Leninist Imperialism

[Seth]

I like it how the Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and Stalinists on this forum are the ones most obsessed with "antiimperialism" even to the point of defending reactionary regimes.

But they actually just show themselves to be huge hypocrites.

Here are some examples of Leninist imperialism:

-Reclamation of the Russian empire after the civil war, especially in the caucus.

-aggression against Poland before world war 2, not even counting the alliance with fascism and 1939.

-basically everything about World War II.

-The Warsaw Pact puppet regimes.

-1956, nuff said

- 1968, nuff said

-Invasion of Afghanistan

-Tibet, nuff said

-The Cold War in general

I'm sure I could find other examples. Prove me wrong.

[Omsk]

-basically everything about World War II.

-The Warsaw Pact puppet regimes.

-1956, nuff said

- 1968, nuff said

-Invasion of Afghanistan

-Tibet, nuff said

-The Cold War in general




These have nothing to do with Leninism.You should know better.


-aggression against Poland before world war 2, not even counting the alliance with fascism and 1939.


Not Leninism.Non aggresion pact is not an alliance.


-Reclamation of the Russian empire after the civil war, especially in the caucus.

You are either historically blind or you are closing your eyes on purpose,if you cant see the difference between the USSR and Imperial Russia.

However,you posted a lot of debate options,all of which you presented with extreme simplifications.So if you cant elaborate your opinions and actually come up with some arguments,dont open threads like these.

Also note that Leninism is not Trotskyism/MarxismLeninism/Maoism/USSR of Khrushchev or Brezhnev.

There is just so many wrong and simplified things in this thread that i can barely answer it all.

[Seth]

You are either historically blind or you are closing your eyes on purpose,if you cant see the difference between the USSR and Imperial Russia.



Why couldn't this country go free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainous_Republic_of_the_Northern_Caucasus

[The Douche]

I like it how the Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and Stalinists on this forum are the ones most obsessed with "antiimperialism" even to the point of defending reactionary regimes.

But they actually just show themselves to be huge hypocrites.

Here are some examples of Leninist imperialism:

-Reclamation of the Russian empire after the civil war, especially in the caucus.

-aggression against Poland before world war 2, not even counting the alliance with fascism and 1939.

-basically everything about World War II.

-The Warsaw Pact puppet regimes.

-1956, nuff said

- 1968, nuff said

-Invasion of Afghanistan

-Tibet, nuff said

-The Cold War in general

I'm sure I could find other examples. Prove me wrong, Lenin-fascists.

This is inappropriate, its flame-baiting. Please edit it out of your post, and you can consider this a verbal warning.

[Seth]

Cmoney, I just lost all respect for you for making me censor myself.

[The Douche]

Cmoney, who do you think you are to make me censor myself?

If you have an issue with it, PM me, I'm not gonna derail the thread.

[Omsk]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Mountain_Republic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Mountain_Republic
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Mountain_Republic)

It was reorganized under Bolshevik support into the Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.Why was it removed?Because it was counterrevolutionary and was a puppet of Germany,the Ottoman Empire and other antibolshevik elements.The last thing the Bolsheviks needed was a set of small states each followings either its own path or being leeded by a bigger power,in all the chaos of the Civil War in Russia.

Now,why dont you focus more on your thread starting post,and back up,if possible,some of the claims.

[Leftsolidarity]

You post this trash yet you have a blog that says "sectarianism is dumb".

I would respond to these examples but then I realized that this has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, your examples suck, I kind of support some of your examples, imperialism and aggression are not the same thing, and you clearly do not actually intend to seriously discuss the topics you have brought up.

[Seth]

It was reorganized under Bolshevik support into the Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.Why was it removed?Because it was counterrevolutionary and was a puppet of Germany,the Ottoman Empire and other antibolshevik elements.The last thing the Bolsheviks needed was a set of small states each followings either its own path or being leeded by a bigger power,in all the chaos of the Civil War in Russia.

Now,why dont you focus more on your thread starting post,and back up,if possible,some of the claims.

So we can just invade other countries in the name of "progress" of the revolution. Nice.

[Seth]

You post this trash yet you have a blog that says "sectarianism is dumb".

