Log in

View Full Version : Soviets "ordered" Pope shooting



Janus
3rd March 2006, 02:03
BBC News

An Italian parliamentary commission has concluded that the former Soviet Union was behind the 1981 assassination attempt on the late Pope John Paul II.
The head of the commission, Paolo Guzzanti, said it was sure beyond "reasonable doubt" that Soviet leaders ordered the shooting.

Turkish national Mehmet Ali Agca, now 48, shot the Pope in St Peter's Square on 13 May 1981, hitting him four times.

Agca never gave a motive, and mystery has continued to surround the shooting.

A link between Agca and Bulgarian agents, and through them to the Soviet Union's KGB, has been the subject of speculation over the years.

Solidarity links

The commission released the final draft of its report to journalists on Thursday.

"This commission believes, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the leaders of the USSR took the initiative to eliminate Pope Karol Wojtyla," the report said.

Soviet leaders "communicated this decision to the military secret service in order that it carry out the necessary operations", it continued.

The commission said the Soviet Union felt the Pope was a danger because of his support for the democracy-linked Solidarity labour movement in Poland, his native country.

It also said that it had photographic evidence showing a Bulgarian man, one of six men acquitted in 1986 of orchestrating the assassination attempt, was in St Peter's Square at the time of the shooting.

The findings came from a commission set up to investigate Cold War secrets revealed by Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB archivist who defected to the UK in 1992.

Agca served nearly 20 years in an Italian jail for the crime. He is currently in prison in Turkey for the murder of a journalist.

Thoughts? Discussion?

YKTMX
3rd March 2006, 02:10
My first thoughts?

Typical of the Soviet bureaucracy.

They get a guy to do a perfectly laudible thing in assassinating the Pope, and they fuck it up.

Spartacist
3rd March 2006, 02:39
I agree.

No one, except for maybe Ronald Reagan, did more for the reactionary cause than John-Paul II.

A missed opportunity.

sovietsniper
4th March 2006, 12:15
Mat be the only falure on the KGB cv.
anyone read the Mitrokhin achive? its great

AdamCecil
4th March 2006, 13:53
Was the whole reason they wanted him dead was because they didn't support religion? Or was it because he wasn't big fan of communism?

YKTMX
4th March 2006, 14:12
I'd imagine it was because he supported Solisdarsnosc in Poland.

Ian
4th March 2006, 14:34
I wish it was solely because he was a catholic scumbag.

(sorta legitamises my awesome thread 'hurry up and die')

Revolution 9
4th March 2006, 22:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:07 AM
I agree.

No one, except for maybe Ronald Reagan, did more for the reactionary cause than John-Paul II.

A missed opportunity.
I must disagree with you.

Although the late Pope John Paul II fought Soviet Marxism, you must remember the backwardness of the statist version of Marxism practiced within the U.S.S.R., Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, et cetera.

If anything, John Paul II was a help to us.

Revolution 9
4th March 2006, 22:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:02 PM
I wish it was solely because he was a catholic scumbag.

(sorta legitamises my awesome thread 'hurry up and die')
I hope that you are not saying this because you are a protestant or baptist lover, but because you honestly believe that all religion is backwards.

ComradeOm
5th March 2006, 00:05
Originally posted by Street [email protected] 4 2006, 11:24 PM
If anything, John Paul II was a help to us.
By the same token so was Reagen <_<

Ian
5th March 2006, 00:11
Originally posted by Street Revolutionary+Mar 5 2006, 09:26 AM--> (Street Revolutionary @ Mar 5 2006, 09:26 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 03:02 PM
I wish it was solely because he was a catholic scumbag.

(sorta legitamises my awesome thread &#39;hurry up and die&#39;)
I hope that you are not saying this because you are a protestant or baptist lover, but because you honestly believe that all religion is backwards. [/b]
Well I guess I am sort of a type of protestant having gone to a protestant church for 12 years when I was a kid. But the reason is because I despise religion, check out the sig.

Goatse
5th March 2006, 00:16
Originally posted by Street Revolutionary+Mar 4 2006, 11:26 PM--> (Street Revolutionary @ Mar 4 2006, 11:26 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 03:02 PM
I wish it was solely because he was a catholic scumbag.

(sorta legitamises my awesome thread &#39;hurry up and die&#39;)
I hope that you are not saying this because you are a protestant or baptist lover, but because you honestly believe that all religion is backwards. [/b]
Err...


THERE IS NO GOD

Guess what his stance on religion is.

Anyway, it would have been cool. WHERE&#39;S YOUR GOD NOW?

Revolution 9
5th March 2006, 01:39
My point was that he could have a soft point when it comes to the Protestant wing of Christianity, even if he is atheist.

вор в законе
5th March 2006, 07:01
What a load of crap.

The guy himself admitted that he was a member of the Grey Wolves, a fascist ultra-nationalist Turkish organization.


If the Soviets wanted the Pope dead, they would have done it.

Intelligitimate
11th March 2006, 16:04
As Red Brigade says, this is fucking stupid. In fact, Agca was a Muslim fascist who never said anything about any of this shit until he was visited in jail by SISMI agents (Italian military). The guy they later accused of masterminding this stupid Bulgarian Connection shit, Sergei Antonov, was released by an Italian court for lack of evidence. Even the god damn Pope never believed it&#33;

And now, this "Mitrokhin commission" has released this tired old bullshit. Mitrokhin is a KGB defector who no doubt had to get a job doing something besides real work, and convincing the Italian government to pay him to spread bullshit probably seemed like a good plan.

I think the real question is, why are so many of you morons? You call yourself socialists, yet you believe every anti-Communist lie imaginable, even something as stupid as this, without even attempting to do your own investigation. You&#39;re fucking pathetic.

Goatse
11th March 2006, 18:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:07 PM
As Red Brigade says, this is fucking stupid. In fact, Agca was a Muslim fascist who never said anything about any of this shit until he was visited in jail by SISMI agents (Italian military). The guy they later accused of masterminding this stupid Bulgarian Connection shit, Sergei Antonov, was released by an Italian court for lack of evidence. Even the god damn Pope never believed it&#33;

And now, this "Mitrokhin commission" has released this tired old bullshit. Mitrokhin is a KGB defector who no doubt had to get a job doing something besides real work, and convincing the Italian government to pay him to spread bullshit probably seemed like a good plan.

I think the real question is, why are so many of you morons? You call yourself socialists, yet you believe every anti-Communist lie imaginable, even something as stupid as this, without even attempting to do your own investigation. You&#39;re fucking pathetic.
Go fuck yourself.

(Apologies for any offence caused.)

Intelligitimate
11th March 2006, 19:38
I&#39;ll get right on that.

Kaze no Kae
11th March 2006, 21:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:13 AM
My first thoughts?

Typical of the Soviet bureaucracy.

They get a guy to do a perfectly laudible thing in assassinating the Pope, and they fuck it up.

I agree.

No one, except for maybe Ronald Reagan, did more for the reactionary cause than John-Paul II.

A missed opportunity.
Pope John Paul II, unlike Pope Fascist Scumbag Benedict, was a great man, and I CANNOT believe you people think, just because Marx might not have been a huge fan of religion (and I challenge how relevant that fact is to communist philosophy anyway) that his assassination would have been a good thing.

Not only that, but he was almost CERTAINLY closer to a true socialist than Stalin, for example, EVER was.


