🧵THE MYTH OF STALIN AND MAO'S "PEDOPHILLIA"
It has been argued by complete numbskulls on this app that Stalin and Mao had relationships with underaged girls. In the case of the former, it was consummated and the victim ended up pregnant.
This lie collapses upon only minimal scrutiny of facts. This thread will put to rest, forever, the fairy-tale once and for all.
Show this thread to anyone who repeats this claim. If they continue to assert its basis in fact, rest assured they are lying to you on purpose.
1/5
It has been argued by complete numbskulls on this app that Stalin and Mao had relationships with underaged girls. In the case of the former, it was consummated and the victim ended up pregnant.
This lie collapses upon only minimal scrutiny of facts. This thread will put to rest, forever, the fairy-tale once and for all.
Show this thread to anyone who repeats this claim. If they continue to assert its basis in fact, rest assured they are lying to you on purpose.
1/5
CASE #1: MAO
Although not as widely circulated as Stalin's alleged pedophillia (which we will get to later), it still demands the same level of scrutiny.
Virtually every version of this claim traces back to only one of three sources. It is striking how few they are.
The first and most important is Li Zhisui's The Private Life of Chairman Mao (1994), a memoir by a man who served as one of Mao's physicians.
Li describes Mao hosting weekly dances at the Zhongnanhai leadership where he was surrounded by young women selected from military cultural work troupes for their appearance and political reliability. Li says Mao had a 'craving for young women', kept multiple partners at the same time, and followed the Taoist belief that sexual intercourse with younger women would 'prolong his life'.
The second is Jonathan Mirsky's account of "Ms. Chen," published in The Spectator. Mirsky was the former East Asia editor of the Times of London, and reported a meeting with a woman in Hong Kong in 1997 who claimed she began a sexual relationship with Mao in 1962 at the age of fourteen. In any case, this is the most specific allegation.
Another, yet smaller source is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday's specific allegations are largely recycled nonsense from Li and Mirsky rather than an independent investigation.
These are the 'witnesses'. Now, let's cross examine them:
SOURCE #1: LI
Li Zhisui's memoir is the foundation upon which almost everything else is built. If this foundation is unsound, the structure above it cannot stand. And it is, demonstrably, unsound in several critical aspects.
Li's memoir's translator, Tai Hung-chao, revealed that Random House "wanted more sensationalist elements to the book than Li had provided, in particular requesting more information about Mao's sexual relationships." Li protested to this agenda by Random House, but the publisher ended up overruling him. The book's editor, Anne Thurston (a respected academic in her own right), said that the memoir was partly an 'act of revenge', and many portions of Li's original manuscript were cut or 'reshaped' without his knowledge or consent.
Thus, the bona fide of this memoir (whether or not he wrote the memoir in its entirety) is under contention. In any respectable court of law, it would treat testimony elicited under such conditions as inadmissible or with extreme skepticism.
In any case, the English and Chines editions of the book have many discrepancies. Content present in the English edition but conspicuously absent from the Chinese version includes: a statement attributed to Mao about washing himself "inside the bodies of my women", claims about Mao deliberately spreading venereal disease, claims that the memoirs were based on contemporaneous diaries, and the claim that Mao was "devoid of human feelings."
Why would this be included in the English version, but not the Chinese version? Simple! Western readers have little to no basis to accurately evaluate them. However, Chinese insiders would immediately recognize them as fictitious.
FURTHER: Li also claimed his memoir was based on personal diaries kept during his years in Mao's service. He later admitted that these diaries were burned during the Cultural Revolution; therefore, the entire book was reconstructed from memory two to three decades after the events described. How exactly could Li reproduce verbatim conversations and precise details about sexual encounters from twenty to thirty years earlier without any written records (as they were destroyed?)
In 1996, a posthumous letter released by Li confirmed that the Chinese edition (actually published in Taiwan) was not even his original manuscript, but a back-translation from English.
SOURCE #2: MIRSKY & MS. CHEN
The Mirsky account is the only source that names a specific age below eighteen. But this would never survive a single day of cross-examination.
Ms. Chen initially sought one million dollars for her story. She was a paid source, with an obvious financial motive to make her account as sensational as possible. Mirsky himself, too, did not independently verify her claimed age through any documentary evidence (no birth certiifcate, military service, party enrollment file, etc).
No other source, other than the political opinion magazine The Spectator, has independently corroborated Chen's specific claim of being fourteen.