I would respond to these example but then I realized that this has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, your examples suck, I kind of support some of your examples, imperialism and aggression are not the same thing, and you clearly do not actually intend to seriously discuss the topics you have brought up.

?

Why don't they oppose these imperialist adventures?

[Threetune]

This is inappropriate, its flame-baiting. Please edit it out of your post, and you can consider this a verbal warning.

I think anti-communist posts like this should be allowed even if it is deliberately provocative and reactionary garbage. If Leninism can’t answer this nonsense it’s not Leninism. I understand that the mods want to crack down on stupidity but it is better to do it politically rather than with bureaucracy.

[Seth]

What do we call extreme authoritarianism and millitarism? How does that not apply to Leninism?

[The Douche]

I think anti-communist posts like this should be allowed even if it is deliberately provocative and reactionary garbage. If Leninism can’t answer this nonsense it’s not Leninism. I understand that the mods want to crack down on stupidity but it is better to do it politically rather than with bureaucracy.

I don't have an issue with the post, just with the phrase "lenin-fascists". When you come out of the gates with an insult (and one thats not even witty, or well thought out, and one that reflects your own ignorance) you don't set the stage for a political discussion, you set the stage for a flame war.

[The Douche]

What do we call extreme authoritarianism and millitarism? How does that not apply to Leninism?

Authoritarianism is an empty term. But in no way is it accurate to define fascism just as "authoritarian and militarist".

[Seth]

Authoritarianism is an empty term. But in no way is it accurate to define fascism just as "authoritarian and militarist".

Um, no it isn't, authoritarianism is everything I oppose as an libertarian.

[Leftsolidarity]

?

Why don't they oppose these imperialist adventures?

Because they don't feel they are imperialist (neither do I in fact) and people can have differing views than yours while still being a communist/anarchist/whatever. I think you should look up the words ironic and hypocritical. It describes you pretty well right now.

[Threetune]

Look comrades the importance of this reactionary post is not in the anti-communist garbage in detail, but in the overall political context it has been launched in. Let us ask the OP to please explain why do this at this time? What has happened to elicit such a stupid outburst?

[Drosophila]

I wasn't aware that Lenin and Stalin were the same person

[Omsk]

So we can just invade other countries in the name of "progress" of the revolution. Nice.

I am sure the people were better in a Soviet area rather than in a,German/Ottoman Empire backed quasi state.
The Bolsheviks were actually willing to abandon the lands and provinces of former Russia,as the case of Finland.
Unlike,the Kerensky Government for example.


The Kerensky Government refused even to recognize the independence of Finland, though Finland had always been an independent State, bound to Russia only by a single constitutional bond, that of a common dynasty

If you are going to continue arguing with one line posts and without real arguments,i wont continue to answer your questions.


What do we call extreme authoritarianism and millitarism? How does that not apply to Leninism?


Leninism includes the principles of democratic centralism [freedome in debate],the Bolshevik party won its popularity by deeds and acomplishments,when the March revolution exploded, the party had 24,000 members, in October, 400,000.Lenin was not the "Ultimate Dictator" how was he often portrayed by anticommunists.He didnt make all the decisions,he usually presented his plans and ideas and let the Bolsheviks vote them out.For instance,both Trotsky and Stalin [Basically the duo that makred the Soviet history post 1925] opposed him,along with countless other members.

[The Douche]

Um, no it isn't, authoritarianism is everything I oppose as an libertarian.

That doesn't define what "authoritarianism" is though...

Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

You haven't defined fascism, you haven't defined leninism, you haven't explained any of the points you mentioned in your first post, you haven't defined authoritarianism or why you oppose it, you haven't defined libertarianism or why you support it.

For instance, what does this refer to:


1968, nuff said

That is not "enough said" for us to be able to have a discussion. Are you talking about the Prague Spring? The tet offensive? The Polish political crisis? The arrest of some RAF members? MLK's assassination? The death of Bobby Hutton? The events in Paris? The events in Mexico City?

Or something else?

[Comrade Hill]

Have you not even held a debate with a Marxist-Leninist before? These questions have been answered NUMEROUS times.




-Reclamation of the Russian empire after the civil war, especially in the caucus.


This doesn't even deserve it's own refutation.



-aggression against Poland before world war 2, not even counting the alliance with fascism and 1939.


