You - in your admitted ignorance, referred to my analysis of the situation as "rubbish" - bloody arrogance from a self-confessed ignoramous.

It would be if it was true, but it is not.

Had you read the historians you claim support your case, you might have a point - as you haven't, and have only selected the bits that you think do

You can hardly deny that historians dispute culpability.
Kennedy demonstrably does in both linked items, and he is just an example.
Kinealy STATED that his revisionist view is "dominant" among historians and has been for about eighty years.
Believe her if not me.

It remains one of the most carefully researched books on Stalin ever written

You are being silly Jim.
First published in 1949 and revised in 1967, and you do not think much new information about him has come out of Russia since then?!

Do you not realise of exactly how arrogant it is to dismiss books you have not read

I have read it. Can you prove you have?

You haven't given us anything on Deutscher's position on The Ukraine,

I gave you a quote, and will copy anything (short) you want, but I am not going to reread an old tome like that, and if I did what would it prove?

Can you show us which of your "real" or "qualified historians who sell their books in real bookshops" have described Deutscher's work as "out of date"
The most recent book I have read is Conquest's, and he does.