In a respectable court of law, a single uncorroborated testimonial from a witness (who demanded a million-dollar payment) and whose factual claim was never verified by documentary evidence would likely be inadmissible. The fact that this is the best evidence anti-Communists can come up with tells us everything we need to know about the strength of that accusation.
SOURCE #3: CHANG AND HALLIDAY
The academic China studies field BTFO'd it.
* Andrew Nathan of Columbia University, said that the methodology was 'indiscriminate'. Every piece of evidence was included, regardless of its reliability. The opaque citation system made the verification of claims nearly impossible.
* Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang concludes that the authors "misread sources, used them selectively, out of context, or otherwise trimmed or bent them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light"
* The critique of this book was so bad that it generated an entire book-length refutation: Was Mao Really a Monster? (Routledge, 2009/2010), edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun
* A graduate student, Tom Worger, attempted to verify the book's claim of "well over 70 million deaths" under Mao and found "no explanation or breakdown in the book, only a scattered series of guesses, double counting, fabrications, and circular reasoning."
RECORD OF MAO'S MARRIAGES
We find no pattern of involvement with minors in Mao's marriages.
Luo Yixui: Mao was 14, and Luo was 18
Mao refused to acknowledge the marriage and never consummated it, and later wrote against the practice of arranged marriages.
Yang Kaihui: Mao was 27, and Yang was 19.
She was captured and executed by the Kuomintang after refusing to publicly denounce Mao.
He Zizhen: Mao was 34, Zizhen was 18
She participated in the Long March and sustained seventeen shrapnel wounds from an aerial bombardment.
Jiang Qing: Mao was 44, Jiang was 25.
CONCLUSION:
Accusations of pedophilia against Mao fails on just about any evidentiary standard, and it's probably the most ridiculous accusation ever levied toward any Communist leader.
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Priva…
spectator.co.uk/article/mao-s-…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_…
washingtoncitypaper.com/article/205384…
hnn.us/blog/18251
asianstudies.org/publications/e…
routledge.com/Was-Mao-Really…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Yixiu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kaih…
factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/sub…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing
Now, on STALIN:
2/5
Although not as widely circulated as Stalin's alleged pedophillia (which we will get to later), it still demands the same level of scrutiny.
Virtually every version of this claim traces back to only one of three sources. It is striking how few they are.
The first and most important is Li Zhisui's The Private Life of Chairman Mao (1994), a memoir by a man who served as one of Mao's physicians.
Li describes Mao hosting weekly dances at the Zhongnanhai leadership where he was surrounded by young women selected from military cultural work troupes for their appearance and political reliability. Li says Mao had a 'craving for young women', kept multiple partners at the same time, and followed the Taoist belief that sexual intercourse with younger women would 'prolong his life'.
The second is Jonathan Mirsky's account of "Ms. Chen," published in The Spectator. Mirsky was the former East Asia editor of the Times of London, and reported a meeting with a woman in Hong Kong in 1997 who claimed she began a sexual relationship with Mao in 1962 at the age of fourteen. In any case, this is the most specific allegation.
Another, yet smaller source is Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story. Chang and Halliday's specific allegations are largely recycled nonsense from Li and Mirsky rather than an independent investigation.
These are the 'witnesses'. Now, let's cross examine them:
SOURCE #1: LI
Li Zhisui's memoir is the foundation upon which almost everything else is built. If this foundation is unsound, the structure above it cannot stand. And it is, demonstrably, unsound in several critical aspects.
Li's memoir's translator, Tai Hung-chao, revealed that Random House "wanted more sensationalist elements to the book than Li had provided, in particular requesting more information about Mao's sexual relationships." Li protested to this agenda by Random House, but the publisher ended up overruling him. The book's editor, Anne Thurston (a respected academic in her own right), said that the memoir was partly an 'act of revenge', and many portions of Li's original manuscript were cut or 'reshaped' without his knowledge or consent.
Thus, the bona fide of this memoir (whether or not he wrote the memoir in its entirety) is under contention. In any respectable court of law, it would treat testimony elicited under such conditions as inadmissible or with extreme skepticism.
In any case, the English and Chines editions of the book have many discrepancies. Content present in the English edition but conspicuously absent from the Chinese version includes: a statement attributed to Mao about washing himself "inside the bodies of my women", claims about Mao deliberately spreading venereal disease, claims that the memoirs were based on contemporaneous diaries, and the claim that Mao was "devoid of human feelings."
Why would this be included in the English version, but not the Chinese version? Simple! Western readers have little to no basis to accurately evaluate them. However, Chinese insiders would immediately recognize them as fictitious.