The initial aggression was going to be against he U.S.S.R, committed by Nazi imperialists, if something was not done at that time.

There was no "act of aggression" made by the Soviet Union. Instead of fighting, the fascist Polish government fled the country and defied it's people before the Nazis invaded. Consequently, the "Polish state" was non-existent.

Here is information from the great soviet historian Grover Furr exposing the lies about WW2.

"When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state."

"Furthermore, the M-R Treaty’s Secret Protocols were void, since they were an agreement about the state of Poland and no state of Poland existed any longer. Unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, there was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border."

"Or -- as we now know they were in fact preparing to do -- Hitler could have formed one or more pro-Nazi states in what had until recently been Eastern Poland. That way Hitler could have had it both ways: claim to the Soviets that he was still adhering to the "spheres of influence" agreement of the M-R Pact while in fact setting up a pro-Nazi, highly militarized fascist Ukrainian nationalist state on the Soviet border."

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html



-The Warsaw Pact puppet regimes.


Marxist-Leninists denounce the Soviet's Social-imperialism during the time when Khrushchev took over.



I'm sure I could find other examples. Prove me wrong.


That was easy.

[The Douche]

You wrote this blog:


Seriously. I've been here a little over a month, and it seems like the various leftist factions hate each other more than they hate the ruling class or the fascists. Is it really that much to ask that people understand where the other side is coming from? I thought this was a discussion forum, not an attack forum or a gladiator arena. The dumbness comes from Stalinists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc in equal measure, so don't act like some sect is more responsible than another. If you only have something trollish, snobby, humorous (meant to attack or a reductio ad ridiculum) don't say anything. Geezus. I bet this drives so many workers away from the left. I've about had enough of it, mostly from petty one-liners.


Maybe take some of your own advice?

[Ocean Seal]

I like it how the Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and Stalinists on this forum are the ones most obsessed with "antiimperialism" even to the point of defending reactionary regimes.

But they actually just show themselves to be huge hypocrites.

Here are some examples of Leninist imperialism:

-Reclamation of the Russian empire after the civil war, especially in the caucus.

-aggression against Poland before world war 2, not even counting the alliance with fascism and 1939.

-basically everything about World War II.

-The Warsaw Pact puppet regimes.

-1956, nuff said

- 1968, nuff said

-Invasion of Afghanistan

-Tibet, nuff said

-The Cold War in general

I'm sure I could find other examples. Prove me wrong.
Did you actually look up what imperialism meant?
Even past the conglomeration of the party the USSR exerted "social imperialism" which isn't actual imperialism by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, its proof that socialism wasn't going on around there, but its not like the relation that the western powers have to most of the world.

[CommieTroll]

Wow, ''Nuff said'' is an example of ''Leninist Imperialism''? I'm sold! Does the OP even have an understanding of the tendencies he is flaming?

[ComradeGrant]

Dude, as an Anarchist I feel like your points suck. If you're going to criticize Lenin at least be civil and educated about it.

[workersadvocate]

Um, no it isn't, authoritarianism is everything I oppose as an libertarian.

When you say "libertarian", do you mean individualist?
As in, you would refuse and resist the democratic decisions of even a genuine workers republic ( litetally, the working class itself organized as the ruling class)?
"You workers can't tell me what to do. I'm taking MY toys and going home."
We workers are always gonna be accused of being authoritarians toward our class enemies. "Those are MY toys, you damn authoritarians!" is the anti-communist anthem.
Where were all these anti-authoritarian libertarian individualists when billions of people around the world suffered exploitation and oppression under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie? THAT wasn't a problem for "I, me, mine" individualist fuckers, who usually belong to or aspire to be in the exploiting and coordinating master classes.
Individualism ain't cool, ain't progressive, and ain't even truly anti-authoritarian (since this noise about authoritarianism stops when their own interests and classes rule over others). Ye olde "hippie" to "yuppie" phenomenon occurs yet again, and these individualists put on the equivalent of Ron Paul buttons. Or worse...
We working people have heard this song before, we've been screwed sore by it countless times (at least as often as by the Stalinists and the rest of the middle class left), and some of us have reached the end of our patience and remaining foolish respect for all these darlings of the 33%.

