants to get a webpage or a soapbox to shout that Stalin was a much-maligned peach of a guy who wouldn’t harm a hair on a kulak’s head, that’s fine. I fail to see, however, why we ought to be expected to pay for it in the same way that I would balk at paying a chemistry professor who teaches that all matter is comprised of the four elements or a math professor who teaches that 2+2=5.

        • Commander_Chico

          Furr is a professor of medieval English, not Russian history. His opinion about Stalin has little bearing on the study of Chaucer.

          [If he is still a professor; or Warner misused “erstwhile”]

          Even if he were a professor of Russian history, there should be wide latitude for academic freedom. Better a few fools in the academy than the many cowed by narrow state standards of permissible thought and speech.

          The debate is actually an example of free speech at its finest: without a “foil” the discussion would be one-sided.

          Wonderful how so-called “small government” “conservatives” want to impose doubleplusgood rightthink on anyone getting a government paycheck.

          • jim_m

            Hey, we are advocating making the government smaller by paying one less person.

            No, seriously, professors have been shown the door for far lesser offenses. This guy is using his soapbox to promote dangerous and ignorant and ahistorical propaganda. It doesn’t even qualify as a legitimate viewpoint. It is like employing a moon landing conspiracy nut. Sure his belief in the moon landing conspiracy does not prohibit him from teaching P-chem classes, but his presence brings discredit upon the institution and ridicule to the department.

            He has the right to say what he wants, but no one ever has the absolute right to be a complete a-hole in public as a representative of your employer and still keep your job. Of course if he has tenure then he does have a limited right to do that, but as Ward Churchill found out, that right is still limited.

          • Commander_Chico

            Which agency of the government should determine which are the “legitimate viewpoints?” I suppose Homeland Security . . .

            or the Fear Department

            Ward Churchill was allegedly fired for plagiarism, not the content of his speech, so his case is not clear support for your statist ideas.

          • jim_m

            Nope. The University should make that decision locally. Since it is dependent upon the state legislature for funding the people can express their concerns to their state legislator and he can vote to reduce or remove funding. As a professor at a state institution he is an employee of the people. Let the people fire his ass if they want to . If New Jersey wants to declare itself as a state run by communist dupes then let them do so.

          • Commander_Chico

            “The University” is the state. Scratch a “conservative,” find an authoritarian.

          • jim_m

            How is it that I describe to you a mechanism for the people to have a say in what sorts of speech they will pay for and that is authoritarian? Why do leftists feel that they have a right, not just to say what they want, but a right to demand that people pay for them to say it and a right to force others to promote what they want to say? Why is it that the left demands not just the right to free speech but that their right to free speech means compelling others to listen?

            When I say that a State university could have funding restricted because the public dislikes what they are teaching and through the legislative process and electing representatives that will cut funding for obnoxious people, you find that “authoritarian”.

            I find it authoritarian when assholes like this jerk spew their BS and then claim censorship when people say that they should not have to pay for their BS. He has the right to say what he wants. I do not have the obligation to pay for it. Newspapers do not have an obligation to publish it. TV channels to not have an obligation to broadcast it.

            You confuse sponsorship of speech with censorship. I doubt that you have the wit to tell the difference.

          • herddog505

            Oh? Where, then, should we draw the line (if at all)? Does “free speech” cover, for example, a professor who preaches the virtues of naziism? How about a professor who turns his lectern into a pulpit (my gosh, he might even say nice things about the Catholic Church! The HORROR!)? Why stop at college? How about a grammar school teacher who plumps for pederasty or the joys of LSD?

            Again: nobody denies this clown the right to say as he pleases AS A PRIVATE CHARACTER. But when he speaks as a professor – when he speaks disgustin rot as a professor, I should say – then I think that he’s gone over the line and it’s no more unreasonable for his employers to (ahem) have a word with him than it would be for any other employer to discipline an employee who brings descredit on them.

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy was speaking as a private capacity – the debate had nothing to do with his job as professor of medieval English. The college provided a public forum, as the First Amendment encourages. Does everything you or I write or say have to be branded with our job titles and be imputed to our employers? Assuming we weren’t cowardly anonymons, of course. He can’t help but speak “as a professor,” that’s what he is.

            You can always draw extreme hypotheticals, but the case law on the First Amendment disfavors state review and discrimination on the content of speech. There is a bit of an exception for K-12 schools, so your example of the grammar school teacher is covered.

            FWIW, it should not make any difference if a professor of chemistry is a Nazi or a professor of accounting is a religious fanatic, as long as they teach their subjects accurately. Of course professors which misrepresent facts inside their courses are another matter.

          • jim_m

            it should not make any difference if a professor of chemistry is a Nazi or a professor of accounting is a religious fanatic

            Correct to a point. When that individual makes a public spectacle of themselves espousing extremely ignorant views, then the person has crossed that line. Academia is rife with tales of people being excluded from consideration for a position or from tenure because they believe in ID or they do not believe in warmism despite the fact that these beliefs do not impact their ability to do their research or teach their subjects.