FURTHER: Li also claimed his memoir was based on personal diaries kept during his years in Mao's service. He later admitted that these diaries were burned during the Cultural Revolution; therefore, the entire book was reconstructed from memory two to three decades after the events described. How exactly could Li reproduce verbatim conversations and precise details about sexual encounters from twenty to thirty years earlier without any written records (as they were destroyed?)
In 1996, a posthumous letter released by Li confirmed that the Chinese edition (actually published in Taiwan) was not even his original manuscript, but a back-translation from English.
SOURCE #2: MIRSKY & MS. CHEN
The Mirsky account is the only source that names a specific age below eighteen. But this would never survive a single day of cross-examination.
Ms. Chen initially sought one million dollars for her story. She was a paid source, with an obvious financial motive to make her account as sensational as possible. Mirsky himself, too, did not independently verify her claimed age through any documentary evidence (no birth certiifcate, military service, party enrollment file, etc).
No other source, other than the political opinion magazine The Spectator, has independently corroborated Chen's specific claim of being fourteen.
In a respectable court of law, a single uncorroborated testimonial from a witness (who demanded a million-dollar payment) and whose factual claim was never verified by documentary evidence would likely be inadmissible. The fact that this is the best evidence anti-Communists can come up with tells us everything we need to know about the strength of that accusation.
SOURCE #3: CHANG AND HALLIDAY
The academic China studies field BTFO'd it.
* Andrew Nathan of Columbia University, said that the methodology was 'indiscriminate'. Every piece of evidence was included, regardless of its reliability. The opaque citation system made the verification of claims nearly impossible.
* Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang concludes that the authors "misread sources, used them selectively, out of context, or otherwise trimmed or bent them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light"
* The critique of this book was so bad that it generated an entire book-length refutation: Was Mao Really a Monster? (Routledge, 2009/2010), edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun
* A graduate student, Tom Worger, attempted to verify the book's claim of "well over 70 million deaths" under Mao and found "no explanation or breakdown in the book, only a scattered series of guesses, double counting, fabrications, and circular reasoning."
RECORD OF MAO'S MARRIAGES
We find no pattern of involvement with minors in Mao's marriages.
Luo Yixui: Mao was 14, and Luo was 18
Mao refused to acknowledge the marriage and never consummated it, and later wrote against the practice of arranged marriages.
Yang Kaihui: Mao was 27, and Yang was 19.
She was captured and executed by the Kuomintang after refusing to publicly denounce Mao.
He Zizhen: Mao was 34, Zizhen was 18
She participated in the Long March and sustained seventeen shrapnel wounds from an aerial bombardment.
Jiang Qing: Mao was 44, Jiang was 25.
CONCLUSION:
Accusations of pedophilia against Mao fails on just about any evidentiary standard, and it's probably the most ridiculous accusation ever levied toward any Communist leader.
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Priva…
spectator.co.uk/article/mao-s-…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_…
washingtoncitypaper.com/article/205384…
hnn.us/blog/18251
asianstudies.org/publications/e…
routledge.com/Was-Mao-Really…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Yixiu
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kaih…
factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/sub…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing
Now, on STALIN:
2/5
CASE #2: STALIN
Many readers now I have already wrote a thread on this topic, located here:
x.com/InfraDmitriy/s…
This post will generally just be a rehashing of points + new analysis.
The claim that Stalin had sexual relations with an underaged girl, Lydia Pereprygina, traces back to pop-historian Simon Sebag-Montefoire. It is peculiar to note that Montefoire is listed on Epstein's phone book and had correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
Whether or not Maxwell ever responded to Montefoire is unknown, as the DOJ has redacted to whom and from emails were sent.
In any case, whether he can be proven to have ties with Maxwell/Epstein or not, the claim lacks any scholarly basis and is only used to fuel anti-Communism and anti-Stalinism.
In February 1913, the Russian secret police, the Okhrana, began to crack down on the Bolsheviks. Stalin was arrested and sent him to exile in Turukhansk, a rural township in Siberia. Worried about future escapes, the Okhrana relocated Stalin to the Arctic village Kureika during Easter 1914. There, Stalin lived with approximately 67 other villagers, including the Pereprygins, a family of orphans.
The youngest of the Pereprygins was Lydia, who was 13 years old at the time.
Sometime in December 1914, Lydia gave birth to a child who died shortly after. In November 1917, she gave birth to another child, Alexander Davydov.
