Not tabloids or news websites well known for publishing falsehoods. Some academic backing for Montefiorre's claim since 13 years it has been published.
Simon Montefiorre is heavily cited and published in peer review journals. Young Stalin is a work of pop history but he's a serious historian.
Furthermore, reviews of Young Stalin are published in peer reviewed journals praising the books research and sourcing, and not pushing back against any of the claims.
There's noone saying this is fabricated, and many people involved who, if it was fabricated, have both the motive (barring a grand conspiracy) and the ability to utterly destroy this story's credibility. They haven't.
Why in your conspiracy, would Stalin's grandson who the articles claim provided the DNA to be tested go along with the lie?
Assuming he's not in on it, why would the DNA clinic?
Why would Montefiore, a prestigious academic and pop historian gamble his reputation and credibilty on a fabrication which gained him so little?
Why would Yury Davydov and his family and friends in Novokuznetsk lie?
Why would the keepers of the records Montefiorre was given access to?
More to the point, why would they all get together and decide to lie about the same thing for so little benefit to any of them?
If there was a grand conspiracy to fabricate this why is so little use being made of the story?
You're fabricating a grand conspiracy where no evidence or even trace of one exists because you don't want to accept that Stalin probably raped a 13 year old.
Are you really trying to claim that a journal's review of a pop history book, which doesn't address the claim, is the same as the claim itself being peer reviewed? That is not how peer review works.
I have seen no evidence beyond low-traction articles in tabloids that Stalin's grandson, a DNA clinic, etc are making any such claim.
Where is any academic discussion of this at all? Why if it is so true is it limited in reach to right-wing press and pop history?
None of this, or anything regarding Stalin's character has anything to do with the political validity of Marxism-Leninism, any more than (also unverified) claims about Makhno's treatment of women does upon anarchism.
Look, I don't really have a stake in convincing a stranger on the internet about this.
You're claiming, on no basis, something with a lot of evidence for it, is false.
Montefiorre's peers, the keepers of the records he examined, and Stalin's family haven't pushed back against Montefiorre's claims.
Stalin's grandson hasn't pushed back against claims he provided DNA to the clinic, nor have the people who the internationally circulated news articles claim to be the descendants of the woman Stalin raped, nor have the rest of Stalin's family.
Information often takes a while to to percolate through academic circles, especially information as obscure as the sordid details of Stalin's youth. As a qualified historian myself I hope you'll believe me when I say that among most schools of academic historians (although I can't speak specifically for historians of the Soviet Union) biographical histories of "Great Men" have been out of fashion for a long time. As to why the right or western capital in general might not want to draw attention to powerful pedophiles, I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
Not tabloids or news websites well known for publishing falsehoods. Some academic backing for Montefiorre's claim since 13 years it has been published.
Not a fucking daily mail article.
Simon Montefiorre is heavily cited and published in peer review journals. Young Stalin is a work of pop history but he's a serious historian.
Furthermore, reviews of Young Stalin are published in peer reviewed journals praising the books research and sourcing, and not pushing back against any of the claims.
There's noone saying this is fabricated, and many people involved who, if it was fabricated, have both the motive (barring a grand conspiracy) and the ability to utterly destroy this story's credibility. They haven't.
Why in your conspiracy, would Stalin's grandson who the articles claim provided the DNA to be tested go along with the lie?
Assuming he's not in on it, why would the DNA clinic?
Why would Montefiore, a prestigious academic and pop historian gamble his reputation and credibilty on a fabrication which gained him so little?
Why would Yury Davydov and his family and friends in Novokuznetsk lie?
Why would the keepers of the records Montefiorre was given access to?
More to the point, why would they all get together and decide to lie about the same thing for so little benefit to any of them?
If there was a grand conspiracy to fabricate this why is so little use being made of the story?
You're fabricating a grand conspiracy where no evidence or even trace of one exists because you don't want to accept that Stalin probably raped a 13 year old.
Are you really trying to claim that a journal's review of a pop history book, which doesn't address the claim, is the same as the claim itself being peer reviewed? That is not how peer review works.
I have seen no evidence beyond low-traction articles in tabloids that Stalin's grandson, a DNA clinic, etc are making any such claim.
Where is any academic discussion of this at all? Why if it is so true is it limited in reach to right-wing press and pop history?
None of this, or anything regarding Stalin's character has anything to do with the political validity of Marxism-Leninism, any more than (also unverified) claims about Makhno's treatment of women does upon anarchism.
Look, I don't really have a stake in convincing a stranger on the internet about this.
You're claiming, on no basis, something with a lot of evidence for it, is false.
Montefiorre's peers, the keepers of the records he examined, and Stalin's family haven't pushed back against Montefiorre's claims.
Stalin's grandson hasn't pushed back against claims he provided DNA to the clinic, nor have the people who the internationally circulated news articles claim to be the descendants of the woman Stalin raped, nor have the rest of Stalin's family.
Information often takes a while to to percolate through academic circles, especially information as obscure as the sordid details of Stalin's youth. As a qualified historian myself I hope you'll believe me when I say that among most schools of academic historians (although I can't speak specifically for historians of the Soviet Union) biographical histories of "Great Men" have been out of fashion for a long time. As to why the right or western capital in general might not want to draw attention to powerful pedophiles, I'll leave that up to you to figure out.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.