            I find it interesting that you will defend a leftist goon who teaches that communism never murdered anyone yet you wouldn’t be likely to defend a chemistry prof who did not believe in warmism.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am not qualified to judge a chemistry professor’s positions on chemistry.

          • jim_m

            Warmism has nothing to do with chemistry you dope.

      • retired.military

        Hey in other news a Florida college professor wrote a book proclaiming Obama as an Apostle from God.

        • Don’t know about you, but it makes me worry sometimes that people can be so completely devoid of critical thinking processes that they dive willingly into the cult of personality cesspool…

        • jim_m

          what a bunch of BS. Everyone knows that obama is god.

      • Seems more like – “Hey, look at this tenured fool who is willingly ignoring the massive historical record about Stalin” than a “This guy shouldn’t be allowed to spread his garbage!” sort of post…

  • 914

    Thank You professor Fuhrer.. Your Obama check is in the mail.

  • Brucehenry

    This guy is only marginally kookier than those who insist that Nazism was a phenomenon “of the left.”

    I’m pretty sure there’s a professor or two, here and there, who is teaching Goldberg’s crackpot nonsense as history in some state-funded school or another. I could be wrong.

    • jim_m

      This guy is only marginally kookier than those who insist that Nazism was a phenomenon “of the left.”

      Yes, because socialism (it WAS the National Socialist Party after all) is a well know phenomenon of the right. You dumbass.

      And of course it bears no resemblance to other left wing ideologies in its systematic liquidation of dissenters (ie communism) You probably agree with this lunatic.

      • Lamely trying to mock that which they know they cannot disprove.

      • Brucehenry

        Case in point, Jim M: “It has ‘socialist’ right there IN THE NAME!!!!” LOL.

        While it is without doubt the kookiest thing I’ve ever heard to say that “Stalin never committed a crime!” it is only kookier by degree than Goldberg’s revisionist nonsense, subscribed to by Jim and any number of other Wizbangers.

        And, I’ll bet, by some state-paid prof at Armpit State or University of South Arkansas at Bumfuck.

        • jim_m

          So you deny that the Nazi party was socialist? You are ignorant of the fact that the reason Hitler left the Communist party was because he was offended that they held loyalty to the Soviets higher than loyalty to Germany? You are unaware of the fact that the reason the Nazis are considered right wing by some is the nationalist part of their ideology and only that? You are unaware that the notion of left and right wing differ in how they are viewed in Europe compared to the US? You expect that the Nazi’s had the word Socialist in their name was a joke and not because they believed in socialism?

          Now who sounds ignorant? Sounds like you, Bruce. ( and for the 100th time: I have never read Goldberg’s book.)

          • jim_m

            Bruce’s ignorance reminds me of a joke: What are Germany’s 2 greatest post war achievements? Getting people to believe that Hitler was Austrian and Mozart was German.

            Kind of goes with the left’s great post war achievement: Getting people to think that the Nazis weren’t socialists.

          • Brucehenry

            Try to find me a reference to Nazism as being a phenomenon “of the left” before the late 1990s.

            No one seriously asserted that the the Nazis were leftists until Goldberg, to my knowledge, and only a few kooks before him.

            When Goldberg wrote his book, wingnuts pounced on it because it made them feel good to claim that Nazis and liberals were cut of the same cloth. You may have never read Goldberg’s book, Jim, but you’ve heard his nutball “ideas” repeated on FOX and on the wihgnut websites you enjoy. And you’ve internalized them, as you’ve internaiized your “Obama hates America” tripe, I mean trope.

            Ever since the Nazi party was founded, it was understood to be a right-wing, anti-Bolshevik movement. It was only since Goldberg that anyone has seriously asserted otherwise.

            I only posted on this thread to bait you, Jim, because I enjoy watching you repeat nonsense. Sometimes.

          • jim_m

            So what you are putting your trust in is propaganda and you refuse to acknowledge that socialism is a left wing doctrine. You also refuse to acknowledge that eugenics is a left wing, progressive concept.

            You are ignorant in that you are incapable of seeing that the Nazi’s are called by some “right wing” but refuse to understand why the Nazi’s were anti bolshevik. You refuse to even examine the abundant evidence that by any honest review of their ideology they were never right wing other than in their nationalism but in everything else (their socialism, their atheism, their eugenics and progressive ideology) they were left wing. Hell, even their antisemitism is a standard of left wing politics today.

            Go ahead and look like an ass denying reality. You are a complete ass claiming that the Nazis were not socialists, that they did not believe in progressive ideas such as eugenics, that they were not inherently atheist (they attempted to replace Christianity with their own conjured up state religion based on some twisted mythology they made up).

            Go ahead, be an ass.

          • Brucehenry


          • jim_m

            I see you agree with me and are content to be an ass.

