Talk:Antony C. Sutton

NPOV - missing criticism

Sutton is a -hm- highly controversial author, his books are mainly cited in conspiraca websites and lack seriousness and deeper understanding and research (you better do not build a theory on sutton but at least try to cross check his findings with other, more serios sources. When I did I found nearly all of what he wrote in the chapter counter researched by me - from his "most important" skull and bones book- to be false). I do not see any criticism of Sutton in the article, what makes him look like a serious source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.54.55 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have references to published criticism of an article subject, add it to the article. If you don←'t, don't deface the article with tags. If no further information is submitted, other than your own personal research, I will consider this dispute resolved. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the tag. 76.67.99.166 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sutton is a conspiracy theorist who,at best,makes vague connections.The fact that all sources are Sutton makes this article a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice the quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter, or Richard Pipes. It needs to be included in bibliography, maybe you could be constructive and take care of that rather than making erroneous criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.237.175 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well at the very least one should include a listing of Henry Ashby Turner, GERMAN BIG BUSINESS AND THE RISE OF HITLER, as an illustration of what is wrong with Sutton's work. Turner debunks the notion that Hitler was brought to power predominantly by big business, whereas as Sutton circulates the theory that Hitler's rise was engineered by Wall Street. That's a gross overstatement. Sutton offers some interesting information about some possible assistance which Hitler may have received in some specific instances, but not enough to contradict Turner's basic argument that other German conservative parties received more assistance and that Hitler's rise was primarily the result of his being underestimated by them rather than any specific funding done with the intent of putting Hitler in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Turner does no such thing. Sutton is not even mentioned in mentioned in Turner's work, though he goes after Poole who wrote WHO FUNDED HITLER and Poole is not even an academic in this field. I think the most important and simple distinction to understand between the two books which you obviously did not make is that Turner's focus is on German business, and Sutton focuses on international and American business. Further Turner only looks at political contributions and not at the "war machine." Much of Sutton's work is now being vindicated by recent research and released archival information and Turner was in the middle of this before he died. When Ford and GM were came under fire recently for complicity with the Nazis and use of slave labor during the war, Ford opened up it's archives to the public and apologized while GM kept theirs closed and commissioned and expert to examine them and compile a report. That expert was none other than Henry Ashby Turner Jr, corporate shill. He painted the most favorable picture of GM as he could, and his book General Motors and the Nazis was based on this white wash. Compare this to award winning journalist Edwin Black's work on the subject, try Nazi Nexus. Watch Hitler's American Business Partners and Banking with Hitler. Sutton may not have been perfect but he was way ahead of his time with his correct assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.4.49 (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to find criticism for just the reason the mention. Barely anyone out of the world of conspiracy theory uses this material. However the facts he uses are actually well known amongst foreign policy experts, historians and some marxists. Plenty of books and newspaper articles going back to the 20's detail everything he says about collusion between the Soviet Government and western firms. He just took existing data people in the mainstream don't here or care about and added a conspiratorial twist.

Going through his surprisingly short books on wall street financing the nazis and commies I found incredible weak arguments backed up by a pretty small list of only moderately impressive sources he is forced to reuse. I'm not going to say there isn't some good stuff in there but there are mainstream sources about U.S Soviet trade relations before and after WW2. Sutton basically exaggerates Soviet "dependency" on the US, ignores their own technological achievements, projects insidious ambitions of the American firms involved in Soviet trade and fail to take relativism, context and nuance into his arguments. NeoStalinist (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources or is it original research because you read his books and disagree for whatever reason? Popish Plot (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A combination of both. Sutton's works were surprisingly short and poorly sourced in my opinion.

I read a lot about the Soviet Union and study its history. Its no secret that its early growth required working with American firms. The Russian empire was one of the least developed nations on Earth and was still essentially an agrarian feudal state. To me it makes complete sense to just go get the technology that exists instead of wasting your time developing it. Governments work with other governments that have technology they want, firms work with other firms when they are in need of technical assistance to. This isn't a conspiracy. Its what all firms and governments do. Not to mention this was mostly happening mostly in the 30's when money was scare to be made in America. Of course the Soviets did do a lot of good work developing physics, chemistry, and aerospace technology on their own.

Marxists.org even has a book from the 20's detailing Soviet Trade relations with America. If there was some secret conspiracy to set up the Soviet Union I doubt Marxists would openly share this book online. Post WW2 trade was more limited but you can find plenty of work on it as well in main stream sources, they say similar things to Sutton but without the cryptic language or the rightous indignation about how they are being persecuted by a shadowy elite. Wikipedia itself uses sources from the 20's and 30's on the page about Amtorg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtorg_Trading_Corporation

How he defines "invention" is also incredibly dubious. 90-95% of Soviet technology was just "Western". Does this mean the US automotive industry is a shame created by a shadowy conspiracy to import the combustion engines(developed in Europe) to America?Russia had tractors before the revolution, they were just really bad. Do we include this in the page on the list of Russian inventions? Did the technology they got include Sputnik, the AK-47, leg lengthening surgery, blood banks, computers and cell phones? There are so many lists of "Soviet inventions" online it seems outright strange.

Finally there's a very good book called "Young Stalin". Its incredibly well written and sourced and details much of Stalin's activities before the Bolshevik Revolution in Georgia and Azerbaijan. One conclusion based on all of the bank robberies and extortions Stalin was engaged in made the author state "Stalin, through his bank robberies and gangsterism became Lenin's main fundraiser." Of course After the revolution the Soviets established their own banks, then confiscated wealth from the Czar and the aristocracy, so I really don't see why they needed Wall street money, they were doing well on their own. Either way very little foregn money was actually linked to them. Not to mention the Soviet government was one of the most contained on Earth. About 100% of capital investment was made by them. Based on everything I read the USA and USSR traded very little with each other, especially in the context of global trade. Mostly each side bought raw goods. Furs, caviar, lumber and ores from the USSR and grain, fertilizer and cotton from the USA. Technical parts, machine tools and the like constituted an insignificant amount either way, and that did go BOTH ways. NeoStalinist (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

References

karl marx

in his the federal reserve conspiracy he talks about karl marx he says that "the ten points of the Marxian Manifesto, a program designed to overthrow the middle class bourgeoisie (not the big capitalist)"

this is an error on Sutton's part as Marx does not talk much about a middle class, Marx defines bourgeoisie as the upper class the rulers.

This argument on Sutton part seems as a fallacy of redefining words.

I wonder how much or if any more Sutton crosses the line to conspiracy, which i find a waste of time.

Incorrect. From Wikipedia itself: "In English, the term 'bourgeoisie' is often used to denote the middle classes." And, "As the economic managers of the (raw) materials, the goods, and the services, and thus the capital (money) produced by the feudal economy, the term "bourgeoisie" evolved to also denote the middle class — the businessmen and businesswomen who accumulated, administered, and controlled the capital that made possible the development of the bourgs into cities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.133.114 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're definition mongering. The page specifically says that is the French use of the word. Within Marxism it essentially boils down to "ruling class" people who own productive forces. He differentiated between petit and haute bourgeoise but never went very far in depth in describing the former. The former essentially being upper middle class artisans and business owners and the later the upper class involved in financing and ownership of industry. NeoStalinist (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

This article was vandalized by someone who made it appear that Sutton's work done at and for Stanford Univ. was just shared with Stanford. 64.229.31.80 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I find earlier versions to be more descriptive, but some of your edits are also constructive, but, imo, bordering on POV. The revision before yours says: He shared his research with the University of London and Stanford's Hoover Institute and paid no heed to how governments, corporations, and political powers would react. I don't see what qualms you have here... If you could combine this current revision and the revision before into one article, that'd be awesome. Copysan 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record Sutton's early work was in fact published by the Hoover Institution which is a unit Stanford University. He used to be listed as a fellow on the Hoover Institute website but no longer is. You can search his name on this stanford hyperlink and clearly see his name listed as a reference and his work listed as published by the Institute: http://hoohila.stanford.edu/books/russian_biblio.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.248.17 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

"sharing with the public an evident life of unmitigated research [...], of passion in answers, in truths regardless of how government, corporations, and political powers would (and did) react." and "he was not one to characterize the notion of respect in acquiescence; thus he continued his research"

This is clearly POV:ed.. More a hagiography than actual facts. Apparatus 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Another view

There's barely any information in the article. The other people posting seem to be arguing over tiny crumbs. [Sept. 12, 2006]

"In his own words"

What's the story of this section? Is it an autobiographical sketch? What's the source? It should either be placed in quotation marks or edited for consistency with the other material. -Will Beback 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Skull and Bones membership is not "purported".

I'm changing "using membership lists purportedly revealing". It's not purported. Once you know what you are looking for, the list is actually right here for all to see, but a few years behind the times, in the Yale Library. That's where I found it and got it. Steranko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steranko (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

wow I'm done with the thought police at wikipedia

has anyone noticed that the Richard Pipes quote has been removed? Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard noted: "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology ..." Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.152.4 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that quote is there but I'm not sure, is that actually said in his book "Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984)"? I am not sure, haven't read it. Popish Plot (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)