These are the pieces of evidence that proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair claim are 'irrefutable', and that "prove" Stalin was the father of these children.
CHILD #1:
The maximum term this woman could have carried out was only 8 months, as Stalin had arrived in Kureika on April 20th (abkhazworld.com/aw/Pdf/Stalin_…), and the baby was born in December. Which is already premature.
We note - that even in modern times, only about 6 percent of pregnancies are between the weeks 34 and 36. (according to chop.edu/conditions-dis…). This is assuming that the baby was conceived on the moment Stalin arrived (an already unlikely circumstance), to the very last day of December 1914.
Admittedly, this percentage could be only slightly higher, given the prevalence of risk factors of chronic malnutrition, heavy physical labor (we note that women routinely dug, hoed, threshed, and hauled until the moment of delivery), infection, cold stress, contaminated water, etc (ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/cultures/rf10/…)
However, Montefoire alleges that the affair took place in 'early summer 1914'. "Early summer" could mean during or around June 1914. The earliest is sometime around mid-May 1914, and the absolute latest is sometime around mid-July 1914.
This would mean that this 14 year old girl had a gestation period between 24-32 weeks (19-28 weeks if the date of birth is December 1st). Which is statistically very unlikely (and for 19 weeks, downright impossible). Given the mean, only 1.5% of babies are born at 28 weeks.
So, you mean to tell me that Lydia not only met and consummated a relationship with the future leader of the Soviet Union, and the likelihood of that pregnancy is only 1.5% (even less at 24 weeks - 0.1%)?
What are the odds!
To this day, there is not a single piece of documentary evidence supporting Stalin was the father of this child. We will get into the "Serov report" later, and how it is a bunch of nonsense.
CHILD #2:
In November 1917, Lydia gave birth to another son that fortunately survived: Alexander Davydov.
The main problem with this is that Stalin had already left the village by October 1916 (although biased, this says he left to Monastrykoe in October 1916 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_lif…), and did not return back ever in his entire life.
We note that the longest recorded pregnancy ever was 375 days (time.com/archive/659951…). According to proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair, Lydia was pregnant for 400 days, assuming that Stalin had sex with Lydia just before he left.
So, Lydia, at the start of this relationship, had a pregnancy lasting only 28 weeks. And now she has ones lasting 57 weeks (which is impossible)?
What a coincidence!
DENIERS, DENIAL, AND DENYING:
It is funny to see proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair 'explain away' this inconvenient detail.
One proponent (the known liar Praxben) tries to explain it away by saying:
"Historians generally do not accept the November birth date. The consensus is that the child was born in April of 1917.
This is from Kotkin. We can reasonably say that the documents were wrong because: 1. It was not unusual at the time. 2. The DNA evidence shows Davydov was related to Stalin."
Attached there is a footnote from Kotkin's work.
Problems here:
1. No historian, except Montefoire, has ever accepted specifically the April birth-date as genuine.
Kotkin can speculate all he wants to about if the registration COULD have been delayed (which, is already a moot point anyway). But what he doesn't do is speculate the date of birth of the child.
Kotkin says that the registration COULD have been delayed or falsely reported. However, he provides no evidence as to why this is. Which exposes it as what it is - speculation!
2. The official registration says November 1917
Source: pamyat-naroda.ru/heroes/person-…
Absent any countervailing evidence (not speculation on what COULD HAVE happened), this must be true or at least somewhat accurate as it is the only evidence of the date of birth of the child.
3. Even if the registration was falsely reported or delayed, that does not make the date of birth in April.
The date being falsely reported only means that the specific date - November 6th 1917 - is not a genuine date of birth.
But what about November 5th? November 4th? November 3rd? Which all necessitate that Stalin couldn't have fathered this child anyway?
Kotkin says that it could have been 'delayed or falsely reported'. But he does not say by how much.
What's stopping our proponent here from saying that the date of birth was actually in May or June? They are all "equally" as likely as the other (by equally, i mean none). Why does April HAVE to be the date of birth?
WHY THE DATE OF REGISTRATION DOES NOT MATTER
In Tsarist Russia, the dates for births were kept in metrical books established by the orthodox church. Usually, when a baby was born, the date of birth and baptism would be located there.
As we can see, the date of birth is separate from WHEN the baby was registered into the system. In all official documentation, it states that Davydov's *DATE OF BIRTH* is in November.
Not that his existence was *registered* in November.
Kotkin reasoning is also faulty. Whether or not the family was far away from some office/church to register the child shouldn't have an effect on the actual date of birth. According to the proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair, calendars and clocks were banned in Kureika.