          • Vagabond661

            And getting people to believe that republicans were the racists and that democrats weren’t.

          • And you forgot the Soviet propaganda point that there were no enemies of Communism to their left…

          • jim_m

            I don;t think that the Nazis were to the left of the Soviets. I just think that they were still to the left of the western democracies.

            Again, Bruce’s tiny mind is incapable of wrapping itself around the fact that in European politics, nationalism is considered right wing. But socialism is considered left wing. I argue that the Nazi’s socialism, belief in eugenics, progressivism and atheism make them more a creature of the left than their nationalism makes them of the right. Bruce obviously is like the mad professor above and chooses to dismiss the evidence that the National Socialists were very left wing in much of their ideology and instead rejects it all and hyper-focuses on their single right wing feature.

          • Brucehenry


            So much for Goldberg.

            Any luck finding a reference to Nazis being “of the left” before the late 1990s? No? Nothing?

            That’s because it was always the consensus that Nazism was a right-wing phenomenon. Shirer understood it, Trevor-Roper did too. So did Churchill. Until Goldberg and his cadre of dishonest hacks came along, EVERYONE understood it.

            But wingnuts like yourself jumped at the chance to call Nazis “leftists” because they wanted to do their pathetic “Aha! Gotcha!” thing, so they lapped up Goldberg’s bullshit like swarming dungbeetles.

            BTW, upthread you mention in passing that Hitler “left the Communist Party.” I’ll need a cite for that. I’ve done a lot of reading about Hitler over the years, and I am unaware of his membership in the Communist party.

            Oh, and also, the word “Socialist” in the name “National Socialist Party” is no more evidence of Nazi leftism than the word “Democratic” in the name “Democratic Republic of Korea” is evidence that North Korea is a democracy.

          • jim_m

            Seriously? You don;t think the Nazi platform was socialist?

            That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

            We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

            We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

            We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

            We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

            We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

            We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

            Those are from the 25 points of the Nazi party. Radical redistribution, nationalization of property and business, Yep. Sounds like a GOP party platform to me too. Can’t wait to hear how Romney wanted to confiscate land “needed for the common purpose”. I’ll bet the GOP is really behind the outlawing of investment income too.

            Frankly it sounds a hell of a lot like the OWS manifesto.

          • jim_m

            Bruce I defy you to look at the full 25 points and, apart from the nationalism, tell me where that isn’t socialism. Tell me where that resembles today’s right wing and not today’s left. Tell me that this was not closely related to the OWS manifesto that the left embraced so wholeheartedly.

          • Brucehenry

            None of the “reforms” put forth in the points listed were ever implemented. Stores were never nationalized, “usurers” and “profiteers” were never punished (indeed Krupp and Siemens, among many others, were very much enriched).

            Not only that, but they were never emphasized in the couple of election campaigns in which the Nazis participated. They campaigned on anti-Communism (and everyone knew what the Communists espoused – the Nazis were against ’em!), anti-Semitism, militarism, and revenge on the “traitors who stabbed Germany in the back in 1918.”

            But my main point, which you so studiously avoid, is that the Nazis were ALWAYS understood to be a rightist movement until the fool Goldberg came along and convinced other fools otherwise. Ask Churchill. Ask Shirer. Ask Trevor-Roper. Ask anyone who was writing about the Nazis during or immediately after their brief heyday.

      • Commander_Chico

        Statist socialism and crony capitalism trend to meet at the same place – totalitarianism.

        The attached graphic describes it about as well as anything.

    • 914

      ” I could be wrong.”

      You have a 99.99999999999999% percent chance of being right with that

      • jim_m

        You’re being awfully generous with Bruce there.

        • 914

          I know.. Growing soft as the years roll by..

      • You forgot a few nines after the decimal point…

        • 914


          • jim_m

            Still going squishy.

  • JWH

    the Canadian history is falsified

    So Canada did not beat the US at the Battle of Ontario by coating the ground with maple syrup?

    • herddog505

      Given what I recall reading about the performance of the Army during many of the battles during the War of 1812, I’d accept that. Goofy as it sounds, it beats having to admit that the American soldier of the day could have been thrashed by a pack of anemic Girl Scouts.*


      (*) The Navy, of course, was a totally different matter. The Army certainly got better, but there is no doubt that, on land, we got our asses handed to us in a most humilating manner in far too many instances due to a near-total want of well-trained troops and professional officers.

      • JWH

        But could the US Navy of 1812 successfully counter the Canadian Navy’s root-beer fleet?

        • herddog505


      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, Old Ironsides alone kicked three Royal Navy ships’ asses.

  • Paul Hooson

    Simply outrageous. Stalin killed off so many of his top military leaders because of fear they may topple him in a coup, that he nearly lost Russia to Hitler if not for Roosevelt’s aid. Red Army troops had to strap bombs on to dogs to use as suicide bombers to stop German armor because the Red Army had so few heavy weapons. Stalin’s murders of his own people nearly cost him the war.