Mat be the only falure on the KGB cv.
I also find it dispicable that you can wish success on the KGB, an evil organisation to the extent that it could rival the Gestapo and the CIA in that regard, and killed thousands of (mostly innocent, mostly civilian, and mostly helpless) people.


Or was it because he wasn&#39;t big fan of communism?
Correction, he wasnt a big fan on Communism. As for communism, if anything, he was a communist himself. He did great things to help the poor of the world, and strived for global equality, economically, socially, and politically.


I wish it was solely because he was a catholic scumbag.
Typical Mao-Stalinist.


I must disagree with you.

Although the late Pope John Paul II fought Soviet Marxism, you must remember the backwardness of the statist version of Marxism practiced within the U.S.S.R., Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, et cetera.

If anything, John Paul II was a help to us.
FINALLY, someone with a bit of SENSE&#33;

The policies of the Soviet Union - or other Communist Parties for that matter - do NOT dictate communism. In fact, Gorbachev was the first remotely communist Communist to lead the Party since the death of Lenin.

TomRK1089
11th March 2006, 22:39
Dammit Alan, you beat me to it. I was going to say mostly the same things.

But it&#39;s become apparent that regardless of accomplishments or opinions, anyone "foolish/stupid" enough to be religious is a drooling idiot by the standards of the vast majority of this board. Not that that continues to bother me anymore. :P There aren&#39;t any names that I haven&#39;t been called yet, so meh...

Guest1
11th March 2006, 23:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:42 PM
There aren&#39;t any names that I haven&#39;t been called yet, so meh...
How about godsucker? Is that new?

The pope&#39;s the pope. His stances on Homosexuality, the fact that he told millions of africans aids was caused by condoms, his stances on women&#39;s rights and abortion, all of these things are enough to wish his death even if you&#39;re a spineless liberal class-traitor.

Which the two of you are, by the way.

Amusing Scrotum
11th March 2006, 23:59
Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Typical of the Soviet bureaucracy.

They get a guy to do a perfectly laudible thing in assassinating the Pope, and they fuck it up.[/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Originally posted by Revolution 9+--> (Revolution 9)If anything, John Paul II was a help to us.[/b]

No doubt like Hitler and Mussolini "helped us". :angry:


[email protected]
Pope John Paul II [....] was a great man....

Clerical fascism your "thing" is it?


Revolution 9
....if anything, he was a communist himself.

This of course, being the same Pope that refused to support even Liberation Theology.
_____

Can someone move this thread to Religion, it doesn&#39;t even deserve to be outside of the OI.

LSD
12th March 2006, 00:05
Pope John Paul II, unlike Pope Fascist Scumbag Benedict, was a great man

"Geat" in the sense of...

Oh right, he was a superstitious whack-job who helped to advance capitalism, spread AIDS, keep women enslaved, and oppress gays.

Yeah, real "great"... :rolleyes:


I CANNOT believe you people think, just because Marx might not have been a huge fan of religion ... that his assassination would have been a good thing.

His religion is irrelevent. There are plenty of religious people in the world who do not deserve to be killed. John Paul II was simply not one of them.

Firstly, he was the head of the Roman Catholic Church, an oppressive and quasi-totalitarian organization, guilty of numerous atrocities and exploitations. That alone makes him a viable target.

But even worse, he used his position of authority to promulgate a decidedly reactionary agenda. He opposed birth control, discouraged the use of contraception, opposed reproductive freedoms, opposed women&#39;s equality, opposed gay equality, and opposed progressive medical research.

It doesn&#39;t matter if he was doing in the name of "faith", the ideas that he spread were regressive, destructive, and caused the death and suffering of millions of innocents.

I have no love for the KGB, but I would have cried absolutely no tears had their attempt proved successful.

He was, for all intents and purposes, a war criminal and should be recognized as such. If Julius Steicher can be executed for promoting anti-semitism, Karol Wojtyła can be executed for promotng sexism and homophobia.

I only wish they had thought bigger and targeted the rest of the Church while they were at it&#33; :lol:


He did great things to help the poor of the world

You mean like steal their money in the name of "Christ" and then use it to build his palaces and monastaries?

How about supporting crooks like "Mother" Theresa, blatant and monstrous abusers of the poor?

I mean, where exactly do you think the Vatican gets its billions from? For a "nonprofit" organization, they seem to have a whole lot of disposable cash. And while a good deal of it does come from crinimals and businessmen, most of it comes from the poor.

Through "donations", "tithes", and other manipulative robberies, the Church steals billions of dollars from the poorest people on earth in exchange for a promise of "salvation" they can never deliver on.

And that thievery wasn&#39;t even the extent of his assault on the poor. While he was taking their money, old JP2 was also raping their countries; spreading lies and falsehoods and ruining millions of lives. He told them not to use birth control, their populations exploded; he told them not to use condoms, so AIDS spread. And even after he saw the results of his "advice", he didn&#39;t change it.

He knew the consequences of his actions and continued nonetheless. When one knows that one&#39;s acts are partly to blame for an epidemic and does not stop, one is either a crminal monster or insane.

Which one do you suppose he was?

Pope John-Paul II was indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. He intentionaly and knowingly encouraged behaviour that furthered the spread of a deadly disease and there is no excuse for that.


and strived for global equality, economically, socially, and politically.

Except, you know, for women, gays, and non-Christians.

I guess we don&#39;t "count". :angry:

Revolution 9
12th March 2006, 00:12
First, I think that it is stupid that we moved this thread to Religion, as this has more to do with history and historical fact.

Second, I cannot believe how many here actually support the corrupt Marxism of the USSR over at least the philanthropy of a pope, that not only reformed the Roman Catholic Church and made it open to other religions, but also brought down this wretched late Stalinistic Marxism.

I&#39;ll choose John Paul II over Stalin, Krushchev, Breznhev, or any of those other fat-ass bastards any day.

Amusing Scrotum
12th March 2006, 00:19
Originally posted by Revolution 9+--> (Revolution 9)First, I think that it is stupid that we moved this thread to Religion, as this has more to do with history and historical fact.[/b]

This thread has "to do with" a reactionary old Religious windbag. Religion is the appropriate forum.


Originally posted by Revolution [email protected]
....the philanthropy of a pope....

Living fuck, are you for real?


Revolution 9
I&#39;ll choose John Paul II over Stalin, Krushchev, Breznhev, or any of those other fat-ass bastards any day.

Stalin and co, for all their faults, were "Saints" compared to the Pope - a vicious clerical fascist.

Revolution 9
12th March 2006, 00:41
This thread has "to do with" a reactionary old Religious windbag. Religion is the appropriate forum.

It has to do with the assassination of one and if the USSR was involved in it.

This isn&#39;t about religion, but the death of a major figure in history - whether you think he is good or bad.


Living fuck, are you for real?

Living fuck, had you forgotten about the billions of dollars dedicated to soup kitchens and helping the poor?


Stalin and co, for all their faults, were "Saints" compared to the Pope - a vicious clerical fascist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLMFAO&#33;

So Stalin killing hundreds of millions of people and his successors killing many more is better than a Pope who has no real voice over world affairs, is for peace (mostly), and who&#39;s only really major shortcomings are homophobia and having a heap of money... Well don&#39;t forget "Stalin and co." also had heap of money - but that&#39;s okay, right?

EDIT: Oooh, don&#39;t forget that Stalin was also anti-semitic (as seen with the purges of Jews) and imperialistic (as seen with him taking over half of Europe, not for the working class, but for himself), while the Pope at least made Catholicism that much more favorable to Jews and Muslims...

