Churchill and Reagan - Champions of democracy

[Liberty Lover]

It is beyond imagination to think what life would be like today had Churchill and Reagan not lived, fought and thought as they did.

Churchill provided the inspiration to the people of Britain that restored their faith in democracy and encouraged them to resist Nazi tyranny. If it were not for Churchill the will of the British people would have collapsed, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and perhaps even the United States would have fallen to Nazism.

He despised tyranny with such a passion that he, and by extension his nation, was willing to stand-alone against Hitler when it was most critical. And unlike Roosevelt, he came early to the crusade against Soviet tyranny as well. His eloquent speeches strengthened the faith of all freedom-loving people in both the righteousness of their struggle and the inevitability of their cause.

There is but one man who could possibly hope to challenge Churchill as the champion of democracy and his name is Ronald Reagan. There is no doubt, if it had not been for the Reagan defense build-up, if the United States had not demonstrated that it’s willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, the CPSU would still be oppressing the people of Eastern Europe today.

Every lover of liberty will recognise Churchill and Reagan as heroes of democracy. What is especially great about these two men is that they piss you lot off immensely, Churchill because he exposed the follies of communism and Reagan because he tore asunder your oppressive empire.

[smoer]

comon liberty lover youre breaking everything down:-communism,socialism,che guevara
the onlything that mathers to you is money and power like that son of a bush

[Goldfinger]

I would like to hear what these lovely gentlemen would have said about the Native American communities who had practiced communism and democracy for hundreds of years until they were invaded by Europeans, or the native tribal communities in the Arab desert, where everyone gets the equal chance of showing what they're good for, no-one is better then anyone else, and no-one can gain power.

[Liberty Lover]

I would like to know what these two men thought about potato chips, but it isn’t relevant to this thread.

[smoer]

comon liberty lover explain against Apocalypse When!
Or cant you find an answer ??See socialism or communism is mutch bether then capitalism .When the people start asking questions to cappies then the cappies have lost there tongue .they just are to stupid to explain something exept how to get a lot of money and power

[Goldfinger]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 2:25 pm on April 27, 2003
I would like to know what these two men thought about potato chips, but it isn’t relevant to this thread.

The reason I call myself a socialist is because those communities practiced just that. I know you think socialism is equal distribution of misery. If that really was socialism, then I wouldn't be one.

Since socialism and Marxism to you is just plain torture and slavery, I don't want you to look at me as one.

[smoer]

aopcalypse you are talking to libety lover eh???

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 12:54 pm on April 27, 2003
It is beyond imagination to think what life would be like today had Churchill and Reagan not lived, fought and thought as they did.

Churchill provided the inspiration to the people of Britain that restored their faith in democracy and encouraged them to resist Nazi tyranny. If it were not for Churchill the will of the British people would have collapsed, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and perhaps even the United States would have fallen to Nazism.

He despised tyranny with such a passion that he, and by extension his nation, was willing to stand-alone against Hitler when it was most critical. And unlike Roosevelt, he came early to the crusade against Soviet tyranny as well. His eloquent speeches strengthened the faith of all freedom-loving people in both the righteousness of their struggle and the inevitability of their cause.

There is but one man who could possibly hope to challenge Churchill as the champion of democracy and his name is Ronald Reagan. There is no doubt, if it had not been for the Reagan defense build-up, if the United States had not demonstrated that it’s willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, the CPSU would still be oppressing the people of Eastern Europe today.

Every lover of liberty will recognise Churchill and Reagan as heroes of democracy. What is especially great about these two men is that they piss you lot off immensely, Churchill because he exposed the follies of communism and Reagan because he tore asunder your oppressive empire.



you...really don't know what socialism, communism, or marxism are do you?

...did you get your information on them from your highschool history book?

[smoer]

yeah he probably has and in a capitalism country the all say go cappies and the sovjet and communism is bad.
liberty lover read a book about che and about communism .
and stop trying to convert me to the capitalism at msn!
i wont do that i'm a born socialist

[Cassius Clay]

Churchill was a rascist, anti-working class Imperialist. While Reagen is a war criminall. Got news for you LL it was the Soviet Union and Red Army's throughout the world who defeated Fascism, from China to Albania.

I will NOT regonise a man who sponsored death squads in Salvador as a 'Champion of Democracy' or Mr Churchill whose language in 1920 upon talking about Bolshevism is equal to that of that other great Capitalist Hitler.

True Mr Churchill did regonise the threat of the Soviets early, as Comrade Stalin said at the time perhaps thats why the people kicked him out of office so emphaticly.

[smoer]

dont like churchill eather if its true what you say cassius
but i dont like stalin 2.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 12:54 pm on April 27, 2003
It is beyond imagination to think what life would be like today had Churchill and Reagan not lived, fought and thought as they did.

Churchill provided the inspiration to the people of Britain that restored their faith in democracy and encouraged them to resist Nazi tyranny. If it were not for Churchill the will of the British people would have collapsed, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and perhaps even the United States would have fallen to Nazism.

He despised tyranny with such a passion that he, and by extension his nation, was willing to stand-alone against Hitler when it was most critical. And unlike Roosevelt, he came early to the crusade against Soviet tyranny as well. His eloquent speeches strengthened the faith of all freedom-loving people in both the righteousness of their struggle and the inevitability of their cause.

There is but one man who could possibly hope to challenge Churchill as the champion of democracy and his name is Ronald Reagan. There is no doubt, if it had not been for the Reagan defense build-up, if the United States had not demonstrated that it’s willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, the CPSU would still be oppressing the people of Eastern Europe today.

Every lover of liberty will recognise Churchill and Reagan as heroes of democracy. What is especially great about these two men is that they piss you lot off immensely, Churchill because he exposed the follies of communism and Reagan because he tore asunder your oppressive empire.


Churchill was anti-semetic, probaly that's why you love him so much and reagan supported "democracy" in South America, the people of South America are still very thankfull for that.

[smoer]

well ja reagan could be oke i dont know him but if he makes south amerika hapy its okey

[redstar2000]

"What is especially great about these two men is that they piss you lot off immensely." -- "Liberty" Lover

True, LL, they are definitely high on our historical fecal roster, as disgusting a pair of war criminals as one will find almost anywhere. Churchell's fire-bombing of Dresden and Reagan's "Pearl-Harbor-style" bombing of Tripoli were particularly "admirable", don't you think?

As for what I think, LL, I think you admire successful war criminals...the ones that get away with it. If Hitler had won World War II, you'd be posting tributes to him on this board...probably in German.

And if John Howard involves Australia in another American war, only one that loses, you will denounce him in ringing tones as a tyrant and an "enemy of democracy".

Since we are experts at this kind of attitude in America, we even have a special name for it: we call it "front-running" -- meaning to support whoever's winning at the time. Needless to add, it is a term of contempt.

You don't really care who wins; you just want to be on the winning side.

:cool:

[smoer]

i really mean this:well said redstar!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from smoer on 2:48 pm on April 27, 2003
well ja reagan could be oke i dont know him but if he makes south amerika hapy its okey


Actually I was sarcastic, under Reagans rule a lot of CIA backed right wing dictators seized power.

[smoer]

ow sorry but i dont know reagan

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from CCCP on 8:41 pm on April 27, 2003

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 12:54 pm on April 27, 2003
It is beyond imagination to think what life would be like today had Churchill and Reagan not lived, fought and thought as they did.

Churchill provided the inspiration to the people of Britain that restored their faith in democracy and encouraged them to resist Nazi tyranny. If it were not for Churchill the will of the British people would have collapsed, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and perhaps even the United States would have fallen to Nazism.

He despised tyranny with such a passion that he, and by extension his nation, was willing to stand-alone against Hitler when it was most critical. And unlike Roosevelt, he came early to the crusade against Soviet tyranny as well. His eloquent speeches strengthened the faith of all freedom-loving people in both the righteousness of their struggle and the inevitability of their cause.

There is but one man who could possibly hope to challenge Churchill as the champion of democracy and his name is Ronald Reagan. There is no doubt, if it had not been for the Reagan defense build-up, if the United States had not demonstrated that it’s willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, the CPSU would still be oppressing the people of Eastern Europe today.

Every lover of liberty will recognise Churchill and Reagan as heroes of democracy. What is especially great about these two men is that they piss you lot off immensely, Churchill because he exposed the follies of communism and Reagan because he tore asunder your oppressive empire.


Churchill was anti-semetic, probaly that's why you love him so much and reagan supported "democracy" in South America, the people of South America are still very thankfull for that.


That's right, we haven't forgotten. Reagan was major supporter of the Brazilian dicatorship which killed hundreds of leftist activists and intelectuals.

[Liberty Lover]

Lardlad95

"you...really don't know what socialism, communism, or marxism are do you?"

Err...the post was about Churchill and Reagan.

Casius Clay

Churchill was right in comparing Nazism to Bolshevism. They both sought to create a viable society by strict regimentation of national and individual lives and conflicting interests were both adjusted by total subordination to the service of the state and unquestioning loyalty to its leader.

"True Mr Churchill did regonise the threat of the Soviets early, as Comrade Stalin said at the time perhaps thats why the people kicked him out of office so emphaticly."

Churchill made his famous "the sinews of peace" speech, in which he spoke of an "iorn curtain" descending over Europe, after his post-war election loss.

"Got news for you LL it was the Soviet Union and Red Army's throughout the world who defeated Fascism, from China to Albania."

I spoke of Churchill defending democracy from Nazism, not replacing it with an equal evil as Stalin did. Anyway, had Hitler taken Britain and not had to worry about the Western front, he probably would have defeated the Soviets.

CCCP

"Churchill was anti-semetic, probaly that's why you love him so much"

Actually he was a Zionist.

"reagan supported "democracy" in South America, the people of South America are still very thankfull for that."

One of the reasons the USSR fell was because Reagan limited it's influence around the world, particularly in South America.

redstar2000

What utter bullshit.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 1:48 am on April 28, 2003)


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 1:49 am on April 28, 2003)

[synthesis]

What utter bullshit.

Redstar's words piss you off because they ring so true. "Front-running" is a very adequate description of your politics.

[Liberty Lover]

Redstar's words piss you off because they ring so true. "Front-running" is a very adequate description of your politics.

Despite my dedicating a thread to one of the greatest military defeats in history.

[Robot Rebellion]

Hey liberty lover,

Some Churchill quotes guaranteed to impress your conservative friends...

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisonous gas against uncivilized tribes." To which later mustard gas was used on Kurds in Iraq, of all places!

His quote on Ghandi: "a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back".

[notyetacommie]

Liberty Lover,

Have you ever been to the Soviet Union? Or to the "oppressed" East European countries? Or are you just making things up, not knowing it for yourself?
Have you seen the USSR on the map? Less than 1/10 was conquered by Hitler before Soviets started to gain their territory back.
Check out this:
http://worldwariihistory.info/in/USSR.html
to see how many European countries were liberated by Russians and who actually were first to capture Berlin- causing fascists to surrender.

You know, when Russian and American soldiers met near Elba, they were so joyful that the war was over, they called each other brothers. They did what had to be done. They WERE brothers, as they won the evil.

The politicians separated them- making monsters out of their former allies. You seem to have fallen to this trick.

[Liberty Lover]

"Have you ever been to the Soviet Union? Or to the "oppressed" East European countries? Or are you just making things up, not knowing it for yourself?"

I was about five when the Soviet Union collapsed so I wouldn't have remembered much even if I did go. However my patents travelled to Eastern Europe several times and have depicted it as a dire place. Poverty, misery, decay and hunger in both the countryside and the cities, was how my mum described Russia. The hundreds of thousand's of soviet refugees is evidence of this.

"Less than 1/10 was conquered by Hitler before Soviets started to gain their territory back."

As I said, if Hitler had defeated Britain he would have defeated Russia, or at least held onto his annexed territory.

"to see how many European countries were liberated by Russians"

Liberated? How is reducing the millions of people that lived in Eastern Europe to powerless starving slaves "liberating" them?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 1:46 am on April 28, 2003
Lardlad95


CCCP

"Churchill was anti-semetic, probaly that's why you love him so much"

Actually he was a Zionist.

"reagan supported "democracy" in South America, the people of South America are still very thankfull for that."

One of the reasons the USSR fell was because Reagan limited it's influence around the world, particularly in South America.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 1:48 am on April 28, 2003)


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 1:49 am on April 28, 2003)


Hmm, I can't remember the part in history where Churchill claims to be ZIonistic or even a single effort of him to stand up for the Jews in occupied Europe.

Your second comment isn't an answer on my sarcasm, your answer is totally of-topic.

You're "patriotic" andso you do support Reagan's support to dictators and the CIA support to druglords, right?

Aaaah, I love ignoranism...

[Cassius Clay]

''Churchill was right in comparing Nazism to Bolshevism. They both sought to create a viable society by strict regimentation of national and individual lives and conflicting interests were both adjusted by total subordination to the service of the state and unquestioning loyalty to its leader.''

This is based on what? Your school history book? Hitler was a Capitalist and so was Nazi Germany so the comparision is between Capitalism and Communism. What you've written there is rhectoric based on a 60 year propaganda war.


''Churchill made his famous "the sinews of peace" speech, in which he spoke of an "iorn curtain" descending over Europe, after his post-war election loss."

Good for him, although he stole the context of the speech of that other great Capitalist Goebbels. It was war-mongering at it's best and tell me was Mr Churchill (or Reagen for that matter) proved right on any of his predictions of the Soviets invading the world? Erm no.


''I spoke of Churchill defending democracy from Nazism, not replacing it with an equal evil as Stalin did.''

LOL, 'equal evil' tell me did Hitler get the idea of Concentration camps of evil Stalin or the British in South Africa?


''I was about five when the Soviet Union collapsed so I wouldn't have remembered much even if I did go. However my patents travelled to Eastern Europe several times and have depicted it as a dire place. Poverty, misery, decay and hunger in both the countryside and the cities, was how my mum described Russia. The hundreds of thousand's of soviet refugees is evidence of this.''

Erm what hundreds of thousands of refugees? In Russia since 1990 a million people have died everywhere year because of what you listed there (especially hunger), while in Stalin's time atleast the average life expectancy doubled. Even the revisionist regimes that existed from the 1950's onwards offered a better life than the one now, especially in the former Soviet Union.


''As I said, if Hitler had defeated Britain he would have defeated Russia, or at least held onto his annexed territory.''

Your getting into a 'what if' here, which happens to be based on little evidence of facts. What precisly was Britain doing between June 1941 and say the battle of Moscow or Stalingrad, just tying down Italians and four divisions of Rommels (okay there elite) in North Africa and holding young boys and old men (in other words those not fit enough for the Russian front) in France.


''Liberated? How is reducing the millions of people that lived in Eastern Europe to powerless starving slaves "liberating" them?''

Oh is this because Ronald Reagen and Winston Churchill said it happened like that? First of all I'll bring up the the Anglo/Saxon 'Liberation' of Greece or Italy where the Pope with CIA backing threatened to declare a 'Holy War' on anybody who voted for a Socialist. I guess the Hungarian Jews were better of under the Nazis?

Anyway in Albania the partisans liberated their country by them selves, in Poland two whole armies of Communist Poles fought with the Soviets from the beggining and liberated their homeland, in Bulgaria it was the head of the Comintern Georgie Dmitrov who was elected, in Czechslovakia the Communists won 38% of the vote. Need I continue? You only have to look at the example of Yugoslavia and Tito to see that Stalin imposed nothing on know one. Tito eventually became (by 1948) a full ally of the west and was slaughtering communists in concentration camps, yet all Stalin and the Soviets do is point out the eras and where they would eventually lead to. My that is a evil system you got there.

Oh yes and would you like to show us 'The starving slaves' please?

Eagerly awaiting your reply.

[nz revolution]

LL, so if there was no britain does that mean the 1/10th of the German Army that was on the Western Front would head to the East?

Russia was fighting 9/10ths of the German Army at the most and at least 3/4's.

By the way, Im no Stalin fan.

Fuck Reagan and his invasion of Panama, is he the one who has dementia now? Please, I hope he does, that fuckwit should hang...

Churchil was good at rousing up patriotism against the demoralised poms, other than that he's also a little racist ****...

(Edited by nz revolution at 9:26 am on April 29, 2003)

[antieverything]

One of the reasons the USSR fell was because Reagan limited it's influence around the world, particularly in South America.
I have two books to suggest to anyone who believes this state-sponsored myth--Deterring Democracy and What Uncle Sam Really Wants both by Noam Chomsky and both available free, in their entirety, on the web.

Despite much pretense, national security has not been a major concern of US planners and elected officials. The historical record reveals this clearly. Few serious analysts took issue with George Kennan's position that "it is not Russian military power which is threatening us, it is Russian political power" (October 1947); or with President Eisenhower's consistent view that the Russians intended no military conquest of Western Europe and that the major role of NATO was to "convey a feeling of confidence to exposed populations, a confidence which will make them sturdier, politically, in their opposition to Communist inroads."

...

According to the conventional view, the Cold War was a conflict between two superpowers, caused by Soviet aggression, in which we tried to contain the Soviet Union and protect the world from it. If this view is a doctrine of theology, there's no need to discuss it. If it is intended to shed some light on history, we can easily put it to the test, bearing in mind a very simple point: if you want to understand the Cold War, you should look at the events of the Cold War. If you do so, a very different picture emerges.

On the Soviet side, the events of the Cold War were repeated interventions in Eastern Europe: tanks in East Berlin and Budapest and Prague. These interventions took place along the route that was used to attack and virtually destroy Russia three times in this century alone. The invasion of Afghanistan is the one example of an intervention outside that route, though also on the Soviet border.

On the US side, intervention was worldwide, reflecting the status attained by the US as the first truly global power in history.

On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidize high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

The Cold War provided that too. No matter how outlandish the idea that the Soviet Union and its tentacles were strangling the West, the "Evil Empire" was in fact evil, was an empire and was brutal. Each superpower controlled its primary enemy -- its own population -- by terrifying it with the (quite real) crimes of the other.

...

So why did the Cold War end, and how does its end change things? By the 1970s, Soviet military expenditures were leveling off and internal problems were mounting, with economic stagnation and increasing pressures for an end to tyrannical rule. Soviet power internationally had, in fact, been declining for some 30 years, as a study by the Center for Defense Information showed in 1980. A few years later, the Soviet system had collapsed. The Cold War ended with the victory of what had always been the far richer and more powerful contestant. The Soviet collapse was part of the more general economic catastrophe of the 1980s, more severe in most of the Third World domains of the West than in the Soviet empire

From What Uncle Sam Really Wants

According to the conventional understanding, the Cold War has been a confrontation between two superpowers. We then find several variants. The orthodox version, which is overwhelmingly dominant, holds that the driving factor in the Cold War has been virulent Soviet aggressiveness, which the United States sought to contain. On one side of the conflict, we have a "nightmare," on the other, the "defender of freedom," to borrow the terms of the John Birch Society, right-wing fundamentalist preachers, and liberal American intellectuals, who responded with awe and acclaim when these words were used by Vaclav Havel in addressing Congress in 1990.1

A critical variant argues that the perception of a Soviet threat was exaggerated; the dangers were less extreme than we thought. U.S. policies, while noble in intent, were based on misunderstanding and analytic error. A still sharper critique holds that the superpower confrontation resulted from an interaction in which the United States also played a role (for some analysts, a major role) -- and that the contrast is not simply one of nightmare versus defense of freedom, but is more complex -- in Central America and the Caribbean, for example.

According to all variants, the essential doctrines guiding U.S. policy have been containment and deterrence, or, more ambitiously, "roll back." And the Cold War is now at an end, with the capitulation of one antagonist -- the aggressor throughout, according to the orthodox version.

...

[NSC-68, the "bible" for those who advocated using any means to stop the spread of the "evil empire"] calls for a huge increase in armaments, while recognizing that the slave state was far weaker than the champion of freedom by any measure. Relevant data are presented in such a way as to obscure direct comparisons and are selected to exaggerate the enemy's strength, the standard pattern throughout the Cold War era. Nevertheless, even the data presented show the U.S. military budget to be double that of the USSR and its economic power four times as great, while in this early stage of rebuilding their far more powerful economies, the European allies alone already matched the Soviet Union along with its satellites.

...

Public relations aside, our actual stance must be aggressive in "the conflict which has been imposed upon us." "Given the Kremlin design for world domination," a necessary feature of the slave state, we cannot accept the existence of the enemy but must "foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system" and "hasten [its] decay" by all means short of war (which is too dangerous for us). We must avoid negotiations, except as a device to placate public opinion, because any agreements "would reflect present realities and would therefore be unacceptable, if not disastrous, to the United States and the rest of the free world," though after the success of a "roll back" strategy we may "negotiate a settlement with the Soviet Union (or a successor state or states)."

To achieve these essential goals, we must overcome weaknesses in our society, such as "the excesses of a permanently open mind," "the excess of tolerance," and "dissent among us." We will have to learn to "distinguish between the necessity for tolerance and the necessity for just suppression," a crucial feature of "the democratic way." It is particularly important to insulate our "labor unions, civic enterprises, schools, churches, and all media for influencing opinion" from the "evil work" of the Kremlin, which seeks to subvert them and "make them sources of confusion in our economy, our culture and our body politic." Increased taxes are also necessary, along with "Reduction of Federal expenditures for purposes other than defense and foreign assistance, if necessary by the deferment of certain desirable programs." These military Keynesian policies, it is suggested, are likely to stimulate the domestic economy as well. Indeed, they may serve to prevent "a decline in economic activity of serious proportions." "A large measure of sacrifice and discipline will be demanded of the American people," and they also must "give up some of the benefits" they enjoy as we assume the mantle of world leadership and overcome the economic recession, already in progress, by "positive governmental programs" to subsidize advanced industry through the military system.

...

In public discourse, the same conceptions reigned, and still do. A characteristic expression of the conventional understanding is given by William Hyland, editor of Foreign Affairs, in the lead article of the Spring 1990 issue:

For the past fifty years American foreign policy has been formed in response to the threat posed by this country's opponents and enemies. In virtually every year since Pearl Harbor, the United States has been engaged either in war or in confrontation. Now, for the first time in half a century, the United States has the opportunity to reconstruct its foreign policy free of most of the constraints and pressures of the Cold War... Since 1941 the United States has been fully entangled. Now as we move into a new era, a yearning for American nonentanglement may be returning in various guises... Can America at long last come home?... The United States does in fact enjoy the luxury of some genuine choices for the first time since 1945. America and its allies have won the Cold War...
Thus, we had no "genuine choices" when we invaded South Vietnam, overthrew the democratic capitalist government of Guatemala in 1954 and maintained the rule of murderous gangsters ever since, ran by far the most extensive international terror operations in history against Cuba from the early 1960s and Nicaragua through the 1980s, sought to assassinate Lumumba and installed and maintained the brutal and corrupt Mobutu dictatorship, backed Trujillo, Somoza, Marcos, Duvalier, the generals of the southern cone, Suharto, the racist rulers of southern Africa, and a whole host of other major criminals; and on, and on. We could do nothing else, given the threat to our existence. But now, the enemy has retreated, so we can perhaps satisfy our "yearning for nonentanglement" in the affairs of others; though, as others add, our "yearning for democracy" may yet impel us to persist in our noble endeavors in defense of freedom.

...

In other respects too the public record conforms to the conventions of NSC 68. In particular, it is widely recognized that the very existence of the Soviet Union constitutes aggression. Diplomatic historian John Lewis Gaddis, one of the most respected figures of liberal scholarship on the Cold War, explains that the allied intervention immediately after the Bolshevik revolution was defensive in nature, and for Woodrow Wilson, was inspired "above all else" by his fervent desire "to secure self-determination in Russia" -- by forceful installation of the rulers we select. The invasion was defensive because it was "in response to a profound and potentially far-reaching intervention by the new Soviet government in the internal affairs, not just of the West, but of virtually every country in the world," namely, "the Revolution's challenge -- which could hardly have been more categorical -- to the very survival of the capitalist order." "The security of the United States" was "in danger" already in 1917, not just in 1950, and intervention was therefore entirely warranted in defense against the change of the social order in Russia and the announcement of revolutionary intentions.

...

The nobility of the "defender of freedom" is also standard intellectual fare. Thus, according to Michael Howard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, "For 200 years the United States has preserved almost unsullied the original ideals of the Enlightenment: the belief in the God-given rights of the individual, the inherent rights of free assembly and free speech, the blessings of free enterprise, the perfectibility of man, and, above all, the universality of these values." In this nearly ideal society, the influence of elites is "quite limited." But the world, he laments, does not appreciate this magnificence: "the United States does not enjoy the place in the world that it should have earned through its achievements, its generosity, and its goodwill since World War II"11 -- as illustrated in such contemporary paradises as Indochina, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, El Salvador and Guatemala, to mention a few of the many candidates, just as belief in the "God-given rights of the individual" and the "universality" of this doctrine for 200 years is illustrated by a century of literal human slavery and effective disenfranchisement of Blacks for another century, genocidal assaults on the native population, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos at the turn of the century, of millions of Indochinese, of some 200,000 Central Americans in the past decade, and a host of other examples. Again, mere fact is an irrelevance in the domain of pure thought.

...

On Moscow's side, the Cold War is illustrated by tanks in East Berlin, Budapest and Prague, and other coercive measures in the regions liberated by the Red Army from the Nazis, then held in thrall to the Kremlin; and the invasion of Afghanistan, the one case of Soviet military intervention well outside the historic invasion route from the West. Domestically, the Cold War served to entrench the power of the military-bureaucratic elite whose rule derives from the Bolshevik coup of October 1917.

