[glenstein]

I think too often these historical "debunking" exercises are really just exercises in overzealously uncharitable interpretation. Some of the distinctions drawn are asinine especially in the context of a dramatic presentation. And some are even importantly wrong, as you've now pointed out which I wouldn't have thought of on a skim-by reading.

Just like we have functional literacy and information literacy, there should be such a thing as Debunking Literacy. Are you actually debunking or just uncharitably interpreting?

[hkpack]

If we dismiss the possibility that the post itself is a part of Russian propaganda to whitewash the soviet legacy (which they are engaging now at scale), then the next best explanation is that the author lacks the context of living in the USSR to correctly interpret the recordings.

In USSR everyone lied. Telling anything against the party will put you and your family in grave danger - it is basically a suicide. There were no free press, no activism, and all information was filtered by the party with complicated process of deciding what should be published and when and who gets punished for what.

People in the west have no understanding what it means to live all your life in such conditions so they try to interpret people as if it happened in their country.

It can be that the person was trying to make amends with the party to ease the social ostracization for his family, friends or colleagues. It doesn't mean the person is telling the truth at all, it means that he show loyalty to the party line by telling that the system was efficient and all his higher-ups were doing the best job.

[glenstein]

Wholeheartedly agree, this is good analysis. I think there's a strong tankie tradition online and it's rather distinct in how anti intellectual it is, and would not write off the possibility of apologetics, but I completely agree that if true it's next explained by an institutionally fundamental culture of fear.