Anniversary of massacre of innocent Indians by British Empire

[Pogue]

Today is the 90th Anniversary of the massacre of unarmed Indian protestors in India.

Following the disasterous First World War in which the ruling classes of the world sent the working class to kill each other in the name of imperialist aggresion and advancement of the ruling class's interest, the conditions in India were poor.

1.3 million Indians served on the side of the Allied powers as labourers and soldiers and we all know the scale of casulties in this awful war. Post-war, there were ridiculously high levels of taxation in India, combined with an influenza epidemic and poverty as a result of the disruption of lfie brought about by the war. As a result, anti-Colonial feeling grew high.

This protest was during a popular festival taking place in the area. The political climate of the time combined with the number of people in the area who had paid for the trip to the region meant the attendance to the protest was high. The British Army issued a ban of public assembly for the period, but many Indians had already made the long and expensive journey to the area and so were not willing to simply be told they couldn't gather. I think we can assume popular resentment to British rule in general would also have meant that many people simply didn't want to be told what to do any longer, especially as they'd made the journey. Some simply would not have known they were being told their basic human right to mingle with other humans was being withdrawn. Naturally, the army could still assemble as a group of occupying soldiers supporting an incompetent regime with weapons too.

The crowds gathered in the Jallianwala Gardens. A group of 90 soldiers of the Army of India (made up of the Indian Army, soldiers recruited by the British Raj with India to fight for the imperialists, and also the British Army proper in India) arrived, and despite a complete lack of provocation, opened fire on the crowd.

As a result, hundreds, some would say thousands ('official' statistics, 379, some say as many as 2000) died in the ensuing chaos. Hundreds of bodies had to be taken from the well in the middle of the square from people who dived in there to avoid the bullets. The British Army soldiers returned to barracks and boasted of having fought a 'revolutionary army'.

I think we should remember this and hold it up as evidence of the crimes of capitalist, statist imperialist aggresion and the clear message that the British state's involvement in India was drenched in the blood of innocent Indians, as is the current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have met with resentment in the occupied nations and worldwide and have sent the working class to kill other members of the working class in the name of 'nationalism'. Remember this was during the same period in Britain where strikes were being crushed and poverty amongst the working class was killing hundreds by the day, yet the ruling class had time to kill innocent Indians too.

I think we must also remember how the lack of a coherent revolutionary, internationalist class based movement to overthrow the British led to the creation of the new ruling class and the new poverty we see in India today, when there was revolutionary potential in a country suffering from the worst excesses of capitalism, which to this day is suffering still from this harsh economic system and ruling class ideology, just under a different flag.

[Yehuda Stern]

And yet, you support "democratic" Britain against Nazi Germany in WWII, based on the argument (which I disproved) that only Germany was seeking to exterminate millions.

[Pogue]

And yet, you support "democratic" Britain against Nazi Germany in WWII, based on the argument (which I disproved) that only Germany was seeking to exterminate millions.

If I was unclear, my position is actually that I would have fought against the Nazis, in the British Army, because I would have wanted to stop the spread of Nazism across Europe because it wanted to kill so many people and spread its shit policies/ideas. If I was alive at the time, I'd also have been supportive of an end to the British Empire and the over-throw of capitalism, too. I don't think soldiers who were fighting in the British Army during WW2 were somehow responsible for the crimes of the British Army in India. I'd say thats an absurd position to take, considering all they were doing was firing their guns at expansionist fascists.

Naturally I'd rather fight as part of some sort of proletarian militia overthrowing capitalism/fascism in every country of the world, but first and foremost when I saw a Nazi rampaiging across Europe killing Jews, communists etc as he went, I'd be inclined to try and protect myself and others against that. It so happens that the British Army at the time was focusing its intentions on fighting Hitler, so it'd make sense to be part of that as an anti-nazi, if the alternative was staying at home waiting for Hitler to come in and kill me for being a Communist because I didn't want to fight for an 'imperialist power'.

[Pogue]

To build upon that, as many did, after I'd left the army at the end of the war I'd probably have gone back into revolutionary anarchist politics too, and fight capitalism worldwide, having seen Hitler's regime defeated.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Let us also remember Udham Singh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udham_Singh) who assassinated Lieutenant Governor Michael O'Dwyer in retaliation for this massacre.

On the death of Reginald Dyer, the officer who carried out this massacre:

The Morning Post remembered him in articles titled, "The Man Who Saved India" and "He did his Duty".

[Yehuda Stern]

when I saw a Nazi rampaiging across Europe killing Jews, communists etc as he went, I'd be inclined to try and protect myself and others against that. It so happens that the British Army at the time was focusing its intentions on fighting Hitler, so it'd make sense to be part of that as an anti-nazi

Bottom line - all your solidarity with the oppressed Indians rings very false, as obviously to you their blood is not quite as red as that of European Jews and Communists.

[benhur]

Bottom line - all your solidarity with the oppressed Indians rings very false, as obviously to you their blood is not quite as red as that of European Jews and Communists.

As communists, we sympathize with other communists, regardless of nationality, race etc. We don't sympathize with random people, just because they happen to be oppressed by a more evil force; for, the so-called oppressed people might well be reactionaries, and enemies of communism.

[Yehuda Stern]

We don't sympathize with random people, just because they happen to be oppressed by a more evil force; for, the so-called oppressed people might well be reactionaries, and enemies of communism.

So you don't sympathize with Jews in concentration camps, Palestinians murdered by Israel, or Indians massacred by the British because - they might be reactionaries? You're basically just scum, aren't you?

[Pogue]

Bottom line - all your solidarity with the oppressed Indians rings very false, as obviously to you their blood is not quite as red as that of European Jews and Communists.

I don't understand how you'd ever come to such an insulting conclusion. Maybe you could explain?

[Pogue]

Bottom line - all your solidarity with the oppressed Indians rings very false, as obviously to you their blood is not quite as red as that of European Jews and Communists.

Hang on, I'll address this myself. Why are you crying 'racism' in such an baseless and childish manner? I just said that I'd have joined the British Army because then I would have got a gun, sent to the front and I'd be able to take part in stopping the Nazis rampaging across Europe, killing Jews, as they did. I'd be doing this as an individual with a belief that Hitler had to be stopped because I knew I'd be one of the first to go if he took over the area I lived, and also because I wouldn't want to stand idle while communists, Jews, etc etc were all being killed by the rampaging war machine.

As I made clear, I'd also be supportive of an end to the British Empire, as I am sure many working class people of the time would have been. Do you think if no one had resisted Hitler and consequently taken over most of the world, he'd have granted Indians independence and freedom? No, becuase they weren't 'Aryan'. He would have tried to eliminate them as a people.

I think you need to stop falling back on making baseless claims of 'racism' when clearly the facts go against this because its insulting and purile.

[Pogue]

As communists, we sympathize with other communists, regardless of nationality, race etc. We don't sympathize with random people, just because they happen to be oppressed by a more evil force; for, the so-called oppressed people might well be reactionaries, and enemies of communism.

As a communist, and more so a human being, I sympathize with any person suffering oppresion in whatever form it takes, be it wage slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, or systematic extermination by a tyrannical nazi dictator. I'd fight to defend them, regardless of whether or not they were a communist. Your position here is ridiculous.

[Yehuda Stern]

The question you should ask yourself when asking me all that is, before 1941, before the extermination of Jews began, would you join the Nazi Army fighting Allied imperialism to prevent it from murdering colonial peoples?

[Pogue]

The question you should ask yourself when asking me all that is, before 1941, before the extermination of Jews began, would you join the Nazi Army fighting Allied imperialism to prevent it from murdering colonial peoples?

I'm not going to get puled into complex theoretical games but what I am saying is that during WW2 I would have wanted to take up arms against Hitler and the Nazis and seeing as conscription was going on and the British Army would give you a gun, training etc and send you to the front that would have been what I'd have done. That in no way contradicts being anti-capitalist, internationalist, whatever, because as far as anyone is concerned I'd just be another person shooting fascist troops whose orders were to invade all the countries around them and turn them into Nazi states.

[The Deepest Red]

I'm not going to get puled into complex theoretical games but what I am saying is that during WW2 I would have wanted to take up arms against Hitler and the Nazis and seeing as conscription was going on and the British Army would give you a gun, training etc and send you to the front that would have been what I'd have done. That in no way contradicts being anti-capitalist, internationalist, whatever, because as far as anyone is concerned I'd just be another person shooting fascist troops whose orders were to invade all the countries around them and turn them into Nazi states.

I'm afraid fighting for Queen & Country would contradict internationalism.

[Pogue]

I'm afraid fighting for Queen & Country would contradict internationalism.

So you'd keep to the line that no working class person in Britain, France etc should have resisted the Nazis because they might have had to do so as part of a national army? Even if the individiuals intentions and indeed actions were geared towards resisting the Nazi threat? I think your out of touch with reality.

[Pogue]

Anyway I'd like to keep this thread on topic so if a mod could kindly move these posts into a seperate discussion I'd appreciate that.

I don't feel the need to justify what is a purely logical circumstancial belief to a bunch of people who want to cry 'nationalist' or 'racist' when its simply not the case. Am I that sort of pro-Imperialist, pro-nationalist and anti-Indian that makes threads discussing the crimes of the British Empire, the follies of nationalism and commemorates the massacre of innocent civiliansin India? Typical case of revleft 'purists' distorting the truth to fit their own distorted view of pretty much everyone else.

[Pogue]

I'm afraid fighting for Queen & Country would contradict internationalism.

I'd be fighting for myself, the communist movement fascism was destroying physically by killing its members and everyone the Nazis were murdering in death camps. It'd be irrelevant what nation or army gave me a gun and transport to the front, because as far as I'd be concerned i'd be fighting the Nazi army as it tried to advance across Europe.

Do you think I'd just sit at home and wait for Hitler to come to Britain, kil me and my movement and every Jew who lived here, just because some distorted pathetic argument claims that resisting Hitler is somehow supportive of imperialism. Yeh, because annexing France, Poland etc is in no way imperialism, and liberating these countries from nazi rule is obviously a case of imperialism too... wait, wut? :confused:

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, you're avoiding my questions as usual, so let's add another one to the list of unanswered arguments: if you're willing to actually join the British imperial army to supposedly fight fascism, why would you not be willing to join Hamas in their fight against Zionist imperialism?

[Pogue]

Well, you're avoiding my questions as usual, so let's add another one to the list of unanswered arguments: if you're willing to actually join the British imperial army to supposedly fight fascism, why would you not be willing to join Hamas in their fight against Zionist imperialism?

I don't think Hamas's tactics will ever defeat Zionist imperialism, whereas it was clear that world war 2 would be won with guns on the battlefield.

[Invader Zim]

Let me start by remarking that this topic is a rather odd tangent for this thread to have gone down. But onto the major point, I don't think anyone can, from their computer chair, proclaim to know how they would have responded to the war. When the nazi armies were poised to invade Britain in 1940, and the brutality of the regime in 1938, had been well broadcast how do you know that you would not have signed upto join the armed forces or not overly objected to conscription?

[Pogue]

Actually I'll build on that.

If I was a class conciouss Palestinian worker who was suffering from Israeli aggresion, i.e. they were sending soldiers physically into my village to shoot me and my friends, and Hamas had guns, I'd take their guns and any training but I wouldn't participate in their rocket firing , strike breaking, preaching, etc. As a purely defensive act, if someone offered me help I'd take it. I'd also recognise that right after Israel was defeated I'd go about defeating Hamas too.

This was my general line on Palestine. I can understand why Palestinians rally behind Hamas and some of them fight for them, but I don't support Hamas. I support the Palestinian people in their struggle and self-defence against Zionist aggresion but thats not tantamount to supporting the ideology of the main group opposing Israel. I think theres a difference. Hamas would be those people conciously with their radical Islamist ideology who want to become the new rulers and implement their policies. People who just want to be defended are people who want to be defended.

Similarly with WW2 if the British Army had the guns, I'd accept them. I'd fight the Nazis. But I wouldn't support the British Empire or state, I'd just use their guns in my own personal interests of fighting fascism. Same with Hamas. If they offered me a gun I'd take it and if it happened to be a bunch of Hamas militants defending my town with me so be it, but I wouldn't be supportive of Hama's ideology, and I'd certainly keep hold of that weapon because I'd recognise, both in the case of Hamas and the British Army, after the conflict with the 'greater enemy' I'd need to fight against Hamas and the British state respectively. I believe the French Communist Party had similar line to any areas of the population who gained weapons to fight the Nazis with - that they should hold onto those weapons and launch a revolution as the Nazis were kicked out of the country.

I think there is a very clear difference between Hamas and the palestinian people, just as there was a difference in WW2 between the British state/Army and soldiers in the army and the people in the state. Thats why I think you could be part of a group for personal reasons and use whatever they gave you but not support that organisation.

[Pogue]

Let me start by remarking that this topic is a rather odd tangent for this thread to have gone down. But onto the major point, I don't think anyone can, from their computer chair, proclaim to know how they would have responded to the war. When the nazi armies were poised to invade Britain in 1940, and the brutality of the regime in 1938, had been well broadcast how do you know that you would not have signed upto join the armed forces or not overly objected to conscription?

I'd say from experience and the way my mind works that I wouldn't have been too cowardly to go to that war, especially as so many other people were going as well.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Let me start by remarking that this topic is a rather odd tangent for this thread to have gone down. But onto the major point, I don't think anyone can, from their computer chair, proclaim to know how they would have responded to the war. When the nazi armies were poised to invade Britain in 1940, and the brutality of the regime in 1938, had been well broadcast how do you know that you would not have signed upto join the armed forces or not overly objected to conscription?

I cannot believe this post.

Thank you invader zim for letting us see again the true colours of all you brave fighters against evil Irish "nationalism".

What about the brutality of the British Empire which had also been well broadcast? The British Empire lasted longer and was just as if not worse due to its chilling coldness as compared to the Nazi's romantic intoxication. And yes of course Hitler was evil.

But what about the 6-7 million Bengalis deliberately starved to death by Churchill?

Starvation to cull the native population was also a tool you used very effectively in Ireland....

And you dare come out with such as post as if Hitler was oh so evil compared with the British Empire?

Tiocfaidh ar la!

http://www.daily.pk/world/europe/9214-churchills-crimes-from-indian-holocaust-to-palestinian-genocide.html

[Pogue]

I cannot believe this post.

Thank you invader zim for letting us see again the true colours of all you brave fighters against evil Irish "nationalism".

What about the brutality of the British Empire which had also been well broadcast? The British Empire lasted longer and was just as if not worse due to its chilling coldness as compared to the Nazi's romantic intoxication. And yes of course Hitler was evil.

But what about the 6-7 million Bengalis deliberately starved to death by Churchill?

Starvation to cull the native population was also a tool you used very effectively in Ireland....

And you dare come out with such as post as if Hitler was oh so evil compared with the British Empire?

Tiocfaidh ar la!

http://www.daily.pk/world/europe/9214-churchills-crimes-from-indian-holocaust-to-palestinian-genocide.html

Emphasis mine. Why do we keep seeing the republican socialists on the board stressing that it is 'our' British state?

And I think you misunderstand what Zim was saying anyway, and at whom it was directed.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Emphasis mine. Why do we keep seeing the republican socialists on the board stressing that it is 'our' British state?

And I think you misunderstand what Zim was saying anyway, and at whom it was directed.

I think I understood all to well. The British Empire was civilized compared to Nazi Germany. The British even if they are capitalists are always so civilized basically..All part of being British? After all we have seen how some British leftists believe that the "Toms" who at this moment are terrorizing and torturing people in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically "aul right fellas"....

Maybe if the Republican Socialists didnt see your repeating of BBC/RTE propaganda and instead saw you trying to show geniune working class solidarity to proletarian miltants resisting the State in occupied Ireland they wouldnt stress such things? Just maybe?

[Pogue]

I think I understood all to well. The British Empire was civilized compared to Nazi Germany. The British even if they are capitalists are always so civilized basically..All part of being British? After all we have seen how some British leftists believe that the "Toms" who at this moment are terrorizing and torturing people in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically "aul right fellas"....

Maybe if the Republican Socialists didnt see your repeating of BBC/RTE propaganda and instead saw you trying to show geniune working class solidarity to proletarian miltants resisting the State in occupied Ireland they wouldnt stress such things? Just maybe?

I haven't the slighest idea what you're talking about. I can't work out what your points are in amongst that pile of xenophobic ramblings. Grow up.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I haven't the slighest idea what you're talking about. I can't work out what your points are in amongst that pile of xenophobic ramblings. Grow up.

I really cannot believe this....You and the well named INVADER vim for all appearances speak of British Imperialism with its much bloodier track record over all (and im not saying the Nazies were not barbaric) as being so much worse than German Imperialism...And than you turn around and call me xenophobic?

[Yehuda Stern]

As a purely defensive act, if someone offered me help I'd take it. I'd also recognise that right after Israel was defeated I'd go about defeating Hamas too.

This was my general line on Palestine.That's a lie. Your line on Palestine was that revolutionaries under no circumstances can fight alongside Hamas. If you have changed it since, then that's good - it's so rare to see an honest change of opinion in left circles. However, this still leaves the former question: before the destruction of Jews, would you have joined the Nazi war against European countries to stop the murder of colonial peoples in India, Ireland, etc.?

[Andropov]

I haven't the slighest idea what you're talking about. I can't work out what your points are in amongst that pile of xenophobic ramblings. Grow up.

What a poor response.
This ladies and gentlemen is the debating equivilant of running away.

[Pogue]

What a poor response.
This ladies and gentlemen is the debating equivilant of running away.

And I suppose what he did was the debating equivalent of speaking in tongues because I honestly don't get what he is talking about.

[Yehuda Stern]

And I suppose what he did was the debating equivalent of speaking in tongues because I honestly don't get what he is talking about.

No, what he did was the debating equivalent of saying something you can't think of a real reply to. Much like what I did twice already. To which you responded as well with the "debating equivilant of running away."

[Pogue]

That's a lie. Your line on Palestine was that revolutionaries under no circumstances can fight alongside Hamas. If you have changed it since, then that's good - it's so rare to see an honest change of opinion in left circles. However, this still leaves the former question: before the destruction of Jews, would you have joined the Nazi war against European countries to stop the murder of colonial peoples in India, Ireland, etc.?

I'm coming from the perspective of accepting weapons from them and fighting to defend yourself and your community. If they happen to be shooting the same way who gives a fuck. I'm saying I'd accept weapons from them but I wouldn't support them, I'd let them support me in a combat situation if they so wished.

Same with the British Army. I'd take the gun and the training but I wouldn't be supportive of British imperialism or the British state. I'd just be using this opputunity to do my bit in fighting nazism.

[Pogue]

I think I understood all to well. The British Empire was civilized compared to Nazi Germany. The British even if they are capitalists are always so civilized basically..All part of being British? After all we have seen how some British leftists believe that the "Toms" who at this moment are terrorizing and torturing people in Iraq and Afghanistan are basically "aul right fellas"....

Maybe if the Republican Socialists didnt see your repeating of BBC/RTE propaganda and instead saw you trying to show geniune working class solidarity to proletarian miltants resisting the State in occupied Ireland they wouldnt stress such things? Just maybe?

I didn't say it was civilized compared to Nazi Germany.

I didn't say British capitalists are civilised.

I mentioned nothing about being 'British'.

I never said I think those terrorizing and torturing people in Iraq and Afghasniatn are...whatever it is you've typed. Is it meant to be some xenophobic slur about how people talk over here?

I wont give my solidarity to people who carry out futile attacks that usually end up killing or injuring innocent civilians alongside the occupying army.

You're bitterness at British occupation, which is justified, seems to have turned into mindles xenophobic, which is not so.

[Pogue]

That's a lie. Your line on Palestine was that revolutionaries under no circumstances can fight alongside Hamas. If you have changed it since, then that's good - it's so rare to see an honest change of opinion in left circles. However, this still leaves the former question: before the destruction of Jews, would you have joined the Nazi war against European countries to stop the murder of colonial peoples in India, Ireland, etc.?

I wasn't aware that there was a fascist threat marching to exterminate the German communists and German jews? Thats such an absurd question, which is probably why I ignored it. If you have such a problem with wanting to take up arms against the Nazi threat, thats your call. I wouldn't sit by and let Hitler rampage towards me though. You don't seem to have such a problem with the killing of innocents though, as long as its done by an 'anti-imperialist force' such as Hamas.

The opposition to my line on resisting Nazism is probably striking such a cord with our resident republicans on the board because they're upset I'd want to fight against the very people their leaders were making shady backroom deals with to try and infiltrate and weaken Britain...As Devrim said, what do you expect from people who put the love of a nation before working class politics, anyway.

[Andropov]

I wont give my solidarity to people who carry out futile attacks that usually end up killing or injuring innocent civilians alongside the occupying army.


But you will join the British Army to fight Nazism who has a clean record with regards civilian casualties?

[Andropov]

No, what he did was the debating equivalent of saying something you can't think of a real reply to. Much like what I did twice already. To which you responded as well with the "debating equivilant of running away."

What?

[Pogue]

But you will join the British Army to fight Nazism who has a clean record with regards civilian casualties?

As I said, I wouldn't be joining to be so brave as to set off a car bomb or something somewhere. I'd join because it'd give me a gun with which I could go do my part to defeat the threat of nazism.

[Andropov]

As I said, I wouldn't be joining to be so brave as to set off a car bomb or something somewhere. I'd join because it'd give me a gun with which I could go do my part to defeat the threat of nazism.

I may be wrong here, but I think the Brits may have let off a few more bombs than any Republican Armys? :confused:

[Pogue]

I may be wrong here, but I think the Brits may have let off a few more bombs than any Republican Armys? :confused:

I wouldn't serve in Ireland. As I said, I'd join to fight the Nazis.

[Pogue]

And I'd be less ashamed of being in the British Army than being in an organisation openly courting the Nazis such as the IRA.

[Andropov]

I wouldn't serve in Ireland. As I said, I'd join to fight the Nazis.

I may be mistaken again, but is Dresden not in Germany? :confused:

[Andropov]

And I'd be less ashamed of being in the British Army than being in an organisation openly courting the Nazis such as the IRA.

Im very confused yet again, was it the IRA who helped the NAZI's carve up the Sudetenland and Czechoslavakia?

[Pogue]

I still want to ask my own question now: Would Yehuda, Red Republican et al suggest we just sit at home and wait for our annihilation?

[JimmyJazz]

The question you should ask yourself when asking me all that is, before 1941, before the extermination of Jews began, would you join the Nazi Army fighting Allied imperialism to prevent it from murdering colonial peoples?

Well, you certainly make the point concisely. In moral terms, I certainly agree that British and German imperialism were equivalent, and were powered by very similar ideas about racial superiority over their victims.

But what about the difference: namely that the victims of British colonialism were not attacking England (hence simply not fighting them was an option for English radicals) whereas the Nazis were attacking England (hence simply not fighting them would seem bound to lead to a Nazi occupation)?

[PoWR]

Communists seek to turn inter imperialist wars into civil wars.

The Paris Commune came out of the defeat of France in war. The October Revolution came out of the defeat of Russian in war.

[Cumannach]

British and Nazi imperialism were not equivalent. The British had no gas chambers (starvation was their thing). The Nazis had industrial human slaughter factories, and starvation and everything the British had as well.

It's not inconcievable that the Nazis would have went into South Africa, simply exterminated every black person in it, and settled a blonde aryan population, maybe supplemented with slavic slave labour.

The Second World War was not just an inter-imperialist war, it was also an anti-Communist war, against the socialist Soviet Union. All communists are obliged to fight in an anti-communist war.

[Pogue]

As I said my motivations for fighting would have been self-defence against a fascist movement which was attacking communists, gay people, jews etc as it went. I think I would pretty much have been one of their main targets, and so I would have wanted to be armed and doing my bit inr esisting the threat. I don't care what organ I do that in. I would have loved to fought in an revolutionary proletarian army but as Devrim noted such a thing didn't exist, so I would have, as I said got my gun from the British Army and gone off and fought the fasciat armies. The position that this is tantamount to supporting imperialism is ridiculous, and we know many soldiers would have been anti-imperialist. There were communists fighting on the allied side in that war in that army. You fight for yourself and the interests of your movement, and fascism threatened and tried to destroy the communist movement. I'd thus see it as neccesary to try and resist it by the means available to me.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I still want to ask my own question now: Would Yehuda, Red Republican et al suggest we just sit at home and wait for our annihilation?

Would you suggest that the "nationalist" population in the north just sat at home and be annihilated and terrorized by the British state and its fascist mobs?

[Pogue]

Would you suggest that the "nationalist" population in the north just sat at home and be annihilated and terrorized by the British state and its fascist mobs?

I'd say their entitled to self defence, just as people in Britain would be against the Nazis. Self defence does not involve killing civilians, but fighting the combatants. Something the republicans weren't too hot on respecting. Same with the British, neither side seemd to respect this.

[Pogue]

Same with how the Palestinians are entitled to self-defence. But Hamas are not entitled to dominate and dupe the working class of Palestine with their reactionary ideology.

[Invader Zim]

Dear me, my post certainly seems to have stirred the hornets nest.



Thank you invader zim for letting us see again the true colours of all you brave fighters against evil Irish "nationalism".You are confused, I haven't 'faught' against 'Irish nationalism'. I haven't 'faught' against anything. Thus far, my existance has been entirely 'fight free' and I intend, for the forseeable future, to keep it that way.



What about the brutality of the British Empire which had also been well broadcast?Well, actually they hadn't at least not in 1940; unlike the 1938 pogrom which was widely reported at the time.


But what about the 6-7 million Bengalis deliberately starved to death by Churchill?And who, in Britain in 1940, knew about that? The concentration camps set up during the Boer war weren't widely known either. And what has this got to do with my point? Where did I compare the less than savoury history of the British empire with the Nazi regime? In fact, what has your barely coherent babble got to do with anything I actually wrote?



Starvation to cull the native population was also a tool you used very effectively in Ireland....I wasn't alive in the 1840s, and I lack the energy to bother discussing the Irish famine with an apoplectic nationalist with a major problem with the British, be they living or historical.



And you dare come out with such as post as if Hitler was oh so evil compared with the British Empire?As I said early, you are confused I didn't compare the Nazi's with the British empire. I stated that given the alien circumstances of 1940 it is difficult to know what people today, on this board, would have done had they been of service age in 1940. What has that got to do with the Irish famine, the middle passage, the opium war's or any other event in British history?

[Vargha Poralli]

Today is the 90th Anniversary of the massacre of unarmed Indian protestors in India.

Following the disasterous First World War in which the ruling classes of the world sent the working class to kill each other in the name of imperialist aggresion and advancement of the ruling class's interest, the conditions in India were poor.

1.3 million Indians served on the side of the Allied powers as labourers and soldiers and we all know the scale of casulties in this awful war. Post-war, there were ridiculously high levels of taxation in India, combined with an influenza epidemic and poverty as a result of the disruption of lfie brought about by the war. As a result, anti-Colonial feeling grew high.

This protest was during a popular festival taking place in the area. The political climate of the time combined with the number of people in the area who had paid for the trip to the region meant the attendance to the protest was high. The British Army issued a ban of public assembly for the period, but many Indians had already made the long and expensive journey to the area and so were not willing to simply be told they couldn't gather. I think we can assume popular resentment to British rule in general would also have meant that many people simply didn't want to be told what to do any longer, especially as they'd made the journey. Some simply would not have known they were being told their basic human right to mingle with other humans was being withdrawn. Naturally, the army could still assemble as a group of occupying soldiers supporting an incompetent regime with weapons too.

The crowds gathered in the Jallianwala Gardens. A group of 90 soldiers of the Army of India (made up of the Indian Army, soldiers recruited by the British Raj with India to fight for the imperialists, and also the British Army proper in India) arrived, and despite a complete lack of provocation, opened fire on the crowd.

As a result, hundreds, some would say thousands ('official' statistics, 379, some say as many as 2000) died in the ensuing chaos. Hundreds of bodies had to be taken from the well in the middle of the square from people who dived in there to avoid the bullets. The British Army soldiers returned to barracks and boasted of having fought a 'revolutionary army'.

I think we should remember this and hold it up as evidence of the crimes of capitalist, statist imperialist aggresion and the clear message that the British state's involvement in India was drenched in the blood of innocent Indians, as is the current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have met with resentment in the occupied nations and worldwide and have sent the working class to kill other members of the working class in the name of 'nationalism'. Remember this was during the same period in Britain where strikes were being crushed and poverty amongst the working class was killing hundreds by the day, yet the ruling class had time to kill innocent Indians too.

I think we must also remember how the lack of a coherent revolutionary, internationalist class based movement to overthrow the British led to the creation of the new ruling class and the new poverty we see in India today, when there was revolutionary potential in a country suffering from the worst excesses of capitalism, which to this day is suffering still from this harsh economic system and ruling class ideology, just under a different flag.

I would have really thanked this entire post but this little bit stopped me doing it....


I think we must also remember how the lack of a coherent revolutionary, internationalist class based movement to overthrow the British led to the creation of the new ruling class and the new poverty we see in India today,

In which you have just repeated your ignorance that you usually show when you discuss anything related with any liberation movements in various places.

This incident is the one which actually strengthened the freedom movement in India.


I think we must also remember how the lack of a coherent revolutionary, internationalist class based movement to overthrow the British

This proves yet another ignorance. The Indian independence movement may not be a class based internationalist movement but definitely a revolutionary movement. It united the various nationalities(More then 6 religions,600 Languages and various castes) of the Indian Subcontinent to one single goal which is to end the British domination of India.

Of course it had many shortcomings but writing the movement off as non-revolutionary would just reinforce the idea that you are a first world chauvinist who thinks any movement which rises in the former colonies and thrid world must only be counter revolutionary as the people are not ready for socialism.

Please take this as a constructive criticism of your view point. Other than the last paragraph this post was good when compared to your other posts in the thread.

[Pogue]

Why, it clearly wasn't internationalist or class based? It wasn't about working class liberation, it was about national liberation. It wasn't revolutionary, because it didn't overthrow an economic system, just replaced who was at the top of it. It wasn't internationalist because it only focused on India. Which is why we still have poverty and capitalism in India today.

I personally find the term first world chauvinist something of an slur used on this forum for anyone who is from 'the west' and would prefer you stopped using it. I'd question why you seem to think anyone who is from western Europe who disagrees with you on an issue of national liberation is immediately a 'chauvinist', and I'd suggest you need to get rid of your own predjudices before accusing me of having my own.

It was 'revolutionary' in the sense that it was amazing and huge and hadn't been done before but it wasn't 'a revolution'.

Thanks for the feedback though!

[Andropov]

I'd say their entitled to self defence, just as people in Britain would be against the Nazis. Self defence does not involve killing civilians, but fighting the combatants. Something the republicans weren't too hot on respecting. Same with the British, neither side seemd to respect this.

You boggle the mind.
You berate Republicans for killing civilians, where have I ever condoned this?
At least Republicans phoned in warnings before bombing commercial targets.
Where were the warnings for the massacre of Dresden?
I know that of course you do not support the carpet bombing of dreden but it sickens me when you attempt to slander me and other Republicans for the civilains deaths that tragically occured in our National Liberation war but yet defend your right to attack NAZI genocide which does have collateral civilian damage also.
The sheer and utter hypocricy is just astounding.

[Andropov]

And who, in Britain in 1940, knew about that? The concentration camps set up during the Boer war weren't widely known either. And what has this got to do with my point? Where did I compare the less than savoury history of the British empire with the Nazi regime? In fact, what has your barely coherent babble got to do with anything I actually wrote?


Invader the same arguements could be used for the NAZI concentration camps.
There is a reason they were built in the likes od Dachau and Aushwitz, away from the public eye.
They attempted to keep it secret from the public and the vast majority of the world was not aware of the extent of NAZI genocide until these camps were uncovered by Allied troops.
IMO when WW2 started the Fascists were just another form of jingoism that the British Empire cultivated so well for centuries.
This from the information at the disposal of the average citizen, which I presume is the angle your coming from.

[Andropov]

I
This proves yet another ignorance. The Indian independence movement may not be a class based internationalist movement but definitely a revolutionary movement. It united the various nationalities(More then 6 religions,600 Languages and various castes) of the Indian Subcontinent to one single goal which is to end the British domination of India.

Of course it had many shortcomings but writing the movement off as non-revolutionary would just reinforce the idea that you are a first world chauvinist who thinks any movement which rises in the former colonies and thrid world must only be counter revolutionary as the people are not ready for socialism.

Please take this as a constructive criticism of your view point. Other than the last paragraph this post was good when compared to your other posts in the thread.

Absolutely spot on.

[Pogue]

You boggle the mind.
You berate Republicans for killing civilians, where have I ever condoned this?
At least Republicans phoned in warnings before bombing commercial targets.
Where were the warnings for the massacre of Dresden?
I know that of course you do not support the carpet bombing of dreden but it sickens me when you attempt to slander me and other Republicans for the civilains deaths that tragically occured in our National Liberation war but yet defend your right to attack NAZI genocide which does have collateral civilian damage also.
The sheer and utter hypocricy is just astounding.

Difference is I wouldn't shoot civilians. Like I said I'm not defending the British Army. As far as I'd be concerned I'd be an individual with a gun fighting the Nazis.

[Pogue]

Absolutely spot on.

Well heres our difference. You support any struggle if it calls itself nationa liberation, I support the emancipation of the working class, something this struggle (Indian independence) didn't do, and wouldn't do, because it united the Indian bourgeoisie with the Indian proleatariat along national lines when really they have nothing in common.

[Andropov]

Difference is I wouldn't shoot civilians. Like I said I'm not defending the British Army. As far as I'd be concerned I'd be an individual with a gun fighting the Nazis.

So your saying I would shoot, or condone shooting civlians?
WTF? :confused:

[Andropov]

Well heres our difference. You support any struggle if it calls itself nationa liberation,
Dont tell me what I do and dont support.


I support the emancipation of the working class,
And I dont?


something this struggle (Indian independence) didn't do, and wouldn't do, because it united the Indian bourgeoisie with the Indian proleatariat along national lines when really they have nothing in common.
You are incapable of grasping the fundamentals of National Liberation.
Removing British Imperialism in India is progressive and should be supported by all Leftists.
Now that British Imperialism has been removed from India the Indian working class may be able to unite to over throw domestic Bourgeoisie.
If the British were not removed they would constantly be a reactionary force which would squash any working class mobilisation, using the gun, torch and hunger to cripple the people.

[Pogue]

So your saying I would shoot, or condone shooting civlians?
WTF? :confused:

During WW2 where conscription is in place there were thousands of soldiers in the British Army. Some might not have wanted to be there, some might have wanted too for various reasons (anti-fascism, personal reasons, because everyone they knew was, etc). What I'm saying is that in that army, its not as if all the soldiers who were in the BA were supporters of British Imperialism. We know many communists joined up, for example. So if I was in that army I'd be in because I wanted to fight fascism, not kill civilians or spread or protect the empire. Same with many others in that army. So as an individual, yes, I'd be considered part of the BA, but as far as I'm concerned I'd judge my actions according to what I did. So afterwards I wouldn't be all like 'Shit, I was in an murderous imperialist institution which killed civilians, I am somehow supportive of that', I'd think 'I was in Column 53 who fought in the liberation of France. I served for 6 years and did my bit in defeating Hitler and stopping him taking over Europe and the world. Now I'm going to go back into left wing politics and fight the state and capitalism.

I'd only be guilty of fighting for imperialism or killing civilians if I actually did one of those things. But I wouldn't.

[Andropov]

During WW2 where conscription is in place there were thousands of soldiers in the British Army. Some might not have wanted to be there, some might have wanted too for various reasons (anti-fascism, personal reasons, because everyone they knew was, etc). What I'm saying is that in that army, its not as if all the soldiers who were in the BA were supporters of British Imperialism. We know many communists joined up, for example. So if I was in that army I'd be in because I wanted to fight fascism, not kill civilians or spread or protect the empire. Same with many others in that army. So as an individual, yes, I'd be considered part of the BA, but as far as I'm concerned I'd judge my actions according to what I did. So afterwards I wouldn't be all like 'Shit, I was in an murderous imperialist institution which killed civilians, I am somehow supportive of that', I'd think 'I was in Column 53 who fought in the liberation of France. I served for 6 years and did my bit in defeating Hitler and stopping him taking over Europe and the world. Now I'm going to go back into left wing politics and fight the state and capitalism.

I'd only be guilty of fighting for imperialism or killing civilians if I actually did one of those things. But I wouldn't.

What a steaming pile of horseshit.
Absolute and utter crap, sometimes I actually think you are taking the piss.
Now could you actually answer my question.

[Pogue]

What a steaming pile of horseshit.
Absolute and utter crap, sometimes I actually think you are taking the piss.
Now could you actually answer my question.

This ladies and gentleman, is the debating equivalent of running away.

Constantly on this forum I get accused of dodging questions, but usually the tactic I get used against me is my opponents asking a question somewhere or other, disliking my answer, and then just spamming.

Answer my question. Your not doing it. You can't. Anwwer my quesiton. Now answer my question.

I'm not going to focus on one trivial question you have, I'm going to coutner all yuor points in an argument. Stop thinking your so important that I am obliged to answer every single individual question you pose. Don't you realise in a debat esometimes people give answers you don't like?

[Andropov]

This ladies and gentleman, is the debating equivalent of running away.
Ok ill address that steaming pile of horseshit.
That exact argument could be used for the SS or the German Army, so it is irrelevant and a really quite a poor arguement, even for you.


Constantly on this forum I get accused of dodging questions,
Yes because you do.
Answer my question I posed to you, its a simple yes or no answer, even you can manage that.


but usually the tactic I get used against me is my opponents asking a question somewhere or other, disliking my answer, and then just spamming.
Sweet baby jesus wept, yes it is a big conspiracy from your opponents.
Its not that you are a hypocrit and contradict yourself constantly, always tripping over yourself, while still not having the common decency to answer the questions posed to you.


Answer my question. Your not doing it. You can't. Anwwer my quesiton. Now answer my question.
What jem of a question is that dear?


I'm not going to focus on one trivial question you have,
Case and point.


I'm going to coutner all yuor points in an argument.
Its nice to see you have maintained your sense of humour throughout this.


Stop thinking your so important that I am obliged to answer every single individual question you pose.
Exhibit number two ladies and gentlemen.


Don't you realise in a debat esometimes people give answers you don't like?
Wow, what a ground breaking thinker you are.
You should get these theories down on paper.

[Pogue]

Witty, original, but substanceless I'm afraid.

If someone joined the SS and German Army they'd be fighting in a case of expansionism with the goal of eliminating all opposition to Nazism and the extermination of all 'non-Aryans', and so clearly this is not the same. If someone joined the german Army or SS and took the training and weapons and used it against the Nazis though, all power to them. I'm sure there may have been some anti-Nazi infiltrators somewhere in there.

Do you rarely make arguments beyond venomoous insults? And what is it with our republican comrades on this board and using words like 'dear' and 'love' in discussions on an internet disucssion board? Are you starved of real world emotional fulfillment?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I'd say their entitled to self defence, just as people in Britain would be against the Nazis. Self defence does not involve killing civilians, but fighting the combatants. Something the republicans weren't too hot on respecting. Same with the British, neither side seemd to respect this.

Compared to the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war the Irish Republican movement were extremely restrained and much more hot on respecting civilian status...Infact the IRA and INLA were extremely restrained given the circumstances...

[Andropov]

If someone joined the SS and German Army they'd be fighting in a case of expansionism with the goal of eliminating all opposition to Nazism and the extermination of all 'non-Aryans', and so clearly this is not the same.

Not necessarily.
Alot of Germans simply joined to defend their homeleand in the latter stages of the war.
Also the NAZI's didnt want to exterminate all Non-Aryans, they wanted to enslave alot of them, kind of like what the British Empire and her Military had done for centuries.


Do you rarely make arguments beyond venomoous insults? And what is it with our republican comrades on this board and using words like 'dear' and 'love' in discussions on an internet disucssion board? Are you starved of real world emotional fulfillment?
Funny stuff....... now can you answer my questions or are you going to duck and dive again until you finally run away?

[Pogue]

Compared to the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war the Irish Republican movement were extremely restrained and much more hot on respecting civilian status...Infact the IRA and INLA were extremely restrained given the circumstances...

Lie to yourself all you want, I've heard that shit before.

[Pogue]

Not necessarily.
Alot of Germans simply joined to defend their homeleand in the latter stages of the war.
Also the NAZI's didnt want to exterminate all Non-Aryans, they wanted to enslave alot of them, kind of like what the British Empire and her Military had done for centuries.


Funny stuff....... now can you answer my questions or are you going to duck and dive again until you finally run away?

Theres defending yourself phyiscally and directly, like Jewish partisans and anyone who was in a country being attacked by Hitler, and 'defending' some abstract notion of national sovereignty. The former is what I'd have done, the latter is that favoured by nationalists such as the CIRA today and anyone who joined the Nazis in WW2.

Yeh the British Emprie was brutal. I refer you to the OP in this thread where I outlined that. British imperialism is brutal today too, which is why I'm active in opposing that too, as best I can as one invididual.

I'm not running anywhere my friend, what question is it you want me answering, I've lost it I'ma fraid as I often do when you lot, in your oh so boring and crafty argumentative style, throw in a quick question somewhere then claim victory when I don't answer it the way you like.

[Andropov]

Theres defending yourself phyiscally and directly, like Jewish partisans and anyone who was in a country being attacked by Hitler, and 'defending' some abstract notion of national sovereignty.
So why defend the British Empire?
The NAZI's didnt intend on exterminating the British.
Infact the NAZI's didnt even intend on invading Britain because they were oh so accomodating to them.
Worst case scenario is that Britain would be occupied and enslaved.


The former is what I'd have done, the latter is that favoured by nationalists such as the CIRA today and anyone who joined the Nazis in WW2
So why join a Military that helped carve the Sudetenland up and give Czechoslavakia on a platter to the NAZI's?


Yeh the British Emprie was brutal. I refer you to the OP in this thread where I outlined that. British imperialism is brutal today too, which is why I'm active in opposing that too, as best I can as one invididual.
Finally, something we can agree on.


I'm not running anywhere my friend, what question is it you want me answering, I've lost it I'ma fraid as I often do when you lot, in your oh so boring and crafty argumentative style, throw in a quick question somewhere then claim victory when I don't answer it the way you like.
Well thats just plain absurd, you refered to the question numerous times and stated that you were not going to answer it.
I hardly "threw it in", and best of all I can start quoting your responses to my question just to show how much of a lying worming hypocrit you really are.

My question was this, as you well know.

So your saying I would shoot, or condone shooting civlians?
WTF? :confused:
This was where you were insinuating that the difference between joining the British Army and joining a Republican Army is that Republicans would condone shooting civilians.

[Pogue]

So why defend the British Empire?
The NAZI's didnt intend on exterminating the British.
Infact the NAZI's didnt even intend on invading Britain because they were oh so accomodating to them.
Worst case scenario is that Britain would be occupied and enslaved.


And I wouldn't have wanted to be occupied and enslaved.


So why join a Military that helped carve the Sudetenland up and give Czechoslavakia on a platter to the NAZI's?

Because it'd give me a gun and put me on the front line. There was no other way I could have resisted the Nazis.


Finally, something we can agree on.

I've never denied this, but the hysteria of our resident 'anti-imperialists' and their holier than thou attitudes combined with purism and bitterness usually leads to ridiculous claims such as those by our dear friend Yehuda Stern.


This was where you were insinuating that the difference between joining the British Army and joining a Republican Army is that Republicans would condone shooting civilians.

Thanks for clearing this up. I don't really know you so I don't know whether you'd kill civilians.

[Andropov]

And I wouldn't have wanted to be occupied and enslaved.

Check and mate.
But when the Irish or Indians are enslaved and occupied it is reactionary and bourgeoisie to resist them?
Finally, your hypocricy on National Liberation exposed for all to see.


Because it'd give me a gun and put me on the front line. There was no other way I could have resisted the Nazis.
You could have joined the Partizans or the Red Army.


Thanks for clearing this up. I don't really know you so I don't know whether you'd kill civilians.
Why would you even think that I would kill civilians?
Why does that need clearing up?

[Pogue]

Check and mate.
But when the Irish or Indians are enslaved and occupied it is reactionary and bourgeoisie to resist them?
Finally, your hypocricy on National Liberation exposed for all to see.



I never said that, actually. I said national liberation is against the class interests of the working class because it doesn't liberate them, just creates new leaders. You can't win an argument just by saying 'check and mate'. Does that work for you in real life too?


You could have joined the Partizans or the Red Army.

Because its incredibly realistic I could have got past Nazi occupied territory on my own without speaking any language other than English and signed up with the Red Army or partisans. I'd have loved too, but I would have been caught or killed in the process. Get real, please. Anyway, what made the Red Army any better than the British Army?


Why would you even think that I would kill civilians?
Why does that need clearing up?

Your the one who whinged at me to answer the question.

[Andropov]

I never said that, actually. I said national liberation is against the class interests of the working class because it doesn't liberate them, just creates new leaders. You can't win an argument just by saying 'check and mate'. Does that work for you in real life too?
So fighting in an imperialist army against another imperiliast powers aggression is also against the class interests of the working class because it is simply maintaining the the leaders already there?


Because its incredibly realistic I could have got past Nazi occupied territory on my own without speaking any language other than English and signed up with the Red Army or partisans. I'd have loved too, but I would have been caught or killed in the process.
Ohh please, thousands managed to join the International Brigades, and learning a new language is hardly out of this world.


Get real, please. Anyway, what made the Red Army any better than the British Army?
The fact that the Red Army were defending Socialism and the Soviet Workers State? While the British Army were simply defending their Empires existance?


Your the one who whinged at me to answer the question.
Now answer my new question, pretty simple.

[Pogue]

So fighting in an imperialist army against another imperiliast powers aggression is also against the class interests of the working class because it is simply maintaining the the leaders already there?


As I've said a hundred times already, its in my personal interests to defend myself against a Nazi dictator who wants to kill or enslave communists. I wouldn't have sat at home waiting for Hitler to destroy me out of fear that some deluded nationalist such as yourself might say I'm 'supporting imperialism'.


Ohh please, thousands managed to join the International Brigades, and learning a new language is hardly out of this world.

So you think it would have been as easy to pass into enemy territory and join a seccret undergorund resistance being repressed by the fascists who were in control int hat country? Get realistic, these were completely different conditions to the International Brigades, the whole of Europe was a war zone. If it was so easy to just get in and out of these countries why didn't everyone just flee from the Nazis? It was impossible.

The partisans rose up to strength later in the war anyway, I'm talking about joining as soon as Hitler began his march across Europe.



The fact that the Red Army were defending Socialism and the Soviet Workers State? While the British Army were simply defending their Empires existance?


There was no socialism in the USSR. Workers didn't control the means of production. Everything was run by Stalin, who was more than happy to join up with Hitler when it suited him. It was not a 'workers state', because the working class were not in control. Everyone except Stalinists recognises this. I'd like to see you justify how it was socialism in the USSR, and consequently how it so easily degenrated into the capitalism it is today. You hold quasi-religious beliefs in regards to the USSR and Stalin. I bet you would have loved to live in the USSR.


Now answer my new question, pretty simple.

No, answer mine. If you were a working class person in Britani when WW2 started up, what would you have done?

[Andropov]

As I've said a hundred times already, its in my personal interests to defend myself against a Nazi dictator who wants to kill or enslave communists. I wouldn't have sat at home waiting for Hitler to destroy me out of fear that some deluded nationalist such as yourself might say I'm 'supporting imperialism'.
But yet those occupied in India and Ireland have no right to remove British Imperialism?
Your contradictions are entertaining.


So you think it would have been as easy to pass into enemy territory and join a seccret undergorund resistance being repressed by the fascists who were in control int hat country? Get realistic, these were completely different conditions to the International Brigades, the whole of Europe was a war zone. If it was so easy to just get in and out of these countries why didn't everyone just flee from the Nazis? It was impossible.
Bullcrap.
It was not impossible to join up with the Red Army, many did it so it was certainly not impossible.


There was no socialism in the USSR. Workers didn't control the means of production.Everything was run by Stalin, who was more than happy to join up with Hitler when it suited him. It was not a 'workers state', because the working class were not in control. Everyone except Stalinists recognises this. I'd like to see you justify how it was socialism in the USSR, and consequently how it so easily degenrated into the capitalism it is today. You hold quasi-religious beliefs in regards to the USSR and Stalin. I bet you would have loved to live in the USSR.
This debate on whether the USSR was Socialist or not is completely off topic.
If you have questions on the USSR then start another thread and I will answer them there, keep this thread on topic.


No, answer mine. If you were a working class person in Britani when WW2 started up, what would you have done?
You are such a child, just answer the quesions, I answer yours that are relevant, stop running away.
I would have joined the Red Army or the Partizans.
Choosing the British Army over the NAZI's, is like asking if you prefer Ted Bundy or Ed Geins.

[Pogue]

But yet those occupied in India and Ireland have no right to remove British Imperialism?
Your contradictions are entertaining.


I think they have the right, certainly, but its not worth it becuase it leads to a new set of rulers. They should abolish capitalism and the state, not just the current leadership. But here is where we disagree - you cling to an nationalistic notion that homegrown ruelrs are better than 'foreign' ones.



Bullcrap.
It was not impossible to join up with the Red Army, many did it so it was certainly not impossible.


If I'd have joined up with the Red Army in 1939 I'd have particpated in the carving up of Poland along with the Nazis, something I would not have wanted to do. You do realise the USSR only opposed the Nazis in 1941?


This debate on whether the USSR was Socialist or not is completely off topic.
If you have questions on the USSR then start another thread and I will answer them there, keep this thread on topic.

Stop bringing the USSR up to try and divert away from your failing argument.


You are such a child, just answer the quesions, I answer yours that are relevant, stop running away.
I would have joined the Red Army or the Partizans.
Choosing the British Army over the NAZI's, is like asking if you prefer Ted Bundy or Ed Geins.

The Red Army worked with the Nazis in 1939 so that would have been out of the quesiton.

I'd have joined the partisans if I could. What partisan group would you have joined in 1939?

[Andropov]

I think they have the right, certainly, but its not worth it becuase it leads to a new set of rulers. They should abolish capitalism and the state, not just the current leadership. But here is where we disagree - you cling to an nationalistic notion that homegrown ruelrs are better than 'foreign' ones.
Dont tell me what I think.
Yet you say that you would rather your own domestic rulers than Germans.
The hypocricy is yet again astounding.



If I'd have joined up with the Red Army in 1939 I'd have particpated in the carving up of Poland along with the Nazis, something I would not have wanted to do. You do realise the USSR only opposed the Nazis in 1941?
And if you joined the British Army you would have participated in carving up Czechoslavakia and all the other monsterous deeds the British Empire carried out.
There is a reason why the USSR made peace with the Devil, because the West was selling out every country they could to appease the NAZI's.
The USSR new it was alone.
You need to understand the context of the situation before you can judge the USSR.


Stop bringing the USSR up to try and divert away from your failing argument.
Look over the posts, you were the one bringing up Soviet economics.
I can quote it if you want, just to highlight your hypocricy.


The Red Army worked with the Nazis in 1939 so that would have been out of the quesiton.
The Red Army bought itself time for the war.
Your failure to grasp the context of the situation shows a total lack of understanding.


I'd have joined the partisans if I could. What partisan group would you have joined in 1939?
I wouldnt have joined a Partisan group, I would have joined the Red Army.

[Pogue]

Dont tell me what I think.
Yet you say that you would rather your own domestic rulers than Germans.
The hypocricy is yet again astounding.


Nope, its just that my domestic rulers weren't trying to kill me, but Hitler was. I have priorities.



And if you joined the British Army you would have participated in carving up Czechoslavakia and all the other monsterous deeds the British Empire carried out.
There is a reason why the USSR made peace with the Devil, because the West was selling out every country they could to appease the NAZI's.
The USSR new it was alone.
You need to understand the context of the situation before you can judge the USSR.


Basically your naitonalistic line is 'If another country does it, its unjustified imperialism, if the USSR does it, it's intelligent neccesity'. The blindness of nationalism :rolleyes:


The Red Army bought itself time for the war.
Your failure to grasp the context of the situation shows a total lack of understanding.


And your thick enough to believe soviet propoganda :rolleyes:



I wouldnt have joined a Partisan group, I would have joined the Red Army.


A minute ago you would have joined a partisan group or the Red Army. Is the sudden change because you realised the polish partisans would have been fighting off both the Red Army and the Nazis in the joint invasion of Poland?

[Andropov]

Nope, its just that my domestic rulers weren't trying to kill me, but Hitler was. I have priorities.
British rulers here have constantly brutalised those who speak out against British Imperialism.
So by your logic National Liberation is thoroughly justified in Ireland?


Basically your naitonalistic line is 'If another country does it, its unjustified imperialism, if the USSR does it, it's intelligent neccesity'. The blindness of nationalism :rolleyes:
Im saying that Stalin was consistent in warning the West over Hitler.
He suggested he be crushed before his power gets to great.
How ever he was ignored and sold out by the West and thus was forced to shake hands with the devil.
If Stalin was listened to no country needed to be carved up.


And your thick enough to believe soviet propoganda :rolleyes:
Pathetic.


A minute ago you would have joined a partisan group or the Red Army.
I see the Yugoslav Partizans as completley justified aswell.
How ever my first choice would always be the Red Army, thats it.


Is the sudden change because you realised the polish partisans would have been fighting off both the Red Army and the Nazis in the joint invasion of Poland?
No its not, its how I stated that the Red Army would always be my first preferance.

[Andropov]

Wheres that comment that you deleted?
It was funny.

[Pogue]

British rulers here have constantly brutalised those who speak out against British Imperialism.
So by your logic National Liberation is thoroughly justified in Ireland?


People can do it, but it wont work or benefit the working class.



Im saying that Stalin was consistent in warning the West over Hitler.
He suggested he be crushed before his power gets to great.
How ever he was ignored and sold out by the West and thus was forced to shake hands with the devil.
If Stalin was listened to no country needed to be carved up.


The sad delusions of a desperate Leninist.



Pathetic.


Indded you are.



I see the Yugoslav Partizans as completley justified aswell.
How ever my first choice would always be the Red Army, thats it.



Becuase your an nationalist bigot, hence you republican socialist stance.



No its not, its how I stated that the Red Army would always be my first preferance.


You said partisans or the red army. Being in the red army in 1939 would have meant siding with Hitler against the Polish people and partisans.

[Pogue]

Wheres that comment that you deleted?
It was funny.

I'd join the partisans if I could. It would be a very difficult thing to do.

[Andropov]

People can do it, but it wont work or benefit the working class.
But yet you would side with the British Army?
Even though it wont work or benefit the working class, from your logic?


The sad delusions of a desperate Leninist.
Grasping at straws now.


Indded you are.
Ohh dear it gets worse.


Becuase your an nationalist bigot, hence you republican socialist stance.
Is this capitulation you resigning the arguement?
Or can you enlighten me on how im a Nationalist bigot.
I wont be holding my breadth for your answer since you do enjoy running away from a debate.


You said partisans or the red army. Being in the red army in 1939 would have meant siding with Hitler against the Polish people and partisans.
With referance to the Yugoslav Partizans.
But if i did indeed fight with the Polish Partizans, I would have fought alongside the Red Army.

[Andropov]

I'd join the partisans if I could. It would be a very difficult thing to do.
Why dont you post up that comment again for all to see, so we can all enjoy it.

[Pogue]

But yet you would side with the British Army?
Even though it wont work or benefit the working class, from your logic?


No, I'd accept a gun and training from them. Who knows, maybe once I was shipped off to France I could have gone and joined the partisans?


Is this capitulation you resigning the arguement?
Or can you enlighten me on how im a Nationalist bigot.
I wont be holding my breadth for your answer since you do enjoy running away from a debate.

Blind support of the USSR and the belief that Irish bosses are better than British ones.


With referance to the Yugoslav Partizans.
But if i did indeed fight with the Polish Partizans, I would have fought alongside the Red Army.

Not in 1939.

[Pogue]

Why dont you post up that comment again for all to see, so we can all enjoy it.

It went something like: If I was around in 1939 I probably would have gone to Spain in 36 so would be in Spain around that time, and so yes, I may have been well placed to join a partisan group, come to think of it, if I hadn't been killed by the Stalinist in Catalonia before that, that is.

[Andropov]

No, I'd accept a gun and training from them. Who knows, maybe once I was shipped off to France I could have gone and joined the partisans?
You said not so long ago that you would fight for the British Army.
Do you want me to quote it or are you retracting that statement?


Blind support of the USSR
Putting the USSR in context, in the real world, not in your dogmatic books is not blind support, if anything it is opening my eyes to the reality of the world that existed then.


and the belief that Irish bosses are better than British ones.
Oo oh, congradualtions, here is your post of the day HLVS, and you have had quite a day indeed.
So opposing foreign imeprialism is bigoted?
I suppose those Iraqi's. Afghani's etc are also raging bigots for not accpeting their British masters.
You are quite the lad, im glad you have shown the world your colours.

[Andropov]

It went something like: If I was around in 1939 I probably would have gone to Spain in 36 so would be in Spain around that time, and so yes, I may have been well placed to join a partisan group, come to think of it, if I hadn't been killed by the Stalinist in Catalonia before that, that is.

You are quite the combatant arent you HLVS.
You do realise this isnt World Of Warcraft we are discussing here?

[robbo203]

This proves yet another ignorance. The Indian independence movement may not be a class based internationalist movement but definitely a revolutionary movement. It united the various nationalities(More then 6 religions,600 Languages and various castes) of the Indian Subcontinent to one single goal which is to end the British domination of India.

This use of the word "revolutuionary" which is sloppily applied to any kind of organisation with which one identifies or vaguely supports is most unsatisfactory. I wish people would define what they mean by the term.
Revolution to me means a change from one fundamental socio-economic system to another. The French revolution was truly a revolution inasmuch as it did away with the ancien regime and paved the way for the development of capitalist relations. The Bolshevik revolution was likewise a capitalist revolution that did away with the old order and paved the way to development of state capitalism (as Lenin admitted). But Indian independence? In what sense could it be said to definitely constitute a "revolutionary" movement. How would you justify this claim. I am genuinely curious

[Pogue]

You said not so long ago that you would fight for the British Army.
Do you want me to quote it or are you retracting that statement?


I'd rather join the partisans if that was a possibility. If signign up to the BA got me a gun and transport to the front, and joining the Partisans was impossible, I'd have done that.



Putting the USSR in context, in the real world, not in your dogmatic books is not blind support, if anything it is opening my eyes to the reality of the world that existed then.


Reading a bit of soviet propoganda is far from opening your eyes.



Oo oh, congradualtions, here is your post of the day HLVS, and you have had quite a day indeed.
So opposing foreign imeprialism is bigoted?
I suppose those Iraqi's. Afghani's etc are also raging bigots for not accpeting their British masters.
You are quite the lad, im glad you have shown the world your colours.


Their not bigots. But I think history proves me true that national liberation doesn't help the working class, it just replaces old masters with new ones.

[Pogue]

You are quite the combatant arent you HLVS.
You do realise this isnt World Of Warcraft we are discussing here?

I have convictions and I have and would act on these, yes. I don't understand the second sentence, what has World of Warcraft got to do with any of this?

[Andropov]

I'd rather join the partisans if that was a possibility. If signign up to the BA got me a gun and transport to the front, and joining the Partisans was impossible, I'd have done that.
Join the British Army because you dont want a German boss?
Isnt that what you call a bigot?
Your entertaining, ill give you that.


Reading a bit of soviet propoganda is far from opening your eyes.
So you firmly believe that Stalin wanted to be an ally of Hitler?


Their not bigots.
So your wrong?
Could you retract that statement that I am a bigot now.


But I think history proves me true that national liberation doesn't help the working class, it just replaces old masters with new ones.
Well then why fight NAZI domination?
In your outlook they are just replacing the old masters with new ones.
Your hypocricy is just astounding.

[Andropov]

I have convictions and I have and would act on these, yes. I don't understand the second sentence, what has World of Warcraft got to do with any of this?

Such cyber posturing is embarressing.
It doesnt add to your credibility, it deminish's it.

[Pogue]

Join the British Army because you dont want a German boss?
Isnt that what you call a bigot?
Your entertaining, ill give you that.

In polite conversation, it is convention not to read what someone has said, indeed quote it, and then infer they were saying something completely different, in an attempt to besmirch their character, as you are doing here.


So you firmly believe that Stalin wanted to be an ally of Hitler?

Like all leaders of the ruling class, Stalin did what benefited him, from killing commnists and crushing revolutions to siding with Nazis.


So your wrong?
Could you retract that statement that I am a bigot now.

Oh, but you are. People who fall for your reactionary ideology aren't, but people who peddle it like you are tools of the bourgeoisie, and yes, are bigots.


Well then why fight NAZI domination?
In your outlook they are just replacing the old masters with new ones.
Your hypocricy is just astounding.

Self-defence from whoever its pointing a gun against you is not the same as national liberation. I would have resisted Hitler because I wouldn't have wanted to be the next communist on his list of people to be sent to a concentration camp or to be shot. Churchill wasn't planning on sending me to a concentration camp at that time, although if he was, I'd have defended myself (and others) against him too. I would have tried to do something like tha after the war, by campaigning against capitalist brutality in whatever movements happened around where I lived.

[Pogue]

Such cyber posturing is embarressing.
It doesnt add to your credibility, it deminish's it.


I don't really care if you think its simply posturing. I personally think you're cheerleading for the INLA is sad, seeing as I highly doubt you have the balls to join up with them.

I know the sort of things I'd do and I know I would have gone to Spain. If a similar situation like Spain arose now, I know I'd go. I don't need to be doubted or called someone who cyber postures by the likes of you.

What has world of warcraft got to do with still, anyway?

[Vargha Poralli]

Why, it clearly wasn't internationalist or class based? It wasn't about working class liberation, it was about national liberation. It wasn't revolutionary, because it didn't overthrow an economic system, just replaced who was at the top of it. It wasn't internationalist because it only focused on India. Which is why we still have poverty and capitalism in India today.

I personally find the term first world chauvinist something of an slur used on this forum for anyone who is from 'the west' and would prefer you stopped using it. I'd question why you seem to think anyone who is from western Europe who disagrees with you on an issue of national liberation is immediately a 'chauvinist', and I'd suggest you need to get rid of your own predjudices before accusing me of having my own.

It was 'revolutionary' in the sense that it was amazing and huge and hadn't been done before but it wasn't 'a revolution'.

Thanks for the feedback though!


Why, it clearly wasn't internationalist or class based? It wasn't about working class liberation, it was about national liberation.

But it is many of the working members who lost their live fighting for it.


It wasn't revolutionary, because it didn't overthrow an economic system, just replaced who was at the top of it.
:rolleyes:



What do you think about Frenh Revolution, industrial revolution, glorious revolution etc ?

I would suggest you to understand the meaning for word revolution and revolutionry first place.


Which is why we still have poverty and capitalism in India today.

Which is daily fought against by many Indian workers on a daily basis just like we fought against the British colonialism.


I personally find the term first world chauvinist something of an slur used on this forum for anyone who is from 'the west' and would prefer you stopped using it. I'd question why you seem to think anyone who is from western Europe who disagrees with you on an issue of national liberation is immediately a 'chauvinist', and I'd suggest you need to get rid of your own predjudices before accusing me of having my own.

Go and read what I have posted again. Did I call you a first world chauvinist I actually said your arguments to support your viewpoint makes you look like it.


It was 'revolutionary' in the sense that it was amazing and huge and hadn't been done before but it wasn't 'a revolution'.

My question about other revolutions in Europe fits here also.

First you have to understand that India was and is still not 1 country to start with it was an amalgamation of many nations before the British rule and a correct word to describe about British Raj and today is that it is a "Prison House of Nationalities".

What is revolutionary about the Indian Freedom struggle is that the struggle lives on today and Held the Indian people together instead of shattering it in to a Civil War Zone like Yugoslavia or Srilanka - which is really helpful to us in organizing all over India. I can't imagine working under situations like that of the Yugoslavia or Srilanka. And India has more divisions that the mentioned countries.


Thanks for the feedback though!

You are welcome.

[Pogue]

But it is many of the working members who lost their live fighting for it.



Workers dying for a cause doesn't make it a cause that is for the workers. Many workers died in World War I. Does that make world war I a workers revolution?



What do you think about Frenh Revolution, industrial revolution, glorious revolution etc


We're talking about the revolution people on revleft talk about and you know it. The anti-capitalist reovlution, the proletarian revolution, communist reovlution etc. This was not a revolution in that sense. It just changed the rulers from British to Indian. I think it is you who needs a clearer understanding of what a revolution is, in the context of the working class.


Which is daily fought against by many Indian workers on a daily basis just like we fought against the British colonialism.

Which is fantastic. They should be fighting capitalism. But national lbieration doesn't get rid of capitalism. What is surely most telling is that workers had to fight then against the British Empire and they have to fight now against capitalism in India and worldwide. So they didn't win liberation when they ousted the British Empire, clearly.


Go and read what I have posted again. Did I call you a first world chauvinist I actually said your arguments to support your viewpoint makes you look like it.

Semantics. So I'm not a first world chauvinist but I look like one? Theres no difference. What defines a first world chauvinist from any other chauvinist anyway? Its a loaded and quite xenophobic term, in my opinion. Its like me accusing someone from the 'third world' of being a 'ignorant third worlder'. It implies their geographical background is somehow dertrimental to their character and worldview.


My question about other revolutions in Europe fits here also.

First you have to understand that India was and is still not 1 country to start with it was an amalgamation of many nations before the British rule and a correct word to describe about British Raj and today is that it is a "Prison House of Nationalities".

What is revolutionary about the Indian Freedom struggle is that the struggle lives on today and Held the Indian people together instead of shattering it in to a Civil War Zone like Yugoslavia or Srilanka - which is really helpful to us in organizing all over India. I can't imagine working under situations like that of the Yugoslavia or Srilanka. And India has more divisions that the mentioned countries.

Countries are created by capitalism. I am interested in class. Its irrelevant to me and the class what nation is ruling over us, because we're still being oppresed. And India didn't stay together. We saw partition in India and Pakistan and subsequently Bangladesh. Emphasis on national independence creates nationalism which thus divides the working class further into nations. The living and working conditions of the working class in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are are all awful, and the conflict in and between those nations cost lives and arguably still are costing lives. Following this particular struggle we saw the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947! How could you ever claim this struggle held the people together! They become incredibly divided and there was much violent conflict!

I don't see how from that you can claim that there was no civil war or Indian people being held together when the whole country was divide dinto three parts and there have been violent clashes over this, as proletarian was turned against proletarian in a fully blown war.

It wasn't a revolution. It certainly wasn't a proletarian revolution. It was a case of nationalism dividing and weakening the working class once more. I think your confusing revolution with uprising or revolt or struggle. Nationalism and national liberation offers nothing to the working class.

[Vargha Poralli]

This use of the word "revolutuionary" which is sloppily applied to any kind of organisation with which one identifies or vaguely supports is most unsatisfactory. I wish people would define what they mean by the term.
Revolution to me means a change from one fundamental socio-economic system to another. The French revolution was truly a revolution inasmuch as it did away with the ancien regime and paved the way for the development of capitalist relations. The Bolshevik revolution was likewise a capitalist revolution that did away with the old order and paved the way to development of state capitalism (as Lenin admitted). But Indian independence? In what sense could it be said to definitely constitute a "revolutionary" movement. How would you justify this claim. I am genuinely curious

You may have in your view certain criteria to call an event a revolution but that may or may not fit the universal view.

Well it was a revolution in the sense that various nationalities of the Indian Subcontinent regardless of their numerous divisions united voluntarily and fought against the British Raj.Read the psot I have replied to Hlvs I have outlined in it.

Just imagine uniting people who speak 600 different languages follow at least half a dozen religions and the number of castes here are more that number countries in the world.

No body is denying that Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism. But it had definitely given the Indian working class a tremendous advantage to organize in the whole nation at least.

[Pogue]

You may have in your view certain criteria to call an event a revolution but that may or may not fit the universal view.

Well it was a revolution in the sense that various nationalities of the Indian Subcontinent regardless of their numerous divisions united voluntarily and fought against the British Raj.Read the psot I have replied to Hlvs I have outlined in it.

Just imagine uniting people who speak 600 different languages follow at least half a dozen religions and the number of castes here are more that number countries in the world.

No body is denying that Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism. But it had definitely given the Indian working class a tremendous advantage to organize in the whole nation at least.

As I said, look what happened afterwards.

The problem is, you have your own meaning of 'revolution' which isn't the same as pretty much everyone else on the board's meaning of the word.

[Vargha Poralli]

Workers dying for a cause doesn't make it a cause that is for the workers. Many workers died in World War I. Does that make world war I a workers revolution?

You are comparing Apples and Oranges.


We're talking about the revolution people on revleft talk about and you know it.

I think I know it perfectly and understand what it actually means.


The anti-capitalist reovlution, the proletarian revolution, communist reovlution etc.

I never called the Indian Independence movement any of these. I said it is a revolutionary movemnt and clarified it in my post to robbo.


They should be fighting capitalism.

We are.


What is surely most telling is that workers had to fight then against the British Empire and they have to fight now against capitalism in India

Which is the basic meaning of Class struggle.


So they didn't win liberation when they ousted the British Empire, clearly.

I never said they did. read what I have said to robbo and you

which is really helpful to us in organizing all over India. I can't imagine working under situations like that of the Yugoslavia or Srilanka. And India has more divisions that the mentioned countries.
***
No body is denying that Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism. But it had definitely given the Indian working class a tremendous advantage to organize in the whole nation at least.


Semantics. So I'm not a first world chauvinist but I look like one? Theres no difference. What defines a first world chauvinist from any other chauvinist anyway? Its a loaded and quite xenophobic term, in my opinion. Its like me accusing someone from the 'third world' of being a 'ignorant third worlder'. It implies their geographical background is somehow dertrimental to their character and worldview.

I don't know whether you are jumping to conclusions or am I not clear in what I have meant.

I will try to be clear

I am not saying that you are a first world chauvinist.

But your arguments makes you look like one.


Countries are created by capitalism. I am interested in class. Its irrelevant to me and the class what nation is ruling over us, because we're still being oppresed. And India didn't stay together. We saw partition in India and Pakistan and subsequently Bangladesh. Emphasis on national independence creates nationalism which thus divides the working class further into nations. The living and working conditions of the working class in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are are all awful, and the conflict in and between those nations cost lives and arguably still are costing lives. Following this particular struggle we saw the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947! How could you ever claim this struggle held the people together! They become incredibly divided and there was much violent conflict!

I don't see how from that you can claim that there was no civil war or Indian people being held together when the whole country was divide dinto three parts and there have been violent clashes over this, as proletarian was turned against proletarian in a fully blown war

I wish history is as simple as you seem to understand it.:rolleyes:

The partition came despite the struggle not because of the struggle.

If you know exact history you would understand the British colonialism would have really screwed up this place by manipulating the divisions which is already present here(which they used in the first place to dominate the subcontinent). They never hesistated to divide and rule Indians which are fought against and overcome by the Indian freedon fighters.

Indian Independence did not come easily. It would be very very wrong not acknowledge the historical significance of it.


It was a case of nationalism dividing and weakening the working class once more.

So what we should have done ? Waited until the Socialism is established in Britain ? :rolleyes:


Nationalism and national liberation offers nothing to the working class.

I agree with you on Nationalism.

With regards to the latter I think we agree to disagree.

[PRC-UTE]

As I said, I wouldn't be joining to be so brave as to set off a car bomb or something somewhere. I'd join because it'd give me a gun with which I could go do my part to defeat the threat of nazism.

the bombing campaign was started by republicans to draw the Brit soldiers you would love to join away from working class nationalist areas where they were brutalising the women and children in those communities, ya know. it was completely a defensive action, something most critics of republicans conveniently forget.

[robbo203]

No body is denying that Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism. But it had definitely given the Indian working class a tremendous advantage to organize in the whole nation at least.

How so? It is not as if the various cultural and ethnic differences have been overcome with independence - they still exist. And I am certainly denying the Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism! What you have got in independent India is capitalism. This is what so called national liberation struggles are about - establishing independent capitalist states. They are a diversion from the class struggle and subjugate the workers more firmly to their local capitalists

[PRC-UTE]

I still want to ask my own question now: Would Yehuda, Red Republican et al suggest we just sit at home and wait for our annihilation?

What an ironic question considering how much you criticise the Irish working class resistance to the British occupation in Ireland.

If you want to be consistent and mask your objective racism, then yes, you should have greeted Nazi invaders with slogans and internationalist propaganda, not bombs and bullets. As you advise republicans.

[PRC-UTE]

Lie to yourself all you want, I've heard that shit before.

He's not lying one bit. the murders of civilians and lawless revenge killings were a significant problem for the libertarian leaders during Spain's civil war. you should stop playing the bourgeois game of moral condemnation.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Communists seek to turn inter imperialist wars into civil wars.

The Paris Commune came out of the defeat of France in war. The October Revolution came out of the defeat of Russian in war.

I apologize, but I fail to see how this could apply to WW2.

A fascist-collaborationist government came out of French defeat, and a defeat in Russia would have meant a Russia without Russians.

Anyway, I would have been proud to fight Nazis had I lives at the time, though by 1941 it would have been much more clear cut than in 1939.

Waits to be blamed for sanctioning rise of American Hegemony

LoL Just kidding.

[GracchusBabeuf]

which is really helpful to us in organizing all over India. I can't imagine working under situations like that of the Yugoslavia or Srilanka. And India has more divisions that the mentioned countries.How does a centralized bourgeois state essentially created by the imperialist British help in the class struggle? I actually think that if India were to divide into smaller nations, it'd be easier to organize workers in those smaller countries on national lines. Also, the current situation of Kashmir and certain communities in tribal and rural areas being brutally oppressed by the bourgeois Indian state and the urban elite could end. What right does a centralized state have to artificially bring together communities? Any thoughts?

[Pogue]

You are comparing Apples and Oranges.

And you said they're the same thing. Independence movements are not revolutions. On this board we refer to the Spanish Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc. Independence movements are not revolutions.


I think I know it perfectly and understand what it actually means.


Your writing suggests otherwise.


I never called the Indian Independence movement any of these. I said it is a revolutionary movemnt and clarified it in my post to robbo.

As I said revolution refers to something very specific on this board. We don't refer to all independence struggles as revolutions because they're not. Only you do that.


We are.

Good, that should have been done from the beginning rather than siding with the Indian bourgeoisie in a conflict which has cost the lives of many workers only to leave them in a state of oppresion oncemore.


I never said they did. read what I have said to robbo and you

which is really helpful to us in organizing all over India. I can't imagine working under situations like that of the Yugoslavia or Srilanka. And India has more divisions that the mentioned countries.
***
No body is denying that Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism. But it had definitely given the Indian working class a tremendous advantage to organize in the whole nation at least.


You said it was a revolution. It clearly wasn't. You also said it united the working class and that it stayed united. This completely ignores history and the subsequent conflict and war that came after the independence movement in which many people died, mainly proletarians. To claim that the working class stayed united and that this was some miraculous event is absurd and is like claiming that WW1 was a bloodless affair. Its completely contradicts history.

I don't know whether you are jumping to conclusions or am I not clear in what I have meant.


I will try to be clear

I am not saying that you are a first world chauvinist.

But your arguments makes you look like one.

Whats the difference, really? Its an offensive, xenophobic remark, as I have said. It implies I have a specific brand of chauvinism as a result of living in the UK.


I wish history is as simple as you seem to understand it.http://www.revleft.com/vb/anniversary-massacre-innocent-t106341/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

The partition came despite the struggle not because of the struggle.

If you know exact history you would understand the British colonialism would have really screwed up this place by manipulating the divisions which is already present here(which they used in the first place to dominate the subcontinent). They never hesistated to divide and rule Indians which are fought against and overcome by the Indian freedon fighters.

Indian Independence did not come easily. It would be very very wrong not acknowledge the historical significance of it.


The partition was a result of nationalism. By emphasising the importance of the nation over the class, such conflict is inevitable.

But the reason I laboured the point of partition is that you seem to deny it happened, claiming the Indian working class stayed united. The Indo-Pakistani war and the fact India split into three different countries contradicts this entirely.


So what we should have done ? Waited until the Socialism is established in Britain ? http://www.revleft.com/vb/anniversary-massacre-innocent-t106341/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Fought the class war rather than wasting energy and lives into fighting a class collaborationist conflict that acheived nothing for the working class.


I agree with you on Nationalism.

With regards to the latter I think we agree to disagree.

National liberation automaticaly infers nationalism.

[Pogue]

the bombing campaign was started by republicans to draw the Brit soldiers you would love to join away from working class nationalist areas where they were brutalising the women and children in those communities, ya know. it was completely a defensive action, something most critics of republicans conveniently forget.


Communities like Birmingham, Manchester and London? Communities in England?


What an ironic question considering how much you criticise the Irish working class resistance to the British occupation in Ireland.

If you want to be consistent and mask your objective racism, then yes, you should have greeted Nazi invaders with slogans and internationalist propaganda, not bombs and bullets. As you advise republicans.

I stressed the difference between self defence as communities and relying behind a national flag and murdering civilians. I don't support the working class rallying behind the nationalist bourgeoisie in a struggle which is not in their interests, but I support the working class defending itself and fighting for its own liberaiton. Theres a huge difference.



He's not lying one bit. the murders of civilians and lawless revenge killings were a significant problem for the libertarian leaders during Spain's civil war. you should stop playing the bourgeois game of moral condemnation.


Difference being that it wasn't anarchist policy, where the IRA fought its struggles on the lines that if you carried out enough bombings eventually, miraculously, Ireland would be free.

[Andropov]

In polite conversation, it is convention not to read what someone has said, indeed quote it, and then infer they were saying something completely different, in an attempt to besmirch their character, as you are doing here.
But im merely using the logic you used.
So your saying you wouldnt care if you had been occupied and you werent on a death list, you were just enlsaved, right?


Like all leaders of the ruling class, Stalin did what benefited him, from killing commnists and crushing revolutions to siding with Nazis.
So Stalin wasnt a supporter of Nazism, he just did it out of necessity?



Oh, but you are. People who fall for your reactionary ideology aren't, but people who peddle it like you are tools of the bourgeoisie, and yes, are bigots.
I suppose Marx and Engels were bigtos aswell, for not wanting the Irish to have British masters?
Its a logical conculsion.


Self-defence from whoever its pointing a gun against you is not the same as national liberation.
Yes it is when you have the Army you would have joined kicking in doors and interning a whole generation of youth.
Not to mind how many people they have killed.


I would have resisted Hitler because I wouldn't have wanted to be the next communist on his list of people to be sent to a concentration camp or to be shot.
But yet Republicans who resist the British are not justified in their self defence?
You have heard of the shoot to kill policy, collusion and internment, right?


Churchill wasn't planning on sending me to a concentration camp at that time, although if he was, I'd have defended myself (and others) against him too.
But I guess those 6-7 million Bengalis dont really count, right?
Or the Communists he helped crush in Greece, right?
It seems to me you are the bigot a chara, British blood is worth more than Bengali blood?


I would have tried to do something like tha after the war, by campaigning against capitalist brutality in whatever movements happened around where I lived.
What a hero.

[Andropov]

I don't really care if you think its simply posturing. I personally think you're cheerleading for the INLA is sad, seeing as I highly doubt you have the balls to join up with them.
What are you on about?
I have nothing to do with the INLA, never had anything to do with them, nor never will have anything to do with them.


I know the sort of things I'd do and I know I would have gone to Spain. If a similar situation like Spain arose now, I know I'd go. I don't need to be doubted or called someone who cyber postures by the likes of you.
Seriously, can we get a bit of realism here ffs.
Saying, "I would, ifs and buts etc" is completely irrational in a logical debate.
Can we keep this grounded in reality please.


What has world of warcraft got to do with still, anyway?
Because your a fantacist.

[Andropov]

Difference being that it wasn't anarchist policy, where the IRA fought its struggles on the lines that if you carried out enough bombings eventually, miraculously, Ireland would be free.
Link now or retract that statement?

[Andropov]

So what we should have done ? Waited until the Socialism is established in Britain ? :rolleyes:

Exactly.
Us paddys and indians would have been better off under Britains yolk until the great Anarchist uprising took place in Britain.

[Jorge Miguel]

So you'd keep to the line that no working class person in Britain, France etc should have resisted the Nazis because they might have had to do so as part of a national army? Even if the individiuals intentions and indeed actions were geared towards resisting the Nazi threat? I think your out of touch with reality.
I thought all nations were reactionary? Weren't the Nazis fulfilling Anarchist doctrine by smashing all national borders? :blushing:

[Pogue]

But im merely using the logic you used.
So your saying you wouldnt care if you had been occupied and you werent on a death list, you were just enlsaved, right?

I don't really understand this, but as an act of self defence I'd fight against enslavement or execution, naturally.


So Stalin wasnt a supporter of Nazism, he just did it out of necessity?

He did it because he wanted too, and because there wasn't much difference between him and Hitler.



I suppose Marx and Engels were bigtos aswell, for not wanting the Irish to have British masters?
Its a logical conculsion.


No, I was calling people like you bigots.


Yes it is when you have the Army you would have joined kicking in doors and interning a whole generation of youth.
Not to mind how many people they have killed.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.


But yet Republicans who resist the British are not justified in their self defence?
You have heard of the shoot to kill policy, collusion and internment, right?

The working class can defend themselves. Judging by the sectarian and civilian attacks the IRA carried out, the working class would be entitled to defend themselves against them, too.


But I guess those 6-7 million Bengalis dont really count, right?
Or the Communists he helped crush in Greece, right?
It seems to me you are the bigot a chara, British blood is worth more than Bengali blood?

I would have done whatever I could to help those people. But Churchill himself wasn't going to kill me, whereas Hitler probably would of. In those circumstances I'd want to defend myself. If I could, I'd defend anyone else too. The reason why I am so involved in Stop The War And Free Palestine is because I want to do what I can to express solidarity with oppresed people who are being attacked and killed. If Churchill was planning on killing me, I'd have taken up arms against him too.

I don't value 'British blood' as much as any other blood because I'm not a nationalist like you. I find your continual accusations of racism sad and desperate, especially as your the one who backs organisations who murdered people for being British or Protestant. I live in an area with a large Bengali population, and I have a number of Bengali friends who I play football with every Saturday. So I don't need someone like you to tell me who's 'blood' I favour. I think your obsession with race and nationality, which is deeply infused in your particular brand of reactionary politics, is the more telling thing. I'm not even 'British' in the full sense of the word. My mothers side of the family all come from the west coast of Ireland.


What a hero.

Thanks, but I think thats an exaggeration. Theres many people who campaign on issues to help other people. Not all of us are tied up in the politics of bitter nationalism and murdering civilians like you are.


What are you on about?
I have nothing to do with the INLA, never had anything to do with them, nor never will have anything to do with them.

You've cheerleaded for armed rpeublican violence and your in the political wing of the INLA.



[QUOTE]Seriously, can we get a bit of realism here ffs.
Saying, "I would, ifs and buts etc" is completely irrational in a logical debate.
Can we keep this grounded in reality please.


I think you should calm down. I think I could pretty accurately say how, given my current mindset, I would act in certain periods of history. Sure, its speculation, but thats what this whole thread is about.


Because your a fantacist.

I still don't see what the things I do in my spare time has to do with this argument.


Link now or retract that statement?

Read a book or wikipedia on the history of the IRA.


Exactly.
Us paddys and indians would have been better off under Britains yolk until the great Anarchist uprising took place in Britain.

When did I mention an anarchist uprising in Britain? I would have rather the Irish proletariat had overthrown capitalism and the state. I think this would have been more succesful and beneficial than a few nationalists setting off bombs in town centres and waging a guerilla war.

[Jorge Miguel]

In other words, according to H-L-V-S, fighting for Irish national liberation is reactionary, but fighting for the defense of Britain's national sovereignty in the face of Nazi invasion was a worthwhile task. British chauvinism at its worst.

[Jorge Miguel]

Irish Revolutionaries of the 1940s Supported Udham Singh

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/usingh.htm

[Pogue]

In other words, according to H-L-V-S, fighting for Irish national liberation is reactionary, but fighting for the defense of Britain's national sovereignty in the face of Nazi invasion was a worthwhile task. British chauvinism it it's worst.

If by 'in other words' you mean 'If I completely distort what is written and apply my own internal predjudices against British people to it, this is what he said', sure.

I said self-defence is fine. If you were being attacked by the British Army in Ireland of course you should fight back and kill them if neccesary (which it was). I don't think you should rally behind a national liberation movement though, because it doesn't solve the problem. I'd say the self-defence should have been part of a working class resistance to all forms of oppresion, whether the oppresor was Irish bourgeoisie or British.

The reason this argument is going in circles is because in your desperate attempts to paint me as a British nationalist you're ignoring what I am actually saying. I never made any mention of a nationalist desire to defend Britain's sovereignty. Unlike you I don't put any value on a land mass or a flag, hence my emphasis on wishing to defned myself, as a communist and anti-Nazi, from the fact that if Hitler took over the area I live in (Britain) I would have been executed or imprisoned. And I said that if possible I would have taken part in the fight against Nazism as a partisan, but failing that, if it was not possible, I would have joined the British Army so I could go do my bit in preventing Hitler's march across Europe. I think any non bigoted xenephobe reading would understand this, seeing as I've stated it a dozen times in this thread already. I think you guys have to realise that most British people are not actually raging anti-Irish bigots, despite whats been drilled into you to justify your nationalist ramblings form birth.

[Pogue]

I thought all nations were reactionary? Weren't the Nazis fulfilling Anarchist doctrine by smashing all national borders? :blushing:

Do you really need me to clarify that one for you?

[Jorge Miguel]

I'd say the self-defence should have been part of a working class resistance to all forms of oppresion, whether the oppresor was Irish bourgeoisie or British.The fact is that British soldiers were murdering Irish civilians, this is what the majority of occupation armies do. Why is it acceptable for the British army to do so but not the Germans?


as a communist and anti-Nazi, from the fact that if Hitler took over the area I live in (Britain) I would have been executed or imprisoned.Britain is not an "area". You're skirting around the issue. Ignoring the inter-imperialist competition which led to WWII, The British army is a "national" army which was fighting to protect its borders from German invasion.

Why couldn't / can't Irish people fight to protect their borders and national sovereignty from a foreign oppressor government and army?


despite whats been drilled into you to justify your nationalist ramblings form birth. So basically, all paddies have been indoctrinated to hate the Brits from the cradle to death from the pulpit? What sort of sectarian bigot are you? This is the lowest of the dregs of British chauvinism.

[Jorge Miguel]

Do you really need me to clarify that one for you?
Yes. If you believe all nations are reactionary, why prevent the Germans from destroying them? If all nationalism is reactionary, why should Anarchists seek to defend the national borders of countries invaded by Nazi Germany? Why should they support 'national liberation', if it's reactionary?

Or does this argument only apply to stupid paddies?

[Andropov]

I don't really understand this, but as an act of self defence I'd fight against enslavement or execution, naturally.
But the Irish shouldnt fight against enslavement?
And if they do they are wither bigots for not wanting British bosses or just Natioanlists right?
Surely you can see the hypocricy like everyone else can?


He did it because he wanted too, and because there wasn't much difference between him and Hitler.
Thats not answering the question.


No, I was calling people like you bigots.
But I assume what makes me a bigot in your eyes is that I support the National Liberation of Ireland?
Just like how Marx and Engels did?



The working class can defend themselves. Judging by the sectarian and civilian attacks the IRA carried out, the working class would be entitled to defend themselves against them, too.
What sectarian attacks did the IRA sanction?
Link please?


I would have done whatever I could to help those people. But Churchill himself wasn't going to kill me, whereas Hitler probably would of. In those circumstances I'd want to defend myself.
I see, so your own survival is worth more than your prinicples or Bengalis?


If I could, I'd defend anyone else too.
But your interests first right?


The reason why I am so involved in Stop The War And Free Palestine is because I want to do what I can to express solidarity with oppresed people who are being attacked and killed.
But if your governement was protecting you from invasion you wouldnt, right?


If Churchill was planning on killing me, I'd have taken up arms against him too.
He did kill 6-7 million Bengalis, but obviously they dont count.


I don't value 'British blood' as much as any other blood because I'm not a nationalist like you.
No, your an imperialist apologist.


I find your continual accusations of racism sad and desperate, especially as your the one who backs organisations who murdered people for being British or Protestant.
Absurd in the extreme.
Read about Ronny Bunting, Noel Little etc.
Also believe it or not a member of our AC is from Manchester.
Also could you provide links to what you claimed.


I live in an area with a large Bengali population, and I have a number of Bengali friends who I play football with every Saturday. So I don't need someone like you to tell me who's 'blood' I favour.
Dont forget to tell them that you would side with Chruchill when their people were being slaughtered.


I think your obsession with race and nationality, which is deeply infused in your particular brand of reactionary politics, is the more telling thing.
Pointing out your racism is not exactly reactionary.
Can we call Rosa Parks reactionary too?


I'm not even 'British' in the full sense of the word. My mothers side of the family all come from the west coast of Ireland.
And I care, why?


Not all of us are tied up in the politics of bitter nationalism and murdering civilians like you are.
Link to where I cheerleaded the death of civilians?


You've cheerleaded for armed rpeublican violence and your in the political wing of the INLA.

Of course I recognise the National Liberation struggle.


Read a book or wikipedia on the history of the IRA.
Give me a link and stop worming and ducking and diving and running away.
JUST GIVE ME A LINK.

[Pogue]

The fact is that British soldiers were murdering Irish civilians, this is what the majority of occupation armies do. Why is it acceptable for the British army to do so but not the Germans?



It's not, and I never said it was.


Britain is not an "area". You're skirting around the issue. Ignoring the inter-imperialist competition which led to WWII, The British army is a "national" army which was fighting to protect its borders from German invasion.

Why couldn't / can't Irish people fight to protect their borders and national sovereignty from a foreign oppressor government and army?

Irish people can defend themselves and their communities, yes. I don't think thats the same as nationalism or national liberation though. It takes a concept of nationalism to oppose rulers just because they are off a certain nationality. We should oppose them because they are rulers. Irish people should fight rulers in general, not just British rulers. I don't think national sovereignty in its own is something worth fighting for, but fighting because otherwise you and your community will be destroyed is good. With the case of me fighting in WW2, it is not out of nationalism, it is out of fear for my life and the lives of all othe communists, Jews, disabled people, gay people, etc etc that I knew.



So basically, all paddies have been indoctrinated to hate the Brits from the cradle to death from the pulpit? What sort of sectarian bigot are you? This is the lowest of the dregs of British chauvinism.


I think you must be pretty mad or self-hating to come to that conclusion. I clearly said 'you', refering to you as a person, and those who think like you (nationalists). I know many Irish people who aren't nationalistic and were/are not supportive of the IRA and their politics.

I do wish you'd stop setting up strawmen of me being racist based on your own wild assumptions. Half my family is Irish and I've spent alot of time living over there.

[Andropov]

So basically, all paddies have been indoctrinated to hate the Brits from the cradle to death from the pulpit? What sort of sectarian bigot are you? This is the lowest of the dregs of British chauvinism.

Says it all really.

[Andropov]

I do wish you'd stop setting up strawmen of me being racist based on your own wild assumptions. Half my family is Irish and I've spent alot of time living over there.

Ohh wow, your family is Irish.
My god, I take everything back.
How stupid do you think us Paddys are?

[Pogue]

Yes. If you believe all nations are reactionary, why prevent the Germans from destroying them? If all nationalism is reactionary, why should Anarchists seek to defend the national borders of countries invaded by Nazi Germany? Why should they support 'national liberation', if it's reactionary?

Or does this argument only apply to stupid paddies?

The Nazis wanted to kill/imprison/generally oppress all non-Aryans. Obviously that was reason to oppose them. They crushed working class parties and unions, that was reason to oppose them. They were aggresive racist capitalists, that was reason to oppose them. I can't believe you'd actually ask me to justfy the Nazi resistance, and that'd lead me to seriously doubt your politics, not to say I hadn't already.

I find you referring to Irishman as 'stupid paddies' offensive, could you stop doing it please?


But the Irish shouldnt fight against enslavement?
And if they do they are wither bigots for not wanting British bosses or just Natioanlists right?
Surely you can see the hypocricy like everyone else can?

The working class should fight against their enslavement. I don't care whether they are Irish, British, Indian, Chinese, etc. No one should be enslaved by a ruling class regardless, something you don't realise.


Thats not answering the question.

It is, you just don't like my answer.


But I assume what makes me a bigot in your eyes is that I support the National Liberation of Ireland?
Just like how Marx and Engels did?

Its more your rampant xenophobia against British people that does it for me.


What sectarian attacks did the IRA sanction?
Link please?


How about planting bombs in the middle of English cities, with the intention of killing English civilians?


I see, so your own survival is worth more than your prinicples or Bengalis?

Me joining the British Army wouldn't kill any Bengalis. If I was dead, I wouldn't be alive to be active in movements against the empire and capitalism, would I?
Do you think Hitler would have treated the Bengalis much better if he took over? As I said, I'd fight against the British Empire after the war. I'd likely encourage people to hold onto their guns form the army to fight the state and capitalism. Stop setting up strawman, your the one who justifies killing English civilians just for living in England.


But your interests first right?

As I said, Hitler would probably have killed or imprisoned all the Bengalis too, along with the Jews, Communists, etc. Your position makes no sense. Following your logic I should have stayed at home doing nothing against Hitler because if I did fight him, I'd be betraying the Bengalese people. Makes sense :confused::confused::confused:


But your interests first right?

This is an absurd line. Its like saying if I go on a Free Palestine demonstration I am being racist because I am putting the Palestinians before the Tamils who I could be saving if I went on a demonstration against the Sri Lankan government's perscution of Sri Lankans on the same day.


But if your governement was protecting you from invasion you wouldnt, right?

What?


He did kill 6-7 million Bengalis, but obviously they dont count.

Re-read what I said.



[QUOTE]No, your an imperialist apologist.

No, your just racist against British people.


Absurd in the extreme.
Read about Ronny Bunting, Noel Little etc.
Also believe it or not a member of our AC is from Manchester.
Also could you provide links to what you claimed.

Read about the bombings in England by the IRA.


Dont forget to tell them that you would side with Chruchill when their people were being slaughtered.

I've spoken to them about how much I didn't like Churchill actually, as well as discussing to them racism Bengali people suffer from bigots in this country.


Pointing out your racism is not exactly reactionary.
Can we call Rosa Parks reactionary too?

This racism doesn't exist.


And I care, why?

You called me British. I'm as Irish as I am British.


Link to where I cheerleaded the death of civilians?

You think the IRA did the right thing, don't you?


Of course I recognise the National Liberation struggle.


Which killed innocent civilians.



Give me a link and stop worming and ducking and diving and running away.
JUST GIVE ME A LINK.


You make absurd claims not backed up by evidence, and then you accuse me of not sourcing my claims?

[Pogue]

Ohh wow, your family is Irish.
My god, I take everything back.
How stupid do you think us Paddys are?

I don't feel a need to respond to this. I find it amusing that your politics are so desperate you have to resort to desperate claims of racism to continue this argument.

[Andropov]

The Nazis wanted to kill/imprison/generally oppress all non-Aryans. Obviously that was reason to oppose them. They crushed working class parties and unions, that was reason to oppose them. They were aggresive racist capitalists, that was reason to oppose them. I can't believe you'd actually ask me to justfy the Nazi resistance, and that'd lead me to seriously doubt your politics, not to say I hadn't already.
But yet when the Irish oppose British oppression we are reactionary Nationalists.
Your hypocricy is getting boring.


I find you referring to Irishman as 'stupid paddies' offensive, could you stop doing it please?
I find your generalising of Irish people offensive.


The working class should fight against their enslavement. I don't care whether they are Irish, British, Indian, Chinese, etc. No one should be enslaved by a ruling class regardless, something you don't realise.
Absolutely but when facing an occupying army such worker mobilisation is near impossible when the British Army slaughter those who oppose.
Look at the Famine, a prime time for worker mobilisation witht he hatred for Capitalism how ever the British Army acted in its usual reactionary position.



It is, you just don't like my answer.
No its not, answer my question and stop trying to worm your way out of it.


Its more your rampant xenophobia against British people that does it for me.
Links or retract this slur?


How about planting bombs in the middle of English cities, with the intention of killing English civilians?
Links to their intentions of killing British civilians?


Me joining the British Army wouldn't kill any Bengalis.
It is supporting the machine that does slaughter them.
Just another cog in the genocidal machine.


If I was dead, I wouldn't be alive to be active in movements against the empire and capitalism, would I?
Thats a negative thing why?


Do you think Hitler would have treated the Bengalis much better if he took over?
What Hitler would have killed like maybe 10 million or so?
Thank god Britain was there to keep it at 6 million.


As I said, I'd fight against the British Empire after the war.
But you will still fight for them during war.


Stop setting up strawman, your the one who justifies killing English civilians just for living in England.
Links now, or retract that statement.
If you dont start posting links to these outrageous claims I will start reporting them.


As I said, Hitler would probably have killed or imprisoned all the Bengalis too, along with the Jews, Communists, etc. Your position makes no sense. Following your logic I should have stayed at home doing nothing against Hitler because if I did fight him, I'd be betraying the Bengalese people. Makes sense :confused::confused::confused:
We are pointing out the glaring contradictions in your arguement.
You will protect the British national boundarys but yet berate the Irish for defending theirs.
It doesnt make sense because it is your own contradictions tripping you up.
Your hypocricy for all to see yet again.


This is an absurd line. Its like saying if I go on a Free Palestine demonstration I am being racist because I am putting the Palestinians before the Tamils who I could be saving if I went on a demonstration against the Sri Lankan government's perscution of Sri Lankans on the same day.
No its not because that is not advocating to join an Army which was responsible for the genocide of the Bengalis.


What?
The sound of you running away again.


No, your just racist against British people.
Links now, or I will report this outrageous slur.


Read about the bombings in England by the IRA.
Links now.


I've spoken to them about how much I didn't like Churchill actually, as well as discussing to them racism Bengali people suffer from bigots in this country.
Is this before or after you said you would join the Army responsible for their genocide?


This racism doesn't exist.
Its for all to see.


You called me British. I'm as Irish as I am British.
Just because half your family is Irish.
Are you on about eugenics or something now?


You think the IRA did the right thing, don't you?
Give me a link now to your outrageous claims.


hich killed innocent civilians.
So did the Spanish Civil War, your point being?

[Andropov]

I don't feel a need to respond to this. I find it amusing that your politics are so desperate you have to resort to desperate claims of racism to continue this argument.

Your the one resorting to what your relatives are which is completely irrelevant.
You would swear all us paddys have some kind of ethnic bond.

[Pogue]

But yet when the Irish oppose British oppression we are reactionary Nationalists.
Your hypocricy is getting boring.


I find your generalising of Irish people offensive.


Absolutely but when facing an occupying army such worker mobilisation is near impossible when the British Army slaughter those who oppose.
Look at the Famine, a prime time for worker mobilisation witht he hatred for Capitalism how ever the British Army acted in its usual reactionary position.



No its not, answer my question and stop trying to worm your way out of it.


Links or retract this slur?


Links to their intentions of killing British civilians?


It is supporting the machine that does slaughter them.
Just another cog in the genocidal machine.


Thats a negative thing why?


What Hitler would have killed like maybe 10 million or so?
Thank god Britain was there to keep it at 6 million.


But you will still fight for them during war.


Links now, or retract that statement.
If you dont start posting links to these outrageous claims I will start reporting them.


We are pointing out the glaring contradictions in your arguement.
You will protect the British national boundarys but yet berate the Irish for defending theirs.
It doesnt make sense because it is your own contradictions tripping you up.
Your hypocricy for all to see yet again.


No its not because that is not advocating to join an Army which was responsible for the genocide of the Bengalis.


The sound of you running away again.


Links now, or I will report this outrageous slur.


Links now.


Is this before or after you said you would join the Army responsible for their genocide?


Its for all to see.


Just because half your family is Irish.
Are you on about eugenics or something now?


Give me a link now to your outrageous claims.


So did the Spanish Civil War, your point being?

I've dealt with nearly all of this before. I'm not going to waste anymore time dealing with arguments I have dealt with in every post previously while a couple of nationalists keep referring to me as racist no matter what response I give.

[Pogue]

Your the one resorting to what your relatives are which is completely irrelevant.
You would swear all us paddys have some kind of ethnic bond.

You said I am British. I'm half Irish, half British, by definition. I don't really concern myself to often with nationality, but seeing as you brought it up.

[Pogue]

I find this all ironic when its come from people who said they'd fight for the Red Army anyway, under a regime which arguably killed more people than anyone else.

[Andropov]

I've dealt with nearly all of this before. I'm not going to waste anymore time dealing with arguments I have dealt with in every post previously while a couple of nationalists keep referring to me as racist no matter what response I give.

:D
This capitualtion means alot to me.

[Andropov]

I find this all ironic when its come from people who said they'd fight for the Red Army anyway, under a regime which arguably killed more people than anyone else.

How many did they kill?

[Pogue]

:D
This capitualtion means alot to me.

Really? Your that sad?

I think you need to re-assess your tactics. If you claim victory everytime someone tires of your childish debating technique which resorts to crying 'racist' then you're going to have alot of victories. Quite simply, you made points, I refuted them and you refused to accept this, claiming I was 'dodging the question'. I'd say I tolerated this for long enough, but really an argument when your opponent resorts to racism isn't one worth engaging in. I take great offense to you constantly referring to irish people as thick paddies.

[Pogue]

How many did they kill?

They? Do you mean the regime? That was what I was saying. Estimates range from 20 million to 100 million.

[Andropov]

Really? Your that sad?

I think you need to re-assess your tactics. If you claim victory everytime someone tires of your childish debating technique which resorts to crying 'racist' then you're going to have alot of victories. Quite simply, you made points, I refuted them and you refused to accept this, claiming I was 'dodging the question'. I'd say I tolerated this for long enough, but really an argument when your opponent resorts to racism isn't one worth engaging in. I take great offense to you constantly referring to irish people as thick paddies.


Its more your rampant xenophobia against British people that does it for me.



No, your just racist against British people.


I enjoy irony as much as the next man.

[Andropov]

Estimates range from 20 million to 100 million.
This is getting surreal.

[RedAnarchist]

Yes. If you believe all nations are reactionary, why prevent the Germans from destroying them? If all nationalism is reactionary, why should Anarchists seek to defend the national borders of countries invaded by Nazi Germany? Why should they support 'national liberation', if it's reactionary?

Or does this argument only apply to stupid paddies?

Please don't use the word paddy, please. It's offensive and outdated.

[PRC-UTE]

Communities like Birmingham, Manchester and London? Communities in England?

The bombing campaign wasn't primarily directed against Britain. Most bombs went off in the north, mate.

Write this down: England is not the center of the world.



I stressed the difference between self defence as communities and relying behind a national flag and murdering civilians. I don't support the working class rallying behind the nationalist bourgeoisie in a struggle which is not in their interests, but I support the working class defending itself and fighting for its own liberaiton. Theres a huge difference.

Clearly the PIRA was formed to defend the nationalists under siege. That's why they chose the phoenix as their symbol. they were emerging from the ashes of the burnt out Catholic ghettos.



Difference being that it wasn't anarchist policy, where the IRA fought its struggles on the lines that if you carried out enough bombings eventually, miraculously, Ireland would be free.

that's not the point. what I'm getting at is that someone claiming to follow in the anarchist tradition isn't exactly in a position to lecture anyone else about violence against civilians- unless they want to look very foolish.

[Pogue]

The bombing campaign wasn't primarily directed against Britain. Most bombs went off in the north, mate.

Write this down: England is not the center of the world.


I find it veyr revealing that you assume I think it is. More of the old 'Fucking arogant brits' types predjudice we've seen alot of in this thread.



Clearly the PIRA was formed to defend the nationalists under siege. That's why they chose the phoenix as their symbol. they were emerging from the ashes of the burnt out Catholic ghettos.



Right, because the symbol a group chooses determines what sort of group they are. Nice.



that's not the point. what I'm getting at is that someone claiming to follow in the anarchist tradition isn't exactly in a position to lecture anyone else about violence against civilians- unless they want to look very foolish.


I don't understand why I'd look very foolish for condeming you guys for supporting groups that have actively and directly murdered innocents just because I'm an anarchist.

[Andropov]

I find it veyr revealing that you assume I think it is. More of the old 'Fucking arogant brits' types predjudice we've seen alot of in this thread.


I think you need to re-assess your tactics. If you claim victory everytime someone tires of your childish debating technique which resorts to crying 'racist' then you're going to have alot of victories


but really an argument when your opponent resorts to racism isn't one worth engaging in

Enlightening.

[PRC-UTE]

I find it veyr revealing that you assume I think it is. More of the old 'Fucking arogant brits' types predjudice we've seen alot of in this thread.

:confused: What? Replying to my comment about bombings being used to draw troops away from the nationalist communities, you wrote:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1416214#post1416214) Communities like Birmingham, Manchester and London? Communities in England?

and I replied:



The bombing campaign wasn't primarily directed against Britain. Most bombs went off in the north, mate.

You're just dodging the issue again. but that's understandable given the truly awful positions you take.



Right, because the symbol a group chooses determines what sort of group they are. Nice.

That was just an example. However it's not really debatable that the PIRA was formed directly because of the pogroms against Catholics. You may not care about all that, but it's quite well documented.



I don't understand why I'd look very foolish for condeming you guys for supporting groups that have actively and directly murdered innocents just because I'm an anarchist.

Because anarchists have more innocent blood on their hands, if you want to go off ranting about innocents (note: we did not bring up the subject of innocent civies murdered, British apolgoists consistently have). It's a fact that republicans were more selective in choosing targets than your comrades in the British army or the anarchists.

put it this way: had the same republicans who were able to inflict some 800 british military casualties - that's off the top of my head, could be slightly off on that number - had the same republicans had an interest in slaughtering civilians, they could have caused some truly nightmarish, Balkans-like casualties against civies. clearly the warnings and all that show inflicting casualties wasn't the republican goal.

the number of civilian casualties also rose as Britain shifted the burden of war onto the Irish population, reducing the number of available soldiers for republicans to target.

[Andropov]

Lets not forget that British policy of using civilians as human shields.
Testament to this is how Brit soldiers would conduct foot patrols when schools would finish.

[Pogue]

Lets not forget that British policy of using civilians as human shields.
Testament to this is how Brit soldiers would conduct foot patrols when schools would finish.

No one is denying the British Army weren't brutal in Ireland. You (republicans) need to get out of your ghetto of being the poor misunderstood rebels who everyone hates for a unfair reason.

[Pogue]

:confused: What? Replying to my comment about bombings being used to draw troops away from the nationalist communities, you wrote:



and I replied:



You're just dodging the issue again. but that's understandable given the truly awful positions you take.



That was just an example. However it's not really debatable that the PIRA was formed directly because of the pogroms against Catholics. You may not care about all that, but it's quite well documented.



Because anarchists have more innocent blood on their hands, if you want to go off ranting about innocents (note: we did not bring up the subject of innocent civies murdered, British apolgoists consistently have). It's a fact that republicans were more selective in choosing targets than your comrades in the British army or the anarchists.

put it this way: had the same republicans who were able to inflict some 800 british military casualties - that's off the top of my head, could be slightly off on that number - had the same republicans had an interest in slaughtering civilians, they could have caused some truly nightmarish, Balkans-like casualties against civies. clearly the warnings and all that show inflicting casualties wasn't the republican goal.

the number of civilian casualties also rose as Britain shifted the burden of war onto the Irish population, reducing the number of available soldiers for republicans to target.

Official IRA policy was to attack civilians. This was not the case with the Spanish Anarchists. If the IRA were fighting a street battle with the British Army and a civilian was caught in the crossfire, thats not a murder, but planting a bomb in Guildford, Birmingham, Manchester, etc is.

[Andropov]

No one is denying the British Army weren't brutal in Ireland. You (republicans) need to get out of your ghetto of being the poor misunderstood rebels who everyone hates for a unfair reason.

Ohh deary me.
I was giving another example as to why there was excessive civilian casualties.

[Andropov]

Official IRA policy was to attack civilians.

Link please.

[PRC-UTE]

hear that, Red Rev?

we republicans need to get out of our ghetto. nach bhfuil sé go hiontach?

silly me, but I thought that was the point of republican resistance...

[Pogue]

You're just dodging the issue again. but that's understandable given the truly awful positions you take.


Is that all you have? That same line has been parroted towards me by every assortment of nationalist and 'anti-imperialist' (Hamas apologiser) on this board.

My position is the pro-working class one, and you find it awful because its critical of your pathetic brand of nationalist politics.



That was just an example. However it's not really debatable that the PIRA was formed directly because of the pogroms against Catholics. You may not care about all that, but it's quite well documented.


And bombing Guildford protects Catholics how?



the number of civilian casualties also rose as Britain shifted the burden of war onto the Irish population, reducing the number of available soldiers for republicans to target.


I'm not supportive of the British Army though. Its your own delusion and xenophobic predjudices that led you to the belief that anyone who lives in Britain who doesn't support sectarian nationalist politics and murderous ineffective tactics is immediately supportive of British imperialism and the British state.

Your just twisitng what I actually say to suit how you want to see me. Its really predjudiced but what do you expect from nationalists.

[Pogue]

Link please.

IRA. Bombing. Campaign.

[Pogue]

hear that, Red Rev?

we republicans need to get out of our ghetto. nach bhfuil sé go hiontach?

silly me, but I thought that was the point of republican resistance...

Republicans are not synonymous with the Irish working class.

[Andropov]

hear that, Red Rev?

we republicans need to get out of our ghetto. nach bhfuil sé go hiontach?

silly me, but I thought that was the point of republican resistance...

Tà sè amadàin, ach tà sè go hàileann mar tà an craic ar fheabhas.

[Andropov]

ira. Bombing. Campaign.

link to official ira policy.

[Pogue]

link to official ira policy.

What, so you haven't heard of the IRA bombing campaign?

[PRC-UTE]

Republicans are not synonymous with the Irish working class.

Of course, I never said that... but if you want to go there, we are more working class than your political tendency.


Is that all you have?

No, it's not all I have. Oh, I'm laughing till it hurts at your shenanigans. You cherry picked one line out of a post with a few paragraphs and ask me if that's all I have... priceless.



I'm not supportive of the British Army though. Its your own delusion and xenophobic predjudices that led you to the belief that anyone who lives in Britain who doesn't support sectarian nationalist politics and murderous ineffective tactics is immediately supportive of British imperialism and the British state.

Lest we forget: this discussion has been about your statement that you would join the British army to defend Britain if it were threatened by invasion.


Its really predjudiced but what do you expect from nationalists.

Spoken like a true Unionist bigot.

[Andropov]

I'm not supportive of the British Army though.
Not the fact that you said you would join them?


Its your own delusion and xenophobic predjudices that led you to the belief that anyone who lives in Britain who doesn't support sectarian nationalist politics and murderous ineffective tactics is immediately supportive of British imperialism and the British state.


Its really predjudiced but what do you expect from nationalists.

My my, here we go again.


I think you need to re-assess your tactics. If you claim victory everytime someone tires of your childish debating technique which resorts to crying 'racist' then you're going to have alot of victories
Quote:


but really an argument when your opponent resorts to racism isn't one worth engaging in

[Andropov]

What, so you haven't heard of the IRA bombing campaign?

Thats not a link.
Link please?

[Pogue]

Of course, I never said that... but if you want to go there, we are more working class than your political tendency.


Indeed, you have in fact managed to dupe many working class people into your reactionary and anti-working class ideology. Alot of parties and movements in history have done this.


No, it's not all I have. Oh, I'm laughing till it hurts at your shenanigans. You cherry picked one line out of a post with a few paragraphs and ask me if that's all I have... priceless.


Good to see you have a sense of humour.


Lest we forget: this discussion has been about your statement that you would join the British army to defend Britain if it were threatened by invasion.

See this is why your position is embarssing and it shows how racist your attitudes to british people in general is. I explicitly said I'd like to get training and a gun from them so I could defend myself and other communists, and all the other people the Nazis wanted to persecute, from the Nazi threat, which wanted to kill us. I also said I'd rather be in the partisans but I don't think it'd been likely for me to be able to join them.


Spoken like a true Unionist bigot.

Shame I'm not a unionist. I find their position a disgusting one. Stop trying to win this by attaching me to whatever reactionary ideology you can think of regardless of how untrue it is.

[Pogue]

Thats not a link.
Link please?

Who taught you that if you just keep asking for a link, you somehow win the argument? We all know about the IRA bombing campaign so don't try to avoid it. It's like you asking me for a link to prove WW2 ever happens. I don't need to do it.

[PRC-UTE]

Tà sè amadàin, ach tà sè go hàileann mar tà an craic ar fheabhas.

aontaim leat. tá sé cinnte. bheul, tá sé chomh dúr le slis.

tá me ag gáire amuigh os ard anseo.

[Pogue]

Not the fact that you said you would join them?


I find it funny that you find it bad that I'd rather fight the Nazis than not fight the Nazis. But then again its not suprising due to the history of Republican's working with the Nazis.

[Andropov]

Who taught you that if you just keep asking for a link, you somehow win the argument? We all know about the IRA bombing campaign so don't try to avoid it. It's like you asking me for a link to prove WW2 ever happens. I don't need to do it.

Im asking for the link to where it states that it was official IRA policy to target civilians.
NOW LINK PLEASE.

[Andropov]

I find it funny that you find it bad that I'd rather fight the Nazis than not fight the Nazis. But then again its not suprising due to the history of Republican's working with the Nazis.
http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Erescuers/book/Chlup/chlupgif/czechmap2.gif

[Andropov]

See this is why your position is embarssing and it shows how racist your attitudes to british people in general is



I think you need to re-assess your tactics. If you claim victory everytime someone tires of your childish debating technique which resorts to crying 'racist' then you're going to have alot of victories



but really an argument when your opponent resorts to racism isn't one worth engaging in


Hole and digging comes to mind.

[Pogue]

http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Erescuers/book/Chlup/chlupgif/czechmap2.gif

Yes, the British State is awful and has blood on its hands. So does the IRA.

[Andropov]

Yes, the British State is awful and has blood on its hands. So does the IRA.

And so do Anarchists, whats your point?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I don't understand why I'd look very foolish for condeming you guys for supporting groups that have actively and directly murdered innocents just because I'm an anarchist.

First off the INLA has been on cease fire for a long time now.

It is down right sinister of you too suggest that the IRSP is the "political wing" of an illegal organization and that people here (I know there are some disturbed individuals on the fringes of Irish Republicanism) cheer lead or "get off on" violence. I remember with disgust my Labour voting father making out "the provos" were green fascist psychopaths as they were just about to lay down their weapons and after all it was their communities that bore most of the pain of the troubles. Yes indeed the very communities betrayed by the Irish Labour party and all the other social-imperialists. Those who make so much out the violence of Irish Republicans usually have rather guilty consciences themselves.

I have majior political differences with the IRSP but never the less the fact is that its militants (and how many of them are middle class?) face intimidation and the constant threat of violence from the Free State, the Crown faces and its fascist death squads. Im sure if those who rule us found the WSM as threatening they also would face such things...but they dont. Your collusion with the black propaganda of the British ruling class puts you in not the best position to claim yourself as more revolutionary than people however misguided some of their opinions about Cuba or whatever might be have in the face of very real dangers dedicated their lives to the cause of the working class and human liberation.

[Pogue]

First off the INLA has been on cease fire for a long time now.

It is down right sinister of you too suggest that the IRSP is the "political wing" of an illegal organization and that people here (I know there are some disturbed individuals on the fringes of Irish Republicanism) cheer lead or "get off on" violence. I remember with disgust my Labour voting father making out "the provos" were green fascist psychopaths as they were just about to lay down their weapons and after all it was their communities that bore most of the pain of the troubles. Yes indeed the very communities betrayed by the Irish Labour party and all the other social-imperialists. Those who make so much out the violence of Irish Republicans usually have rather guilty consciences themselves.

I have majior political differences with the IRSP but never the less the fact is that its militants (and how many of them are middle class?) face intimidation and the constant threat of violence from the Free State, the Crown faces and its fascist death squads. Im sure if those who rule us found the WSM as threatening they also would face such things...but they dont. Your collusion with the black propaganda of the British ruling class puts you in not the best position to claim yourself as more revolutionary than people however misguided some of their opinions about Cuba or whatever might be have in the face of very real dangers dedicated their lives to the cause of the working class and human liberation.

I don't believe nationalism leads to working class and human liberation.

[Pogue]

And so do Anarchists, whats your point?

I don't know, your the who brought it up?

[Pogue]

Also if you were actively supportive of imperialism then you have the blood of imperialism on your hands.

If you were actively supportive of the IRA then you'd have blood on your hands.

Just being an anarchist wouldn't make this so, unless you actively supported some sort of anarchist action directed at civilians. I don't know of any of these.

[Andropov]

also if you were actively supportive of imperialism then you have the blood of imperialism on your hands.

If you were actively supportive of the ira then you'd have blood on your hands.

Just being an anarchist wouldn't make this so, unless you actively supported some sort of anarchist action directed at civilians. I don't know of any of these.

link to official ira policy to attack civilians?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I don't believe nationalism leads to working class and human liberation.

The IRSP is not nationalist in the sense that you or most people would mean by the term.

[Pogue]

The IRSP is not nationalist in the sense that you or most people would mean by the term.

I understand the meaning. Its a rubbish position.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I understand the meaning. Its a rubbish position.

What is a rubbish position?

That the IRSP is not nationalist?

If that is so why did one of their members put a thanks to my post saying that they were not nationalist?

[Andropov]

Seen the claims of the national liberation/republican types in the Indian massacre thread I made? They're accusing me of being racist for not supporting the IRA, its quite amusing.


They have some quite odd positions and I sense alot of resentment towards British people as a whole seen in their posts. I honestly think they have alot of racist attitudes towards British people.

Ohh HLVS, you couldnt just provide links to verify those outrageous claims?
Thanks in advance.

[Pogue]

Ohh HLVS, you couldnt just provide links to verify those outrageous claims?
Thanks in advance.

Are you so lazy you couldn't just have a look yourself? I'll do it if you really want but if you educate yourself its alot better.

[Andropov]

Are you so lazy you couldn't just have a look yourself? I'll do it if you really want but if you educate yourself its alot better.

Not my responsibility.
You made the claim, you were called on it and now it is your responsibility to verify this.

[Pogue]

Not my responsibility.
You made the claim, you were called on it and now it is your responsibility to verify this.

Its verified in your posts in this thread and others. Go fetch boy!

[Andropov]

Its verified in your posts in this thread and others. Go fetch boy!

Yet again.
Not my responsibility.
You made the claim, you were called on it and now it is your responsibility to verify this.

[Vargha Poralli]

How so? It is not as if the various cultural and ethnic differences have been overcome with independence - they still exist.

Where did I say it had been overcome ?

Read again what I have said.



And I am certainly denying the Indian Independence movement replaced capitalism!

Probably my mistake I intended to say the same thing but got messed up when I typred


What you have got in independent India is capitalism. This is what so called national liberation struggles are about - establishing independent capitalist states. They are a diversion from the class struggle and subjugate the workers more firmly to their local capitalists

Same question I have asked hlvs.

What we should have done ? Waited for a socialist revolution in Britain ?

[Vargha Poralli]

How does a centralized bourgeois state essentially created by the imperialist British help in the class struggle? I actually think that if India were to divide into smaller nations, it'd be easier to organize workers in those smaller countries on national lines. Also, the current situation of Kashmir and certain communities in tribal and rural areas being brutally oppressed by the bourgeois Indian state and the urban elite could end. What right does a centralized state have to artificially bring together communities? Any thoughts?

And instead some 26 independent states fighting and putting guns at each other would have never helped the class struggle even 1 bit. Look what had happened and is happening in former yugoslavia and srilanka today.

[Vargha Poralli]

And you said they're the same thing. Independence movements are not revolutions. On this board we refer to the Spanish Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc. Independence movements are not revolutions.


As I said revolution refers to something very specific on this board. We don't refer to all independence struggles as revolutions because they're not. Only you do that.

And what did Spanish Revolution achive ?

I don't think Franco live in exile in Germany or Italy. From your definition of a revolution = a change in economic structure then Spanish revolution does not qualify as a revolution. So does the Russian revolution. Why do even fight for something that had never happened in the history then ?

I think for you historical events and the struggle of the people never mean anything. All you consider is what label did the people use.



Good, that should have been done from the beginning rather than siding with the Indian bourgeoisie in a conflict which has cost the lives of many workers only to leave them in a state of oppresion oncemore.

Good answer my question again what we should have done until some anarchist uprising in britain and some anarchist grouping established it branches in India ? Bettter be under british because they have bought Railways and Industrial developements here ?


You said it was a revolution. It clearly wasn't. You also said it united the working class and that it stayed united. This completely ignores history and the subsequent conflict and war that came after the independence movement in which many people died, mainly proletarians. To claim that the working class stayed united and that this was some miraculous event is absurd and is like claiming that WW1 was a bloodless affair. Its completely contradicts history.


The partition was a result of nationalism. By emphasising the importance of the nation over the class, such conflict is inevitable.

And you said the Partition came because of the Independence movement for which I replied it came despite that.

I would suggest you better have an informed opinion about Partition of India. I would recommend "Freedom at Midnight" by Dominic Lappire which covers the events from the Appoinment of Mountbatten as viceroy to the assaination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu Nationalist.

I don't know whether you are jumping to conclusions or am I not clear in what I have meant.



Fought the class war rather than wasting energy and lives into fighting a class collaborationist conflict that acheived nothing for the working class.

But no such movement existed at that time and the Indian Revolutionaries fought alongside the movement which formed at that time which is the Indian Independence movement.

Rejecting their struggle just because it did not fit your crieteria of struggle just proves your prejudice and misunderstanding and ignorance.

[Hoxhaist]

the support for Britain in the European theater in WWII is completely different than support for the British Raj. The govts although officially the same were quite different. The Br. Raj was a colonialist regime fighting against a national liberation movement. In Europe, Britain was fighting against an imperialist, fascist German onslaught. This is why the USSR was so reluctant to get involved in Asia because they would be defending Western imperialist and colonialist interests in that region.

[Invader Zim]

http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Erescuers/book/Chlup/chlupgif/czechmap2.gif

Having done considerable research on the appeasement era, I have to ask, given the information available to policy makers across the world, what were they supposed to do in late 1938 when war, at that stage, was considered out of the question?

[PRC-UTE]

Having done considerable research on the appeasement era, I have to ask, given the information available to policy makers across the world, what were they supposed to do in late 1938 when war, at that stage, was considered out of the question?

that's not really the point, is it.

some were off ranting about republicans working for the nazis. glass houses and all that.

[Invader Zim]

some were off ranting about republicans working for the nazis. glass houses and all that.


Well no, not really. There is a significant difference between attempting to prevent, or at least delay, a World War and siding with the Nazi regime in that war.

The actions of Sean Russell, et al. are without defence, especially after the 9th of November 1938. And while Chamberlain's decisions have been second-guessed repeatedly, there is still a very strong argument that, given the information he was being told at the time, his decision was, at a minimum, justifiable.

[Andropov]

Well no, not really. There is a significant difference between attempting to prevent, or at least delay, a World War and siding with the Nazi regime in that war.


Not really when appeasement entails carving up countrys.

[PRC-UTE]

Not really when appeasement entails carving up countrys.

or objectively taking the fascist/nazi side in the Spanish Civil War while ridiculously pretending to be neutral.

[PRC-UTE]

Well no, not really. There is a significant difference between attempting to prevent, or at least delay, a World War and siding with the Nazi regime in that war.

The actions of Sean Russell, et al. are without defence, especially after the 9th of November 1938. And while Chamberlain's decisions have been second-guessed repeatedly, there is still a very strong argument that, given the information he was being told at the time, his decision was, at a minimum, justifiable.

left/socialist republicans were fighting fascism in the trenches of Spain while Britain stationed her navy in Barcelona harbour to undermine the republic.

[Invader Zim]

Not really when appeasement entails carving up countrys.

British policy makers were faced with the position of either caving into German demands and buying themselves time to complete the rearmament program, or risk starting a war that the Chiefs of staff told them that they would likely lose without waiting for the end of the re-armament program. In other words they were forced to let Hitler have his way or try the very risky move of trying to bluff him. What would you do? Either way you go, it is a lot less clear cut than the choice between opposing the Nazi's or aiding them in killing your fellow citizens and aid them in expanding their empire after kristallnacht demonstrated of what happens to inferiors in that regime.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

left/socialist republicans were fighting fascism in the trenches of Spain while Britain stationed her navy in Barcelona harbour to undermine the republic.

What about the IRA/Republican Congress smashing the Blueshirts in Ireland in the 1930s?

Also Red Action who though English identified very strongly with the struggle in Ireland played a huge role in fighting fascism in 1980s England.

Also Neo-Nazies generally strongly identify with the Loyalists.

Does that not tell us something?

Obviously your point is correct and very strong.

[Unclebananahead]

Those that ignore the progressive nature of national liberation movements are those who, at their own detriment, ignore the reality of the global imperialist system, which has divided the world into oppressor nations and oppressed nations. The class struggle has assumed a global, national scale in which more powerful exploiter nations dominate smaller, weaker nations and derive super-profits from the exploitation of those nations' natural resources and labor power. In a nation which is dominated by a foreign imperialist power, a national liberation movement is not merely progressive, it is essential. Socialism on any meaningful level is out of the question when self-determination is non-existent. A nation must first be free to pursue its own course, if it is to pursue a genuinely socialist course. I'm afraid I don't think that user HLVS comprehends this.

[Andropov]

British policy makers were faced with the position of either caving into German demands and buying themselves time to complete the rearmament program, or risk starting a war that the Chiefs of staff told them that they would likely lose without waiting for the end of the re-armament program. In other words they were forced to let Hitler have his way or try the very risky move of trying to bluff him. What would you do? Either way you go, it is a lot less clear cut than the choice between opposing the Nazi's or aiding them in killing your fellow citizens and aid them in expanding their empire after kristallnacht demonstrated of what happens to inferiors in that regime.

This was after they had molly coddled the NAZI's right?
Anyways wasnt it Hitler who said that if the Allys had stopped him at the Sudetenland his bluff would have been called?

[Cumannach]

It's rubbish anyway, the joint forces of the Soviets, British and French would have been adequate to deal with the Germans.

[Invader Zim]

This was after they had molly coddled the NAZI's right?
Anyways wasnt it Hitler who said that if the Allys had stopped him at the Sudetenland his bluff would have been called?

Possibly, but they didn't know that the German's were also bluffing. As far as their information went, they faced a potential war that the military told them they were likely to lose.

And if you describe the appeasement policy as 'molly coddling', but what does that make outright Republican collaboration with the Nazi regime? You keep on avoiding that. The fact is that when it comes to opposition to fascism both the British state and Irish republicanism have a questionable history.


What about the IRA/Republican Congress smashing the Blueshirts in Ireland in the 1930s?

And what of IRA/Nazi collaboration in 1940? Where does that fit in with your rosey view of republican history?

[PRC-UTE]

And what of IRA/Nazi collaboration in 1940? Where does that fit in with your rosey view of republican history?

You're right that it was wrong, agree completely, but republicans had cooperated with the Germans before- it wasn't ideological, just opportunist.

again, not advisable, but really not more sinister than the fallacy of thinking the enemy of your enemy is automatically your friend. Clearly republicans wanted gear from the Germans. But in the end not that much came of it. And given the overall history of republicanism being basically progressive, aligning htemselves with the oppressed and the vanguard of revolutionary forces in the world from revolutionary France to the FARC and Cuba today, I think we can all agree that Russell's activities with the Nazis were not representative

[Andropov]

Possibly, but they didn't know that the German's were also bluffing. As far as their information went, they faced a potential war that the military told them they were likely to lose.
That is desperate apologism.
If the Allys wanted they could have crushed the NAZI's, after all Germany did have massive restrictions on its military because of Versailles.
But the Brits molly coddled them and looked away when Hitler started expanding its military.

And if you describe the appeasement policy as 'molly coddling', but what does that make outright Republican collaboration with the Nazi regime?
Opportunism to tackle a genocidal empire.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend mantra.
I dont agree with it but I can understand the reasons behind such a decision.

You keep on avoiding that. The fact is that when it comes to opposition to fascism both the British state and Irish republicanism have a questionable history.
You are ignoring both the context and the actions of individuals.
For the Brits it was state policy to appease the NAZI's.
Where as in Irish Republican circles it was not stated policy.
Look at what the ICA hung outside Liberty Hall, "we serve neither King nor Kaiser" at the outbreak of WW1.
Not all Republicans bought into opportunism, where as the British state made it official policy to appease the NAZI's.
Also you are ignoring the context.
The British state was an Empire that had murdered on genocidal proportions.
And those Republicans who sought to rid themselves of their occupier decided to shake hands with the devil to do so.
That is remarkably different to one Genocidal power bending over to another Genocidal power.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

And what of IRA/Nazi collaboration in 1940? Where does that fit in with your rosey view of republican history?


Collaboration is far to strong a word given the fact that the IRA sent a message to the Nazi goverment saying that if they touched Ireland's sovergeinity the IRA would attack them.

The Breton and Irish seperatists seeking German aid was born out of desperation in the face of oppression. Try to understand that. It is in no way comparable to the disgraceful record of British Imperialism from 1933 to 1945 and indeed after.

[Invader Zim]

Collaboration is far to strong a wordWhat would you call the well documented links between IRA volunteers and the Abwehr, if not collaboration?

The fact that your servile apologism for all thinks anti-British extends to downplaying collaboration between the IRA and the Nazis' is shocking.

[Andropov]

What would you call the well documented links between IRA volunteers and the Abwehr, if not collaboration?

The fact that your servile apologism for all thinks anti-British extends to downplaying collaboration between the IRA and the Nazis' is shocking.
Your simplistic view of the world distorts reality.
You divorce peoples actions from the reality of the sitaution.
Failing to recognise the context of the situation leads to misrepresentation of the truth, but then that could suite your agenda to slur the National Liberation movement.

[Pogue]

Your simplistic view of the world distorts reality.
You divorce peoples actions from the reality of the sitaution.
Failing to recognise the context of the situation leads to misrepresentation of the truth, but then that could suite your agenda to slur the National Liberation movement.

Basically, your saying "I have nothing to say because you're right'.

[Andropov]

Ohh back on this thread again HLVS, I thought you ran away.
Never the less I will entertain you until you tuck tail and run again.

Basically, your saying "I have nothing to say because you're right'.
No, I am simply saying that all actions must be put into context.
Even you should be able to grasp this.
Read my previous post to understand what I mean by the context of the situation.

[PRC-UTE]

Basically, your saying "I have nothing to say because you're right'.

He's saying quite clearly to view history in its context, to look at the material conditions as any Marxist would.

it should be noted that we're not ideologically descended from Russell's IRA and that philosophy of apolitical physical force republicanism. We wouldn't lie to excuse Russell- we don't commemorate or uphold him. We think the actions of the physical force republicans in that period show why socialist republicanism is the only republican tradition that can lead the working class to freedom.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

What would you call the well documented links between IRA volunteers and the Abwehr, if not collaboration?

The fact that your servile apologism for all thinks anti-British extends to downplaying collaboration between the IRA and the Nazis' is shocking.


I would call the well documented attempts of individuals in the IRA and individuals within Breton separatism (am I anti-French now because I support the struggle of the Breton people against French colonialism? what about anti-Turkish for supporting the Kurds?) to obtain guns to defend themselves from the Nazies misguided at best. Comparing Sean Russell to Marshall Petain or your Prince is stretching it a bit.

Given the situation of the native population in the occupied six counties if you could look the other way about people joining the British Imperialist army surely you should look the other way about Sean Russell?

Again his actions were misguided at the very best.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

it should be noted that we're not ideologically descended from Russell's IRA and that philosophy of apolitical physical force republicanism. We wouldn't lie to excuse Russell- we don't commemorate or uphold him. We think the actions of the physical force republicans in that period show why socialist republicanism is the only republican tradition that can lead the working class to freedom.

Sorry the BBC has told me that you are evil sectarian psychopaths who want to brutally torture every single protestant and britisher to death at the command of the Pope of Rome...Say what you like...

The BBC NEVER lies.

[Unclebananahead]

Self determination is a necessary precursor to any meaningful pursuit of a socialist course. Sometimes, a struggle for national self determination, can be almost entirely socialist in character, as in the struggle of Yugoslavia's partisans against the Nazi occupiers, the Hukbalahap rebels in the Philippines, or the Vietminh in Vietnam. Regrettably however, this is not always the case. In Palestine for instance, there is no major socialist or proletarian group waging a national liberation struggle against the Israeli government. The only hope for Palestinian self determination are groups like Hamas, which we can all agree is less than an ideal situation.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Self determination is a necessary precursor to any meaningful pursuit of a socialist course.

In the situation in Ireland and Brittany socialism is a necessity for self-determination. I accept this as does the IRSP however much we differ over how socialism should be defined.

Where myself and the IRSP differ from INVADER Vim et al is that we believe that the resistance of the Breton, Irish and Indian people to British and Paris imperialism is both justified and "progressive".

[Invader Zim]

Given the situation of the native population in the occupied six counties if you could look the other way about people joining the British Imperialist army surely you should look the other way about Sean Russell?

Again his actions were misguided at the very best.

You are the one being inconsistant here. You gave HLVS a hard time for suggesting he might have joined the Services given the situation in the Second World War, and you are the one stuggling to justify the fact that the fact that IRA volunteers involved themselves with the Nazi regime. Which way do you want it?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

You are the one being inconsistant here. You gave HLVS a hard time for suggesting he might have joined the Services given the situation in the Second World War, and you are the one stuggling to justify the fact that the fact that IRA volunteers involved themselves with the Nazi regime. Which way do you want it?

Neither Sean Russell or the Breton separatists actually joined the Nazi army or suggested to their people doing so.

Still unlike Yeruda Stern who actually lost family members in the genocide attempt of the Nazies you seem to believe that British Imperialism was somehow morally superior to German imperialism.

Again I do not condone at all Sean Russell's actions.

[Invader Zim]

Neither Sean Russell or the Breton separatists actually joined the Nazi army or suggested to their people doing so.

No, he did however actively collaborate with them, and offer himself and his organisation as assistants and active military associates of the Abwehr and its agents in exchange for resources. It is incomprehensable that you, a self proclaimed leftists, finds this only to be 'misguided at best'. Thankfully there are those in your country that understand better than you, and took the head from his memorial and justified their actions with the following statement: -



'At the Wansee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition.'



And make no mistake about it, while Sean Russell was not around to know the full extent of the Nazi's virulent racism, the world gained a good idea of it in November 1938; and unlike Russell, people saw Kristallnacht and saw that the Nazis were to be opposed rather than aided. And that is the crux of this issue.



Still unlike Yeruda Stern who actually lost family members in the genocide attempt of the Nazies you seem to believe that British Imperialism was somehow morally superior to German imperialism.As ever you are confused; the mass of the British public which came to support war by 1939 and the millions of individuals who joined the British service ranks, or failing that the 'protected employment', did not do so in order to enable British troops to continue its pre-1914 policies or to protect the empire, which ironically, along with the hated USSR, came to it's rescue. No, the point that changed British public opinion on a potential war with Germany came after the 9th of November 1938. Prior to that point opinion polls showed that the British public believed that Anglo-German differences could be reconsiled and that war was unlikely. However after that point, British public opinions showed marked hostility towards Germany and the appeasement policy.

And you are confused on another point, where have I supported British attrocities or played down their significance or magnitude? In fact I suspect I know a lot more about the negative impact of Britain's imperialist adventures than you care to imagine. As for comparing Nazi attrocities with Britain's imperialist attrocities; and trying to choose the worst of the two? It doesn't work, they are inherently incomparable. Indeed how does one begin trying to compare the holocaust, or the trans-Atlantic slave trade without trivialising them? But something tells me you wouldn't understand that.



You divorce peoples actions from the reality of the sitaution.

Just as you, and Peader here, did when it came to addressing the motivations behind peoples willingness to join the British armed forces during the Second World War. As for the realities of the situation; Russell, and his fellow collaborators - along with the rest of the world - knew exactly what kind of regime they were dealing with, and their action was to collaborate with the regime anyway because they shared a common enemy with the Nazis. What part of that have I got wrong?

[Andropov]

'At the Wansee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition.'
Did you ever hear of the leader of the Dublin Brigade, Ben Briscoe?
I suggest you read up about him, maybe then you could explain his obvious self loathing.
After all Republicanism did embrace the final solution.

Just as you, and Peader here, did when it came to addressing the motivations behind peoples willingness to join the British armed forces during the Second World War.
How exactly did I fail to put that into context?

As for the realities of the situation; Russell, and his fellow collaborators - along with the rest of the world - knew exactly what kind of regime they were dealing with
Yes, that is why I disagree with their policy of collaboration.
Its a bit of an insult after all to the Irish Republicans who fought and died fighting fascism in Spain.
But the point remains, their actions as individuals, are not indicitive of Republicanism.

and their action was to collaborate with the regime anyway because they shared a common enemy with the Nazis. What part of that have I got wrong?
Just the fact that the actions of a few individuals in the IRA seem to condemn the whole Republican tradition in your eyes.

[Invader Zim]

Where did I say that Sean Russell was representative of all republicans? Quote me.


How exactly did I fail to put that into context?You failed in every respect because as I have shown, you don't understand the historical context of either the appeasement policy or the actions of Sean Russell.


Yes, that is why I disagree with their policy of collaboration.Well I am glad we can agree that it was collaboration, Peader disagrees.


Just the fact that the actions of a few individuals in the IRA seem to condemn the whole Republican tradition in your eyes.It doesn't. I have repeatedly employed the term 'volunteers', which I would hope indicates individuals. And my main point here is to note the hypocricy of apologism for the likes of Sean Russell, but condemnation of those who joined the British armed forces during the Second World War. Appanetly the former is heinous support for imperialism, but the latter is merely misguided though understandable given the situation.

[Andropov]

Where did I say that Sean Russell was representative of all republicans? Quote me.
Granted you didnt, so im glad we agree on that.

You failed in every respect because as I have shown, you don't understand the historical context of either the appeasement policy or the actions of Sean Russell.
No Invader it was you who has failed to put the appeasement into context.
Not only would Britain, France and the USSR been able to crush Germany before he expanded into the Sudetenland.
But also it was the British who were the main apologists for the expansion of the German Military.
They could have held Germany to account to their military obligations in the Versailles treaty, but they turned the other way and looked away.


Well I am glad we can agree that it was collaboration, Peader disagrees.
I would see it as collaboration, but that is merely my opinion which is completely subjective so im sure Peader is more than welcome to disagree.

Appanetly the former is heinous support for imperialism, but the latter is merely misguided though understandable given the situation.
You do realise this whole topic was actually brought up to point out HLVS's hypocricy with regards joining the British Military and then berating Republicans?

[Invader Zim]

Granted you didnt, so im glad we agree on that.

Fair enough.


Not only would Britain, France and the USSR been able to crush Germany before he expanded into the Sudetenland.Three points.

1. Britain was hardly going to put its faith in the USSR, its ideological enemy, and whose army had purged at least 50% of its officers in 1937 and was judged to be completely unready for a war. And judging the Red Army defeats in the opening years of the war, and its abject failures in Finland, it was hardly a view without merit. And the French, and British, military thinking of the period was stuck in what has been called the 'Maginot Mentality'.

2. In order to take Britain to War, Chamberlain's had to have political support from the population, which wasn't forthcoming until after November 1938.

3. As I have told you, Britain's military re-armament was at least two years behind Germany's, and the British knew it. The navy had vast imperial waters to patrol, and was faced with the presence of a potential threat from Germany in the North Sea, from Italy in the Med, and from Japan in the Pacific. The RAF, Radar Network and BEF were, at this stage next to non-existant. Britain was in no stage to fight a war, and the British vastly over-estimated Germany's ability to wage a long term war.

There is no way, with all the will in the world, that Britain was going to go to war with Germany before it did, and that was because the appeasement policy was dicatted by the British military. To quote Britain's Chiefs of Staff in 1937: -

"we cannot foresee the time when our defence forces will be strong enough to safeguard our trade, territory and vital interests against Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time … We cannot exaggerate the importance from the point of view of Imperial Defence of any political or international action which could be taken to reduce the number of our potential enemies and to gain the support of potential allies.” Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (London, 1976) p. 290.

And Chamberlain wrote in 1940,

“The most common cry […] Why can’t we have some plan which would take him [Hitler] by surprise?
The answer to these questions is simple enough, […] It is Because [sic] we are not yet strong enough. […] We have plenty of manpower but it is neither trained nor equipped. We are short of many weapons of offence and defence. Above all we are short of airpower.”

Chamberlain, ‘Neville Chamberlain to Hilda Chamberlain, 4 May 1940’ in Robert Self (ed.) The Neville Chamberlain Diary Letters: Volume 4: The Downing Street Years, 1934-1940 (Aldershot, 2005), p. 526.

Indeed, when Nazi germany agreed to the Munich agreement, Chamberlain and his military advisors thought that they had tricked Hitler into giving them more time. To quote Chamberlain, "[Hitler] missed the bus in Sept 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible, perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur.”

Chamberlain, ‘Neville Chamberlain to Hilda Chamberlain, 30 Dec 1939’, in Self, p. 483.

I gotta confess, we have accidentally strolled into a chunck of my current research project.


But also it was the British who were the main apologists for the expansion of the German Military.
They could have held Germany to account to their military obligations in the Versailles treaty, but they turned the other way and looked away.On this you are correct, but you again fail to understand the historical context. The British position, and by that I mean both politicans and people, were convinsed that Versailles had been bitterly unfair, and the view of German re-armament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was that they could do what they liked in their own land. The British responce to these events was, yes to turn a blind eye, but also to begin its own re-armament.


You do realise this whole topic was actually brought up to point out HLVS's hypocricy with regards joining the British Military and then berating Republicans?

You should read through the topic again mate, HLVS brought up the Nazi/IRA connection back on the first page when you and Peader berated HLVS for suggesting he might have joined the British army during WW2. The issue of Ireland, as an example of British imperialism, was first brought up in this thread as a responce to my initial post in which I stated it is impossible to know how we would feal had we lived in 1940.

[Andropov]

Three points.

1. Britain was hardly going to put its faith in the USSR, its ideological enemy, and whose army had purged at least 50% of its officers in 1937 and was judged to be completely unready for a war. And judging the Red Army defeats in the opening years of the war, and its abject failures in Finland, it was hardly a view without merit. And the French, and British, military thinking of the period was stuck in what has been called the 'Maginot Mentality'.

2. In order to take Britain to War, Chamberlain's had to have political support from the population, which wasn't forthcoming until after November 1938.

3. As I have told you, Britain's military re-armament was at least two years behind Germany's, and the British knew it. The navy had vast imperial waters to patrol, and was faced with the presence of a potential threat from Germany in the North Sea, from Italy in the Med, and from Japan in the Pacific. The RAF, Radar Network and BEF were, at this stage next to non-existant. Britain was in no stage to fight a war, and the British vastly over-estimated Germany's ability to wage a long term war.

Fair enough.


On this you are correct, but you again fail to understand the historical context. The British position, and by that I mean both politicans and people, were convinsed that Versailles had been bitterly unfair, and the view of German re-armament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was that they could do what they liked in their own land. The British responce to these events was, yes to turn a blind eye, but also to begin its own re-armament.
I understand the Versialles context perfectly Invader.
I know the British public had enormous sympathy with the German people and especially looking at the collapse of Weimar.
I know many of the stipulations on re-emberssment to the Victors were outrageous.
But what I will not accept was Britain advocating the expansion of the German military.
That served no purpose in helping the German public off its feet.

You should read through the topic again mate, HLVS brought up the Nazi/IRA connection back on the first page when you and Peader berated HLVS for suggesting he might have joined the British army during WW2.
Invader I know perfectly why HLVS would join the British Military in WW2.
Im not stupid.
I was raising the hypocricy of HLVS opinion on defending the territorial soveriegnty of Britain and yet when Republicans in Ireland fight an invading force we are targeted by his chauvanistic bile.
You must realise the hypocricy here yourself.

The issue of Ireland, as an example of British imperialism, was first brought up in this thread as a responce to my initial post in which I stated it is impossible to know how we would feal had we lived in 1940.
TBH I dont really care what your original opinion was.
I was just using this thread to publicy out HLVS's blatant contradictions and hypocricy.

[Unclebananahead]

Animosity between both parties must go back some degree I would venture. HLVS and Red Revolutionary that is.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Animosity between both parties must go back some degree I would venture. HLVS and Red Revolutionary that is.

800 years and counting....

[Pogue]

800 years and counting....


You have to be kidding me...

[Pogue]

I was just using this thread to publicy out HLVS's blatant contradictions and hypocricy.


I don't see any contradictions or hypocrisy behind the desire to defend myself against someone who wanted to kill me by whatever means possible.

I do take issue with bombing civilians and believing national liberation will actually 'liberate' you. I think anyone is entitled to self defence against an aggressive force. But theres a difference between defending yourself and carrying out acts furthering a cuase, be it fighting for the British state or the IRA which did kill civilians and wanted to replace British capitalism with the Irish variant.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't see any contradictions or hypocrisy behind the desire to defend myself against someone who wanted to kill me by whatever means possible.

I do take issue with bombing civilians and believing national liberation will actually 'liberate' you. I think anyone is entitled to self defence against an aggressive force. But theres a difference between defending yourself and carrying out acts furthering a cuase, be it fighting for the British state or the IRA which did kill civilians and wanted to replace British capitalism with the Irish variant.

however joining the British military or any other conventional military for that matter would have involved bombing far more civilians than republicans did. Another difference: republicans warned civilians to get out usually.

The distinctions you make between carrying out violence to further a cause or for defence. Regardless, republican violence began in defence.

[Pogue]

I already said I wouldn't ever take part in any attacks on innocent civilians.

[Killfacer]

however joining the British military or any other conventional military for that matter would have involved bombing far more civilians than republicans did. Another difference: republicans warned civilians to get out usually.

The distinctions you make between carrying out violence to further a cause or for defence. Regardless, republican violence began in defence.

Turnt another thread into a debate about ireland... :thumbdown:

[Andropov]

Turnt another thread into a debate about ireland... :thumbdown:
It was a thread about British Imperialism in India so it will be inevitable that its continued imperial presence in Ireland shall be mentioned.

[Andropov]

I already said I wouldn't ever take part in any attacks on innocent civilians.
Not all members of the PIRA were bomb makers.
There were alot of gunmen there too.

[Killfacer]

It was a thread about British Imperialism in India so it will be inevitable that its continued imperial presence in Ireland shall be mentioned.

We have hundreds of threads about fucking ireland. Do we need to turn other threads into more of them simply because they are indirectly linked?

[Andropov]

We have hundreds of threads about fucking ireland. Do we need to turn other threads into more of them simply because they are indirectly linked?
We also have hundreds of threads about fucking america, I fail to see the problem.

[Killfacer]

We also have hundreds of threads about fucking america, I fail to see the problem.

So you think it's perfectly fine for half the threads on the board to derail into the same people having the same argument? Yawn.

[Andropov]

So you think it's perfectly fine for half the threads on the board to derail into the same people having the same argument? Yawn.
Firstly half the threads are not derailed into this arguement, that is an exageration.
Secondly the reason why it boils down to this arguement is because this is the core disagreement and thus the hot topic for debate.
If you dont like the debate dont bother reading it.

[PRC-UTE]

We also have hundreds of threads about fucking america, I fail to see the problem.

I didn't see any threads about fucking America... I've clearly been missing out :crying:

[Invader Zim]

We also have hundreds of threads about fucking america, I fail to see the problem.

The problem is that your interest in history and politics apparently doesn't extend further than modern Ireland, and you seem to want to force that topic on the rest of us regardless of the discussion at hand. Adding to the problem is individuals such as myself can't resist taking the bate.

[Random Precision]

This thread has deviated far from its purpose and I don't think it can be redeemed. Therefore, I'm going to lock it. PM me if you disagree, and we can discuss re-opening it.