In order to provide evidence that the dates were indeed falsely reported or delayed, this quote is brought up:
Problems with this:
1. It does not explicitly say this particular instance was delayed.
The logical conclusion to make from this quote is that many peasants birthdates were misreported. Not that Davydov particularly was misreported. Again, this does not mean Davydov's date of birth is in April, since it does not comment on by how much it was misreported.
Our proponent has yet to prove this particular entry was misreported and that it means Davydov was born in April.
2. It is a completely AI-hallucinated quote.
Lol, that's right. This numbskull took this quote from a friend of his and then passed it along as original research he did. Without even fact-checking it to see if it even existed, as it does not appear in any search on the entire internet.
books.google.com/books?id=DWC_V…
Lmfaooo so much for being an honest researcher
However, this is not the end of the falsifiers of history, as the proponents have one more trick up their sleeve: the DNA test!
3/5
Many readers now I have already wrote a thread on this topic, located here:
x.com/InfraDmitriy/s…
This post will generally just be a rehashing of points + new analysis.
The claim that Stalin had sexual relations with an underaged girl, Lydia Pereprygina, traces back to pop-historian Simon Sebag-Montefoire. It is peculiar to note that Montefoire is listed on Epstein's phone book and had correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
Whether or not Maxwell ever responded to Montefoire is unknown, as the DOJ has redacted to whom and from emails were sent.
In any case, whether he can be proven to have ties with Maxwell/Epstein or not, the claim lacks any scholarly basis and is only used to fuel anti-Communism and anti-Stalinism.
In February 1913, the Russian secret police, the Okhrana, began to crack down on the Bolsheviks. Stalin was arrested and sent him to exile in Turukhansk, a rural township in Siberia. Worried about future escapes, the Okhrana relocated Stalin to the Arctic village Kureika during Easter 1914. There, Stalin lived with approximately 67 other villagers, including the Pereprygins, a family of orphans.
The youngest of the Pereprygins was Lydia, who was 13 years old at the time.
Sometime in December 1914, Lydia gave birth to a child who died shortly after. In November 1917, she gave birth to another child, Alexander Davydov.
These are the pieces of evidence that proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair claim are 'irrefutable', and that "prove" Stalin was the father of these children.
CHILD #1:
The maximum term this woman could have carried out was only 8 months, as Stalin had arrived in Kureika on April 20th (abkhazworld.com/aw/Pdf/Stalin_…), and the baby was born in December. Which is already premature.
We note - that even in modern times, only about 6 percent of pregnancies are between the weeks 34 and 36. (according to chop.edu/conditions-dis…). This is assuming that the baby was conceived on the moment Stalin arrived (an already unlikely circumstance), to the very last day of December 1914.
Admittedly, this percentage could be only slightly higher, given the prevalence of risk factors of chronic malnutrition, heavy physical labor (we note that women routinely dug, hoed, threshed, and hauled until the moment of delivery), infection, cold stress, contaminated water, etc (ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/cultures/rf10/…)
However, Montefoire alleges that the affair took place in 'early summer 1914'. "Early summer" could mean during or around June 1914. The earliest is sometime around mid-May 1914, and the absolute latest is sometime around mid-July 1914.
This would mean that this 14 year old girl had a gestation period between 24-32 weeks (19-28 weeks if the date of birth is December 1st). Which is statistically very unlikely (and for 19 weeks, downright impossible). Given the mean, only 1.5% of babies are born at 28 weeks.
So, you mean to tell me that Lydia not only met and consummated a relationship with the future leader of the Soviet Union, and the likelihood of that pregnancy is only 1.5% (even less at 24 weeks - 0.1%)?
What are the odds!
To this day, there is not a single piece of documentary evidence supporting Stalin was the father of this child. We will get into the "Serov report" later, and how it is a bunch of nonsense.
CHILD #2:
In November 1917, Lydia gave birth to another son that fortunately survived: Alexander Davydov.
The main problem with this is that Stalin had already left the village by October 1916 (although biased, this says he left to Monastrykoe in October 1916 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_lif…), and did not return back ever in his entire life.
We note that the longest recorded pregnancy ever was 375 days (time.com/archive/659951…). According to proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair, Lydia was pregnant for 400 days, assuming that Stalin had sex with Lydia just before he left.
So, Lydia, at the start of this relationship, had a pregnancy lasting only 28 weeks. And now she has ones lasting 57 weeks (which is impossible)?
