Stalinist on nationalism, what you think

[Guardia Rossa]

"Nationalism is not inherently reactionary or bourgeois, it is only a way to people organize themselves to fight together"

I answered that you must study when did nationalism in it's current form came into existence and historical examples of left-nationalism degenerating quickly to outright fascism or hidden fascism to understand why it is inherently anti-communist, and once in a while reactionary.

What would you guys say?

[Zoop]

Of course it's reactionary. Nationalism is incompatible with working class solidarity, which is internationalist in nature.

[Homo Songun]

You quote this statement:

"Nationalism is not inherently reactionary or bourgeois, it is only a way to people organize themselves to fight together"


Who are you quoting? Stalin had this to say on nationalism (amongst other things):


The question is as follows: Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the revolutionary liberation movement of the oppressed countries already exhausted, or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilising these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the dependent and colonial countries from a reserve of the imperialist bourgeoisie into a reserve of the revolutionary proletariat, into an ally of the latter?

Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., it recognises the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism. The mechanics of the development of imperialism, the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia wholly confirm the conclusions of Leninism on this score.

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support-resolutely and actively to support-the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then "reactionary peoples," "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolutionary peoples," fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe.

I think the most important point Stalin makes here (and by extension, "Stalinists") is this:

"Support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole."

Hope this helps.

[Alet]

"Nationalism is not inherently reactionary or bourgeois, it is only a way to people organize themselves to fight together"

Nationalism is reactionary, at least in juxtaposition to communism. There is also no way we could not classify it as bourgeois in the modern era. The problem with this statement is that nationalism does not "only" create a community spirit. Its ideological roots are much deeper and it correlates with a kind of consciousness, which is incompatible with socialism. For the class-conscious proletarian there is no room for nationalism in his head.

[#FF0000]

"Nationalism is not inherently reactionary or bourgeois, it is only a way to people organize themselves to fight together"

I'd say that even if you accepted this statement for argument's sake, it doesn't seem to be an especially effective way for people to organize against capitalism.

[Comrade Jacob]

Socialist-Patriotism =/= nationalism.
"Is it possible to be a patriot and an internationalist? We say not only you can be but you must be" - Mao
Nationalism has many definitions, national-liberation movements are nationalist in one definition.
"If you reject the national-liberation movements of colonised people then what kind of revolution are you waging?" - Uncle Ho

[Guardia Rossa]

The question is not on Stalinism and not on Stalin, but on the "Stalinist" I quoted.
Thanks for the answers anyway.

[#FF0000]

Socialist-Patriotism =/= nationalism.

What is socialist-patriotism, and how is it compatible with internationalism?


Nationalism has many definitions, national-liberation movements are nationalist in one definition.

What are those definitions? And even if this is the case, when has a national-liberation movement ever been successful?

[Comrade Jacob]

, when has a national-liberation movement ever been successful?

really? I'm not even going to dignify that with a proper response. Are you actually joking? Or are you just beyond ignorant?

[Comrade Jacob]

Fuck it.

China
Ireland
Vietnam
Laos
Korea
Albania
Yugoslavia
Mozambique
Angola
Algeria
Madagascar
Zimbabwe

Just to name a few

[Bolxevik]

Proletarian nationalism is acceptable, as witnessed organizations such as the IRA or Palestinian liberation movements. this sort of nationalism is acceptable and is highly contestable to bourgeois nationalism as witnessed in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.

[#FF0000]

Fuck it.

China
Ireland
Vietnam
Laos
Korea
Albania
Yugoslavia
Mozambique
Angola
Algeria
Madagascar
Zimbabwe

Just to name a few

I think we have very, very different ideas of what "success" are, considering all of these are capitalist states. And I'm glad you mentioned Algeria, because I was just reading a very interesting interview from Ben Bella, the Algerian Socialist revolutionary who ended up becoming Algeria's first elected president.



Ben Bella on "national liberation"
Q: What are the main lessons you've learned from your experience?
A: These days I use a formula which summarize what I've come to: The single party is the single evil. Earlier I didn't have the tools for understanding this evil. The FLN had become a monster. The organization formed in the struggle for independence was not the same as the one ruling Algeria. The whole superstructure, the Party, the Parliament, et cetera, had become a hindrance.
It was during my 1962 tour of the country, after the decrees on self-management of land by peasants, that I realized this change. There was great energy among the peasants and the workers. We would have had to set aside the bureaucracy, form revolutionary committees and expand self-management to take advantage of this dynamism. The Parliament and all those structures - excuse me, but they're all bullshit.
Unfortunately, I chose the wrong camp. I hesitated in sweeping aside all that hindered these possibilities.
Q: I heard you say earlier that socialism existed nowhere in the world...
A: That's true. I'm not talking about what's in the blueprints. I'm talking about living socialism. You see what's happened since 1917. Do you see socialism? Still, I'm faithful to the ideals of socialism, to the struggle against the exploitation of man by man. But it should be understood that there's not just one form of exploitation. There is also exploitation by bureaucratic apparatus.
Q: This is a very negative view of the achievements of national revolutions...
A: They have all failed. As long as we have not broken the world capitalist order, we remain exploited by the mercantile relations of production. Even in the "socialist" world you find these types of relations. Inside COMECON (The Council for Mutual Economic Aid of the Soviet bloc countries), for example, or between the Soviet Union and the Algeria that I was President of.

https://libcom.org/library/ben-bella-on-national-liberation

[Tim Cornelis]

Proletarian nationalism is acceptable, as witnessed organizations such as the IRA or Palestinian liberation movements. this sort of nationalism is acceptable and is highly contestable to bourgeois nationalism as witnessed in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.

I think your distinction between proletarian nationalism and bourgeois nationalism is nonsensical. The IRA and Palestine national liberation movements all seek to establish a nation-state, which arises from capitalism. Of course, there were and are socialist currents within these nationalist movements, but they would have failed to establish socialism.

The distinction ought to be between a (bourgeois) nationalism of the oppressed and a (bourgeois) nationalism of the oppressor. The nationalism of the oppressed can be excused to an extend, but still not supported.

[Invader Zim]

Fuck it.

China
Ireland
Vietnam
Laos
Korea
Albania
Yugoslavia
Mozambique
Angola
Algeria
Madagascar
Zimbabwe

Just to name a few


You have an interesti... no scratch that... non-existant grasp of what a national liberation movement is or what success is.

[olahsenor]

It would take CPSU vetting all foreign communists whho would had come to their shores. Look at how the American military is riddled with psychopathic Arab terrorists who kill their own. Nothing to do with racism. Just promoting Soviet national security. And it worked! There are Soviet native-born Chechnyas and Soviet olive skinned Kazakhztans who are cooperative with the socialist state because no foreign matter have been introduced to them.

[Ismail]

And I'm glad you mentioned Algeria, because I was just reading a very interesting interview from Ben Bella, the Algerian Socialist revolutionary who ended up becoming Algeria's first elected president.Someone who was praised to the skies and lavished with awards by Khrushchev, Tito and Castro, and who called for the mixing of Islam and "socialism," is hardly worthy of being called a socialist revolutionary. Ben Bella was one of the foremost examples of bourgeois-nationalist "socialists" during the 1960s. He did not actively participate in the national liberation struggle, killed many of those who did (including communists), and in foreign affairs kept Algeria a French neo-colony. His overthrow, as Hoxha noted, was a positive event.

Anyway, there's a difference between bourgeois nationalism and socialist patriotism. The latter was praised by Lenin and Stalin. To quote Stalin in particular:

The strength of Soviet patriotism lies in the fact that it is based not on racial or nationalistic prejudices, but on the peoples’ profound loyalty and devotion to their Soviet Motherland, on the fraternal partnership of the working people of all the nationalities in our country. Soviet patriotism harmoniously combines the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all the working people of the Soviet Union. Far from dividing them, Soviet patriotism welds all the nations and peoples of our country into a single fraternal family. This should be regarded as the basis of the inviolable friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union which is growing ever stronger. At the same time the peoples of the U.S.S.R. respect the rights and independence of the peoples of foreign countries and have always shown themselves willing to live in peace and friendship with neighbouring states. This should be regarded as the basis of the contacts growing and gaining strength between our State and the freedom-loving peoples. The reason Soviet men and women hate the German invaders is not because they are people of different nationality, but because they have brought immeasurable calamity and suffering on our people and on all freedom-loving peoples. It is an old saying of our people: “The wolf is not beaten because he is grey, but because he ate the sheep.”See also a 1950 Soviet pamphlet on the subject of patriotism and internationalism: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-VHBwY08wR0kwNmc/view

[suneo]

Nationalism is the struggle waged by all those who live in the country. Nationalism is the unity of state power. However I do not agree if there are rich people in the country who do not want to give his wealth to the poor

[Comrade #138672]

The IRA and Palestine national liberation movements all seek to establish a nation-state, which arises from capitalism.This.

Even if we accept that nationalism is not inherently reactionary, then nationalism can still be inherently bourgeois (which I agree with).

[Guardia Rossa]

nationalism can still be inherently bourgeois

I liked this particular answer a lot.

[A.J.]

You have an interesti... no scratch that... non-existant grasp of what a national liberation movement is or what success is.

Your modus operandi on these forums seems to be, when disagreeing with someone, is to claim - usually on quite personalised terms - they are especially ignorant of the subject under discussion. Without, of course, providing any specific evidence of them lacking knowledge or understanding of the issue at hand.

What a complete and utter charlatan.

[Invader Zim]

Your modus operandi on these forums seems to be, when disagreeing with someone, is to claim - usually on quite personalised terms - they are especially ignorant of the subject under discussion. Without, of course, providing any specific evidence of them lacking knowledge or understanding of the issue at hand.

What a complete and utter charlatan.

Yeah, except that time when I broke your pathetic argument like a twig, and you lost your rag and started screeching insults like a spoiled four year old deprived of a toy. I note you still haven't returned to that thread. Not that I blame you, if I were as humiliated that badly I'd want to keep that well down the thread list too.

[Emmett Till]

Someone who was praised to the skies and lavished with awards by Khrushchev, Tito and Castro, and who called for the mixing of Islam and "socialism," is hardly worthy of being called a socialist revolutionary. Ben Bella was one of the foremost examples of bourgeois-nationalist "socialists" during the 1960s. He did not actively participate in the national liberation struggle, killed many of those who did (including communists), and in foreign affairs kept Algeria a French neo-colony. His overthrow, as Hoxha noted, was a positive event.

Anyway, there's a difference between bourgeois nationalism and socialist patriotism. The latter was praised by Lenin and Stalin. To quote Stalin in particular:
See also a 1950 Soviet pamphlet on the subject of patriotism and internationalism: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-VHBwY08wR0kwNmc/view

"Socialist patriotism" sounds a whole lot like "social patriotism," one of Lenin's favorite curse phrases. I think you would be hard pressed to find Lenin talking positively about social, er, pardon me, socialist patriotism.

As for Ben Bella, everything you say about him is accurate enough, but that was a right wing coup which generated the current utterly pro-imperialist mass murderous military dictatorship, which subjected the country to a huge Assad-style bloodbath in the '90s from which the country still has yet to recover. (But never got any criticism from Washington, unsurprisingly.) It put an end to the Algerian Revolution completely.

That Enver Hoxha welcomed it shows his lack of principle. Perhaps he was hoping to curry favor with the new dictators.

[Alet]

Anyway, there's a difference between bourgeois nationalism and socialist patriotism. [...] To quote Stalin in particular:


The strength of Soviet patriotism lies in the fact that it is based not on racial or nationalistic prejudices, but on the peoples’ profound loyalty and devotion to their Soviet Motherland, on the fraternal partnership of the working people of all the nationalities in our country. Soviet patriotism harmoniously combines the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all the working people of the Soviet Union. Far from dividing them, Soviet patriotism welds all the nations and peoples of our country into a single fraternal family. This should be regarded as the basis of the inviolable friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union which is growing ever stronger. At the same time the peoples of the U.S.S.R. respect the rights and independence of the peoples of foreign countries and have always shown themselves willing to live in peace and friendship with neighbouring states. This should be regarded as the basis of the contacts growing and gaining strength between our State and the freedom-loving peoples. [...]

This is nationalist rhetoric par excellence. Such ideological texts should not be taken literally, just as we don't take those disgusting rightists at their word, when they want to tell us that they are "not nationalists but patriots". Ideologies are not reducible to the definitions the ideologues present us. For example, when a self-proclaimed "European patriot" who "loves his fatherland" has to defend his views by saying that he is "not a nationalist" and "respects other nations and peoples" (while tacitly acknowledging that "to respect" means "don't care as long as they leave us and our culture alone") you instantly know that he is a reactionary nationalist. There is no nationalism or patriotism or however you want to call it without its negative implications regarding class consciousness. The same applies to Stalin: Any distinction between "bourgeois nationalism" and "socialist" or "proletarian" nationalism is arbitrary. When Stalin makes one, he draws a socialist veil over the bourgeois elements of Soviet patriotism, regardless of whether he does that consciously or not. Whenever someone propagates his ideology, one, if he is a Marxist, cannot simply believe what the ideologue says. The fascists of 2015 will not openly admit that they are fascists, the conservatives of 2015 will not openly admit that they are disgusted by queers, and the list goes on.

[Burzhuin]

"Is it possible to be a patriot and an internationalist? We say not only you can be but you must be" - Mao
O, I can only agree with these words.

[Ismail]

"Socialist patriotism" sounds a whole lot like "social patriotism," one of Lenin's favorite curse phrases. I think you would be hard pressed to find Lenin talking positively about social, er, pardon me, socialist patriotism.There are multiple examples of Lenin appealing to patriotic sentiments and distinguishing them from the "patriotism" of the social-chauvinists of the Second International.

The most obvious example was his "On the National Pride of the Great Russians": https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm

At the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets in 1920 he said that: "The patriotism of a person who is prepared to go hungry for three years rather than surrender Russia to foreigners is genuine patriotism, without which we could not hold out for three years. Without this patriotism we would not have succeeded in defending the Soviet Republic, in doing away with private property and now getting as much as 300 million poods by means of the food surplus-appropriation system. This is the finest revolutionary patriotism."


That Enver Hoxha welcomed it shows his lack of principle. Perhaps he was hoping to curry favor with the new dictators.Hoxha wrote his thoughts in his private diary, excerpts of which were published many years after the events in question. In this case, after Boumedienne himself was dead.

This is what he wrote on June 24, 1965:

"All defend Ben Bella, apart from us, China, Korea and Vietnam. All of them are weeping over the downfall of their creature, Ben Bella, and are putting terrible pressure on Boumedienne and Algeria to free Ben Bella and restore him to power, or to make Boumedienne give full guarantee that he will be obedient to the French, the Soviets, the Titoites, the Americans, and so on....

The Soviets did everything in their power to make Ben Bella their man and to this end they issued the directive to the Algerian revisionists to liquidate their communist party and place themselves under his orders... Ben Bella became a close friend of Tito's and adopted the capitalist form of self-administration which, in the eyes of the revisionists, strengthened Ben Bella's 'socialism'... Ben Bella was a pawn for all the imperialists and the revisionists, a means of political blackmail in the hands of them all, while these savage beasts were rejoicing at the expense of the long-suffering Algerian people. Castro considered Ben Bella his revolutionary double, and through him sought to penetrate into Africa, allegedly in order to activize 'the struggle of the African peoples' for 'socialism', as in Cuba.

Then, where was Algeria heading under Ben Bella? For disaster. Therefore, his overthrow is a positive act, irrespective of the forms in which it was done and who did it. It does not please the imperialists and revisionists. This shows that what was done was a good thing, therefore it should be defended. What direction the country will take now depends on the progressive Algerian revolutionary forces, on the Algerian people, and the aid of the internationalist and revolutionary communist movement abroad."
(Hoxha, Reflections on the Middle East, 1984, pp. 26-28.)

As for what he thought of Boumedienne, he said that he did not know who he was beyond the fact that he directly participated in the national liberation struggle, unlike Ben Bella. He simply said that if Boumedienne's anti-imperialist rhetoric was backed up by actual deeds, so much the better, and that he would be supported by the workers and peasants of Algeria if he supported their demands.


For example, when a self-proclaimed "European patriot" who "loves his fatherland" has to defend his views by saying that he is "not a nationalist" and "respects other nations and peoples" (while tacitly acknowledging that "to respect" means "don't care as long as they leave us and our culture alone") [I]you instantly know that he is a reactionary nationalist.That might be valid if Soviet publishing houses, theaters, music halls, etc. hadn't spent considerable sums and effort translating and bringing to Soviet citizens foreign literature, stage plays, cinema and music, including numerous delegations from foreign countries which visited the USSR to perform in said plays and music halls. An English "patriot" who rants about Poles and Muslims but "wouldn't mind" if they (and their cultures) kept to their own countries has next to nothing to do with the multinational USSR and its patriotism based on a brotherhood of peoples and support for everything progressive in world culture.

[A.J.]

