The Right Side

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. #v=onepage&q=%22For%20the%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20the%20peasantry%2C%20exact%20dates%20of%20birth%20were%20unknown%22&f=false" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">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