Amusing Scrotum
12th March 2006, 00:50
Originally posted by Revolution 9+--> (Revolution 9)So Stalin killing hundreds of millions of people and his successors killing many more....[/b]

Your history is shocking&#33;

The consensus amongst historians seems to be that 20 million people died under Stalin, the majority of which were Ukrainian peasants and they died of starvation.

Whether or not the starvation was "Stalin&#39;s fault" is a source of great controversy. Personally, I suspect Stalin could be charged with "criminal negligence" for these deaths.

As for his "successors killing many more", well again, that is wrong.

The deaths under Stalin&#39;s "reign", account for almost all of the total deaths which the Russian Government can be held accountable for.

Additionally, Russia has a population of around 150 million, it would therefore be impossible to "kill hundreds of millions".


Originally posted by Revolution [email protected]
....Pope who has no real voice over world affairs....

Yes, we are eternally grateful to the 1789ers.


Revolution 9
Well don&#39;t forget "Stalin and co." also had heap of money - but that&#39;s okay, right?

The ratio between highest and lowest wages in "Soviet Russia" was around 1:4. Not that much when one considers it.

Revolution 9
12th March 2006, 01:01
Your history is shocking&#33;

The consensus amongst historians seems to be that 20 million people died under Stalin, the majority of which were Ukrainian peasants and they died of starvation.

Whether or not the starvation was "Stalin&#39;s fault" is a source of great controversy. Personally, I suspect Stalin could be charged with "criminal negligence" for these deaths.

As for his "successors killing many more", well again, that is wrong.

The deaths under Stalin&#39;s "reign", account for almost all of the total deaths which the Russian Government can be held accountable for.

Additionally, Russia has a population of around 150 million, it would therefore be impossible to "kill hundreds of millions".

I was thinking hundreds of thousands, but then I changed to tens of millions... And so a Freudian Slip worked it&#39;s evil on me... My bad.

Now, when you speak of the death under Stalin & co., you obviously forget the thousands of people killed during the purges and great trials... However, even if most of the communist party wasn&#39;t killed by Stalin, he still literally murdered those 20 million Ukrainians through starvation - he denied shipment of food and supplies to that region of Ukraine. Denying food is the same as giving a hitman a few million dollars to kill a person - just that what Stalin did was dirt cheap, and instead of killing one person, he killed 20 million.

If you&#39;re going to seriously wave off 20 million deaths so easily, I suggest you go and talk to the doctor at your local psych ward.


The ratio between highest and lowest wages in "Soviet Russia" was around 1:4. Not that much when one considers it.

That&#39;s the average ratio... It probably be closer to 1:3, but Stalin & co. just had so much money it raised to 1:4...

Obviously, I&#39;m being sarcastic, but think about it.

Do you really think that the Communist Party was doing so great? So many of them were killed by Stalin&#39;s order, that I doubt they had so many benefits.

However, Stalin could do what he wanted to, and take all the capital he wanted.

I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if he lived in the former Tsar&#39;s palaces in between signing death lists.

EDIT: So now that it&#39;s all said and done, do you like a mass-murdering, anti-semitic, imperialist, rich dictator over an overly-religious man? Although I do not like religion, I choose the latter.

Religion > Mass Murder

What about you?

Oh-Dae-Su
12th March 2006, 01:13
Stalin > John Paul II lmao :lol:

for god&#39;s sake, im not even religious, but damn, some of the things i read in these posts just dumbfound me.

Nothing Human Is Alien
12th March 2006, 01:15
EDIT: Oooh, don&#39;t forget that Stalin was also anti-semitic

"The Jewish administrative division [Birobidzhan] was founded with the help of Komzet in 1928 as the Jewish National District. It was the result of Stalin&#39;s nationality policy, by which each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

Yeah, anti-semites always give Jewish people their own states.

Nothing Human Is Alien
12th March 2006, 01:16
Religion > Mass Murder

Religion = Mass Murder. How do you think it was spread?

Oh-Dae-Su
12th March 2006, 01:19
The consensus amongst historians seems to be that 20 million people died under Stalin, the majority of which were Ukrainian peasants and they died of starvation.

the count was JUST 20 million, which the majority died of starvation lol and why did they starve to death? the wonderful Russian CAPITALISM? lmao yeah if im correct it think it was because of Stalin&#39;s great Economic Policies. By the way, the rest were political oppositors in the Siberian gulags, which were just like a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

so in conclusion, this can&#39;t compare to the evil of some religious old Pope, who had some distorted views. Listen at least if the Pope said wrong things, he didnt impose those feelings on the people, if you are dumb enough to do the few wrong things he preached, than you should be held accountable. Its like saying the President of Iran is worst than Hitler, because he says that the state of Israel should be wiped out of the face of the earth. :rolleyes:

Intelligitimate
12th March 2006, 01:22
I suppose it&#39;s not hard to accept the Bulgarian Connection conspiracy when you believe any anti-Communist lie, like Revolution 9 does.

Stalin is not responsible for 20 million deaths. This is a figure pulled from nowhere. If anyone is actually interested in scholarly demographic analysis of the USSR, I recommend that they read Anderson and Silver&#39;s Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR, to get a better grasp of the actual methods involved to make these ridiculous claims.

Intelligitimate
12th March 2006, 01:32
If anyone wants to read more about the Nazi-lie that Stalin tried to purposefully kill Ukrainians, I suggest they start with Douglas Tottle&#39;s Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm).

redstar2000
12th March 2006, 01:35
I&#39;ve seen it argued that the late pope funneled some &#036;50 million in CIA funds to Solidarity in Poland...to re-shape that initially working-class movement that began as pro-socialist into a pro-Catholic force for reaction.

In addition, he enthusiastically supported Opus Dei...a clerical-fascist cult with alleged ties to most of the murderous dictatorships in Central and South America in the last century.

He may not have been one of history&#39;s "great villains"...but he was certainly a reactionary turd.

Had there been a proletarian revolution in Italy during his lifetime, they would have certainly hanged him&#33;

And rightfully so&#33; :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Intelligitimate
12th March 2006, 01:41
I know, it&#39;s funny that so-called communists make common cause with organizations tied to the CIA (via the AFL-CIO) and the Pope.

www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/furraft82.pdf+Solidarity+cIA&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7]The (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:P_lE9VhmaPwJ:[url) AFT, the CIA, and Solidarność[/url], by Grover Furr.

LSD
12th March 2006, 02:04
Living fuck, had you forgotten about the billions of dollars dedicated to soup kitchens and helping the poor?

I guess I was distracted by the palacial splendor of the "Holy See".

Or did you think that the Vatican built itself? :lol:


So Stalin killing hundreds of millions of people and his successors killing many more is better than a Pope who has no real voice over world affairs


No, I think that all things considered, John Paul II was better than Josef Stalin.

...along with several other trillion people.


and who&#39;s only really major shortcomings are homophobia

Being homophobic&#39;s not bad enough for you? How about being sexist? How about being anti-abortion? How about being anti-condom in AIDS infectved Africa???

I agree with Redstar, John Paul was no "great villain". In fact, he wasn&#39;t a "great" anything. He was a bigotted old shmuck who fought for the perpetuation of oppression and encouraged actions which lead to the further spreading of a disease killing millions.

All things considered, he was not another "Hitler" or even a "Stalin", but he was a reactionary and an exploiter and he certainly deserved to die.


and having a heap of money

It&#39;s not the "heaaps of money" that are the problem, it&#39;s how and from whom it got it.

