🧵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 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

No, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not an 'alliance', contrary to what liberals claim

A thread🧵 The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an non-aggression agreement signed between the USSR & Germany in late August 1939.

It has been used as a 'gotcha' event by illiterate anti-communists in order to disgustingly downplay the MASSIVE sacrifice made by the USSR to defeat Nazism.

🧵THREAD: Did Stalin have sex with a 13 year old?

1/10 This false story was pushed by pseudo-historian Simon Sebag-Montefoire, who is actually linked to Epstein's phone book himself.

His claims lack any scholarly basis and is only used to fuel anti-Communism and anti-Stalinism.

2/10

🚨🇷🇺 THE 'RАРЕ' OF BERLIN DEBUNKED! 🧵

⚠️Many open Neo-Nazis cannot fathom that supposedly 'Jewish' Communism WIPED Nazism off the face of the Earth.

☢️They have no choice BUT to play victim to get sympathy. To do so, they spread LIES on the Red Army!

https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1781817365493133676

Many have known that I've already disproved the '2 million' figure much earlier on a separate thread. This thread will go over how this figure was made up.

You can find the original thread here:

https://x.com/InfraDmitriy/status/1771709612988813431

🧵MYTHS ABOUT THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR DESTROYED - GIGA THREAD

⚠️Bourgeois scholars worldwide cannot fathom that the USSR beat Nazi Germany almost single-handedly. That's why they LIE about it.

🚨This thread will put an END to these LIES once and for all! This thread will cover 10 myths:

1. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the 'invasion' of Poland by Soviet Forces
2. The "Decisive Role" of Lend-Lease Aid
3. The Myth of "Human Waves"
4. The Myth of a German Attack in Self-Defense

☢️NUCLEAR THREAD🧵: No, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was NOT an alliance ⬇️ The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an non-aggression agreement signed between the USSR & Germany in late August 1939.

It has been used as a 'gotcha' event by illiterate anti-communists in order to disgustingly downplay the MASSIVE sacrifice made by the USSR to defeat Nazism.⬇️