For the United States, the Cold War has been a history of world-wide subversion, aggression and state terrorism, with examples too numerous to mention. The domestic counterpart has been the entrenchment of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," in essence, a welfare state for the rich with a national security ideology for population control (to borrow some counterinsurgency jargon), following the prescriptions of NSC 68. The major institutional mechanism is a system of state-corporate industrial management to sustain high technology industry, relying on the taxpayer to fund research and development and provide a guaranteed market for waste production, with the private sector taking over when there are profits to be made. This crucial gift to the corporate manager has been the domestic function of the Pentagon system (including NASA and the Department of Energy, which controls nuclear weapons production); benefits extend to the computer industry, electronics generally, and other sectors of the advanced industrial economy. In such ways, the Cold War has provided a large part of the underpinnings for the system of public subsidy, private profit, that is proudly called Free Enterprise.

...

The call for vigorous action in NSC 68 resounded again as the Kennedy and Reagan administrations came into office, with the same dual thrust: militancy abroad to assert U.S. power, and military spending to revive a flagging economy at home. The rhetoric was also duly revived: "the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" on the march to destroy us (Kennedy); the "Evil Empire" that is "the focus of evil in our time," seeking to rule the world (Reagan). The decibel level predictably declines as policy shifts course, as in the mid-1980s, when it became necessary to face the costs of the fiscal mismanagement and military Keynesian excesses of the statist reactionaries of the Reagan administration, including the huge budget and trade deficits.

Attention to the historical record reveals the realistic core enshrouded in the outlandish rhetoric of NSC 68. The great depression had put an end to any lingering beliefs that capitalism was a viable system. It was generally taken for granted that state intervention was necessary in order to maintain private power -- as, indeed, had been the case throughout the development process. It was also understood that New Deal measures had failed, and that the depression was overcome only by the far more massive state intervention during the war. Without the benefit of Keynes, this lesson was taught directly to the corporate managers who flocked to Washington to run the quasi-totalitarian wartime command economy. The general expectation was that without state intervention, there would be a return to the depression after pent-up consumer demand was satisfied. It appeared to be confirmed by the 1948 recession. State-subsidized agricultural production found markets in Japan and elsewhere, but it was feared that manufacturing would languish in the absence of markets. Hence the concern voiced in NSC 68 over "a decline in economic activity of serious proportions" unless military Keynesian measures were adopted. These programs, it was hoped, would also contribute to the revitalization of the industrial economies of the allies, helping overcome the "dollar gap" which limited the market for U.S. manufactured goods.

The call in NSC 68 for "sacrifice and discipline" and cutback in social programs was a natural concomitant to these perceptions. The need for "just suppression" and controls over unions, churches, schools, and other potential sources of dissidence also fell into a broader pattern. From the late 1930s, business had been deeply perturbed by the increasing politicization and organization of the general public, what was later called a "crisis of democracy" under the partially similar conditions of the post-Vietnam period. The same had been true immediately after World War I. In each case, the response was the same: Wilson's Red Scare, the post-World War II repression mislabeled "McCarthyism" (actually, a campaign to undermine unions, working class culture, and independent thought launched by business and liberal Democrats well before McCarthy appeared on the scene and made the mistake, which finally destroyed him, of attacking people with power); the programs of the national political police inaugurated by the Kennedy administration and expanded by their successors to undermine independent political parties and popular movements by subversion and violence. Wars and other crises have a way of making people think and even organize, and private power regularly calls upon the state to contain such threats to its monopoly of the political arena and cultural hegemony. The deeply anti-democratic thrust of NSC 68 reflects far more general commitments.

...

From Deterring Democracy

...and it's just getting started. The fact is that the Soviet Union was not the threat in South America. The danger was never Soviet bases in Nicaragua or Chile. The threat coming from the Soviet Union was their political example--the presence of an alternative.

If you actually care to do some research on the Sandinistas, you will find that they were both incredibly popular, and independant of the Soviet Union. In fact, the US made every effort to drive them into the arms of the Soviets so that they would be able to have justification for a full-scale invasion. For example, when our proxy war was destroying Nicaragua, the Sandinistas needed weapons to defend the popular revolution and the people of Nicaragua. We threatened our allies with sanctions if they sold them weapons (we were at the same time selling...and giving away...weapons to much less legitimate regimes in the region) in an effort to force them to go to the Soviets. When rumors surfaced in congress that the Sandinistas were considering military aid from the Soviet Union the response was, from hawks, "nuke 'em" and from doves, "if the rumors are true, nuke 'em."

When the elections came in Nicaragua (they would have come much sooner has it not been for those "democracy-loving" contras) we threatened economic strangulation if the still very popular Sandinistas won...they still came very close to winning a majority.

We were never worried about the Soviets gaining influence in the third world because of our aversion to totalitarianism. We never had any problem with an iron-fisted approach to empire. We were, however, concerned with the prospect of the third world raising its collective head--declaring independance from its place as a source of cheap labor and exploitable markets for us. It's always been very clear, if one cares to look, that our foriegn policy has always been directed at maintaining the disparity of wealth.

As former head of the State Department and leading liberal George Kennan once said,

"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

...thank you for your time...I have to go now.

[antieverything]

...wow, that was a bit on the long side. Sorry about that.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 5:31 pm on April 28, 2003

''As I said, if Hitler had defeated Britain he would have defeated Russia, or at least held onto his annexed territory.''

Your getting into a 'what if' here, which happens to be based on little evidence of facts. What precisly was Britain doing between June 1941 and say the battle of Moscow or Stalingrad, just tying down Italians and four divisions of Rommels (okay there elite) in North Africa and holding young boys and old men (in other words those not fit enough for the Russian front) in France.




I agree with nearly all you said in that thread. However this did annoy me.

It was an Allied war with out the joint efforts of all the nations, (especially the French resistance who i have great respect for) the waqr may have been lost. The same with the famous Russian winter. Pointless arguing about who won the war is pointless.

However you are slagging one of if not the most important battle of the war, El Alamain. Your saying that the Germans had only Old Men there shows a basic lack of understanding of the German War Machine and WW2 time line.

May 15, 1941 - Operation Brevity begins (the first African Campain (for runner to El Alamain, and the begining of the turning of the tide in N. Africa. The initial fight back)

June 22, 1941, German invasion of USSR

Aug 20, 1941 - Nazi siege of Leningrad begins.

Dec 16, 1941 - Rommel begins a retreat to El Agheila in North Africa.

July 1-30 - First Battle of El Alamein.

July 3, 1942 - Germans take Sevastopol

July 5, 1942 - Soviet resistance in the Crimea ends.

July 9, 1942 - Germans begin a drive toward Stalingrad in the USSR.

Sept 2, 1942 - Rommel driven back by Montgomery in the Battle of Alam Halfa.

Sept 13, 1942 - Battle of Stalingrad begins.


See while the USSR was getting its arse kicked the rest of the Allies were busy tying up approximatly 2 million German Troops, with those troops on the eastern frount you the Russians would have almost certainly lost. Then the rest of the allies would have lost, befor the winter of 1943. It was a combined effort, with out either frount the war would have been lost.

