Churchill praised Soviet suppression of '53 E. German revolt

[Severian]

Link (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390232287&p=1012571727166)

I thought this was an interesting bit of info that tends to undermine the conventional understanding of the relations between the USSR and the capitalist countries...any comments?

Excerpt:

The British government under prime minister Winston Churchill refused to support a pro-democracy uprising by 1m East German workers and farmers in 1953, leaving protesters to face persecution by Soviet Union and East German troops, according to a new book.

Instead of offering moral support to the uprising - seen by historians as the forerunner to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 - the British praised the Russians for intervening with tanks to prop up East Germany's communist government, according to Hubertus Knabe, the book's author.

[Son of Scargill]

the link doesn't seem to work for me,but still,it wouldn't suprise me.There are numerous examples of collaboration between the west and the Stalinists(The Russian soviets were effectively neutralised in early 1924).Stalin sold out other communist parties in order to keep himself in power.Greece and Spain to name a couple.The west sold out their supporters when the situation was beneficial to them.
Churchill wrote of the Greek campaign that Stalin had "adhered strictly and faithfully to our agreement of October['44],and during all the long weeks of fighting the communists in the streets of Athens not one word of reproach came from Pravda or Izvestia."
Stalin was a facist.Churchill was a facist.The world was one big board game to them.What did it matter to them that some people didn't want to be their chess pieces.



(Edited by Son of Scargill at 6:36 pm on May 26, 2003)

[thursday night]

Of course they would support the put down of this rebellion of neo-Nazis and extreme right-wingers. It was very similiar to the 'rebellion' in Hungary where former monarchists, former ruling fascists (Hungary was an Axis power during World War Two) and other runaways from the law took arms against the socialists. Who do you support then, literally fascists or the rightful Soviet Union?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Churchill wanted to establish some power in Eastern Europe as well, that's why. He tried to strike deals with Stalin about control in Eastern Europe.

He would've wanted anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist uprisings crushed just like Uncle Joe

[ireallyhadablackout]

Severian, very interesting...we cannot forget that we are dealing with men who are not only dealing with the present tribulations of their time yet of men who had a national vision which was radically transformed into an international one due to the discovery of atomic energy.

I am persuaded in my thinking that Russia was able to do many things protected under a shroud of "secrecy thus, it was the production of the Joe I bomb and the Super that was responsible for the ultimate seperation of the West and East.

Right now, I am looking into a comment made by a scientist who stated that the Berlin Wall was nothing more of "artificial." I will report back my findings. It may mean nothing at all, yet I am still curious.

[ireallyhadablackout]

Thursday Night...In regards to your signature line, I find Friedrich Nietzsche quite fascinating, I only feel for the pain of life the man endured. I found it interesting and somewhat to be true when he expressed his feelings on women.

Although, it appeared to me that he wanted a women he felt that he would remain alone because women were too concerned with "security" which he had none to offer and for this reason alone women would serve no purpose in life. I totally understood where he was coming from.

As for the comment on Christianity, it can be said that Christianity is a product of "self-interest" and as revolutionaries we know that "self-interest" contradicts everything about revolution. I must say that I believe that Jesus himself had nothing to do with the people associating him with Christianity and I say that risking to be called an anti-christ as well.

Sorry, I got off topic, yet it will all come back around again. You will see. :wink:

[Severian]

Yeah, I guess the link's expired. Financial Times articles tend to do that quickly.

"Of course they would support the put down of this rebellion of neo-Nazis and extreme right-wingers." Why would Churchill support the suppression of that kind of revolt? Your statement makes no sense.

On the other hand, it's not surprising that Churchill would support the suppression of a workers' revolt. And that's pretty much what E. Germany '53 was, like Hungary '56. Began with large-scale workers' strike.

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm. I think there's a misunderstading going on here. I'll quote Bertolt Brecht on the events of 1953 in the GDR.

''The demonstrations of 17th June showed the discontent of a considerable section of Berlin's workforce with a series of failed economic measures.

Organised fascist elements tried to misuse this discontent for their own bloody means.

For many hours Berlin stood on the verge of a third world war.

Only the quick and definite intervention of the Soviet troops is to be thanked for thwarting the attempts.

It was obvious that the intervention of Soviet troops was in no way against the demonstrations of the workers. It was most apparently exclusively aimed against the attempts to spark off a new global fire.

It is now up to each one to help the government to weed out the mistakes which caused the discontent and without doubt, endangered our great social achievements.

On the morning of 17th June, as it became clear that the demonstrations of the workers will be misused for war-like aims, I expressed my solidarity with the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. I hope now that the provocateurs have been isolated and their network destroyed, I hope that the workers who demonstrated their genuine discontent are not placed on the same level as the provocateurs and the much required expression of mistakes committed in every direction is not disturbed.''


So why would Churchill support it? Everyone should also bare in mind that the protests were sparked in the context of a 10% rise in the price of basic food.

[ireallyhadablackout]

why isnt that no one seem to have any money?

has anyone ever considered the demographic location of north america?

i'm with you guys, my mind has a tendency to wonder, then it comes back around again, you'll see. :wink: