A book that deserves to be known

Anthony Sutton is a historian of good standard and honest WHEN IT sattache to the analysis of facts and rigorous that it moves away from questionable ideological biases. These biases are essentially the anti-Marxist perspective (Marx is a writer that he didnt clearly not read what was very erratic for someone claiming sattacher to develop a scientific approach critical consequences of Marxism) and its naive acceptance without hindsight the merits laissez-faire this is to say economic free trade in a nearby optical libertarianism, oozing from time to time in louvrage, I would almost filigree.

At the same time, it is precisely its policy guidelines lont which probably led to shed light on a facet of history that is completely black-listed books of history "recognized", so well quon can challenge, we must recognize that this is their probably relying on them that it has found the courage to do a meticulous historical research to break a myth which was particularly strong at the time.

Obviously, almost 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, the learned dismantling this myth may be less than when dimpact Sutton wrote his book in the mid-70s, however, it must be recognized that the facts are particularly striking.
The author was clearly driven by the interests of accuracy in its research, and sattache to seriously document the facts highlighted. Individuals who devote animosity against the complotisme, sils are honest, should instead of this predisposition, be interested in this item demonstrating that the son of the story are much more complex to unravel ny that it seems. It is important to emphasize that Sutton shows the escapades of the house Morgan particularly in the simultaneous funding of parties in conflict in the twilight of Tsarist Russia. In the end, it is likely that the main thing of the facts can be summarized in just a few paragraphs, but it's to his credit for taking the time to carefully demonstrate its findings. Incidentally, each of the passages summarizing historical discoveries are quite welcome.

We can only regret the impression created by which the author believes to have discovered gunpowder revealing links between powerful financial tycoons and Bolshevik revolutionaries. It also lacks probably supported more light on the reasons that led these revolutionaries to compromise with big capital, except a very interesting quote from Lenin. Furthermore, the author sometimes tends to mean an on-quoting from a newspaper to see pretend Marxist sympathies for example a banker. This is not because an appreciated business man LOEUVRE impressive Marx that made him a Marxist.

Now we should welcome this book for the originality of its subject and seriousness. In passing a thank you to the editions Return to basics for taking the initiative to republish, allowing for purposes analysts geopolitical and political situations to better understand the complexity inherent in any revolutionary movement. And the immense difficulty of trying to force a change of mode of economic production.