So stop talking out your arse.

[CubanFox]

If it wasn't for the massive Russian push towards Berlin the war may not have ended the way it did. It could've turned into a stalemate or a phyrric victory for the allies.

[Liberty Lover]

CCCP,

"Hmm, I can't remember the part in history where Churchill claims to be ZIonistic or even a single effort of him to stand up for the Jews in occupied Europe."

The reason for this is that you’re an idiot. From 1905 Churchill belonged to that small but influential circle of Christian Zionists in Britain and, as Colonial Secretary after World War I, it was he who put into effect the Balfour Declaration, which had promised a Homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

"Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life."
--Winston Churchill

"Aaaah, I love ignoranism"

Is that why you make up words?

Cassius Clay,

"This is based on what? Your school history book? Hitler was a Capitalist and so was Nazi Germany so the comparision is between Capitalism and Communism. What you've written there is rhectoric based on a 60 year propaganda war."

I was, as was Churchill, pointing out the similarities in the totalitarian rule of the Bolsheviks to that of the Nazis. The rights of the individual in both nations were completely subordinated to the requirements of the government, and those who did not agree with these policies were terrorized into submission.

However there were numerous social resemblances between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia also. The emptiness of the claim that the Soviet Union was a classless utopia is obvious to any unprejudiced observer (that excludes you), who could see the degrees of slavery among the population. The ruling class and its lackeys were at the top, then the masses of factory workers in the cities. A deep chasm separated them from the totally impoverished collective farmers.

"Good for him, although he stole the context of the speech of that other great Capitalist Goebbels. It was war-mongering at it's best and tell me was Mr Churchill (or Reagen for that matter) proved right on any of his predictions of the Soviets invading the world? Erm no."

Your initial implication that the “sinews of peace” speech was given while Churchill was still PM established your ignorance as to when it took place, and this statement establishes your ignorance as to what it contained. It was not a prediction of a Soviet invasion but a condemnation of the enforcement of communist ideals on the peoples of Eastern Europe:

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow."
--Winston Churchill

"LOL, 'equal evil' tell me did Hitler get the idea of Concentration camps of evil Stalin or the British in South Africa?"

He probably got the general idea from the British as they set them up first, however the extermination and forced labour components certainly came from Stalin’s Gulags.

"Oh is this because Ronald Reagen and Winston Churchill said it happened like that?"

My information comes from historians who reach reasoned and persuasive conclusions about the past on the basis of a fair-minded and objective examination of the evidence. It seems that yours comes only from opinionated Stalinist websites.

Even Stalinist historians, such as E.H. Carr, do not try and deny outright the oppressive conditions of Stalinist Russia, as you seem to be doing. Carr argues that collectivisation in Russia was necessary in order to support industrialisation, and that the brutalities and mass murders, to which the Russian peasantry was subjected were a necessary price to pay for progress. I don’t think any process of economic change can justify deliberate cruelty and murder on a scale that took place in 1930’s Russia. Your own ridiculous approach of denial makes you come off as a Stalin lover wearing blinkers.

"Oh yes and would you like to show us 'The starving slaves' please?"

You can find them here:

http://www.okay.com/dunc/gulag.htm

nz revolution,

You epitomise what Ghost Writer would call a “trendy commie”. Go read a book or something.

AK 47,

Ever the ally of convenience.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 12:47 pm on April 29, 2003)

[kylie]

The rights of the individual in both nations were completely subordinated to the requirements of the government,
while this is right in relation to Nazi rule, its the opposite to communist rule. the only rights taken away are the rights of capitalism. if these rights were allowed, the threat would exist of a counter-revolution, and a return to capitalism. which as it would happen, your quote above describes quite well.

however the extermination and forced labour components certainly came from Stalin’s Gulags.


labour camps were around in russia before 1917.

I don’t think any process of economic change can justify deliberate cruelty and murder on a scale that took place in 1930’s Russia.
what happened under Stalin was a move back to capitalism. many more people will have died because of capitalism, of which the UK was already subscribed to.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:50 am on April 29, 2003
If it wasn't for the massive Russian push towards Berlin the war may not have ended the way it did. It could've turned into a stalemate or a phyrric victory for the allies.


With out russia the entire war would have been lost. I am simply pointing out to CC that it was a combined effort, where each allied country was as important as the next.

America may not have militarily helped the situation as much as the USSR, however you can bet your life that if they had not been supplying the allied countrys with food, oil and amunition then the war would have been lost.

Each cog in the allied war machine was equilly important, if one fell they would have all fallen. I really hate all this bullshit about the USA or Russia single handedly winning the war with no help from, the UK, Australia, the French resistance, etc, etc, etc.

------------

But back on topic Churchill was a fool whether he single handedly won the war or not. Ever heard of the Golipoly (no doubt a typo) Campain. Where he sent 1000's of australian soldures to there deaths because of his stupidity?

Do you know that there was a secret office in the Cabinet war rooms to counter all the orders given by churchill after his foolish alcahol indused orders of the night before. He was a drunk and a fool, politicaly usless. The only thing that made him even a half good war time prime minister was his ability to increase moral by stiring speaches.

The eveidence for this can be seen by reviewing his peace time policys directly after the war and just before he got booted out of power in the election.

[Reuben]

It is truye that churchill was an antisemite. He wrote an article for the morning post basically outlining the Jewish conspiracy theory. He commented "The Bolsheviks are not fools. Whoever said they were? These Semitic conspirators are among the highest political intelligence in the world and implacably devoted to its destruction." He also referred to the Soviet government as "The tyrannic Government of these Jew Commissars."

Now respond liberty lover and tell me that churchill was not antisemitic. The fact that he supported a jewish homeland in palestine does not mean he did express and subscribe to a number of anti-semitic stereo types and ideas

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

CCCP,

"Hmm, I can't remember the part in history where Churchill claims to be ZIonistic or even a single effort of him to stand up for the Jews in occupied Europe."

The reason for this is that you’re an idiot. From 1905 Churchill belonged to that small but influential circle of Christian Zionists in Britain and, as Colonial Secretary after World War I, it was he who put into effect the Balfour Declaration, which had promised a Homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

"Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life."
--Winston Churchill

It's a wellknown fact that the Brittish Secret Service knew of the Concentration Camps, but didn't do anything to stop them from operating, nor did he bring it to the international attention.

Even when the Soviet forces liberated a concentration camp it was ignored by the Brittish government.

And who is the spokesman of the Government, the most powerfull, the one who should know this for his policy?

The prime-minister?

Churchill?

