Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:21 pm
For those who doubt that conspiracies of the Elite run the world, I'd recommend the exemplary work of the late Antony Sutton, from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. It's solid, scholarly analysis; not for those who seek out the Cliff's Notes versions of things.
Of course I started here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
As I was reading it...it all seemed quite intriguing. That, maybe, I should get some of his books and read them. However, I reached the end which stated:
Criticism
Sutton's works have received a number of criticisms from other academics, particularly in regards to his Wall Street trilogy (Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler)".[11][12] Some historians argue that these books more closely resemble conspiracy theory than genuine historical studies. For instance, in a contemporary review of Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, researcher Virgil D. Medlin of Oklahoma City University reported finding numerous factual errors in the book and claimed that Sutton repeated "unsubstantiated allegations [and came to] unwarranted conclusions." Medlin also stated Sutton made use of dubious sources, such as rumor and uncorroborated inquiries, as "documentary proof of [his] allegations."[13] Similarly, Howard Dickman of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research referred to Sutton's Wall Street and FDR as a "weak specimen of conspiracy history" that was "poorly written and edited, digressive, repetitious, disorganized, and unconvincing."[14]
Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945 to 1965 has also received criticism, specifically in regards to its thesis. Dr. Samuel Lieberstein of Temple University had initially praised the first two volumes of the study but later came to criticize it in his review of the third volume, stating that Sutton failed to note instances of Soviet technological innovation and ignored positive aspects of the USSR's planned economy that seemed to conflict with his thesis.[15] British historian Richard C. Thurlow also criticized Sutton's thesis stating that “all nations were dependent on international trade for economic development and their industrial infrastructure, including the United States” adding that Sutton "totally [disregarded] alternative explanations of Soviet industrialization".[16]