[Leftsolidarity]

When you say "libertarian", do you mean individualist?
As in, you would refuse and resist the democratic decisions of even a genuine workers republic ( litetally, the working class itself organized as the ruling class)?
"You workers can't tell me what to do. I'm taking MY toys and going home."
We workers are always gonna be accused of being authoritarians toward our class enemies. "Those are MY toys, you damn authoritarians!" is the anti-communist anthem.
Where were all these anti-authoritarian libertarian individualists when billions of people around the world suffered exploitation and oppression under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie? THAT wasn't a problem for "I, me, mine" individualist fuckers, who usually belong to or aspire to be in the exploiting and coordinating master classes.
Individualism ain't cool, ain't progressive, and ain't even truly anti-authoritarian (since this noise about authoritarianism stops when their own interests and classes rule over others). Ye olde "hippie" to "yuppie" phenomenon occurs yet again, and these individualists put on the equivalent of Ron Paul buttons. Or worse...
We working people have heard this song before, we've been screwed sore by it countless times (at least as often as by the Stalinists and the rest of the middle class left), and some of us have reached the end of our patience and remaining foolish respect for all these darlings of the 33%.

I don't think he is a capitalist. I think he is an anti-capitalist libertarian. Just a very confused one......

[Yuppie Grinder]

-Tibet, nuff said


Bullshit. Tibet has always been a part of China. Don't believe the liberal gibberish. I'm and anti-nation, but you got this bit wrong.

[Leftsolidarity]

Bullshit. Tibet has always been a part of China. Don't believe the liberal gibberish. I'm anti-lenninism, and anti-nation, but you got this bit wrong.

Writing a paper on the topic at this very moment :ohmy:

Seth, if you want to see a discussion on that topic go to my thread on it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/doing-school-debate-t166027/index.html

[workersadvocate]

I don't think he is a capitalist. I think he is an anti-capitalist libertarian. Just a very confused one......

Yes, that's probably true. But it's a presidential electional cycle in America, with libertarian darling Ron Paul in the top three contenders for the Republican Party nod, so all the individualist little Ayn Randroids start emerging from the cracks (even in the left, especially the "libertarian" and "anarchist" scene), hoping to shit-disturb for the lulz, assert the primacy of Self over all, and sway away people who seek out a proletarian revolutionary communist solution.

I don't confuse them with serious working class anarcho-syndicalists/anarcho-communists, who have far far more in common with Marxist worker-communists then with Ron Paul fans, individualist "anarchists" du jour, or the middle class left generally.
It's a working class thing, those who still have a stake in this system don't want to understand and don't really want us to break free of all our chains.

[Q]

Please educate yourself a little on the subject of imperialism. The petty evil-empire-overlordism as displayed in the OP gets old. Second, please provide some substantial argumentation as to why you think the USSR was socialist. Third, please provide some of your thoughts as to how the developments of the early Soviet Union logically flow over into the later developments.

The latter two questions are asked because I for one think the USSR was a counterrevolutionary bulward from the mid-1930's onward.

[Frank Zapatista]

Seth, I find it somewhat humorous that you last blog entry is titled "Sectarianism is Dumb" and yet your original post was one of the most sectarian posts I'vd ever seen on RevLeft, and that's saying a lot. Posts like that do nothing but further divide the working class. If you can't work alongside your fellow leftists, you aren't much good to the cause.

[Threetune]

The bloke is having a crisis that he can’t yet talk about well. Leave him to make some development of his own. We all do it.

[PolskiLenin]

As far back as 1907, .9% (30,588/3,265,623) of German enterprises employed 39.4% of all workers and used 75.3% of all steam power and 77.2% of all electricity. In 1909, a hundredth of all American enterprises carried out production equal to half of the total amount produced by U.S. enterprises, and employed 30.5% of all workers, pooling in 43.8% of all profit. Now who's to say that the slogan "99 vs 1%" is incorrect and not based on reality?! Lenin's words of 1916 were most prescient when he said "millions of small, medium, and even some large enterprises are in complete subjection to some hundreds of millionaire financiers." Here's statistics for today that prove a 1% still pull the strings, for a capitalist network still runs the world at their mercy:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#bx283545B1

[A Marxist Historian]

So we can just invade other countries in the name of "progress" of the revolution. Nice.

Well, if it's for progress of revolution, why not? If it's for "progress" of the revolution, i.e. if it's phony bullshit for aggrandizing the power of bureaucrats like Stalin, that is a horse of another color.

Each of the myriad examples you posted in your OP is a different story, and throwing them all into one bucket is stupid. Some of them were just Stalinist aggrandization, some were justified-even some of the ones under Stalin or his successors. And some, like say Hungary 1956, were downright criminal and counterrevolutionary.

For a useful discussion, we'd have to break this up into a separate thread for each one.

Reminds me of the old saying that one fool can post more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.

-M.H.-

[Threetune]

Well, if it's for progress of revolution, why not? If it's for "progress" of the revolution, i.e. if it's phony bullshit for aggrandizing the power of bureaucrats like Stalin, that is a horse of another color.

Each of the myriad examples you posted in your OP is a different story, and throwing them all into one bucket is stupid. Some of them were just Stalinist aggrandization, some were justified-even some of the ones under Stalin or his successors. And some, like say Hungary 1956, were downright criminal and counterrevolutionary.

For a useful discussion, we'd have to break this up into a separate thread for each one.

Reminds me of the old saying that one fool can post more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.

-M.H.-

He isn’t a fool. As I keep repeating, he is in a big political struggle with himself. Let him have the time to work and explain. Then go for the exposed jugular if necessary.

[Agathor]

The initial aggression was going to be against he U.S.S.R, committed by Nazi imperialists, if something was not done at that time.

There was no "act of aggression" made by the Soviet Union. Instead of fighting, the fascist Polish government fled the country and defied it's people before the Nazis invaded. Consequently, the "Polish state" was non-existent.

Here is information from the great soviet historian Grover Furr exposing the lies about WW2.

"When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state."

"Furthermore, the M-R Treaty’s Secret Protocols were void, since they were an agreement about the state of Poland and no state of Poland existed any longer. Unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, there was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border."

"Or -- as we now know they were in fact preparing to do -- Hitler could have formed one or more pro-Nazi states in what had until recently been Eastern Poland. That way Hitler could have had it both ways: claim to the Soviets that he was still adhering to the "spheres of influence" agreement of the M-R Pact while in fact setting up a pro-Nazi, highly militarized fascist Ukrainian nationalist state on the Soviet border."
.
This is absolute nonsense. Grover Furr is barely a historian. He's a conspiratorial dingbat who still pushes the nonsense about a Trotsky-Hitler pact.

Considering that the Soviet-Polish War began in Autumn 1919, before Hitler had joined what was then just one of the hundreds of pan-Germanist parties holding meetings in beer cellars, and while Germany was in the process of having it's armies and navies abolished by the Versailles Treaty, it would be incredible prescience for Lenin to know that Russia would soon be fighting off a fully revitalized and fascistic Germany.

The threat that Ukraine and Poland posed to The Soviet Union in 1919 is similar to the threat that Cuba and Ecuador currently pose to the US, or the threat that Palestine and Lebanon pose to Israel.
I think you need to find some better historians.


"When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state."
Belgium didn't have a proper government from 2007 until recently. Fair game?

[Omsk]

The threat that Ukraine and Poland posed to The Soviet Union in 1919 is similar to the threat that Cuba and Ecuador currently pose to the US, or the threat that Palestine and Lebanon pose to Israel.



Poland at the start of the war had about 50.000 men in the armed forces,toward the end of the conflict,Poland had some 700000 men.Durign the battle of Warsaw,they actually had more soldiers and military supplies than the Soviets.

The Soviets still suffered from the attacks by the Whites,especially those under Wrangel.
Still,the Polish were very aggresive,as all countries that arised from the broken empires that perished in WW1,and almost all of these countries fought over borders,some were smaller conflict,some,like the Polish Soviet war were larger.
Pilsudski [Polish leader] said :



Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and Southeast, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland as the largest and strongest of new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus:

It seems he had some bold plans.

His intention were known and clear though a federation of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and other Central and East European countries,a federation which would,of course serve only Polish interests. Invited to join the proposed federation were the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
If such a federation was formed,it would look like a huge empire going from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

See,we should not forget Polish imperialism in this issue.

[VirgJans12]

Belgium didn't have a proper government from 2007 until recently. Fair game?

There's a difference between not having a proper government and having no government at all. Still, it's a lame excuse for the Soviet Union to march into Poland. Then again, half of that country got saved from fascism for a while. Which didn't matter because of the killings committed in Poland at that time. I guess I disapprove the invasion.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Bullshit. Tibet has always been a part of China. Don't believe the liberal gibberish. I'm anti-lenninism, and anti-nation, but you got this bit wrong.

OK I disagree with the OP's tone and debating style but I call bullshit on this one. China did not "always" control Tibet, China itself has not "always" existed and insofar as it has it was the Chinese EMPIRE which claimed Tibet and tried to control it as a proxy state, much as they did with Korea and Vietnam. That is not a justified claim whatsoever to the territorial area of Tibet. Ancient Chinese Imperialism is not a justified excuse for current Chinese policies in the area.

[A Marxist Historian]

This is absolute nonsense. Grover Furr is barely a historian. He's a conspiratorial dingbat who still pushes the nonsense about a Trotsky-Hitler pact.

Considering that the Soviet-Polish War began in Autumn 1919, before Hitler had joined what was then just one of the hundreds of pan-Germanist parties holding meetings in beer cellars, and while Germany was in the process of having it's armies and navies abolished by the Versailles Treaty, it would be incredible prescience for Lenin to know that Russia would soon be fighting off a fully revitalized and fascistic Germany.

The threat that Ukraine and Poland posed to The Soviet Union in 1919 is similar to the threat that Cuba and Ecuador currently pose to the US, or the threat that Palestine and Lebanon pose to Israel.
I think you need to find some better historians.


True about Grover Furr of course.

But 1919 is a horse of another color. Your historical comparison is way, way, way off. In the spring of 1919 (not autumn, you don't even have our dates right) Pilsudski invaded Soviet Russia, conquering large swatches of the place before the Red Army kicked them out and counterattacked. I don't think Cuban or Ecuadorian troops are landing on the Miami beaches!

As for Ukraine, which Ukraine? The country did not even exist before 1917, and you immediately had a Red and a White Ukraine. Ukrainian workers overthrew the reactionary Ukrainian government, infamous for its pogroms against Jews, in the spring of 1918. With help from the Red Army of course.

Pilsudski was attempting to re-establish the reactionary pogromist Ukrainian regime as a Polish colonial puppet regime in 1919, much as Hitler toyed with doing with their pro-Nazi successors of the UPA during WWII, until they fell out with him.

The Hitler-Stalin Pact was one of Stalin's greatest crimes, helped to set off WWII, and gravely endangered the defense of the Soviet Union vs. Hitler, as was demonstrated in 1941. But this does not alter the fact that almost all of the "Polish" territories grabbed by Stalin in 1939 were non-Polish, with Ukrainian, Belorussian and Jewish populations, who initially, before Stalinist brutality alienated them, welcomed liberation from Polish colonialism and oppression and integration into Soviet Ukraine and Belorussia where they belonged. Especially the Jews of course.

Since the collapse of the USSR, has anybody whatsoever in former "eastern Poland" *ever* called for return to Poland? Of course not.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

OK I disagree with the OP's tone and debating style but I call bullshit on this one. China did not "always" control Tibet, China itself has not "always" existed and insofar as it has it was the Chinese EMPIRE which claimed Tibet and tried to control it as a proxy state, much as they did with Korea and Vietnam. That is not a justified claim whatsoever to the territorial area of Tibet. Ancient Chinese Imperialism is not a justified excuse for current Chinese policies in the area.

No it isn't. But getting rid of the Hitler-backed-during-WWII Buddhist theocratic slaveowners, who until the Chinese banned the practice took peasant children from their parents to serve as sex slaves in their monasteries, and even occasionally were practicing human sacrifice as late as the 1930s, certainly is.

The Tibetan peasantry have benefitted enormously from Chinese rule. During the Cultural Revolution, it was poor Tibetans burning down monasteries and killing monks and so forth, not the Chinese government.

The Han chauvinism of the current regime has alienated a lot of the population, but that is no reason to go back to the bad old days under a Dalai Lama.

-M.H.-