What a coincidence!
DENIERS, DENIAL, AND DENYING:
It is funny to see proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair 'explain away' this inconvenient detail.
One proponent (the known liar Praxben) tries to explain it away by saying:
"Historians generally do not accept the November birth date. The consensus is that the child was born in April of 1917.
This is from Kotkin. We can reasonably say that the documents were wrong because: 1. It was not unusual at the time. 2. The DNA evidence shows Davydov was related to Stalin."
Attached there is a footnote from Kotkin's work.
Problems here:
1. No historian, except Montefoire, has ever accepted specifically the April birth-date as genuine.
Kotkin can speculate all he wants to about if the registration COULD have been delayed (which, is already a moot point anyway). But what he doesn't do is speculate the date of birth of the child.
Kotkin says that the registration COULD have been delayed or falsely reported. However, he provides no evidence as to why this is. Which exposes it as what it is - speculation!
2. The official registration says November 1917
Source: pamyat-naroda.ru/heroes/person-…
Absent any countervailing evidence (not speculation on what COULD HAVE happened), this must be true or at least somewhat accurate as it is the only evidence of the date of birth of the child.
3. Even if the registration was falsely reported or delayed, that does not make the date of birth in April.
The date being falsely reported only means that the specific date - November 6th 1917 - is not a genuine date of birth.
But what about November 5th? November 4th? November 3rd? Which all necessitate that Stalin couldn't have fathered this child anyway?
Kotkin says that it could have been 'delayed or falsely reported'. But he does not say by how much.
What's stopping our proponent here from saying that the date of birth was actually in May or June? They are all "equally" as likely as the other (by equally, i mean none). Why does April HAVE to be the date of birth?
WHY THE DATE OF REGISTRATION DOES NOT MATTER
In Tsarist Russia, the dates for births were kept in metrical books established by the orthodox church. Usually, when a baby was born, the date of birth and baptism would be located there.
As we can see, the date of birth is separate from WHEN the baby was registered into the system. In all official documentation, it states that Davydov's *DATE OF BIRTH* is in November.
Not that his existence was *registered* in November.
Kotkin reasoning is also faulty. Whether or not the family was far away from some office/church to register the child shouldn't have an effect on the actual date of birth. According to the proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair, calendars and clocks were banned in Kureika.
In order to provide evidence that the dates were indeed falsely reported or delayed, this quote is brought up:
Problems with this:
1. It does not explicitly say this particular instance was delayed.
The logical conclusion to make from this quote is that many peasants birthdates were misreported. Not that Davydov particularly was misreported. Again, this does not mean Davydov's date of birth is in April, since it does not comment on by how much it was misreported.
Our proponent has yet to prove this particular entry was misreported and that it means Davydov was born in April.
2. It is a completely AI-hallucinated quote.
Lol, that's right. This numbskull took this quote from a friend of his and then passed it along as original research he did. Without even fact-checking it to see if it even existed, as it does not appear in any search on the entire internet.
books.google.com/books?id=DWC_V…
Lmfaooo so much for being an honest researcher
However, this is not the end of the falsifiers of history, as the proponents have one more trick up their sleeve: the DNA test!
3/5
CASE #2: STALIN - CONTINUED: THE DNA TEST
In 2016, a DNA test by Yuri Davydov - Alexander Davydov's son, and the company BIOPAPA boasted a 99.98% match suggesting that Stalin was indeed, the father of Alexander Davydov. To do this, they tested genetic material from Alexander Burdonsky (uncontested as Stalins grandson) and Davydov to find a y-linkage. If the Y chromosome matches, then they're related through Stalin.
As I explain in my previous thread, this DNA test relies on 'shaky grounds'. And this was largely proven correct, as this specific test was never court-validated and is not a clear test of paternity according to any standard.
Thus, the DNA test does not 'prove' Stalin was the father. Yuri Davydov should have gone through the proper procedures, and not through the sleazy Maury-style TV show that he and Burdonsky were on.
x.com/InfraDmitriy/s…
Proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair may inquire on the validity of the argument that the standard of evidence is court-validation. But a legal order from a court is the only way to properly guarantee chain of custody of the material being tested, which is why it can be used as a reasonable standard.
Chain of custody is required to have any kind of reliable trust in the procedure carried out, otherwise it's not rigorous or reliable enough.
As we can see, the process for collecting the samples was notoriously careless.
Both swabs, from Burdonsky and Davydov, were put in the same envelope and exposed without any protection. In this case, cross-contamination was clearly inevitable and explains why the DNA test matched by 99.98%.
You can view the video here: web.archive.org/web/2019022009…
Similarly, @benbackupbackup attempts to 'debunk' this by making these statements:
1) They had two separate envelopes for the two subjects
Oh silly Ben, didn't you ever watch the video and realize that the show was ALSO about testing the relationships between two entirely different persons - Alexander Sklyarenko and Alexander Burdonsky?
Burdonsky is swabbed twice in the video for this purpose - one for Sklyarenko and one for Davydov. But both Sklyarenko and Davydov are swabbed once, and swabs from each one are put in the same envelope without any visible protection.
2) Both envelopes were sealed on different tables by different hands
As we can see from the first screenshot, the swabs are actually taken out (NOT SEALED) of the envelope! Holy shit! I'll even attach the video of Davydov and Burdonsky's swabs being TAKEN OUT of the envelope, and not 'sealed', at the end of this post.
Why did Praxben just lie here? Did he even watch the video or just get this opinion from elsewhere?
We have already proven that he has AI-hallucinated sources, and now he cant even interpret evidence from his own video and screenshots he claims to have studied.
He has the nerve to call me 'embarrassing'? Look in the mirror!
Yes, of course they would be sealed on different tables. Because, as we just explained, they are two entirely separate cases! Holy shit, this guy literally did not do his research!
Next, on the "Serov Report", which will be quite short. Attached here are copies of the 'serov report'.
sovsekretno.ru/articles/istor…
In short, I believe this is the weakest piece of evidence and doesn't definitively establish that Stalin had sexual relations with Lydia.
Additionally, there are many errors:
1) In the May 4th letter, Lydia Pereprygina from Kureika is referred to as "Perelygina"
2) The report wrongly lists Alexander Davydov's birthdate as 1914 when it was actually 1917.
3) Serov says that Lydia told him that she had a son in 1913 that died. Stalin arrived on April 20th, 1914, so this son couldn't have been his. So which is it, proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair?
The reason why it was never used in the Khruschevite secret speech to defame Stalin is quite simple. The Secret Speech was recorded on 25 February 1956. But as we can clearly see from Serov's report to Khruschev, the date is 28th May 1956, and the one before that is May 4th 1956. All of the damage to Stalin was already done - at this point, you are beating a dead horse.
'у' is a common handwritten shorthand for май, since it is the only month in Russian that is three letters long and ends in й.
In any case, the hearsay of local villagers cannot be used as evidence.
Kotkin (remember the same guy that Praxben cites) also admits that this report has many errors and reflects 'lazy police work' lol. He attempts to use it in his thread too, which has been demolished here.
In any case, that about wraps up discussion of the Stalin-Lydia affair.
Attached below is them taking the swabs out of the envelope, BTW
4/5
In 2016, a DNA test by Yuri Davydov - Alexander Davydov's son, and the company BIOPAPA boasted a 99.98% match suggesting that Stalin was indeed, the father of Alexander Davydov. To do this, they tested genetic material from Alexander Burdonsky (uncontested as Stalins grandson) and Davydov to find a y-linkage. If the Y chromosome matches, then they're related through Stalin.
As I explain in my previous thread, this DNA test relies on 'shaky grounds'. And this was largely proven correct, as this specific test was never court-validated and is not a clear test of paternity according to any standard.
Thus, the DNA test does not 'prove' Stalin was the father. Yuri Davydov should have gone through the proper procedures, and not through the sleazy Maury-style TV show that he and Burdonsky were on.
x.com/InfraDmitriy/s…
Proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair may inquire on the validity of the argument that the standard of evidence is court-validation. But a legal order from a court is the only way to properly guarantee chain of custody of the material being tested, which is why it can be used as a reasonable standard.
Chain of custody is required to have any kind of reliable trust in the procedure carried out, otherwise it's not rigorous or reliable enough.
As we can see, the process for collecting the samples was notoriously careless.
Both swabs, from Burdonsky and Davydov, were put in the same envelope and exposed without any protection. In this case, cross-contamination was clearly inevitable and explains why the DNA test matched by 99.98%.
You can view the video here: web.archive.org/web/2019022009…
Similarly, @benbackupbackup attempts to 'debunk' this by making these statements:
1) They had two separate envelopes for the two subjects
Oh silly Ben, didn't you ever watch the video and realize that the show was ALSO about testing the relationships between two entirely different persons - Alexander Sklyarenko and Alexander Burdonsky?