For all the bullshit about the late Pope "loving the poor", he stole billions of dollars from the poorest parts of the world to fund his petty international theocracy and what did he give them in return?

Lies and sermons.

How "charitable". :angry:

godfather of soul
12th March 2006, 02:14
I don&#39;t buy this for a minute. This is too easy of an explanation for this particular event. Chomsky has thorougly debunked this myth in Manufacturing Consent. Agca was a member of the Grey Wolves, a fascist organization with links to a covered Masonic Lodge (Propaganda Due/ P2). The man was a trained assassin, yet hit the pope only in the finger (causing a ricochet that hit him in the stomach and almost killed him). It is more plausible that this was done as an attempt to distract the public from the fact that the Vatican was embroiled in its largest scandal of modern times, namely, the colapse of the Banc of Ambrosia (or Vatican Bank). The bank was involved in a laundering scandal of some 3.5 billion plus dollars (some theories say it was used to fund fascist paramilitary groups in Italy who were being directed by the Itallian intel services whose leadership all were members of P-2) and the head of the bank, Roberto Calvi was found dead hanging from a bridge in London (that had Masonic significance) with money stuffed in his pockets and a brick in them as well.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/calvi5.htm

-a fairly reliable account of what really happened (to Calvi at least)

In this context, it makes more sense that the Pope was shot to distract people from the colapse of the Vatican bank and its ties to a covered masonic lodge and the Italian Mafia:

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

All in all it is a typical response from a fasicist organization or those closely aligned with it to "blame the commies" when the reality is much different than what the bourgeois press reports. So, hopefully this will steer the conversation towards something more than comparing the Pope to Stalin (hoping to prove what exactly I do not know)...Even if the mission would have been successful (though IMO it was never meant to kill him, just wound him) he would have merely been replaced by another king/emperor/fascist head of state/church.

Amusing Scrotum
12th March 2006, 02:24
Originally posted by Revolution 9+--> (Revolution 9)Now, when you speak of the death under Stalin & co., you obviously forget the thousands of people killed during the purges and great trials....[/b]

I certainly don&#39;t forget them, because whatever my political opinions of Bolshevism, one cannot help feel a little sympathy towards the "Old Bolsheviks" purged by Stalin, but they, as you correctly stated, were in the thousands, and not the millions.

Additionally, a lot of Nazi Officials imprisoned after the War, were released in 1955.

I find it curious that a "brute" like Stalin, would choose not to execute those bastards and it certainly leads me to think that Stalin was not as "brutish" as the popular media portrays him to be.

He certainly had many people executed, but these were people within the Bolshevik Party and not the Russian populace in general.

Plus of course, neither you nor I are professional historians and therefore our conclusions on the Ukrainian famine are, well....shakey&#33;

In one of redstar2000&#39;s papers, he mentions that the original Ukrainian exiles put the figure at 1 million and then over the subsequent years it ballooned.

What is the accurate figure? ....I don&#39;t know, and neither do you.

I would suggest that Stalin, at the very most, is "guilty" of carelessness with regards the Ukraine and that of course, is working on the assumption that it was his fault at all.

I certainly wouldn&#39;t surprise me to figure out that the "blame" as it is, rests with many lower level Party Officials, you know, the people who actually "managed" Ukrainian affairs.

Additionally, there are numerous other factors we would need to take into account when analysing what happened in the Ukraine - geography, resources and so on.

It is my opinion, that the most we could hold Stalin accountable for is "bad governance", something I would propose execution for when dealing with the former rulers in a post-revolutionary society, but certainly not something I&#39;d consider systematic murder like that practised in Germany under the Nazi Party.


Originally posted by Revolution 9+--> (Revolution 9)Do you really think that the Communist Party was doing so great?[/b]

Absolutely not.

If you wish, you can check my post record to read what I think of Bolshevism. However, for the sake of historical accuracy, I will tell the truth as best as I know it, about what happened in Russia.


Originally posted by Revolution 9
I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if he lived in the former Tsar&#39;s palaces in between signing death lists.

From very early on after the Revolution, many members of the Bolshevik elite did reside in former Palaces and boats of the Tsar.


Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su
....why did they starve to death? the wonderful Russian CAPITALISM?

Well, early Capitalism is brutal, no doubt about it.

However, I suspect that Russian State Monopoly Capitalism was less brutal than early British Capitalism.


Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected]
....which were just like a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

Uh, no.

The "gulags" as brutal as they were, were not like German concentration camps. They were just a nastier variant of the prison system we have now.

Indeed, in the Philippines, the prison system there today is probably far more brutal than anything in Russia. The same could be said of the Jordanian prison system, the Iraqi prison system, the "Saudi" Arabian prison system and so on.

Prisons are shit, they&#39;re just not concentration camps.


Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su
Listen at least if the Pope said wrong things, he didnt impose those feelings on the people....

So the Catholic Missionaries in Africa telling people not to wear condoms aren&#39;t "imposing their feelings"???

Additionally, when the Pope was funnelling money into Poland, wasn&#39;t he imposing his feelings there???

The list, could, go on and on and on.

Intelligitimate
12th March 2006, 02:36
Plus of course, neither you nor I are professional historians and therefore our conclusions on the Ukrainian famine are, well....shakey&#33;

The only &#39;historians&#39; who support the bullshit about Ukraine are confirmed anti-Communists like Conquest and Mace. Conquest&#39;s Harvest of Sorrow was basically completely rejected in scholarly circles. But that doesn&#39;t stop pseudo-socialists from believing any anti-Communist lie imaginable.

In addition to the work of Douglas Tottle, I recommend the work of Dr. Mark Tauger (http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/), professor of history at West Virginia University. You can find most of his scholarly papers on his website.

Intelligitimate
12th March 2006, 02:45
Uh, no.

The "gulags" as brutal as they were, were not like German concentration camps. They were just a nastier variant of the prison system we have now.

Oh, didn&#39;t you know? Russia didn&#39;t have any real criminals. In fact, every single person ever put in prison in the USSR was completely innocent…

Yeah, and it was so brutal, that vice president Henry Wallace visited one of the worst ones and didn&#39;t even realize it was a prison…

If you want accurate information on the Gulags, I suggest the definitive work of J. Arch Getty. Getty&#39;s work pretty much completely refutes the ridiculous lies of anti-Communist historians like Conquest.

Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html).

Nothing Human Is Alien
12th March 2006, 14:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:35 AM
If anyone wants to read more about the Nazi-lie that Stalin tried to purposefully kill Ukrainians, I suggest they start with Douglas Tottle&#39;s Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm).
Indeed. I was going to link to the same thing.

Some people here can do no more than spout anti-communist bullshit from the bourgeois press.

Kaze no Kae
13th March 2006, 00:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:42 PM
Dammit Alan, you beat me to it. I was going to say mostly the same things.
lol ^_^;;


But it&#39;s become apparent that regardless of accomplishments or opinions, anyone "foolish/stupid" enough to be religious is a drooling idiot by the standards of the vast majority of this board. Not that that continues to bother me anymore. :P There aren&#39;t any names that I haven&#39;t been called yet, so meh...
Theres nout wrong with a religion so long as it doesnt worship a god because they believe he/she/it smites anyone who DOESNT worship him, and so long as it doesnt try to impose its standards on others.

As for worshipping out of fear, thats pretty much the same as people bowing down to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Bush.


the fact that he told millions of africans aids was caused by condoms
He probably believed that, in which case, telling them so, at least in his eyes, was humanitarian.


and abortion
Im kinda iffy about abortion myself.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not the baby is aware of itself and capable of emotion/sensation by the time of the abortion. But we just cant know whether or not a faetus thats only a couple of cells IS aware.


Which the two of you are, by the way.
Heh thanks :DDD

¬_¬

Ok, seriusly now. Spineless? lmao id like to see YOU openly participate in planning a revolt against a fascist government, knowing it could get you killed. Liberal? Ill take that as a compliment, thanks, if theres ONE thing thats worth dying for, its liberty. Class-traitor? I HOPE I dont know what you mean by that...


Clerical fascism your "thing" is it?
No, and if it was, would I really be on this forum? 0.o

I think your getting John Paul (the last Pope, died last year) mixed up with Benedict (the current Pope).

As a Catholic, Im kinda unorthodox, in that I dont believe the Pope has any real authority, and have little respect for people who do, particularly since the "crowning" (for want of a better word) of Benedict. I DO, however, have great respect for John Paul as a person, both for his work as a Pope, and for his willingness to defy the Soviet enforcement of atheism in Poland (enforced atheism is one of the aspects of the Communist Manifest I disagree with, and I believe it has little relevance to communism, but that it was something ELSE Karl Marx believed in, that he wrote about in the Manifesto).


This of course, being the same Pope that refused to support even Liberation Theology.
The Liberation Theology being... the forced annexation of countries into the Soviet Union?

Imperialism isnt a communist concept, Armchair, only a Communist one.


keep women enslaved
You people talk about capitalist anti-left lies, and yet you believe Soviet anti-religion lies? lmao


Firstly, he was the head of the Roman Catholic Church
He was NOT the head of the Roman Catholic Church, however, when it was a fundamentalist institution (
an oppressive and quasi-totalitarian organization, guilty of numerous atrocities and exploitations), he was the head of a LIBERALISED Roman Catholic Church. In fact, much of that liberalisation happened during his time as Pope.


and opposed progressive medical research.
You mean... experiments on unwilling and helpless lab rats (both literal and metaforical)? Is there any real question why that is?


If Julius Steicher can be executed for promoting anti-semitism, Karol Wojtyła can be executed for promotng sexism and homophobia.
Im skeptical about whether even THAT is right. Free speech is a fundamental tenet of democracy (anthough granted, democracy is something the Soviet Union -despite the best efforts of people like Alexander Dubcek, Mikheil Gorbachev, and quite possibly Vladimir Lenin - never had).


You mean like steal their money in the name of "Christ" and then use it to build his palaces and monastaries?
John Paul never built a single palace in his lifetime, and would probably never have dreamed of doing so either. As for monastaries, they are used to shelter the homeless, etc, just as much as they are for worship. And he never "stole" anything - anything he took would have been given freely.


When one knows that one&#39;s acts are partly to blame for an epidemic and does not stop, one is either a crminal monster or insane.

Which one do you suppose he was?
Neither - as I said, he BELIEVED condoms were at least partly to blame for the epidemic.


Except, you know, for women, gays, and non-Christians.

I guess we don&#39;t "count".
Women - name ONE sexist policy.
Gays - so he was a little homophobic. So were the majority of people of his era.
Non-Christians - John Paul, unlike Benedict, was NOT a fundamentalist.


Second, I cannot believe how many here actually support the corrupt Marxism of the USSR over at least the philanthropy of a pope, that not only reformed the Roman Catholic Church and made it open to other religions, but also brought down this wretched late Stalinistic Marxism.

I&#39;ll choose John Paul II over Stalin, Krushchev, Breznhev, or any of those other fat-ass bastards any day.
Seconded, assuming that list wouldnt have eventually reached Gorbachev, who was the first Soviet head of state to actually see the light, and had it not been for his awful economic policies, could have potentially lead the USSR into a golden age (a true one, not the sort Stalin would have claimed to have created).


The consensus amongst historians seems to be that 20 million people died under Stalin, the majority of which were Ukrainian peasants and they died of starvation.
So the fact that he just sat back and let them die one of the most painful deaths possible for a Human being, rather than doing his absolute all to get food to them, exonerates him does it?


As for his "successors killing many more", well again, that is wrong.Have you ever heard of Alexander Dubcek, and his groups attempted liberal socialist reforms? You wanna know how Kruschev supressed THAT movement, rather than through diplomacy and ideology? TANKS.


The ratio between highest and lowest wages in "Soviet Russia" was around 1:4. Not that much when one considers it.
Considering that Soviet Russia was supposedly communist, that ratio SHOULD have been 1:1. So, yes, it IS quite a lot...


If you&#39;re going to seriously wave off 20 million deaths so easily, I suggest you go and talk to the doctor at your local psych ward.
Same


I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if he lived in the former Tsar&#39;s palaces in between signing death lists.
Probably


"The Jewish administrative division [Birobidzhan] was founded with the help of Komzet in 1928 as the Jewish National District. It was the result of Stalin&#39;s nationality policy, by which each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

Yeah, anti-semites always give Jewish people their own states.
Well, obviously, something made him change his mind, because after Hitler invaded Poland, he prevented the media from leaking any news about the concentration camps, and in 1948, he started his own purge.


Its like saying the President of Iran is worst than Hitler, because he says that the state of Israel should be wiped out of the face of the earth.
Yeh, the Iranian guy SAYS it, Hitler would have actively gone about trying to DO it. Which is worse, people?


they would have certainly hanged him&#33;

And rightfully so&#33;
Im not sure Id even say that about Stalin, one of histories greatest evils.

Capital punishment is NEVER justified.


I know, it&#39;s funny that so-called communists make common cause with organizations tied to the CIA
EVEN the CIA (which, as I think Ive said at other points in this debate, is one of the most evil organisations currently in existence) is capable of having friends who have friends who have friends who have friends who have friends who believe in SOME sort of ligitimate cause.


...along with several other trillion people.
There ARENT several trillion people on the planet Earth...

Around 6 billion at last count ¬_¬


So the Catholic Missionaries in Africa telling people not to wear condoms aren&#39;t "imposing their feelings"???
Did they hold guns to the Africans heads, search their houses, and confiscate any condoms they found? NOOOO&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Oh, didn&#39;t you know? Russia didn&#39;t have any real criminals. In fact, every single person ever put in prison in the USSR was completely innocent…
Probably not many less innocent inmates than guilty ones. That goes for most fascist (yes, you heard me, FASCIST, Stalins "interpretation of communism" was AT LEAST bordering on fascism) countries.

Publius
13th March 2006, 00:54
"The Jewish administrative division [Birobidzhan] was founded with the help of Komzet in 1928 as the Jewish National District. It was the result of Stalin&#39;s nationality policy, by which each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

Yeah, anti-semites always give Jewish people their own states.

Racists in America gave Africans their own state.

LSD
13th March 2006, 01:40
Racists in America gave Africans their own state.

Not within their own jurisdiction, they didn&#39;t. There&#39;s a significant difference between shipping people half a world away and setting them up in your own back yard.

That said, however, it is worth noting, while we&#39;re on the subject, that the creation of a "homeland" does not proclude prejeduce and, indeed, is often even indicative of it. The "bantustans" of Appartheid South Africa are certainly recent evidence of this, but there are numerous similar instances throughout history.

Insofar as the Jews are concerned, the Ghettos of Midieval Europe were almost proto-"bantustans" of their own. Although restricted and typically walled-in, most of these Ghettos were actually left relatively alone and given a fair bit of de jure autonomy.

The intent, after all, was not to torture the Jews but to "seperate" them. It was not to the same degree, of course, as actually "giving" them their own state, but it certainly pointed in that general direction.

And, indeed, later antisemites took the next logical step and proposed exactly that. Nationalist seperatism has long gone hand in hand with racist and antisemitic ideologies and several prominant antisemites of the nineteenth century proposed "relocating" the Jews to get ride of them.

Ultimately, even the Nazis themselves toyed with the idea of creating a "Jewish homeland", although it was in South-Eastern Africa of all places

Before the Wansee conference and Operation Reinhardt, there was a seriously considered plan of rellocating all European Jews to Madagascar. In the end, expense and the lack of German naval superiority made this impossible, but had they gone through with it, it most certainly would not have meant that the Nazis were not antisemitic&#33;

Likewise, the USSR&#39;s creation of an "autonomous" Jewish Oblast in far eastern Russia does not in and of itself prove anything. Certainly it does not prove that the government of the Soviet Union was not antisemitic.

On the contrary, as Stalin&#39;s later campagins against "zionists" and "rootless cosmopolitans" demonstrated, antisemitism was quite alive and well in the "Socialist paradise" of "papa Joe".

It was nowhere near the antisemitism of Nazi Germany, of course. Instead of being central state policy, it was merely yet another entry in the very long list of Stalin&#39;s paranoid irrationalities.

Remember, this is the same man that would routinely forcibly relocate entire ethnicities because he feared they could be potentially politicaly inconvienient. These deportations ranged from typical, such as the rellocation of Germans durring the Second World War; to cruel, such as the forced rellocation of the Crimean Tartars; to patently bizarre, such as the rellocation of Jehovas Witnesses.

Now, it&#39;s hard to say whether the Birobidzhan project was akin to these "resettlement" efforts or whether it was a genuine attempt in 1928 to offer a "Marxist" alternative to Zionism.

Either way, though, there&#39;s really no denying that antisemitism was quite real and quite potent in the Soviet Union. Just another example, I suppose, of how spectacularly the USSR failed to be anything approaching that which it claimed to be.

Publius
13th March 2006, 02:50
Not within their own jurisdiction, they didn&#39;t. There&#39;s a significant difference between shipping people half a world away and setting them up in your own back yard.

Not when you have a backyard the size of Russia.

It takes, literally, no effort to ship a group of people a way.

Many a racist would love the blacks in his neighborhood to move &#39;just a few blocks&#39;. If he helpled them search for a house, would that make it any less racist?

Anti-semitism was big in Russia at the time; it was big everywhere, but that in no way mitigates or excuses it.

Pointing to this as some sort of evidence that Uncle Joe was alright is, I think, absurd.



That said, however, it is worth noting, while we&#39;re on the subject, that

For future reference, you might want to clear up the syntax a bit.

Not to be pedantic, but I had a difficult time reading that.



the creation of a "homeland" does not proclude prejeduce and, indeed, is often even indicative of it. The "bantustans" of Appartheid South Africa are certainly recent evidence of this, but there are numerous similar instances throughout history.

The creation of a homeland can, in many cases, be seen as evidence of prejudice.

Israel is a perfect example. Israel was created because Western nations didn&#39;t want all those Jews in their country.




Insofar as the Jews are concerned, the Ghettos of Midieval Europe were almost proto-"bantustans" of their own. Although restricted and typically walled-in, most of these Ghettos were actually left relatively alone and given a fair bit of de jure autonomy.


The Jewish ghettos were actually more prosperous than the &#39;normal areas&#39;, I believe.



The intent, after all, was not to torture the Jews but to "seperate" them. It was not to the same degree, of course, as actually "giving" them their own state, but it certainly pointed in that general direction.

Yes, and it certainly added to the stigma of &#39;being Jewish&#39;.



And, indeed, later antisemites took the next logical step and proposed exactly that. Nationalist seperatism has long gone hand in hand with racist and antisemitic ideologies and several prominant antisemites of the nineteenth century proposed "relocating" the Jews to get ride of them.

Actually, that&#39;s nearly what happend with the creation of Israel.




Ultimately, even the Nazis themselves toyed with the idea of creating a "Jewish homeland", although it was in South-Eastern Africa of all places

Pehaps because of the &#39;lost tribe of Israel&#39; that supposedly lives in southern Africa?

That&#39;s an interesting story in its own right.




Before the Wansee conference and Operation Reinhardt, there was a seriously considered plan of rellocating all European Jews to Madagascar. In the end, expense and the lack of German naval superiority made this impossible, but had they gone through with it, it most certainly would not have meant that the Nazis were not antisemitic&#33;


Madagascar eh? I would have thought to be somewhere in the Bantu region.



Likewise, the USSR&#39;s creation of an "autonomous" Jewish Oblast in far eastern Russia does not in and of itself prove anything. Certainly it does not prove that the government of the Soviet Union was not antisemitic.


No it doesn&#39;t.

Why you&#39;d give Jews their own special place, *in Russia*, a land they&#39;re not native to, is a strange question.

It pretty much leads to one conclusion: You want to exclude them.



On the contrary, as Stalin&#39;s later campagins against "zionists" and "rootless cosmopolitans" demonstrated, antisemitism was quite alive and well in the "Socialist paradise" of "papa Joe".

As was nearly every form of human moral perversion.




It was nowhere near the antisemitism of Nazi Germany, of course. Instead of being central state policy, it was merely yet another entry in the very long list of Stalin&#39;s paranoid irrationalities.

As if Hitler&#39;s hatred of Jews wasn&#39;t a &#39;paranoid irrationality&#39;?

I would say that nearly all anti-Semitism is &#39;paranoid irrationality&#39;.



Remember, this is the same man that would routinely forcibly relocate entire ethnicities because he feared they could be potentially politicaly inconvienient. These deportations ranged from typical, such as the rellocation of Germans durring the Second World War; to cruel, such as the forced rellocation of the Crimean Tartars; to patently bizarre, such as the rellocation of Jehovas Witnesses.

We shan&#39;t dwell on the latter.




Now, it&#39;s hard to say whether the Birobidzhan project was akin to these "resettlement" efforts or whether it was a genuine attempt in 1928 to offer a "Marxist" alternative to Zionism.


There have been &#39;Zionist alternatives to Marxism&#39; for centuries: Kibbutzs.



Either way, though, there&#39;s really no denying that antisemitism was quite real and quite potent in the Soviet Union. Just another example, I suppose, of how spectacularly the USSR failed to be anything approaching that which it claimed to be.

That was certainly the only spectacular thing about it.

Nothing Human Is Alien
13th March 2006, 03:09
Women - name ONE sexist policy.

Women aren&#39;t able to become priests.


Gays - so he was a little homophobic. So were the majority of people of his era.

Oh in that case :lol:


The Liberation Theology being... the forced annexation of countries into the Soviet Union?

Wow. It&#39;s usually best to know even a little about something before you talk about it.

Liberation Theology is a theological ideology that exists in your own church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology


Seconded, assuming that list wouldnt have eventually reached Gorbachev, who was the first Soviet head of state to actually see the light, and had it not been for his awful economic policies, could have potentially lead the USSR into a golden age (a true one, not the sort Stalin would have claimed to have created).

You mean the guy that is now an open bourgeois liberal and says "the US deserved to win the Cold War"? :lol: Yeah he was a real communist.


