Not really. He was - as always - exaggerating the ills caused (directly or indirectly) by "western imperialism" while simultaneously dismissing the reports of t

Not really. He was - as always - exaggerating the ills caused (directly or indirectly) by "western imperialism" while simultaneously dismissing the reports of the atrocities by communist regimes as "propaganda". When the truth came out, his opinion did not need to change. Rather, he would point out that he was right in his position with the "information available at the time".