There was a popular thread in /r/AskReddit earlier today/yesterday titled Historians of Reddit, what commonly accepted historical inaccuracies drive you crazy?. It was only a matter of time before the argument that Stalin was totally worse than Hitler. In fact it took no time at all. An ironic named member /u/JosephRules said the view that a lot of people share; that Stalin was totally worse than Hitler and why does no one know this?! Then he dropped the the 30 million killed bombshell as proof. How does this deal with sources that do not deserve their reputation? The answer is Robert Conquest. He is seen as the great figure in early Sovietology. He has been awarded the Presidential Freedom Award by George W. Bush, along with being granted numerous other awards. He is the big figure on campus when it comes to Soviet History. He wrote the definitive book that is still used in classrooms on the Great Terror (The Great Terror) and the Famine of 1932-1933 (Harvest of Sorrow) (also known as the holodomor).

The problem is, he was wrong. He was not wrong that the events happened, but the numbers he used were fudgey at best, and at worst outright wrong. The problem is when Robert Conquest wrote his books the idea at the time was that the official Soviet numbers were always wrong, they were either inflated or deflated to boost the progress of the country. What has happened after the Soviet Union fell is that historians discovered that the actual numbers were not that inaccurate. In Magnetic Mountain, Stephen Kotkin argues that the numbers were truthful (about steel production), but that numbers failed to tell the whole story; that it failed to account quality. The problem is, when Robert Conquest was looking at numbers he believed that the numbers were inherently wrong and should be accounted for. So, he came up with the total death toll of Stalin's "regime" at 20 million, and later said that even that was a conservative guess and may need to be raised by 50%, or more. In fact even after the Soviet Union's collapse he argues that:

"Exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, but the total of deaths caused by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors can hardly be lower than some thirteen to fifteen million."

Therefore he is the poster boy for the massive 20-30 million death toll that is often tossed out whenever someone mentions Hitler's death toll. The truth is a tad more murky, than Conquest or the preachers of the Stalin is worst than Hitler choir. Timothy Snyder, author of the book Bloodlands estimates that the total is actually around 6 million. That is including the deaths related to the Famine of 1932. If you look directly at those killed deliberately/with purpose, it would be around 3.5 million (estimated). The reason I would split the two numbers is because of the belief that outright killing someone with purpose is different than starvation based on policy decisions. However, even ignoring that distinction the numbers are only 1/4 of Robert Conquest's original claim, and a 1/3 of the "revised" claim. Yet the numbers now being discussed by recent historians all tend to hover around the lower estimates, however the popular misconception still is relying on a historian that figures have been debunked.

Therefore the original thread should be that Stalin was actually not as bad as people think and we have Conquest to blame for that misconception.

When I was in high school, I did History fair and used Stephen Ambrose as a source for my paper (since I was doing the paper category). I generally received good remarks except one person gave me a zero because Ambrose had plagiarized and thus using him discredited my use of him. So while I will say that it is VERY bad for him to plagiarize, I think that Ambrose is a very important historian to use as an introduction of semi-serious historiorgraphical text that uses various sources, mainly primary, to give the history.

So perhaps future editions could make a note or just exercise the plagiarized portions to allow the rest of the work to stand on it's merit.

Does Blackadder Goes Forth count for inclusion in this thread? I know it's a favourite of yours...

On a serious note, I was thoroughly disappointed with a piece I read by the usually wonderful Sir Max Hastings, in a semi-recent edition of BBC History magazine. It was titled "Why Britain had to Fight the First World War" and set out the argument that Britain was morally obliged to wage war to uphold the established and accepted ethical standards of the Empire. He cited in particular the massacres of Belgian civilians by the Kaiserwehr, largely glossing over the commitment to the war which Britain already had by that point.

Want to set off an archaeologist? Jared Diamond. His attitude, his theories that have been discredited for decades. On and on and on. Entire subreddits have nearly been devoted to taking him down and discrediting his work.

And on a personal/quasi professional note, the small pox and blankets notion that reddit and even some rock songs continue to put out as valid information. No. No. No.

Anything by Gavin Menzies Lol. My own pet peeve is of course Michael Bellesiles, which I've flogged recently. One that was an eye opener to me though, was Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. My political history was a bit weak at the time, and my particular biases made me want to believe the twisted circular logic of that book. At some vague level there may be common ground with early twentieth century Democrats and the nascent fascism movement, but they diverged quickly. I'm ashamed of how often I cited that book, before my intellectual honesty forced me to look at it with a critical eye.

The one pop historian I simply cannot stand nor respect is Erich von Däniken, especially since one of my siblings happens to be a big fan. We all probably focus on his sloppy writing, lack of evidence, sloppy research, or all-around backtracking, but that wasn't enough to make me outright hate him. It wasn't even the fact that he was found to have been falsifying evidence for his books, but rather his excuse. He pretty much claimed his reason for such fabrications were either to make his insipid prose more interesting, that someone else wrote the book which solely credits von Däniken as the author, or that humanity was simply not ready to actually deal with conclusive evidence. I mean, at least have some sense of personal integrity and character instead of serving up self-serving, halfhearted, and unbelievable excuses when you've been exposed as a hack. It's far quicker and less painful, yet more honorable, to show the axeman your neck instead of headbutting him.

On another note, while I recognize his knowledge, preparation, and skill, I simply cannot stand Eric Hobsbawn's books. I find his extensive quoting, while demonstrative of a genuinely thorough research, simply take away from the narrative and make his points seem disjointed and unrelated to each other. Furthermore, this extensive citation results in the reader questioning many sources' inclusion in that specific passage and the relevance or lack thereof within that context.

Now that I think about it, seems I only have problems with people called Eric. I hope if there are any of you out there that we can still be friends :).

I suppose, studying American history at university, I have rather come to resent the way that some Northerners lord their ancestors' superior morality over Southerners.

I know they thought slavery was an immoral institution and many feared and hated the 'Slave Power', but it should be made clear it wasn't because they generally felt sympathy for the plight of the African or believed in racial parity. Lest we forget the race riots and 'two acres and a mule' conspiracies of the period.

Watching 12 Years A Slave (An absolutely fantastic film by the way), I still was a little perturbed by the way that 'Jolly life in the North a free black' is contrasted with 'life under a sadistic vengeful Southern drunk'. I know its not McQueen's fault, he's just using the source material of Northrup (I can't help but agree with the people who feel like it was spiced up by his abolitionist friend), but it still perpetuates that myth in most people's minds.

(FYI Im British not American)

From my current research, Victor's Justice by Richard Minear.

Blatantly polemical and filled with the author's assumptions and diatribes that the evidence does not support, and unquestioningly accepts the emerging Japanese neo-nationalist arguments about the Tokyo trial and the occupation of Japan.

It's useful to mine some quotes from, but as a whole is really an example of why you don't let your politics into your work.