Burdonsky is swabbed twice in the video for this purpose - one for Sklyarenko and one for Davydov. But both Sklyarenko and Davydov are swabbed once, and swabs from each one are put in the same envelope without any visible protection.
2) Both envelopes were sealed on different tables by different hands
As we can see from the first screenshot, the swabs are actually taken out (NOT SEALED) of the envelope! Holy shit! I'll even attach the video of Davydov and Burdonsky's swabs being TAKEN OUT of the envelope, and not 'sealed', at the end of this post.
Why did Praxben just lie here? Did he even watch the video or just get this opinion from elsewhere?
We have already proven that he has AI-hallucinated sources, and now he cant even interpret evidence from his own video and screenshots he claims to have studied.
He has the nerve to call me 'embarrassing'? Look in the mirror!
Yes, of course they would be sealed on different tables. Because, as we just explained, they are two entirely separate cases! Holy shit, this guy literally did not do his research!
Next, on the "Serov Report", which will be quite short. Attached here are copies of the 'serov report'.
sovsekretno.ru/articles/istor…
In short, I believe this is the weakest piece of evidence and doesn't definitively establish that Stalin had sexual relations with Lydia.
Additionally, there are many errors:
1) In the May 4th letter, Lydia Pereprygina from Kureika is referred to as "Perelygina"
2) The report wrongly lists Alexander Davydov's birthdate as 1914 when it was actually 1917.
3) Serov says that Lydia told him that she had a son in 1913 that died. Stalin arrived on April 20th, 1914, so this son couldn't have been his. So which is it, proponents of the Stalin-Lydia affair?
The reason why it was never used in the Khruschevite secret speech to defame Stalin is quite simple. The Secret Speech was recorded on 25 February 1956. But as we can clearly see from Serov's report to Khruschev, the date is 28th May 1956, and the one before that is May 4th 1956. All of the damage to Stalin was already done - at this point, you are beating a dead horse.
'у' is a common handwritten shorthand for май, since it is the only month in Russian that is three letters long and ends in й.
In any case, the hearsay of local villagers cannot be used as evidence.
Kotkin (remember the same guy that Praxben cites) also admits that this report has many errors and reflects 'lazy police work' lol. He attempts to use it in his thread too, which has been demolished here.
In any case, that about wraps up discussion of the Stalin-Lydia affair.
Attached below is them taking the swabs out of the envelope, BTW
4/5
CONCLUSION:
No, Stalin and Mao were not pedophiles.
Anybody that claims this ignores basic facts of the matter.
We have already gone over that there is no documentary evidence to support that Mao had any relationships with minors.
We have also gone over the chronological inconsistencies in assuming that Stalin was the father of both children that Lydia gave birth to. We have also demolished the 'DNA' test as the materials were cross-contaminated.
However, this has not stopped retards on this app from continuing to knowingly lie about it. This is pure anti-Soviet propaganda with no basis in fact, intended to justify their own Epstein regime pedophiles to discredit Communism.
Remember: Stalin and Mao would have placed all clients in the Epstein files in a gulag. If anyone disagrees by bringing up the above claims, link them this thread.
It is also strange that people like Praxben accuse others and I of 'defending pedophiles'. But it looks like he so desperately wants Lydia to be raped by Stalin, even when the evidence demands the contrary. Curious!
Retarded groypers, right-wingers, and liberals are the reason this lie has begun to resurface. Upon minimal scrutiny, it collapses.
VERDICT: INNOCENT!
5/5
No, Stalin and Mao were not pedophiles.
Anybody that claims this ignores basic facts of the matter.
We have already gone over that there is no documentary evidence to support that Mao had any relationships with minors.
We have also gone over the chronological inconsistencies in assuming that Stalin was the father of both children that Lydia gave birth to. We have also demolished the 'DNA' test as the materials were cross-contaminated.
However, this has not stopped retards on this app from continuing to knowingly lie about it. This is pure anti-Soviet propaganda with no basis in fact, intended to justify their own Epstein regime pedophiles to discredit Communism.
Remember: Stalin and Mao would have placed all clients in the Epstein files in a gulag. If anyone disagrees by bringing up the above claims, link them this thread.
It is also strange that people like Praxben accuse others and I of 'defending pedophiles'. But it looks like he so desperately wants Lydia to be raped by Stalin, even when the evidence demands the contrary. Curious!
Retarded groypers, right-wingers, and liberals are the reason this lie has begun to resurface. Upon minimal scrutiny, it collapses.
VERDICT: INNOCENT!
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