Yeah, except that time when I broke your pathetic argument like a twig, and you lost your rag and started screeching insults like a spoiled four year old deprived of a toy. I note you still haven't returned to that thread. Not that I blame you, if I were as humiliated that badly I'd want to keep that well down the thread list too.

^^^You're more or less self-parodying yourself now.:laugh:

What sort of sad individual frequently tries to self-flatter themselves, inventing fictitious examples of having won past arguments, in a pathetic attempt to portray themselves as being clever.

Here's another instance of this.....


I was called a 'vile intellectual hack' by a Stalinist fool who took exception to having his inane ramblings about the Second World War dismantled - a feeling doubtless that you are familiar with.

Here you're not only making up bullshit about having decisively won a past argument you also expose yourself as lying about the origins of your member title.

Just out of curiosity; what do you do for a living?

[Invader Zim]

^^^You're more or less self-parodying yourself now.:laugh:

What sort of sad individual frequently tries to self-flatter themselves, inventing fictitious examples of having won past arguments, in a pathetic attempt to portray themselves as being clever.

Here's another instance of this.....



Here you're not only making up bullshit about having decisively won a past argument you also expose yourself as lying about the origins of your member title.

Just out of curiosity; what do you do for a living?

Blah blah blah, you still haven't returned to that thread.

[Alet]

That might be valid if Soviet publishing houses, theaters, music halls, etc. hadn't spent considerable sums and effort translating and bringing to Soviet citizens foreign literature, stage plays, cinema and music, including numerous delegations from foreign countries which visited the USSR to perform in said plays and music halls. An English "patriot" who rants about Poles and Muslims but "wouldn't mind" if they (and their cultures) kept to their own countries has next to nothing to do with the multinational USSR and its patriotism based on a brotherhood of peoples and support for everything progressive in world culture.

You divorce this sentence from its context. My example followed my thesis "Ideologies are not reducible to the definitions the ideologues present us", so what I tried to express was simply that what Stalin says is not necessarily identical with what it implicates. That the USSR was "multinational" does not really disprove it. In fact, many German nationalists, for example, don't only consider themselves as Germans but additionally as Europeans. But like I said, this is not the point. Even if Stalin's choice of words and the form of Soviet patriotism were unique in history, we still would have to question it.
The problem with nationalism (or if you will: "patriotism") is not simply that it might cause hatred against other ethnicities but that a fetish is made out of state, country and nationality. What should have been negated turns into a part of a common ritual. If national identity becomes important, it indicates that people stopped striving for its negation, or in other words that class consciousness and the belief in communism begin to wither away.

[Ismail]

You divorce this sentence from its context. My example followed my thesis "Ideologies are not reducible to the definitions the ideologues present us", so what I tried to express was simply that what Stalin says is not necessarily identical with what it implicates.Except I gave practical examples of the differences, I didn't say "here's another quote from Stalin or some other Soviet source."


That the USSR was "multinational" does not really disprove it. In fact, many German nationalists, for example, don't only consider themselves as Germans but additionally as Europeans.Except Soviet patriotism was based on the socialist system, whereas "European patriotism" is based on either abstract bourgeois-humanist values (which mask the aspirations of those capitalists who profit off of the European Union and other schemes) or, of course, xenophobia against brown people. Again, not comparable.


The problem with nationalism (or if you will: "patriotism") is not simply that it might cause hatred against other ethnicities but that a fetish is made out of state, country and nationality. What should have been negated turns into a part of a common ritual. If national identity becomes important, it indicates that people stopped striving for its negation, or in other words that class consciousness and the belief in communism begin to wither away.Except after WWII there were active discussions on the transition from socialism to communism (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/gosplan.htm), and among the reasons this was possible is because it was precisely by establishing a socialist society, by getting rid of national oppression and adopting an internationalist position towards world culture, the sort of narrow nationalism which valued one nation (e.g. Russian, Latvian, Armenian) above others was largely eliminated.

It's the same logic that led Lenin to say that recognition and advocacy of the right of self-determination would end in a desire for it to be exercised within the boundaries of a single state. "The more closely the democratic system of state approximates to complete freedom of secession," he said, "the rarer and weaker will the striving for secession be in practice; for the advantages of large states, both from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view of the interests of the masses, are beyond doubt, and these advantages increase with the growth of capitalism."

There is no evidence that socialist patriotism inhibits internationalism or somehow reverses the Marxist assessment of the withering away of the state.

[A.J.]

Blah blah blah, you still haven't returned to that thread.

You mean the thread where you made a complete embarrassment of yourself claiming that Britain only adopted the policy of appeasement towards German aggression as late as 1937 after declaring yourself to be some sort of authority on the matter in question.

You mean that thread?


A 29 year old with over eleven thousand posts on revleft.........:lol:

[Invader Zim]

...claiming that Britain only adopted the policy of appeasement towards German aggression as late as 1937 after declaring yourself to be some sort of authority on the matter in question.

You mean that thread?



I didn't claim anything of the sort. And I did not claim to be an authority on appeasement. Learn to read.


A 29 year old with over eleven thousand posts on revleft.........

13 years providing remedial schooling to Stalinists will do that.

[Comrade Jacob]

13 years providing remedial schooling to Stalinists will do that.

Get. A. Fucking. Life.
You don't "school" shit from "Stalinists" you just show how much of a complete tool you are.

[A.J.]

I didn't claim anything of the sort. And I did not claim to be an authority on appeasement. Learn to read.

On numerous occasions you falsely claimed to be highly knowledge on the subject matter.
You even went to the sad extreme of inventing a bullshit story of having emphatically won a past argument on the exact same matter.....

"I was called a 'vile intellectual hack' by a Stalinist fool who took exception to having his inane ramblings about the Second World War dismantled - a feeling doubtless that you are familiar with."

I dont think I've seen anything quite so sad as someone making up fictitious stories about winning arguments against some mysterious "Stalinists"(as well as lying about how their member title came about!)

"Stalinist".....what on earth does that word even mean?


13 years providing remedial schooling to Stalinists will do that.

^^^^^^"schooling":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yet again with the self-flattery!:laugh:
(also, there's that word again "Stalinists"! who exactly are these mythical entities? )

I've never seen someone try so hard to create the impression that they are clever, lavishing praise upon themselves in the process, yet fail so spectacularly.

You are quite simply beyond parody.

I think you should give up with these futile attempts at trying to make other people believe your clever. The embarrassment you're making of yourself is off the chart.

You can start by deleting the "intellectual" self-description.

[Invader Zim]

Get. A. Fucking. Life.
You don't "school" shit from "Stalinists" you just show how much of a complete tool you are.


As I recall, you're the individual who thinks that Holocaust deniers are 'revisionists'. Whether I provide it or not, you require schooling.

Now, run along.


On numerous occasions you falsely claimed to be highly knowledge on the subject matter.

I most certainly did not. Though, compared to you, it makes no odds. That said, to you most school kids taking their 11+ must seem like AJP Taylor.


You even went to the sad extreme of inventing a bullshit story of having emphatically won a past argument on the exact same matter.....

"I was called a 'vile intellectual hack' by a Stalinist fool who took exception to having his inane ramblings about the Second World War dismantled - a feeling doubtless that you are familiar with."

Believe it or not, that is how the title came about. Sadly, I'm not original enough to come up with such a brilliantly pompus insult.

But back to the point at hand. You contend that I fail to realise that appeasement had a legacy which extended back far beyond 1937, yet my post makes that quote explicit:

"Even the Royal Navy, Britain's traditional bastion of military strength was in a suprisingly weakened position in the last years of appeasement.

“A third fact in restricting the navy’s expansion was more alarming still: when the Royal Navy began its plans for new ships which the war clouds looming on the horizon dictated and which even the Treasury found it impossible to resist fully, it was discovered that Britain no longer possessed the productive strength to satisfy these urgent orders. The long lean years of virtually no construction, the lack of incentive for technological innovation, the unwillingness to invest capital in what had been regarded as unprofitable fields and, above all, that steady cancerous decay of the country’s sinews, were now showing their fruit.” [3]

So, yes, in 1937 right until the outbreak of war, rearmament and reconfiguring the economy was a priority for the Chamberlain Government."


1937 explicity identified as one of the last years of appeasement. Like I said, boy, learn to read.

You're done now.

Later.

[Thirsty Crow]

Obviouisly, discussing some problems like the ones in this thread can get heated pretty fast. Still, there's no reason to engage in personal attacks. Consider this a general verbal warning.

[Guardia Rossa]

Get. A. Fucking. Life.

Just a question, why should 29 year old's abandon revolutionary leftist forums and "get a life"?
EDIT: Not bait, just honestly asking why can't a 29 year old person can't be in a forum.