Considering that Soviet Russia was supposedly communist, that ratio SHOULD have been 1:1. So, yes, it IS quite a lot...

Um.. read about communism before you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already have. No one in the USSR or anywhere has ever claimed to have reached communism.


Im not sure Id even say that about Stalin, one of histories greatest evils.

Capital punishment is NEVER justified.

:lol:


Probably not many less innocent inmates than guilty ones. That goes for most fascist (yes, you heard me, FASCIST, Stalins "interpretation of communism" was AT LEAST bordering on fascism) countries.

Read a little about fascism is as a political system before you say idiotic things like this.

****

Some of you here are as good as slinging bourgeois lies about the USSR under Stalin as the bourgeoisie themselves&#33;

Good job&#33;

Intelligitimate
13th March 2006, 03:23
Probably not many less innocent inmates than guilty ones. That goes for most fascist (yes, you heard me, FASCIST, Stalins "interpretation of communism" was AT LEAST bordering on fascism) countries.

You pulled this out of your ass. I actually cited the fucking figures for you from the Soviet Archives, why don&#39;t you just read them? Is it because you prefer to pull facts out of your ass, rather than pay attention to real historical research?


Likewise, the USSR&#39;s creation of an "autonomous" Jewish Oblast in far eastern Russia does not in and of itself prove anything. Certainly it does not prove that the government of the Soviet Union was not antisemitic.

On the contrary, as Stalin&#39;s later campagins against "zionists" and "rootless cosmopolitans" demonstrated, antisemitism was quite alive and well in the "Socialist paradise" of "papa Joe".

This is retarded. The entire fucking Left today is against Zionism and Israel. Is the entire fucking Left anti-Semitic?

LSD
13th March 2006, 12:46
This is retarded. The entire fucking Left today is against Zionism and Israel. Is the entire fucking Left anti-Semitic?

Of course not, although antisemitism is disturbingly high in some leftist circles. Still, though, most serious anti-zionism is political in nature.

Stalin&#39;s campaigns against "Zionists" in the 1930s, however, were clearly not political, especially seeing as state of Israel did not exist yet&#33;

Instead of opposing racism or imperialism, Stalin&#39;s brand of "anti-zionism" consisted of ranscaking Birobidzhan, burning books written in yiddish, and arresting thousands of Jews, irrespective of politics.

And insofar as his later campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans", only the most blinded Stalinist could deny that this was a thinly vailed assault on the Jews. Indeed, the final culmanation of this particular pogrom, the infamous "Doctor&#39;s plot" trial, was ultimately even condemned by the Soviet government itself and admitted to be utterly falacial.

Again, antisemitism was not Stalin&#39;s "priority". Unlike Hitler, he had no "racial ambitions". He was merely a deeply paranoid man who succumbed to the prejeduces of the time and integrated them into his psychopathic paradigm.

For Hitler, power was a means to pursue antisemitism; for Stalin, antisemitism was a means to pursue power.

Intelligitimate
13th March 2006, 14:14
Of course not, although antisemitism is disturbingly high in some leftist circles. Still, though, most serious anti-zionism is political in nature.

What leftist circles?


Stalin&#39;s campaigns against "Zionists" in the 1930s, however, were clearly not political, especially seeing as state of Israel did not exist yet&#33;

Instead of opposing racism or imperialism, Stalin&#39;s brand of "anti-zionism" consisted of ranscaking Birobidzhan, burning books written in yiddish, and arresting thousands of Jews, irrespective of politics.

Forgive me if I don’t take your word on anything. Please document any of this garbage. And by document, I mean with credibly scholarly sources, not wikipedia articles.


And insofar as his later campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans", only the most blinded Stalinist could deny that this was a thinly vailed assault on the Jews. Indeed, the final culmanation of this particular pogrom, the infamous "Doctor&#39;s plot" trial, was ultimately even condemned by the Soviet government itself and admitted to be utterly falacial.

You’ll believe any anti-Communist garbage, no matter how absurdly stupid.

LSD
13th March 2006, 21:38
Intelligitimate, I would lay off the flaming if I were you. There is no call for insults or ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with anything I write, I&#39;m certain that you&#39;re mature enough to respond in a rational and adult manner. :)


What leftist circles?

I&#39;m not accusing any organizations specifically, I&#39;m just pointing out that there is disturbing amount of antisemitism in the left. There is also, of course, a great deal of antisemitism in the right, but that is to be expected.

My concern is with the left, though, and in ensuring that it is truly sticking to the egalitarian principles it ostensibly adheres to.

There is a difference between Israel and Jews and attacks on synagogues or non-political Jews are despicable and counter-productive.

I&#39;m sure that, at the very least, we can agree on that&#33;


Please document any of this garbage.

"Garbage"? What "garbage"?

I have not contended anything that is not common knowledge. None of my facts were "controversial". Indeed truly radical historians would propose that Stalin had a specific policy of antisemitism. I didn&#39;t suggest that, merely that he adopted antisemitism as a part of his generally paradnoid paradigm.

And in so doing, I deliberately selected instances that are uncontested by any serious student of Soviet history.

I have no interest in doing basic research for you nor am I formulating a research paper on Soviet antisemitism. My comments were not directed at you but rather in response to Publius&#39; comments regarding "homelands" and their reflection, if any, on the policies of the creating government.

If you wish to engage in a debate on the "crimes of Stalin", I believe there is a thread for that purpose in History. Personally I have no interest in dredging up the established record to serve some perverse ideological agenda.

The Soviety Union in the 1930s and 40s was a creature of its time and its ruler. That meant that while antisemitism was not "central policy", as it was in Germany, it was still very much present.


You’ll believe any anti-Communist garbage, no matter how absurdly stupid.

What on earth are you talking about? This isn&#39;t about anti-Communism, it&#39;s about anti-Stalinism. Again, even the Soviet government admitted that the "Doctor&#39;s Plot" was a total fabrication.

What, are you proposing that it was a "coincidence" that these admittedly wrongfully accused individuals "happened" to be Jewish? :lol:

The "Doctor&#39;s Pplot" hoax, the "Night of the Murdered Poets", the attacks against "rootless cosmopolitans" and "corrupt Jewish bourgeois nationalism", etc... There was simply too many attacks against Jews under Stalin for it all to be "coincidental".

I&#39;m not sure if you&#39;re familiar with Occam&#39;s Razor, but it is a basic principle of logic that posits that when chosing between two options, the simplest option should be adopted.

In this case, the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that Stalin was simply human and fell victim to the same prejeduces and irrationalities as others of time did. Also, I&#39;m sure that his obsessive paranoid nature didn&#39;t help.

Intelligitimate
13th March 2006, 22:05
Intelligitimate, I would lay off the flaming if I were you. There is no call for insults or ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with anything I write, I&#39;m certain that you&#39;re mature enough to respond in a rational and adult manner.

Nothing you’ve said has shown any mature, rational thought.


I&#39;m not accusing any organizations specifically, I&#39;m just pointing out that there is disturbing amount of antisemitism in the left.

What organizations, LSD? What the hell do think “What left circles?” means? Where is this Leftist anti-Semitism? Are you some kind of Israel apologist or something?


There is a difference between Israel and Jews and attacks on synagogues or non-political Jews are despicable and counter-productive.

What Leftists do this?


"Garbage"? What "garbage"?

The garbage about Stalin being an anti-Semite, of course.


I have not contended anything that is not common knowledge.

I don’t give a shit what you think is common knowledge.


None of my facts were "controversial".

Of course they are. Do you even know what historians you’re getting this bullshit from? I doubt it.


Indeed truly radical historians would propose that Stalin had a specific policy of antisemitism.

Start naming them.


I didn&#39;t suggest that, merely that he adopted antisemitism as a part of his generally paradnoid paradigm.

Back up this “suggestion” with actual sources.


And in so doing, I deliberately selected instances that are uncontested by any serious student of Soviet history.

This is bullshit. There is no such animal, as anyone familiar with the field knows. Do you know the difference between Robert Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev, etc, and the new school of scholars like J. Arch Getty, Roberta Manning, Robert Thurston, etc?


I have no interest in doing basic research for you nor am I formulating a research paper on Soviet antisemitism.

Translation: I can’t back up the bullshit I spew.


The Soviety Union in the 1930s and 40s was a creature of its time and its ruler. That meant that while antisemitism was not "central policy", as it was in Germany, it was still very much present.

Back up this bullshit with some actual evidence.


What on earth are you talking about? This isn&#39;t about anti-Communism, it&#39;s about anti-Stalinism. Again, even the Soviet government admitted that the "Doctor&#39;s Plot" was a total fabrication.

Yes, the Khrushchevite government said a lot of crap about Stalin. Who cares? I want evidence that Stalin was an anti-Semite. So far you’ve made accusations without a single citation to anything even resembling scholarly literature.

Kaze no Kae
23rd March 2006, 13:54
Originally posted by Compań[email protected] 13 2006, 03:18 AM

Women - name ONE sexist policy.

Women aren&#39;t able to become priests.


Gays - so he was a little homophobic. So were the majority of people of his era.

Oh in that case :lol:


The Liberation Theology being... the forced annexation of countries into the Soviet Union?

Wow. It&#39;s usually best to know even a little about something before you talk about it.

Liberation Theology is a theological ideology that exists in your own church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology


Seconded, assuming that list wouldnt have eventually reached Gorbachev, who was the first Soviet head of state to actually see the light, and had it not been for his awful economic policies, could have potentially lead the USSR into a golden age (a true one, not the sort Stalin would have claimed to have created).

You mean the guy that is now an open bourgeois liberal and says "the US deserved to win the Cold War"? :lol: Yeah he was a real communist.


Considering that Soviet Russia was supposedly communist, that ratio SHOULD have been 1:1. So, yes, it IS quite a lot...

Um.. read about communism before you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already have. No one in the USSR or anywhere has ever claimed to have reached communism.


Im not sure Id even say that about Stalin, one of histories greatest evils.

Capital punishment is NEVER justified.

:lol:


Probably not many less innocent inmates than guilty ones. That goes for most fascist (yes, you heard me, FASCIST, Stalins "interpretation of communism" was AT LEAST bordering on fascism) countries.

Read a little about fascism is as a political system before you say idiotic things like this.

****

Some of you here are as good as slinging bourgeois lies about the USSR under Stalin as the bourgeoisie themselves&#33;

Good job&#33;

Women aren&#39;t able to become priests.
Not HIS policy. It had been around for, well, since Christs times. He just didnt change it. There were plenty of Stalins less favourable policies that Kruschev didnt change


You mean the guy that is now an open bourgeois liberal and says "the US deserved to win the Cold War"? Yeah he was a real communist.
Yeh. And frankly, I agree with him. Right up until the day Gorbachev came to power, the US was the lesser of 2 evils.


Um.. read about communism before you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already have. No one in the USSR or anywhere has ever claimed to have reached communism.
The rulers called themselves the "Communist Party". Id say that was a claim to communism.


This is retarded. The entire fucking Left today is against Zionism and Israel. Is the entire fucking Left anti-Semitic?
Im not, and I know lots of other leftists who arent.

redstar2000
23rd March 2006, 18:43
Originally posted by Assassin
Theres nout wrong with a religion...so long as it doesnt try to impose its standards on others.

The stated policy of your Catholic Church is to criminalize abortion in every country...put the doctors who perform them and the women who have them in prison&#33;

In fact, all religions, when they think it possible, seek to make their "moral code" into law.

And keep it "law" as long as they can. When the laws against "witchcraft" were repealed in England (around 1820 or so), the one group which argued vehemently for their retention was...the clergy&#33;

If archbishops ever had the power again (they once did&#33;) of the mullahs in Iran, you can bet they&#39;d impose their beliefs on everyone...at gunpoint&#33;


I DO, however, have great respect for John Paul as a person, both for his work as a Pope, and for his willingness to defy the Soviet enforcement of atheism in Poland (enforced atheism is one of the aspects of the Communist Manifest I disagree with, and I believe it has little relevance to communism, but that it was something ELSE Karl Marx believed in, that he wrote about in the Manifesto).

"Enforcement of atheism"? The dumbass Leninists in Poland actually rebuilt (almost from the ground up) the great central cathedral in downtown Warsaw.

And built new churches in other parts of Poland.

As to the bastard himself, he was nothing more than a money-launderer and bag-man for the CIA...eagerly participating in the conversion of Polish Solidarity from a working class movement with at least some revolutionary potential into a vehicle for superstition and reaction.


John Paul never built a single palace in his lifetime...

Does the massive new cathedral in Los Angeles -- about &#036;300 million -- count?


Capital punishment is NEVER justified.

Not even for heretics and "witches"? :lol:


Right up until the day Gorbachev came to power, the US was the lesser of 2 evils.

You&#39;ve made your preferences pretty clear: you prefer Catholicism to atheism and U.S. imperialism to the old USSR.

Have you any reason to offer why you should not be restricted to Opposing Ideologies?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Kaze no Kae
26th March 2006, 15:29
The stated policy of your Catholic Church is to criminalize abortion in every country...put the doctors who perform them and the women who have them in prison&#33;
This is because the official Vatican line is that abortion=murder. It has nothing to do with religion. What ISNT "the stated policy of the Catholic Church" is to criminalise non-Catholicism. THAT wood be what I meant by forcing its standards on others.


Not even for heretics and "witches"?
DO NOT try to label me as a fundamentalist >.<###################


Not even for heretics and "witches"?
Because, as far as I was aware, this forum was for communists/socialists of ALL interpretations, NOT just for Sovietists

Eleutherios
26th March 2006, 17:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:38 PM

The stated policy of your Catholic Church is to criminalize abortion in every country...put the doctors who perform them and the women who have them in prison&#33;
This is because the official Vatican line is that abortion=murder. It has nothing to do with religion. What ISNT "the stated policy of the Catholic Church" is to criminalise non-Catholicism. THAT wood be what I meant by forcing its standards on others.
But they are forcing their standards on others, by supporting laws which make it criminal not to follow the Catholic stance on abortion (namely that abortion = murder). If my organization defined masturbation as murder (think of all those poor sperm cells&#33;) and fought for legislation that would lock up masturbators, that would be forcing my standards on other people, wouldn&#39;t it?

redstar2000
27th March 2006, 00:54
Originally posted by Assassin
This is because the official Vatican line is that abortion=murder. It has nothing to do with religion.

Oh...you mean they just plucked that position "out of a hat"? :lol:

It has everything to "do" with religion&#33; :angry:


Because, as far as I was aware, this forum was for communists/socialists of ALL interpretations, NOT just for Sovietists.

Fans of the old Leninist despotisms get treated rather "roughly" here.

Fans of U.S. imperialism, regardless of their "left" rhetoric, usually get restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

Your time is "running out".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif