1921 Louis Marshall article from Dearborn Independent newspaper

Studies in USA fascism -
The following article was published by Industrialist Henry Ford, and sums up the intellectual perception on which the domestic fascist movement arose.

* "America's Jewish Enigma—Louis Marshall; Some Facts About American Jewish Committee's Head, Whose Name Is Not Very Jewish, But Who Leads Anti-Christian Campaign" (1921-11-26, The Dearborn Independent newspaper) [begin excerpt] [archive.is/i63kX]:
Photo: LOUIS MARSHALL, President of American Jewish Committee.
Louis Marshall is head of the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Committee is head of all official Jewish activity in the United States.
As head of the committee, he is also head of the executive committee of the New York Kehillah, an organization which is the active front of organized Jewry in New York, and the center of Jewish propaganda for the United States. The nominal head of the Kehillah is Rabbi Judah L. Magnes, a brother-in-law of Louis Marshall. Not only are the American Jewish Committee and the Kehillah linked officially (see chapter 33, Volume II, reprint of this series), but they are linked domestically as well.
Louis Marshall was president of all the Jewish Committees of the world at the Versailles Peace Conference, and it is charged now, as it has been charged before, that the Jewish Program is the only program that went through the Versailles conference as it was drawn, and the so-called League of Nations is busily carrying out its terms today. A determined effort is being made by Jews to have the Washington Conference take up the same matter. Colonel House was Louis Marshall’s chief aid at Paris in forcing the Jewish Program on an unwilling world. [...]
Louis Marshall is not the world leader of Jewry, but he is well advanced in Jewry’s world counsel, as is seen by the fact that international Jewry reports to him, and also by the fact that he headed the Jews at the “kosher conference”—as the Versailles assemblage was known among those on the inside. Strange things happened in Paris. Mr. Marshall and “Colonel” House had affairs very well in hand between them. President Wilson sent a delegation to Syria to find out just what the contention of the Syrians was against the Jews, but that report has never seen the light of day. But it was the easiest thing imaginable to keep the President informed as to what the Jews of New York thought (that is, the few who had not taken up their residence in Paris). For example, this prominent dispatch in the New York Times of May 27, 1919:
“Wilson gets Full Report of Jewish Protest Here.
“Copyright, 1919, by the New York Times Co.
“By Wireless to The New York Times.
“Paris, May 26.—Louis Marshall, who has succeeded Judge Mack as head of the Jewish Committee in Paris, was received by President Wilson this afternoon, and gave him a long cabled account of the Jewish mass meeting recently held in Madison Square Garden, including the full text of the resolutions adopted at the meeting . . . . and editorial comment in The Times and other papers . . . .”
When Russia fell, Louis Marshall hailed it with delight. The New York Times begins its story on March 19, 1917:
“Hailing the Russian upheaval as the greatest world event since the French Revolution, Louis Marshall in an interview for the New York Times last night said”—a number of things, among which was the statement that the events in Russia were no surprise. Of course they were not, the events being of Jewish origin, and Mr. Marshall being the recipient of the most intimate international news.
Even the new Russian revolutionary government made reports to Louis Marshall, as is shown by the dispatch printed in the New York Times of April 3, 1917, in which Baron Gunzburg reports what had been done to assure to the Jews the full advantage of the Russian upheaval.
This glorification of the Jewish overthrow of Russia, it must be remembered, occurred before the world knew what Bolshevism was, and before it realized that the revolution meant the withdrawal of the whole eastern front from the war. Russia was simply taken out of the war and the Central Powers left free to devote their whole attention to the western front. One of the resulting necessities was the immediate entrance of America into the conflict, and the prolongation of the hostilities for nearly two more years.
As the truth became known, Louis Marshall first defended, then explained, then denied—his latest position being that the Jews are against Bolshevism. He was brought to this position by the necessity of meeting the testimony of eye-witnesses as given to congressional investigation committees. This testimony came from responsible men whom even Mr. Marshall could not dispose of with a wave of his hand, and as time has gone on the testimony has increased to mountainous proportions that Bolshevism is Jewish in its origin, its method, its personnel and its purpose. Herman Bernstein, a member of Mr. Marshall’s American Jewish Committee, has lately been preparing American public opinion for a great anti-Semitic movement in Russia. Certainly, it will be an anti-Semitic movement, because it will be anti-Bolshevist, and the Russian people, having lived with the hybrid for five years, are not mistaken as to its identity. [...]
That Mr. Marshall regards the whole Jewish program in which he is engaged, not in its religious aspect alone, but in its world-wide political aspect, may be judged from his attitude on Zionism. Mr. Marshall wrote in 1918 as follows:
“I have never been identified and am not now in any way connected with the Zionist organization. I have never favored the creation of a sovereign Jewish state.”
BUT—
Mr. Marshall says, “Let the Zionists go on. Don’t interfere with them.” Why? He writes:
“Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan. It is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon. All the protests that non-Zionists may make would be futile to affect that policy.”
He says that opposition to Zionism at that time would be dangerous. “I could give concrete examples of a most impressive nature in support of what I have said. I am not an alarmist, and even my enemies will give me credit for not being a coward, but my love for our people is such that even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the responsibilities that might be entailed were I to do so.”
And in concluding this strange pronouncement, he says:
“Give me the credit of believing that I am speaking advisedly.”
Of course, there is more to Zionism than appears on the surface, but this is as close as anyone can come to finding a Jewish admission on the subject.
If in this country there is apprehension over the Jewish Problem, the activities of Louis Marshall have been the most powerful agents to evoke it. [...]
Mr. Marshall, who is regarded by the Jews as their greatest “constitutional” lawyer, since the decline of Edward Lauterbach (and that is a tale!) originated, in a series of legal arguments, the contention that “this is not a Christian country nor a Christian government.” This argument he has expounded in many writings. He has built up a large host of followers among contentious Jews, who have elaborated on this theme in a variety of ways. It is one of the main arguments of those who are endeavoring to build up a “United Israel” in the United States.
Mr. Marshall maintains that the opening of deliberative assemblies and conventions with prayer is a “hollow mockery”; he ridicules “the absurd phrase ‘In the name of God, Amen,’” as used in the beginning of wills. He opposes Sunday observance legislation as being “the cloak of hypocrisy.” He advocates “crushing out every agitation which tends to introduce into the body politic the virus of religious controversy.”
But Mr. Marshall himself has spent the last twenty years of his life in the “virus of religious controversy.” A few of his more impertinent interferences have been noted above. These are, in the Jewish phrase, “religious activities” with a decidedly political tinge.
The following extracts are quoted from the contentions of Mr. Marshall, published in the Menorah Journal, the official organ of the Jewish Chautauqua, that the United States is not a Christian country [begin article]:
IS OURS A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT?
BY LOUIS MARSHALL
When, in 1892, Mr. Justice Brewer, in rendering the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity against the United States (144 U.S. 457), which involved an interpretation of the Alien Labor Law, indulged in the obiter remark that “this is a Christian nation,” a subject was presented for the consideration of thoughtful minds which is of no ordinary importance.
The dictum of Mr. Justice Story in Vidal against Girard’s Executors (2 How. U.S., 198), to the effect that Christianity was a part of the common law of Pennsylvania, is also relied upon, but is not an authoritative judicial determination of that proposition. The remark was not necessary to the decision.
The remarks of Mr. Justice Brewer, to which reference has already been made, were also unnecessary to the decision rendered by the court.
The fact that oaths are administered to witnesses, that the hollow mockery is pursued of opening deliberative assemblies and conventions with prayer, that wills begin with the absurd phrase “In the name of God, Amen,” that gigantic missionary associations are in operation to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe, were all instanced. But none of these illustrations affords any valid proof in support of the assertion that “this is a Christian nation.”
Our legislation relative to the observance of Sunday is such a mass of absurdities and inconsistencies that almost anything can be predicated thereon except the idea that our legislators are impressed with the notion that there is anything sacred in the day. According to the views of any section of the Christian church, the acts which I have enumerated as permitted would be regarded as sinful. Their legality in the eye of the law is a demonstration that the prohibitory enactments relating to Sunday are simply police regulations, and it should be the effort of every good American citizen to liberalize our Sunday legislation still more, so that it shall cease to be the cloak of hypocrisy.
As a final resort, we are told by our opponents that this is a Christian government because the majority of our citizens are adherents of the Christian faith; that this is a government of majorities, because government means force and majorities represent the preponderance of strength. This is a most dangerous doctrine . . . . [end article]
[...]
Mr. Marshall has the advantage of being an American by birth. He was born in Syracuse, New York, in 1856, the son of Jacob and Zilli Marshall. After practicing law in Syracuse, he established himself in New York, became a Wall Street corporation lawyer, and his native country has afforded him generous means to win a large fortune.
The question arises whether it is patriotic for Mr. Marshall to implant into the minds of his foreign-born co-religionists the idea that this is not a Christian country, that Sunday laws should be opposed, and that the manners and customs of the native-born should be scorned and ridiculed. The effect has been that thousands of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe are persistently violating Sunday laws in the large industrial centers of the country, that they are haled to court, lectured by judges, and fined. American Jews who are carrying into practice the teachings of Mr. Marshall and his followers are reaping the whirlwind of a natural resentment.
Mr. Marshall was the leader of the movement which led to the abrogation of the treaty between the United States and Russia. Whenever government boards or committees are appointed to investigate the actions, conduct or conditions of foreign-born Jews, great influences are immediately exerted to have Mr. Marshall made a member of such bodies to “protect” the Jewish interests.
As head of millions of organized Jews in the United States, Mr. Marshall has invariably wielded this influence by means of a campaign of “protests,” to silence criticisms of Jewish wrongdoing. He thus protested when testimony was made before the Senate Sub-Committee in Washington, in 1919, that the Jewish East Side of New York was the hotbed of Bolshevism. Again he protested to Norman Hapgood against the editorial in Harper’s Weekly, criticising the activities of Jewish lobbyists in Washington.
Mr. Marshall describes himself in “Who’s Who” as a leader in the fight for the abrogation of the treaty with Russia. That was a distinct interference in America’s political affairs and was not a “religious activity” connected with the preservation of “Jewish rights” in the United States. The limiting expression “in the United States” is, of course, our own assumption. It is doubtful if Mr. Marshall limits anything to the United States. He is a Jew and therefore an internationalist. He is ambassador of the “international nation of Jewry” to the Gentile world.
The pro-Jewish fights in which Mr. Marshall has been engaged in this country make a considerable list:
He fought the proposal of the Census Bureau to enumerate Jews as a race. As a result, there are no official figures, except those prepared by the American Jewish Committee, as to the Jewish population of the United States. The Census has them listed under a score of different nationalities, which is not only a non-descriptive method, but a deceptive one as well. At a pinch the Jewish authorities will admit of 3,500,000 Jews in the United States. The increase in the amount of Passover Bread required would indicate that there are 6,000,000 in the United States now! But the Government of the United States is entirely at sea, officially, as to the Jewish population of this country, except as the Jewish government in this country, as an act of courtesy, passes over certain figures to the government. The Jews have a “foreign office” through which they deal with the Government of the United States.
Mr. Marshall also fought the proposed naturalization laws that would deprive “Asiatics” of the privilege of becoming naturalized citizens. This was something of a confession! [...]
Louis Marshall is leader of that movement which will force the Jew by law into places where he is not wanted. The law, compelling hotel keepers to permit Jews to make their hotels a place of resort if they want to, has been steadily pushed. Such a law is practically a Bolshevik order to destroy property, for it is commonly known what Jewish patronage does for public places. Where a few respectable Jews are permitted, others flock. And when one day they discover that the place they “patronize” is becoming known as “a Jew hotel” or a “Jew club,” then all the Jews abandon it—but they cannot take the stigma with them. The place is known as “a Jew place,” but lacks both Jew and Gentile patronage as a result.
When Louis Marshall succeeded in compelling by Jewish pressure and Jewish threats the Congress of the United States to break the treaty with Russia, he was laying a train of causes which resulted in a prolongation of the war and the utter subjugation of Russia. Russia serves the world today as a living illustration of the ruthlessness, the stupidity and the reality of Jewish power—endless power, fanatically mobilized for a vengeful end, but most stupidly administered. Does Mr. Marshall ever reflect on the grotesque stupidity of Jewish leadership? [...]
Volume two of this series of Jewish Studies entitled “Jewish Activities in the United States,” being the second volume of “The International Jew,” twenty-two articles, 256 pages (.pdf) [http://is.gd/E6QwO3] will be sent to any address at the cost of printing and mailing, which is 25 cents. [end excerpt]
---

Polls show: Eastern Europeans miss Communism.

As late as 2015, Socialist Parties are consistently placing second or third in the election results of the former Eastern Bloc (except for the Baltic States, and Poland).
In Russia the Communist party is second.
In Bulgaria the socialist party either wins elections or is the opposition.
In Romania the socialist party is second
In Hungary the socialist party is the second largest in Parliament.
The Czech communist party is third.
The Russian election of 1996 is widely considered to be rigged- less than a month before the "elections", Yeltsin's popularity rating was in the single digits. The same happened in Ukraine, in 1999. Naturally, there can be no fair elections in a mafia government.
Under the current capitalist dictatorship, public services, enterprises and pensions are attacked by "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) clauses contained in foreign-imposed trade treaties. ISDS grant "super-rights" to incorporated business entities which supersede national laws which are found to adversely affect projected profits, and the taxpayers must pay for all damages found! Governments are being sued for merely doing what their people have voted for. And the corporations are winning these cases or stopping the behavior they sued about, like single payer health care in Achmea v. Slovak Republic (.pdf) [http://is.gd/9uv6cC]. Often after a suit has been filed, corporations "settle for" huge but confidential payoffs (which is basically winning). Its been estimated that some outcome which is against the public interest occurs in up to seventy percent of them.

* "Polls show: Eastern Europeans miss Communism" (2014) [archive.is/GeMOn]
* "Confidence in Democracy and Capitalism Wanes in Former Soviet Union" (2011-12-05, pewglobal.org) [archive.is/iYQAw]
* "Better Red Than Unfed? A Survey of Post-Communism" (2009-11-03, foreignpolicyblogs.com) [archive.is/a4Zp7]

COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK?
- LET'S ASK SOMEBODY WHO LIVED IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY


72% OF HUNGARIANS FEEL LIFE WAS BETTER UNDER COMMUNISM
* "Hungary: Better Off Under Communism?" (2010-04-28, pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/) [archive.is/IGzRB]
* "Hungary Dissatisfied with Democracy, but Not Its Ideals" (2010-04-07, pewresearch.org/global/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-ideals/) [archive.is/1xtml]

57% OF EAST GERMAN FEEL LIFE BETTER UNDER COMMUNISM
* "Homesick for a Dictatorship: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism; Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR" (2009--07-03, spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html) [archive.is/HFdaB]

FORMER SOVIET COUNTRIES SEE MORE HARM THAN GOOD FROM BREAKUP
* "Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup; Residents more than twice as likely to say collapse hurt their country" (2013-12-19, gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx) [archive.is/El9yB]

66% OF RUSSIANS SAY LIFE BETTER IN SOVIET UNION
* "Nostalgia for the USSR" (2018-12-19, levada.ru/2018/12/19/nostalgiya-po-sssr-2/) [archive.is/04u1g], (machine translation, translate.google.com) [archive.is/ZI6Wd]

SERBIA POLL: 81% SAY LIFE WAS BETTER "DURING THE TIME OF SOCIALISM"
* "Serbia Poll: Life Was Better Under Tito; A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -'during the time of socialism' " (2010-12-24, balkaninsight.com/2010/12/24/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country/) [archive.is/lkg6q]

53% OF ROMANIANS WOULD GO BACK TO COMMUNISM IF GIVEN THE CHOICE
* "Poll: 53% of Romanians would return to communism" (2012-08-08, romanialibera.ro/actualitate/eveniment/sondaj--53--dintre-romani-s-ar-intoarce-la-comunism-273175) [archive.is/sLnYU], (machine translation, translate.google.com) [archive.is/HFncY]

IN EASTERN EUROPE, PEOPLE PINE FOR SOCIALISM
* "In eastern Europe, people pine for socialism" (2009-11-08, reuters.com/article/us-communism-nostalgia-idUSTRE5A701320091108) [archive.is/Xjinn]
---



* "End of Communism cheered but now with more reservations: Chapter 4. Economic Values" (2009-11-02, pewglobal.org) [archive.is/TRMN5] [begin excerpt]: Many Say Economic Situation Is Worse Today -
Majorities or pluralities in six of the eight Eastern European countries surveyed say the economic situation of most people in their country is worse today than it was under communism. Hungarians offer the most negative assessments – 72% say most in their country are worse off today. Majorities in Bulgaria and Ukraine share that view (62% each), as do about half of Lithuanians and Slovaks (48% each) and 45% of Russians.
Only in Poland and the Czech Republic do more respondents say that most people in their country are better off than say most are worse off. Nearly half of Poles (47%) and 45% of Czechs say that the economic situation is better today than it was under communism, while 35% and 39%, respectively, say it is worse.
As is the case with opinions about the move from a state-controlled economy to a market economy, women, those who did not attend college and those who are 65 or older are generally more negative in their assessments of whether most people in their country are better off or worse off today than they were under communism. The views of those in urban or rural areas vary slightly, if at all.
In nearly every Eastern European country surveyed, those under 30 are much more likely than those 65 and older to say that the economic situation of most people in their country is better today than it was under communism. In Russia, 39% of those who were young children during the Soviet regime say people are better off today and one-third say people are worse off. Among those who are 65 and older, about six-in-ten (62%) say the economic situation of most Russians is worse today and just 20% say it is better than it was under communism. A similar pattern is evident throughout the region. In Ukraine, however, the young and old are about equally likely to say the economic situation is better (13% vs. 11%, respectively). At the same time, older Ukrainians are far more likely than young people to say the economic situation is now worse (75% vs. 50%).
Views of Free Markets -
When asked whether they agree or disagree that most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people may be rich while others are poor, Eastern European publics offer mixed views. Opinions are decidedly in favor of free markets in Poland (70%), the Czech Republic (63%) and Slovakia (56%). In Lithuania, half agree that people are better off in a free market economy, while 43% disagree. And in Ukraine, Bulgaria and Hungary, majorities or pluralities reject the notion that free markets are better, even if they produce inequalities (43%, 58% and 65%, respectively).
Views of free markets are, in large part, a reflection of opinions of how people have fared economically over the past two decades. For example, in Bulgaria, where overall support for free markets is low, more than seven-in-ten (73%) of those who say most people in their country are better off than they were under communism favor the free market model. Just 27% of those who say people are worse off today and 40% of those who say things are about the same for most people as they were under communism express support for free markets. [end excerpt]
---



The Republic of Hungary:
* "Hungary: Better Off Under Communism?" (2010-04-28, pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/) [archive.is/3ZvUb] [begin excerpt]: A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country's economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country's switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary's integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process. [end excerpt]
* "Hungary: Better Off Under Communism?" (2010-04-28, pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/04/28/hungary-better-off-under-communism/) [archive.is/IGzRB]
* "Hungary Dissatisfied with Democracy, but Not Its Ideals" (2010-04-07, pewresearch.org/global/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-ideals/) [archive.is/1xtml]
---



The Republic of Romania:
* "In Romania, Opinion Polls Show Nostalgia for Communism" (2011-12-27, balkanalysis.com) [archive.is/MsNRF] [begin excerpt]: The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied. [end excerpt]
This article contains the following sources:
[1] "Ceauşescu reelected - 41 percent of Romanian he would vote if the presidential election were today" (2010-07-26, gandul.info) original [archive.is/gsC3x], machine translation [http://is.gd/ooZdyy] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/TKnnQ].
[2, 3, 10] "Present perception on communism" (2006-12-18, fundatia.ro) original [archive.is/kiMyR], translation (.pdf) [http://is.gd/3nTGjb] machine translation [http://is.gd/BgHYpQ] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/VPHpe]. Originally posted by Fundaţia Soros Romania (Soros Foundation Romania) as "Perceptia actuala asupra comunismului. Comunicat de presă (Actual perception on communism. Press release)" at [http://www.sfos.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=21]
[4, 5] "Partizanii lui ‘inainte era mai bine’ (Proponents of  'it was better before')" (2009-01-29, by Sandra Scarlat, adevarul.ro), original at [http://is.gd/PWwPBV], machine translation [http://is.gd/sptyaE] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/8EmBU].
[6] “Romanii nu regreta comunismul (The Romanians do not regret communism)" (2009-11-07, by Ionela Sufaru, Jurnalul National), original at [http://is.gd/B9mdgj] with the attached diagram at [archive.is/hoebQ], machine translation [http://is.gd/I9eFTO] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/ls1OA]. The survey did not focus on the communist past, but some of the survey’s questions asked people to evaluate communism as an ideology, and many Romanians continue to consider it ‘a good’ idea.
[7] "Din ce clasă socială faceti parte? (To What Social Class Do You Belong?)" (2007, by Gabriela Neagu, business-adviser.ro), original at [http://is.gd/TRhJmk] machine translation [http://is.gd/bQbvyh] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/9G1CB].
[8] "Studenţii regretă perioada comunistă (Students regret the communist period)" (2008-08-13, by Alina Gavrilă, Adevărul) original at [http://is.gd/lsGgbK], machine translation: Over 30% of students believe that Romania was better before 1989, according to a study by the Agency for Governmental Strategies. The criteria on which students have expressed sympathy for communist Romania are performance and living standards of the education system. A third of students would prefer the establishment of an authoritarian regime if it would ensure rising living standards of the population and 24% of students would not approve any form, a dictatorship. Ignorance, the primary reason "When someone who lived under communism, says he regrets this era means that is currently unsatisfied," said Mircea Kivu, a sociologist. In turn, prof. Ph.D. Mihaela Miroiu believes that ignorance is the main reason why a large percentage of the students considered so it was better before 1989. "Do you think it was better before the Revolution and prefer the establishment of a totalitarian regime is stupid. These young people and their parents have not lived the trauma of the '50s," she said.
[9] "The Present-Day Perception on Communism" poll data gathered 2010, 2011 (crimelecomunismului.ro) page 1 [archive.is/OpdKX], part 2 [http://is.gd/KHFx57]
[11] "The Tragic Failure of “Post-Communism” in Eastern Europe" (2011-03-08, by Dr. Rossen Vassilev) [archive.is/WU6E5]

* "Romania, rampant communist nostalgia: 2 of 3 want their Ceausescu; Unbelievable but true. 66% of Romanians would have Nicolae Ceausescu again to lead the country. Rampant nostalgia for socialism" (2015-08-09, affaritaliani.it) machine translated [archive.is/7p1uX]
* "Nicolae Ceausescu is considered the best president of Romania. Followed by Ion Iliescu and Traian Basescu - poll" (2014-07-17, hotnews.ro), original at [http://is.gd/wPnL6q] machine translation [http://is.gd/QEmQ9i] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/6y2Aw].
* "Poll: Nearly 45% of Romanians believe that the communist regime meant "a good thing for Romania". Banat - most reluctant to communism, Moldovans - the most favorable" (2014-01-17, hotnews.ro), original at [archive.is/TEl81] machine translation [http://is.gd/LQiXGg] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/7BHBd].
* "POLL. 46% of Romanian respondents would vote for President Nicolae Ceausescu now" (2014-04-10, digi24.ro), original at [http://is.gd/pAR8Xj] machine translation [http://is.gd/PVu7Cv] could not be archived but is available as a (.jpg) [archive.is/wcmZS].
* "Poll: 53% of Romanian would return to communism" (2012-08-08, romanialibera.ro), original at [archive.is/9swz9], machine translation [http://is.gd/pROMg6] could not be archived but is available here: European harshly criticized and political torn, Romania awaits the verdict of the Constitutional Court to find out who will be president: Crin Antonescu and Basescu. Meanwhile, stand and Romanians, both economically, especially social. And recent surveys reveal an alarming state of mind of citizens to tensions, according to Mediafax.
In an overwhelming majority of Romanians believe that politics is stealing and lying. As for our European future, 64 percent believe that Romania is on the wrong track, 27 percent see us outside Europe, while 53 percent would return to communism.
If until now the erosion of the opposition government was joy, things seem to have changed. The Romanians did not look at the political opposition as clear and distinct alternative power. Even more, polls show discontent with the political class in general.
According to a survey conducted by the Romanian Institute of Social Studies, more than half of Romanian believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The answer to this question was extracted from three surveys conducted on March 26, May 8 and June 27. Of the total respondents in March, 80% said that Romania goes in the wrong direction. In early May, the number of those who believed that Romania is heading in the wrong direction was down to 40% and at the end of June, the number had risen to 64%.
A percentage of 26% of Romanian believe that the country could be kicked out of the European Union in the near future because of the crisis at the top of the state.
To the question "How do you think that is now Romania's image in Europe?", 71% of respondents felt that the current picture is pretty bad.
The most shocking is that after 20 years of democracy, poll-Public Affairs, conducted from July 14 to 18, 53% of Romanian argued that it would return to communism and Ceausescu's regime has been badly applied.
As it concerns current polticienii Romanians remain reluctant to them. That's because, in the view of 51% of Romanian politicians "stealing public money" and 31% think they are "liars".
However, most citizens declare their interests in relation to the current situation, with 40% saying that interest them much, while 25% are indifferent. Most Romanians have chosen to procure information from television (81.8%) and all the other information channels, internet, newspapers or radio tiny percentage charge. [end machine translated article]
---



The Federal Republic of Germany's eastern realm:
* "Homesick for a Dictatorship: Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism; Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR" (2009--07-03, spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html) (spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html) [archive.is/HFdaB]
* "Germany Ostalgie stronger than ever. Travel between who wants back in the GDR; There is not only Germany's Merkel and Schaeuble. In the East it is still very much alive nostalgia for socialism" (2015-08-01, affaritaliani.it) machine translated [archive.is/WGGjF]
---



The Czech Republic:
* "Poll: Many Czechs say they had better life under Communism" (2011-11-21, praguemonitor.com) [archive.is/bFYoy], page censored [archive.is/7tUTi], then purged [archive.is/UFfGC] [begin excerpt]: Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.
Only 23 percent said they had a better life now.
More goods in shops, open borders and better cultural offer are considered the biggest successes of the system that was installed after 1989.
Nine-in-ten are of the view that much better conditions for corruption arose after 1989.
Some two-thirds of those polled said leading politicians were less corrupt under the Communist regime than now.
Some 56 percent said Czech democracy was not working comparably with democracies in advanced countries. The opposite view is held by 44 percent of Czechs.
On the other hand, the voucher privatisation, the worsening of human relations and work of the civil service are its biggest flaws, most Czechs said. [end excerpt]
* "Former Czech Dissident, Now Against the West: Freest Under Czech Communism!" (2014-10-24, counterpunch.org) [archive.is/1x5OJ], intro and thirteen photos (2014-10-26, popularresistance.org) [archive.is/PZRPF]
---



The Republic of Serbia:
* "Serbia Poll: Life Was Better Under Tito; A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia - 'during the time of socialism' " (2010-12-24, balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country) [archive.is/S5R3i] [begin excerpt]:
The survey focused on the respondents' views on the transition "from socialism to capitalism", and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito.
The standard of living during Tito's rule from the Second World War to the 1980s was also assessed as best, whereas the Milosevic decade of the 1990s, and the subsequent decade since the fall of his regime are seen as "more or less the same".
45 percent said they trusted social institutions most under communism with  23 percent choosing the 2001-2003 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19 per cent selected present-day institutions.
According to the poll coordinator Srecko Mihailovic, "what seems to be most disturbing" in the answers is that 23 per cent of respondents think that Serbia is governed by criminals, 18 per cent believe that the country is run by the president, the government and parliament, the same percentage believe that the country is run by owners of large companies, while 12 per cent think that Serbia is ruled by "the international community". [end excerpt]
---



The Republic of Ukraine:
* "More than half of Ukrainians regret Soviet breakup" (2011-03-16, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/haB4S]: More than half of Ukrainian residents regret the break-up of the Soviet Union, an expert from the Research & Branding Group said on Wednesday, citing poll results.
"More than half of Ukrainian residents (54%) agree that the Soviet Union should have been preserved, although every third resident (33%) has a contrary opinion," Yevgeny Kopatko said.
However, only 26% of respondents said they would vote against independence from the Soviet Union if such a referendum took place today, while 51% say they would choose independence.
"At present, Ukrainians are divided in their perception of the Soviet Union's breakup. Some consider this event "a logical end of the communist empire" (44%) while others say it was a "major geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century," he said.
Some 43% of Ukrainians believe that the breakup of the Soviet Union was inevitable, while 46% say it was possible to avoid it.
A total of 2,075 respondents took place in survey on March 1-9. The margin of error is estimated to be below 2.2%.
---



The Republic of Kyrgyzstan:
* "Roza Otunbayeva: we’ve been uncomfortable in our new skin for 20 years now; During its independent existence Kyrgyzstan has sustained severe economic downturns, regional upheavals, two revolutions and high ethnic tensions" (2011-09-09, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/rBebO] [begin excerpt]:
Q: What role did the Soviet period play in Kyrgyz history? Was the foundation of Kyrgyz statehood laid during Soviet times?
A: Now that we have become an independent state and began scrutinizing our history, historians find evidence that we had statehood in the hoary past that was then interrupted and so on. But it was only during the Soviet period that Kyrgyzstan had acquired real statehood. French enlighteners used to say that every state must have its academy of sciences, university, and encyclopedia. We got all of them in Soviet years. I would even say that for us the Soviet period was comparable to the Renaissance. Our modern arts and culture were born at that time. Our people’s literary and cultural achievements were put into books, printed music, and films. The ballet, opera, painting, theater, and cinema had become essential parts of our culture. All people in Kyrgyzstan could read and write – this is what the Soviet Union gave us!
Q: Did you feel like you belong to the “new historical, social, and international community – the Soviet people”?
A: Absolutely! I was a very Soviet product. I went to the Artek summer pioneer camp twice and worked as a team leader when I was still in school. I finished high school with excellent marks and entered the philosophy department at Moscow State University (MSU). I finished post-graduate courses there and joined the party. My life was a good example of how the social ladder worked in Soviet time – I, a girl from a family with many children from the Osha province, managed to join MSU, the nation’s best university and studied there on par with children of professors… After defending my thesis I came back to Kyrgyzstan and headed a faculty at the local university. Later on, I worked in the regional and city party committees… We were brought up as the vanguard of the big Soviet country. [...]
Q: You represented the Soviet elite and it was natural for you to feel part of the united Soviet nation. Did rank-and-file Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, and Dungans who lived in Kyrgyzstan during the Soviet years feel the same?
A: I think that when this carpet named “the Soviet people, a single historical community” was woven, the authorities interpreted it superficially and created national elite class which would go on to influence people’s views. I don’t think rank-and-file people felt the sense of the so-called “single community.” The authorities didn’t have time to create it – they set the task but it required more time and better developed economy to achieve it. Peasants did not even have passports – they were forced to stay in villages, but they were employed there. Going abroad for a provincial was like taking a trip to the Moon! Our society is now developing with such convulsions because in Soviet years it was spasmodic. Its development was inflated out of all proportion in some respects and artificially restrained in others. The powerful drive for urbanization started as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed – people rushed to the cities.
Today, common people miss the Soviet times, saying that then they had pensions and salaries… Some are creating myths about the Soviet past. I recently heard one lady saying over the radio that as a school teacher she could go for vacation on Lake Issyk-Kul for 12 rubles and bought a fur coat on her first salary. But this is simply untrue.
During the Soviet years, the life was better organized and gave the feeling of social security. I remember how we had disputes and some insisted that alcoholics and social parasites should not be paid salaries. During all these 20 years we have been going through this market economy chopper, as if we are being dragged through the windfall. But every society had similar periods, and now it is our time to turn down this unavoidable path…
Q: Central Asian republics did not fight for their independence. After the signing of the Belovezh Accords, they were faced with a sheer fact: all of a sudden they were free. If the Russian government had acted differently, would it have been possible to retain a single state with Central Asian republics?
A: We were simply thrown out of that big country to “live as we want”. I think it would have been possible to preserve the country but our Akayev followed the West’s wishes and wanted to raze everything to the ground. He wasn’t sorry at all – destroying is easier than building, and he came to power when everything had already been built. Contrary to Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev, he did not build anything himself.
We all saw how Nazarbayev was trying to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union to the very last moment. At that time we felt and thought the same as him. Being the prime minister and then the first secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party, he was very well aware what Kazakhstan was all about and what resources it had but at the same time he could hardly imagine being without the Soviet Union and without Russia. The same can be said about Kyrgyzstan. [end excerpt]
---



The Federation of Russia:
* "Nostalgia for the Soviet Union Hits 14-Year High in Russia, Poll Says" (2018-12-19, themoscowtimes.com/2018/12/19/nostalgia-for-soviet-union-hits-14-year-high-russia-poll-says-a63884) [archive.is/CtPCB]
* "Russian nostalgia for Soviet Union reaches 13-year high" (2018-12-19, reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietunion-idUSKBN1OI20Q) [archive.is/baCAK]
---



The former USSR (a general overview):
* Statistics taken from "Flight from Freedom: What Russians Think and Want" by Richard Pipes, published in the May/June 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs:
According to Yale Lecturer Richard Pipes, 74% of Russians surveyed for his 2005 book regret the demise of the Soviet Union and believe life was better under Communism.
78% of respondents in a 2003 survey said that democracy is a facade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques. Only 22% expressed a preference for democracy; 53% disliked it.
74% of Russians regret the Soviet Union's passing. Only 12% regard the post-communist regime as "legitimate". In an October 2003 survey they were asked how they would react to a Communist coup: 23% would actively support it, 19% would collaborate, only 10% would actively resist.

* "Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup; Residents more than twice as likely to say collapse hurt their country" (2013-12-19, gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx) [archive.is/El9yB] [begin excerpt]: Reflecting back on the breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the breakup. Georgians are divided. [end excerpt]

* "More than half of Russians want the Soviet Union back" (2014-05-08, qz.com) [archive.is/hkqAh]:
The US polling company Pew Research Center has just released a survey of Russian and Ukrainian attitudes to what’s going on in eastern Ukraine [archive.is/zzRFX], and one fact caught our eye: 55% of Russian adults think it’s a “great misfortune” that the Soviet Union no longer exists [archive.is/BG9fw] (see chart).
Pew has asked Russians this question twice before, and got roughly the same result: 58% in 2009 and 50% in 2011. (There’s a 3.6-percentage-point margin of error.) What makes this rather striking is that, in 2009, none of the people Pew surveyed (aged 18 and older) would have been born after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Today, roughly 6 million fully post-Soviet Russians have reached adulthood, judging by Russian official data (spreadsheet, link in Russian).
Of Russians under 30—who would have been at most seven years old in 1991—some 40% lamented the USSR’s demise, Pew found. Again, looking at the population data, which show some 27 million people born between 1984 and 1996, that means about 10 million Russian adults long for the restoration of a country and political system of which they have no meaningful personal memory.

* "Post-Soviet Syndrome; Many Young Russians Are Nostalgic for the Soviet Union" (2011-09-22, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/sDTcv] [begin excerpt]: For many young people, the fabled social guarantees and safety net that the Soviet regime provided were the keys to their hearts. “It was good that the government provided people with the necessary living conditions and social benefits, there was more confidence about tomorrow,” 20-year-old Maria Skorik, who studies PR at the Journalism and Philology Faculty of the Southern Federal University in Rostov-on-Don, said. For her, social welfare is what was cool about the Soviet Union, even though she said that her idea of those times was based on bedside stories.
Maxim Rudnev, aged 23, who studies at Russia’s Academy of Law and Governance, also said recreational storytelling by his parents formed his opinions about the Soviet past. “My opinion is based on stories I was told by my grandparents and good Soviet movies,” said Rudnev, who was born in East Berlin and never lived in the Soviet Union. “For me, the Soviet past is associated with victories in World War II, the achievements of the space programs, science and the labor movements, such as Stakhanovism.” Rudnev is now one of the patriotic young fellows in the pro-Kremlin Molodaya Gvardiya political movement, which, among other things, groom the young generation to look at the Soviet past with admiration and some veneration. [...]
The study, which polled 300 high-school and university students aged between 13 and 32, found that young people with little or no memory of the Soviet Union also tend to be nostalgic for the past. “Young Russians didn’t live in the Soviet Union and only know about it from stories they have been told by their parents, grandparents and teachers, or Soviet movies,” Kasamara said. “These tend to concentrate on positive experiences and don’t reflect the gloomy Soviet reality.” [...]
Tough social and economic conditions since the collapse of the Soviet Union can also lead people to idealize the past, according to experts. “The difficulties people faced after the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the 1998 economic crisis, the threat of terrorism, and the collapse of order—which had been so typical of the post-Soviet era, outweighed the problems of the Soviet period,” Kasamara said. “Although Soviet citizens didn’t like the gloomy Soviet reality, when shock therapy was implemented in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union people started to recall ‘the romantic and still air of the Soviet Union’ when they had government support and confidence about tomorrow.” [...]
Suspicion toward Western countries is also quite common among the post-Soviet generation, which Kasamara believes indicates it is yearning for the Soviet Union’s influence in the international political arena. A poll conducted by the Levada Center in 2011 revealed that 70 percent of respondents believe that Russia has a lot of strategic rivals and enemies abroad. [end excerpt]
* "Uncertain World: Destructive Soviet nostalgia" (2011-12-08, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/45SOx] [begin excerpt]: Second, some manifestations of “real democracy” have been so repulsive that many have started looking at “real socialism” through rose-colored glasses. Finally, the political class took up a completely different matter – trying to convert the credit of public trust into power and property for itself. The reforms of the 1990s, primarily privatization, reached their real, as opposed to stated, goal, and returning to the Soviet economic model and politics became impossible. Yet, the exploitation of nostalgic feelings for Soviet life became widespread – having started under Boris Yeltsin it flourished and became systemic under Vladimir Putin.

* "Referendum on the preservation of the USSR" infographic (2011, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/Ez8Fd]:



Comment from Kate R. (2015-12-26): The referendum stated the simple question which is shown. It was run independently and in a way in which your vote was not a show of hands in a crowd but a tick on a ballot. The people of the USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countries wanted to stay communist... They declared in poll after poll and vote after vote that they wanted to keep the communist system but modify it slightly. Some of my family are from the eastern bloc and they never shut up about how communism was fantastic in comparison to the hell they have now.

* "Remembering a futile referendum" (2011-03-24, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/O9ezM] [begin excerpt]: All these events took place later but are worth mentioning to demonstrate that on March 17, 1991 the people were not, in fact, voting for the “good old USSR” but for some renewed federation or the union of equal sovereign republics, neither of which was destined to last.
It is no accident that, on the same day, an overwhelming majority of people in the Russian Federation (then still called the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) voted to introduce the post of president. Anyone elected to this post would have inevitably come into conflict with Gorbachev. Moscow could not have coped with having two presidents. [end excerpt]
* "The last will of the Soviet people" (2011-03-18, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/M3Uyo] [begin excerpt]: A plebiscite is considered the highest form of direct democracy. Maybe it works in tiny, orderly Switzerland, where any political or administrative issue is resolved by referendum. In a politically unstable and democratically immature society a referendum does not give a real picture of people’s desires: it is an instrument of manipulation and political intrigue and is used even more brazenly than elections.
The vote on the preservation of the USSR became part of the intense struggle that the union authorities were waging against the elites in the various Soviet republics, mainly in Russia. However, Boris Yeltsin negated the Kremlin’s success in one masterful stroke: offering the Russians a parallel vote on establishing the post of president of the Russian Federation (more than 71% backed the idea). Thus Yeltsin created an alternative center of power that not only outmaneuvered but obliterated its rival. [...]
Had an agreement to establish a USR been signed in August, it would have alleviated the nature and consequences of the USSR’s dissolution, above all in economic terms. The local elites would have received the very same mechanism of “amicable divorce” that was later created hastily and called the Commonwealth of Independent States. This would have been a better mechanism, and the people would probably not have paid so high a price for the country’s disintegration. But although it was the people who paid, the politicians set the price. Each was ready to go to any lengths for the sake of the main prize.
After March 17, the community that had hitherto been known as “the Soviet people” ceased to exist. Their last will, as expressed in the referendum on keeping the USSR, remained unfulfilled. [end excerpt]

* "The collapse of the Soviet Union: 20 years on; Twenty years ago, in January 1991, the tragic events in the Baltic region triggered a countdown to the end of the Soviet Union. The nuclear superpower that once dominated half the world ceased to exist within a year" (2011, en.ria.ru) [archive.is/ell69]

* "Gorbachev named least popular Russia leader" (2012-02-02, UPI Newswire) [archive.is/IMk52] [begin excerpt]: A survey by Russia's state-run VTsIOM polling groupr found just 14 percent of respondents named Gorbachev, the Soviet Union's last head of state, when asked whose policies in the past 100 years resulted in Russia developing in the proper direction, RIA Novosti reported.
Boris Yeltsin, the first president of the Russia Federation, was named by 17 percent of respondents in the survey. [...]
Among Communist leaders, Vladimir Lenin and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin each received a positive rating from 28 percent of respondents, compared with 24 percent for Nikita Khrushchev.
Russia's last czar, Nicholas II, got a positive rating from 31 percent of respondents.
The survey of 1,600 people was conducted Oct. 29-30 in 46 Russian regions and has a margin of error of less than 3.4 percent. [end excerpt]

The "Atomic Lynching" of Puerto Rico

From the book "War against all Puerto Ricans"

Chapter 21: "Atomic Lynching":
pg. 233 [archive.is/qXp6A],
pg. 234 [archive.is/d8KTU],
pg. 235 [archive.is/CJqiz],
pg. 236 [archive.is/1j5He]
(excluding photo),
pg. 237 [archive.is/pUK5T],
pg. 238 [archive.is/Ovquy]

Chapter 22: "Weird Science in Puerto Rico":
pg. 239 [archive.is/0hqGx],
pg. 240 [archive.is/NsLtR],
pg. 241 [archive.is/b3qSw],
pg. 242 [archive.is/AD6hb],
pg. 243 [archive.is/ZeLFQ],
pg. 244 [archive.is/Mp6ta],
pg. 245 [archive.is/a0LRP]

Footnotes: [archive.is/Yb6E9],
[archive.is/mML3O],
[archive.is/Lnrst],
[archive.is/yyMfN],
[archive.is/W9rEs],
[archive.is/KkMrM]

The Research Archive of Grover Furr

Properly Furr writes literary critiques, not histories. While they cover historical eras, the structure is not such as a history or biography, but a critique. Properly, he is not a historian. This is fine, as he does not write histories.
Grover Furr has a doctorate in literature and is an expert in research. Although he writes literary critiques (most of his books are criticisms of another published work), Prof. Gorver Furr defines his career as a critical expert in 20th century history, basing his arguments soley on source materials.
Other historians researching the facts about the Soviet Union include: Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Roberta Manning, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry Hough, Lewis Siegelbaum, Lynne Viola.

* Grover Furr's "Politics and Social Issues Page" [archive.is/BJEss], being a main page for many of his research

* "Why Is The Truth About the International Communist Movement Important?" [archive.is/xOx5H]

* "The Sixty-One Untruths of Nikita Khrushchev" [archive.is/W7g0j]
* "Anti-Stalinist Villany" book publishers description [archive.is/4BkGz]

* On Robert Conquest (2015-08) [archive.is/IsPsg]

===*===*===



Bibliography

* "Evidence of Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan" (170 pages, 2009, by Prof. Grover Furr) (.pdf) [is.gd/XoauJy]



* "Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every Revelation of Stalin's (and Beria's) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev's Infamous Secret Speech to the 20th Party ... is Provably False" (2011, re-released 2019)

* "The Murder of Sergei Kirov" (2013)
In this magnificent, thoroughly-researched book, Grover Furr examines Leonid Nikolaev's murder of Stalin's close colleague Sergei Kirov on 1 December 1934. Furr uses new evidence from those parts of the Russian archives that have been released, and materials from the Trotsky Archive at Harvard University and the Volkogonov Archive, which prove that Nikolaev acted as part of a Zinovievist terrorist group.
With Stalin's support, Kirov had broken Grigory Zinoviev's hold over Leningrad and replaced him as First Secretary of the Bolshevik Party in the city. The Opposition could not defeat him politically, so they decided to kill him.
Khrushchev told the 1960-1961 investigation, run by the Party Control Committee (KPK), to blame Stalin for the Kirov murder. But it could produce no evidence to this effect and had to conclude that Stalin was not involved.
Khrushchev then adopted the `lone gunman' thesis. Furr analyses Matthew Lenoe's book The Kirov murder and Soviet history, published by Yale University Press in 2010, and Alla Kirilina's book Rikoshet, published in 1993, which both argued this thesis.
The Zinovievist-Trotskyist opposition believed that Stalin had betrayed the revolution, that he was the grave digger of the revolution as Trotsky called him, so they felt they had to remove him. As Valentin Astrov, a follower of Bukharin, stated, Bukharin said in January 1930, "it would be necessary at any cost to remove Stalin."
This had to mean by assassination, since the only alternative was to win a majority of the Party Congress or Central Committee, which the opposition could never achieve. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Astrov denied he was coerced into making this statement.
The truths about the conspiracies were revealed step by step in the December 1934 trial of Nikolaev, in the Moscow trials of August 1936 and January 1937, the Tukhachevsky affair of May-June 1937, and the trial of March 1938.
Zinoviev's collaborator Lev Kamenev admitted on 23 July 1936, "we, that is the Zinovievist center of the counterrevolutionary organization, the membership of which I have named above, and the Trotskyist counterrevolutionary organization in the persons of Smirnov, Mrachkovskii and Ter-Vaganian, agreed in 1932 about the union of both, i.e. the Zinovievist and Trotskyist counterrevolutionary organization for cooperative organization of terrorist acts against the leaders of the CC and first of all against Stalin and Kirov."
The Harvard Trotsky Archive provided further evidence that the Zinovievist-Trotskyist bloc existed from 1932 onwards. For example, Trotsky's son Sedov wrote to Trotsky in mid-1932 that the bloc "is organized. In it have entered the Zinovievites, the Sten-Lominadze group and the Trotskyists ... The declaration of Z. and K. concerning their enormous mistake in '27 was made during negotiations with our people concerning the bloc ..."
The Archive also provided proof that Trotsky communicated with the bloc's members, including Karl Radek, Sokol'nikov, Preobrazhenskii and Kollontai, despite his lies to the contrary to the Dewey Commission and in his Bulletin of the Opposition. Trotsky's letter to Radek of 3 March 1932 was a directive to `remove the leadership'. Furr also relates how this Archive has been purged, as the Trotskyist writer Pierre Broué admitted, presumably to hide even more incriminating materials.
Zinoviev said on 28 July 1936, "I must add that a plan was developed for hiding the traces of the crimes that were under preparation by the united Trotskyite-Zinovievite center. The forcible removal of the leaders of the Party and government had to be very carefully disguised as White Guardist acts or acts of `personal vengeance'." Zinoviev admitted that Nikolaev attended a meeting of the Leningrad centre of the Opposition. All this is strong evidence against the thesis that Nikolaev was a `lone gunman'.
From the interrogation of Genrikh Yagoda, People's Commissar of Internal Affairs, on 26 April 1937:
"Question: You had materials about the active terrorist centers?
Answer: I had.
Question: Kirov was killed by them?
Answer: By them.
Question: You concealed the activity of these terrorist organizations?
Answer: I did."
Under Russia's 75-year rule, materials on Kirov's murder and Nikolaev's trial should have been released by now, but they haven't - why not, if they support the Khrushchev/Gorbachev line that Nikolaev was a `lone gunman'? So this hidden evidence must show that it was true that the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc was guilty of Kirov's murder.
Khrushchev never managed to bring forward from the archives any evidence that pointed to the defendants' innocence. In 1956 he ordered the KGB to destroy the records of the surveillance operation against the Zinovievists.
The notion that Nikolaev acted alone and that the Zinovievist-Trotskyist bloc was a fiction is part of the anti-Stalin paradigm which has structured the West's historiography of the Soviet Union for 90 years. This paradigm is a key part of anti-communist, pro-capitalist politics. Furr has put together the evidence that proves the existence of the bloc and its responsibility for Kirov's murder.

* "Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's 'Bloodlands' Is False" (2014)

* "Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ : Trotsky's Lies, The Moscow Trials As Evidence, The Dewey Commission. Trotsky's Conspiracies of the 1930s" (2015)
- Not at Amazon. Order from (http://erythrospress.com/store/trotskys-amalgams.html)

** "Yezhov vs. Stalin: The Truth About Mass Repressions and the So-Called Great Terror in the USSR" (2016)

** "Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan" (2017)

* "The Fraud of the Dewey Commission: Leon Trotsky's Lies" (2018)

* "The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre; The Evidence, The Solution" (2018)

* "Trotsky's Lies" (2019), a revised and updated edition of the Introduction, and Chapters 13-16 of "Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams".

** "Stalin Waiting For ... The Truth!" (2019)

===*===*===



* "Did the Soviet Union Invade Poland in September 1939? (The answer: No, it did not)" [archive.is/tmWrF], page of links [archive.is/T2VRI]
* "Did the USSR Invade Poland in September, 1939?" study handout [archive.is/kArt8]
* The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: The Secret Protocols, Articles I and II [archive.is/1t2Kc]
* "The Secret Protocols to the M-R Pact Did NOT Plan Any Partition of Poland" [archive.is/2wHKT]
* "Should the USSR Have Permitted German Troops to Come Right Up To Its Borders?" [archive.is/bjcIq]
* Soviet Neutrality [archive.is/mUXDG]
* The Curzon Line [archive.is/uENAw]
* Polish Leaders Flee [archive.is/PYZ9t]
* Moscicki and His "Resignation" [archive.is/g6crv]
* The Polish State Collapsed [archive.is/WeYdD]
* "A closer look at the claim that the Polish State had ceased to exist: The Definition of the State in International Law" [archive.is/BZb8t]
* "France and England Supported Soviet Possession of W. Ukraine, W. Belorussia" [archive.is/yoeLj]
* 1939, September 17, [Kuty]. - Order of the Supreme Commander of the Polish Army E. Rydz-Smigly in Connection with the Offensive of Soviet Forces [archive.is/nmavF]: "The Soviets have invaded. My orders are to carry out the retirement into Rumania and Hungary by the shortest routes. Do not engage the Soviets in military actions, only in the event of disarming our units by them. The task for Warsaw and Modlin, which must defend themselves against the Germans, remain unchanged. Units towards whose formations the Soviets have approached should negotiate with them with the aim of the exit of the garrisons into Rumania or Hungary." Supreme Commander Marshal of Poland E. Rydz-Smigly"
* Note of the Conversation of the Vice-Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. Potemkin with the Ambassador of Poland to the USSR V. Grzybowski [archive.is/TVRZk]. The Text of Ambassador Grzybowski's Reply to Potemkin [archive.is/PVtdh]
* "Re-negotiation Of Spheres Of Influence in the Former Polish State September 1939" [archive.is/LClmS]
* Texts of Molotoff Talks Explaining Military Action [archive.is/AfMzM]
===*===*===


Stalin and Anti-Communism -
The "Stalin Question" is one of the most vital issues of our time, I think, because stories about the "horrors of Stalinism" are used to demoralize millions of people who are otherwise fed up with capitalist exploitation and are looking for an alternative. The "anti-Stalinists" basically tell us there is no alternative! So serious research on the USSR during the period of Stalin's leadership is vital in helping us understand what the Bolsheviks did that was right, and what they did that was wrong, led away from communism and egalitarianism, and what we must learn from their heroic experiences.

- Review of Robert W. Thurston, Life and Terror in Stalinist Russia. Though anti-communist itself, Thurston's book explodes many of the anti-Stalin lies about the first workers' state during the 1930s, making use of the latest documents from former Soviet archives. This critical review summarizes the lessons and reveals its limitations. From PLP. "Anti-Stalin Equals Anti-Communism" at [archive.is/ZA6Kj]

- Stalin Reconsidered [archive.is/o4bSW]: English translation of a Belgian work debunking Cold-War lies about the USSR in Stalin's time.

- Here is the text of a short talk I gave on "Today's Crises and Thoughts on Joseph Stalin" at the Unitarian Church in Orange, NJ in September 1994 [archive.is/mF8Nc]. And, here is a little essay on anti-Stalinism [archive.is/8OOzP] inspired by Josephine Tey's famous mystery novel Daughter of Time, concerning the way "official" historians distort history to serve their masters. Your criticisms and comments would be appreciated.

 "The Hoax of the 'Man-Made' 1932-33 Ukrainian Famine" [archive.is/zajsq].
First of a series of six articles originally published in Challenge-Desafio, newspaper of the PLP, in 1987. It's the best expose of the anti-communist lies about the "Man-made famine", but also contains valuable analysis of anti-communism in general, and a good discussion of what really did happen in the USSR in the '30s, and why it turned eventually towards capitalism. (NOTE: This series does not deny that there was a famine in the Ukraine, and in other parts of the USSR, in 1932-33. It demonstrates that this famine was not "man-made" or a deliberate attempt to kill Ukrainians. No one denies that a famine existed).
There are six articles in this series. You can go from one to the other through links at the end of each, or go to each of them from here:
Article One: "The Hoax of the 1932-33 Ukraine Famine" -- on the fraudulent film "Harvest of Despair" [archive.is/d9SBo]
Article Two: "Conquest's Book Lies about the 1932-32 Ukraine Famine" [archive.is/44Ezv] on the equally fraudulent book by Robert Conquest, Harvest of Sorrow.
Article Three: "Anti-Communist Ukrainian Nationalists Joined Nazis" [archive.is/hpiNx].
Article Four: "The Lie that Stalin Was Worse Than Hitler" [archive.is/UTXqg].
Article Five: "The Bolsheviks' Error of Not Winning the Peasants to Communism: What Really Happened in the Ukraine Countryside" [archive.is/8LhDD].
Article Six: "How Revolutionaries Learn from Stalin Period: Never Believe What Bosses' Mouthpieces Say About Fight for Communism" [archive.is/aQBE1].

- Jeff Coplon, "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right". Village Voice, Jan. 12, 1988. [archive.is/jknyc]
This article dissects the pro-Nazi roots of both the film and the book critiqued in the series of six articles above, and gives details about the sleazy background of the filmmakers and "scholars," Conquest and others. A good supplement to the series above.

Here are some other related articles on Ukrainian Nationalist Nazi murderers:
- Jeff Coplon, "Rewriting History: How Ukrainian Nationalists Imposed Their Doctored History on our High-School Students". Capital Region magazine (Albany, NY), March 1988. (.pdf)[http://is.gd/q2s4XS]
- Joe Conason, "Reagan and the War Crimes Lobby", Village Voice May 15, 1985. The Republican Party's ties to Ukrainian Nationalist fascists. (.pdf)[http://is.gd/e9ARSg]
- Joe Conason, "To Catch A Nazi," Village Voice February 11, 1986. Ukrainian Nationalist Nazi murderers living in NYC. (.pdf)[http://is.gd/VtDpnv]

- Mark Tauger has published several articles and two important monographs on the Soviet famine of 1932-33, definitively showing that they were not "man-made." Here is a short introduction to his scholarship: "Le livre noir du communisme on the Soviet Holocaust of 1932-33. A Chapter from Wolfgang Wippermann, ed., Roter Holocaust" (.pdf) [http://is.gd/ZL7rev]

REAL MAN-MADE FAMINES:
- The Bengal Famine of 1943-44. See the article by Gideon Polya, "The Forgotten Holocaust" [archive.is/th1j3], and a short but clear interview with him from the Australian radio show "Ockham's Razor" in February 1999 [archive.is/Ib0x7].
- The Niger Famine of 1931. See the article (in French) by Finn Fuglestad, "La grande famine de 1931 dans l'Ouest nigerien," , from Revue francais d'histoire d'outre-mer, 1974. (.pdf) [http://is.gd/mgqNXs]

- "PBS Anti-Stalinism Is Based on Nazi Lies [archive.is/dtQSV], first of a four-part series from PLP, 1990, that dissects the lies behind the three-part PBS series "Stalin." You can get to each article from l inks at the end of the previous one, or you can go directly to each from here:
Article Two: "Anti-Communists Use Big Lie to Slander Fight for Social Equality" [archive.is/AI8cx]
Article Three: "Bosses Still Don't Understand Why Red Army Defeated the Nazis" [archive.is/fgrPX]
Article Four: "Never Believe What the Bosses Say About Communism" [archive.is/s7L3k]

- Review of Clement Leibovitz, The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal [archive.is/ka1O4].
This book documents in extraordinary detail how the British and French ruling classes did not "appease" Hitler, but instead encouraged the Nazis to expand to the East, thus causing World War II. Anti-communism, together with anti-Semitism, was entirely re sponsible for Hitler's rise, successes, and the Second World War. Leibovitz, an anti-communist, does not let his anti-communism blind him to the facts -- that the Soviet Union alone was trying to forge collective security againt the Nazis, and that the ma jor European powers did not want that, but instead wanted Hitler to destroy communism and so aided German rearmament, the destruction of Czechoslovakia, and so on.
The exhaustive documentation in Leibovitz's book puts his conclusions beyond any question. Read the review, and then order the book and read it, as I have done.

- Quotation from Molotov showing he believed Tukhachevskii guilty [archive.is/O1FhT]; from Chuev's Conversations with Molotov. This is consistent with all the best contemporary bourgeois research, including an article I wrote, which you can jump to here [archive.is/Q6Zjh].

"Communisme, les falsifications d'un 'livre noir'" [archive.is/V9251] is an article in French attacking an anti-communist book (one arguing that "Stalin was four times worse than Hitler"!) and defending the communist movement, while pointing out that French (and Western) colonialism was responsible for millions of murders in the post-WWII period, while only the communist movement opposed imperialism. It doesn't go far enough, but is worth reading all the same. From Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1997.
===*===*===


* "Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform" (by Grover Furr) , part 1 [archive.is/ZqFlG], part 2 [archive.is/990wY]
Footnotes for Part 2: footnote 3 [archive.is/Ztj2o], footnote 8 [archive.is/GPTDx] in English [archive.is/Kinc4], footnote 13 [archive.is/AIpm0] & [archive.is/3m0tU]

* "The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven? Discoveries at a German Mass Murder Site in Ukraine" (.pdf) [http://is.gd/ykkCxy]

* Unpublished Speech by Stalin at the Plenum of the Central Committee, CPSU (1952-10-16) [archive.is/Kinc4]

* "New Light On Old Stories About Marshal Tukhachevskii : Some Documents Reconsidered" [archive.is/JADkC]

* Interview of Grover Furr by Georgian Times (2010-09-13) [archive.is/AknTm]

1796: Robert Fulton uses China's model for prosperity for the USA

"THE CHINESE MODEL FOR AMERICA'S CANALS"
(1989-12, by Anton Chaitkin, American Almanac) [archive.is/AURXT]:
Engineer Robert Fulton, anxious to guard America's newly won independence, told his countrymen to use the method of ancient China: build a system of artificial waterways for internal commerce.
In his 1796 "Treatise on the Improvement of Canal Navigation", Fulton said that China's status as a great nation was due largely to the grand canal, commissioned centuries before by the central Chinese government. Farmers received supplies, and sent food to city dwellers, on the canal. Like a healthy main blood-artery, the 800 mile canal unified China by promoting prosperous trade throughout the kingdom.
Since China could feed and clothe its workers without imports, it could keep free of foreign control.
Encouraged by Benjamin Franklin and President George Washington, Fulton learned canal-building in England from Franklin's old friends, creative engineers whose careers had been stifled by the British police. Fulton then campaigned for rapid American national growth through a canal system of both state and private enterprise. The republic needed beneficial private companies, Fulton said, which must differ from the British East "India [opium sellers] or Guinea [slave traders] Company...who blindly extirpate one half of the human race to enrich the other."
In those days the British Navy policed all the oceans, preventing other nations' commercial development. With American secret service money provided by Alexander Hamilton, Robert Fulton went to France and designed submarines intended to sink the British Imperial fleet.
Back in America, Fulton crusaded for industrial and military strength through waterway development. The world remembers him chiefly for building the first commercially successful steamboat, in 1807. He then campaigned for the building of a canal to open the American interior. This great project was postponed as America entered its second war against imperial Britain in 1812, and Fulton built crude steam frigates for the tiny U.S. navy.
Robert Fulton died in 1815, just as the state government of New York began construction of the Erie Canal. Fulton had accurately predicted the wonderful effect of the China-model project on America's national power. Completed 10 years later, the Erie Canal instantly created new cities and farming regions in New York State, opened the west to settlement, and made New York City rich with the products of the whole country.
More canals were then built by the national and state governments. New settlers moved immediately into the regions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin along the lines of the new canals. They were now in cheap and fast communication with suppliers in the East and with markets around the world. The canal-born pioneer settlements soon became the agricultural and industrial center of the American economy.

Miner's Insurrections / Convict Labor

edited by Fran Ansley and Brenda Bell, for "No More Moanin': Voices of Southern Struggle" special issue of "Southern Exposure" (1974), pgs. 144 to 147.
Among the most dramatic events in the history of the Southern Appalachian coal fields were the East Tennessee miners' insurrections of the 1890's, still known as "the wars" by many people around the coal camps of the area. In a series of massive armed confrontations, the coal miners of Tennessee rose up against the state convict leasing system to defend their jobs which the coal companies were trying to fill with convict laborers. As with so many of the significant battles of the South's working class, the story of this rebellion is little known to younger people in the area today, although there are several songs which have survived the years, and scholarly information about it is stored away in city libraries. We will not be able to tell the full story of the miners' insurrection here, but we would like to share some pieces of a "history-in-progress."
The convict lease system first began in Tennessee in 1866, as part of a wave of such legislation which swept through the South and Midwest after the Civil War.1 A Nashville furniture company built workshops on the grounds of the penitentiary, fed and clothed the men, and paid 43 cents a head per day to the state. One year later, the prisoners burned the workshops to the ground in protest over the treatment they were receiving. From that time to this, prisoners have waged battles to win decent working conditions and fairer wages. Meanwhile the labor movement has often agitated for an end to convict labor, but usually on the grounds of unfair competition rather than of justice for convicts. For example, the Mechanics and Manufacturers Association of Tennessee began agitating against convict leasing very early, saying it was unfair to labor. And in fact, the bulk of convicts were shortly switched to the coal and iron mines and to farms in order to avoid competition with the mechanical trades. When the Tennessee legislature abolished the convict lease system in 1896, they didn't stop working the prisoners, they simply bought a piece of land and set up a state-owned coal mine at Brushy Mountain where convicts continued to mine coal until the mid-1950's. (Despite this fact the Nov. 1, 1938, UMW Journal ran an article entitled "Historical Rebellion Brought End to Convict Miners in Tennessee." The rebellion eventually brought an end to convict leasing, but not to convict miners.) Of course it was no easy victory getting convict labor out of the hands of private companies. By the time of the miners' insurrections all of Tennessee's convicts were leased by the Tennessee Coal Iron & Railroad Co. (TCI), a New York-based corporation. They leased about 1600 men from the state for $101,000 per year. [That comes out to about $63 per year per man.] Part of these men they worked in their own mines in Grundy County; part of them they sub-leased to other companies in that area and north of there in Anderson County around Coal Creek and Briceville. TCI already had a monopoly on coal in the North Alabama fields (where they also used convict labor). They were a highly successful company, becoming a subsidiary of US Steel in 1907.4 It was the convict lease system which built TCI's fortune.
Besides the outright super-profits TCI made off its convicts, they were also able to use the convicts as a club against free miners. A TCI official told the New York Times: "One of the chief reasons which induced the company to take up the system was the chance it offered for overcoming strikes. For some years after we began the convict lease system, we proved that we were right in calculating that the free miners would be loath to enter upon strikes, when they saw that the company was amply provided with convict labor."

So it is clear why TCI fought so hard to prevent the end of the convict leasing system. The state, though, had quite an interest in the system as well. Between the years 1870 and 1890, Tennessee made a total net profit of $771,000 from its convict leasing system. This was only $176,000 short of repaying the state for all expenditures on all its penal institutions since the first penitentiary had been built in 1829 under Governor Sam Houston. So, of course, they kept working the prisoners and selling their products even after they were forced to stop leasing them to private industry. Then in the 30's, federal legislation was passed making it illegal for any prison-made goods to be sold in the free market. 

But the states, including Tennessee, still work their convicts and still pay them scandalous wages; it's just that they have them manufacture goods directly for the state. Prisoners, however, are still fighting. Another issue raised by the insurrection is that of racism. The state prison system began to take on its modern character immediately after the close of the Civil War, when the percentage of blacks in the prisons began to rise astronomically month by month from the tiny percentage they had comprised in the days when plantations took care of their own. (Then as now, the majority of prisoners, black and white, were convicted of crimes against property. Dombrowski says that over half of all convicts in Tennessee at the time of the rebellion were imprisoned for larceny.) Blacks made up two thirds of the convict miners in East Tennessee. Evidence of what role racism played in forming the attitudes of East Tennessee miners toward the convicts is scant. One woman told Dombrowski that "free niggers" had been forcibly driven from the Tracy City area some years before, but that there were free blacks who worked at the coke ovens at the time of the rebellion. Another man related that years later when they finally succeeded in forming a union, "We took the niggers into the union and gave them a union of their own." (There is no evidence that free blacks were similarly run out of the Anderson County area.) On the other hand, many comments in the interviews show that among rank-and-file miners and their families there was substantial sympathy for the convicts, black and white. Archie Green quotes "an early observer" as saying, "Whites and Negroes are standing shoulder to shoulder." He also reports that a black man was shot by militia, and several thousand fellow-workers and neighbors attended his funeral. It seems likely that the ambiguity of the evidence reflects a mixed situation and an ambivalence on the part of the miners toward blacks which was similar to their ambivalence towards convicts as a whole. What would be interesting would be more knowledge of what the Knights of Labor and the UMW (both involved in the insurrection) said and did about racism. Also, of course, first hand testimony from blacks themselves would be invaluable. What does seem clear is that in the course of their fight against the convict leasing system, the miners were forced by the logic of the situation to ignore more and more the distinctions between themselves (as law-abiding, predominantly white citizens) and the convicts (as law-breaking, predominantly black criminals). And it was to the extent that they ignored these distinctions, in a massive and popularly-supported way, that they succeeded in winning their demands. 

Chronology of Convict Labor Wars 

1871
First convict miners brought to Tracy City and Sewanee. 

1876
First strike of miners at Coal Creek. 187/ First convicts brought to Coal Creek. 

1884
The Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company (TCI) signed a five year contract for all Tennessee convicts. 

1887
Law guaranteeing miners the right to elect a checkweighman passed in Tennessee. 

1889
TCI signed a second six-year contract. 

1890
United Mind Workers of America founded. 

April, 1891
The Tennessee Coal Mining Company at Briceville fired their men's checkweighman and demanded that they sign an "ironclad" agreement promising never to join a union. When the men refused, the company locked them out. 

July 4, 1891
The company announced it had signed a contract with TCI for convicts to work the Briceville mine. (There had been some convicts at Coal Creek before, but never at Briceville.)

July 14, 1891
First Insurrection. Three hundred armed miners and citizens marched on the Briceville stockade, walked the convicts to Coal Creek, and put them on a train for Knoxville. They sent a telegram to the governor explaining their action and appealing for his help in ridding the state of the convict lease system, not only at Briceville, but in all of East Tennessee. 

July 16, 1891
Governor arrived with the convicts and with state militia to install and protect them. He addressed a mass meeting, urged law and order. 

July 17, 1891
Lots of public support for miners appears, including from the militia units. 

July 20, 1891
Second Insurrection. Miners poured into Anderson County from all over, marched quietly and with discipline to the Briceville stockade. Two thousand armed men lined the surrounding ridges. Sent convicts again to Coal Creek and then Knoxville. Then marched on the Knoxville Iron Company mine at Coal Creek, sent those convicts off too. Not a shot fired. Women gave out sandwiches to miners and soldiers as they marched that night; governor mobilized all fourteen companies of Tennessee militia. 

July 24, 1891
After negotiation, governor says the convicts must return. But he will call special session of legislature to consider taking action on convict lease law.

August, 1891
Legislature met, and rather than repealing the law, reinforced it by increasing the governor's "emergency powers," making it a crime to lead a protest group or to interfere with the work of a convict. Miners and their committee tried various tactics in the courts. Failed.

October 28, 1891
Miners' committee resigned, saying they had done all they could.

October 31, 1891
Third Insurrection. Meetings held in mines at Briceville and Coal Creek in the dark for secrecy. That night 1500 men marched on the stockades, the leader disguised in a 'kerchief. They set the convicts free and burned the stockade at Briceville. At Coal Creek they spared the stockade because the warden's wife was sick, but burned everything else, and released the pri-soners. Citizens helped convicts escape by giving them food and clothes.

November 1, 1891
Men marched for first time to Oliver Springs where convicts were also being worked. They released them and burned the stockade there. Governor offered cash rewards for leaders and participants. For a month or so, things were quiet. Miners met with companies, agreed on terms, and went to work.

January, 1892
Convicts returned to Coal Creek with a company of militia, and a military occupation was established. They built a fort and set up Gatling guns. The Tennessee Coal Mining Company at Briceville refused to take convicts back, despite pressure from TCI. The company at Oliver Springs also tried to refuse, but TCI bought them out and returned the convicts.

Spring, 1892
At Coal Creek, Tracy City and Oliver Springs, work is slack for free miners, but convicts work full time. Briceville had no convicts but discriminated against strikers and men in the Knights of Labor.

July, 1892
Tracy City miners, who had suffered under the convict system the longest, but had not yet rebelled, were cut to half time work.

August, 1892
Fourth Insurrection. A committee at Tracy City got keys to stockade at gun-point and put convicts on train to Nashville. Intercepted a trainload of guards sent to Inman (where TCI also had a mine) and disarmed them. Unrest in Coal Creek at this news. People there already upset by the arrogant and high-handed soldiers. A black man had been shot, and another young man lynched. Unsuccessful attack on stockade at Oliver Springs. Governor ordered more troops; called for volunteers, too, but the response was slow. For Coal Creek's final showdown, miners poured in and put Fort Anderson under siege. Soldiers and prominent citizen-type volunteers had many setbacks in the strange terrain. But finally enough soldiers got through that the miners knew they were beaten. Ten day reign of terror began, with 300 arrested. Militia stayed to occupy town. Men in Briceville forced to sign "iron-clad" agreement.

April, 1893
Fifth Insurrection. At Tracy City, 50-100 men staged unsuccessful attack on stockade. Troops were sent in to hunt for leaders. Eventually most went back to work, but had to sign disclaimer of any involvement in release of convicts.

1896
Despite appearance of miners' defeat, when the TCI contract expired, it was not renewed and convict leasing in Tennessee was abolished by the legislature (twenty years before it was ended in neighboring Alabama). Same legislature buys land and sets up state-run convict mine near Petros, Tennessee, as alternative.