[Cassius Clay]

''I was, as was Churchill, pointing out the similarities in the totalitarian rule of the Bolsheviks to that of the Nazis. The rights of the individual in both nations were completely subordinated to the requirements of the government, and those who did not agree with these policies were terrorized into submission.''

What rubbish, this is rhectoric and nothing else. In elections in 1937 47% of local officials were replaced in the Leningrad region, workers had the right to fire their own manager. Hardly Tolitiarian. Now in the last elections in the U$A it was decided by 9 Judges and when airline workers in the 80's threatened to go on strike your hero Reagen fired them all. Which one's the 'Democracy' again.


''However there were numerous social resemblances between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia also. The emptiness of the claim that the Soviet Union was a classless utopia is obvious to any unprejudiced observer (that excludes you), who could see the degrees of slavery among the population. The ruling class and its lackeys were at the top, then the masses of factory workers in the cities. A deep chasm separated them from the totally impoverished collective farmers.''

I'll repeat again workers had the right to get rid of those in the 'ruling class' and those 'lackeys at the top'. If life was so bad under 'Stalinist' Russia then why is it the generation who grew up in the 1930's. 40's and 50's are now the majority who vote for the Communists in present day Russia? I do not claim the USSR was a 'classles Utopia', nobody does. The USSR was constructing socialism.


''Your initial implication that the “sinews of peace” speech was given while Churchill was still PM established your ignorance as to when it took place, and this statement establishes your ignorance as to what it contained. It was not a prediction of a Soviet invasion but a condemnation of the enforcement of communist ideals on the peoples of Eastern Europe:''

Sorry LL, that was not the impression I was trying to give about the speech. I knew when it was, in reference to Stalin's remark about it he was merely remarking that Churchill's war mongering policies and anti-working class atidude may of had something to do with him getting kicked out of office. As for your last sentence I told you what happened and you have conveintly ignored it.


''He probably got the general idea from the British as they set them up first, however the extermination and forced labour components certainly came from Stalin’s Gulags.''

Erm there was no 'extermination' in the 'Gulags' (prisons). I'll repeat to you that the freedom loving U$A has three million more people in prison today than the USSR ever had.


''My information comes from historians who reach reasoned and persuasive conclusions about the past on the basis of a fair-minded and objective examination of the evidence. It seems that yours comes only from opinionated Stalinist websites.''

Oh what you mean Robert Conquest who worked for the MI6 disinformation department. That bussiness which employed 'fair minded and objective examination of the evidence' was the most corrupt sick minded propaganda orignisation ever. Just ask Alexander Zinoviev who returned to Russia in 1991 after for years writing books in the west, after seeing what Capitalism had done to his country he became a Soviet and exposed how the bussiness worked. The more ludicrous lies they wrote the more they were paid and the more they were hailed as genuises.


''Even Stalinist historians, such as E.H. Carr, do not try and deny outright the oppressive conditions of Stalinist Russia, as you seem to be doing. Carr argues that collectivisation in Russia was necessary in order to support industrialisation, and that the brutalities and mass murders, to which the Russian peasantry was subjected were a necessary price to pay for progress. I don’t think any process of economic change can justify deliberate cruelty and murder on a scale that took place in 1930’s Russia. Your own ridiculous approach of denial makes you come off as a Stalin lover wearing blinkers.''

This 'Stalinist' sounds more like a Soljenistyn or Conquest, the only reason your calling him a 'Stalinist' is because he accepted that Collectivastion was neccassary. Only he's tried to convince his fellow 'Historians' and more importantly publisher's that 'He's one of them'. That he is accussed of being a 'Stalinist' clearly shows how much propaganda has been unleashed on the USSR during this era and how unobjective the west is when it comes to Socialism and Communism.

''You can find them here:

http://www.okay.com/dunc/gulag.htm''

I'll check the link soon and respond as soon as possible. Now maybe you would want to respond to every single one of my points rather than ignoring 75% of my post.

Oh and AK47 do you have nothing better to do than insult me?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 6:22 pm on April 29, 2003


Oh and AK47 do you have nothing better to do than insult me?

PS LL's link does not work try this instead: -http://www.okay.com/dunc/gulag.htm



I am sorry i did not know i insulted you... Unless you are refering to when i said you were talking out your arse, which you were. But i apologise any way.

(Edited by AK47 at 6:53 pm on April 29, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

Cassius Clay

"What rubbish, this is rhectoric and nothing else. In elections in 1937 47% of local officials were replaced in the Leningrad region, workers had the right to fire their own manager. Hardly Tolitiarian."

So they had a choice between one Politburo puppet and another Politburo puppet. I’m sure that just made all the difference. Such measures were specifically designed to deceive the workers into believing that their primitive and miserable lives were wonderful in comparison to those living in capitalist nations. The workers did not and could not know that by the West’s standards their existence was wretched, since they were hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world.

"If life was so bad under 'Stalinist' Russia then why is it the generation who grew up in the 1930's. 40's and 50's are now the majority who vote for the Communists in present day Russia?"

How could you possibly know who votes for who in elections with private ballots? Let me guess, you read it in the Maoist international?

"I do not claim the USSR was a 'classles Utopia', nobody does. The USSR was constructing socialism."

Constructing socialism? You mean forcibly collectivizing Ukrainian Peasant landholdings, extorting their crops and causing a famine that killed an estimated 5 to 7 million of them? Deporting masses of land owning peasants to Siberia? Implementing Russianization on different cultural groups? Initiating mass arrests and executions of accused (often wrongly) political opponents? And what was it all for!? Too build a system that is incapable of generating enough wealth to support the people’s basic needs?

"I'll repeat to you that the freedom loving U$A has three million more people in prison today than the USSR ever had."

Firstly, the gulags would not have been included in whatever source this information came from as they were forced labour camps, not prisons. Secondly people in American prisons are there because they have infringed on the rights and freedoms of others, people in the gulags however were there because of their opinions and non-proletarian social backgrounds.

"Oh what you mean Robert Conquest who worked for the MI6 disinformation department. That bussiness which employed 'fair minded and objective examination of the evidence' was the most corrupt sick minded propaganda orignisation ever."

I have not read any of Conquests books. Do you have any evidence that he has falsified or misinterpreted historical documents?

History is rarely subject to the ideology of the historian, and when it is it, it is easily identifiable if we take the effort to study the historians in addition to their histories. Truth in history can be established, and if we don’t believe it’s possible to distinguish between truth and falsehood, then we have no means of exposing racism, anti-Semitism, and neo-fascism as doctrines of hate built on an edifice of lies. I reiterate: historians generally reach reasoned and persuasive conclusions about the past on the basis of a fair-minded and objective examination of the evidence, without major interference from their ideology.

Just because the facts don’t conform to your blinkered version of Stalin’s reign doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.

"This 'Stalinist' sounds more like a Soljenistyn or Conquest, the only reason your calling him a 'Stalinist' is because he accepted that Collectivastion was neccassary. Only he's tried to convince his fellow 'Historians' and more importantly publisher's that 'He's one of them'. That he is accussed of being a 'Stalinist' clearly shows how much propaganda has been unleashed on the USSR during this era and how unobjective the west is when it comes to Socialism and Communism."

This statement exemplifies how little you know about one of the most famous historian’s of the 20th century. Edward Hallett Carr was a self-professed Stalinist. After a career spent in the British Foreign Office, where he was a supporter of appeasement in the 1930’s, Carr became a leader-writer for The Times. Here his enthusiasm for Britain’s wartime ally, Stalinist Russia, and his conversion to the belief that the Soviet-style planned economy was the way for the future, resulted in him being labelled ‘the Red Professor of Printing House Square’. However his insistence on giving coverage to Trotsky as one of the architects of the Soviet system led him to be anathematised by official Soviet historiography for the rest of his life. Nonetheless he never lost faith in the Soviet Union as the embodiment of human progress. His multi-volume History of Soviet Russia reflects this. And never in this history does he deny ‘dekulakization’ or any other of Stalin’s atrocities. He only seeks justify, and occasionally minimize them.

Carr’s argument lacks historical as well as moral validity. The growth rates achieved by Russian industry in the 1930’s were no greater than those achieved by the semi-capitalist ‘new economic policy’ in the 1920’s and the liquidation of the Kulaks was carried out according to arbitrary quotas imposed from Moscow, which bore no relation at all to the nature or scale of the task of collectivisation carried out in the localities.

"Now maybe you would want to respond to every single one of my points rather than ignoring 75% of my post."

Post something other than dogmatic drivel and I might.

AK47

Never have I claimed Churchill to be even a half competent military commander. He was as useless as Kitchener, Hamilton, Hague and the rest of Britains WWI leadership. What made Churchill were his politics and his conviction. As early as 1934 he was warning the world about the consequences of appeasing Hitler, only to be shoved aside by the likes of Baldwin and Chamberlain. If people had only heeded his warnings WWII would not have been a world war that killed 55 million people. Churchill taught the world that if democracies aren’t willing to stand up to tyranny then they will surely crumble.

And before denouncing him as a warmonger, remember that when he was reelected in 1951 he worked tirelessly to reduce the danger of nuclear warfare, vainly seeking a summit conference between the Soviet Union and the Western powers.

Churchill should not be remembered as a disturbing emblem of the old regime of class privilege and colonial empire, but for his efforts to adapt the British tradition of self-government, liberty, civility, and the rule of law to a new world made by democracy and science.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 1:08 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

The only good thing about churchil was his ability to whip up support and patriotism, a very commendable quality in the time of war, but apart from that he was a drunken fool with the majority of his political policys failing miserably.

[Liberty Lover]

*sigh*

[Cassius Clay]

''So they had a choice between one Politburo puppet and another Politburo puppet. I’m sure that just made all the difference. Such measures were specifically designed to deceive the workers into believing that their primitive and miserable lives were wonderful in comparison to those living in capitalist nations. The workers did not and could not know that by the West’s standards their existence was wretched, since they were hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world.''

So while millions are unemployed in the west and even the former propsperous middle classes are forced onto the streets people's lifes in the Soviet Union are 'wretched'? It wasn't 'One politburo member replacing anthother politburo member', just who do you think replaced all those officials? Candidates originally nominated by the people in the first place.

''How could you possibly know who votes for who in elections with private ballots? Let me guess, you read it in the Maoist international?''

Not a fan of Mao to be honest. It doesn't take a genius to work out that all those people carrying portraits of Lenin and Stalin (15,000 according to Moscow Police) every May-Day or November 7th aren't exactly in their physical prime. But your right I don't know for absoblutely sure. Just explain to me why after Khruschev's not so secret 'Secret speech' there were uprisings throughout the Soviet Union in the name of Stalin? Why is it now even a party like the KPRF get 23% of the vote, or the 'Stalinist' CPSU gets over 3 million votes?


''Constructing socialism? You mean forcibly collectivizing Ukrainian Peasant landholdings,''

It was hardly 'forced' when alot of peasants wanted Collectivisation. And what is your alternative have the Soviet Union stuck in the 15th Century with Kulaks literally living the life of Kings over the peasants.


''extorting their crops and causing a famine that killed an estimated 5 to 7 million of them?''

There was no famine. It's good though that you say 'estimated' that figure is taken from a average of fifteen odd estimates from Nazi and extreme right-wing sources. Collectivisation tripled the amount of grain produced.


''Deporting masses of land owning peasants to Siberia?''

63,000 Kulaks were arrested and sent to live in communities where they get on with their every day life. Out of a population of over a million plus Kulaks. While most would return within a few years.


''Implementing Russianization on different cultural groups?''

This happened under Brezhneve in the 1970's not Stalin.


''Initiating mass arrests and executions of accused (often wrongly) political opponents? And what was it all for!? Too build a system that is incapable of generating enough wealth to support the people’s basic needs?''

'Basic needs' 10% of Americans don't have enough to eat. There is no free healthcare or a guarrenteed right to a job. And this is modern day America and the 1930's Soviet Union beats it in providing all these basic needs.

''Firstly, the gulags would not have been included in whatever source this information came from as they were forced labour camps, not prisons. Secondly people in American prisons are there because they have infringed on the rights and freedoms of others, people in the gulags however were there because of their opinions and non-proletarian social backgrounds.''

First of all the Soviet Union is not allowed to have criminalls? Gulags? Where do you get that word? Why is it since 1991 they've returned to being called prisons? They was labor but labor was used in every prison especially in the 1930's and in the Soviet Union they were paid the same as workers on the outside and worked no more than eight hours a day. Now as of 1998 America has 5.5 million people in prison, the most the Soviet Union ever had was 2.5 million. I'll keep on repeating this until you understand it. But according to you all prisoners in USSR are in there because they simply because they made a joke about the government while in America they are all there because they are bloodthirsty criminalls? Rolls eyes.

''I have not read any of Conquests books. Do you have any evidence that he has falsified or misinterpreted historical documents?''

He didn't have any access to 'historical documents' in the first place. All his books (and Conquest admits this in 'The Great Terror a reassement', although that's probably the wrong title) are based on accounts by a few dozen exiles (most of whom fought for the Nazis in WW2). In the 60's the number of people who supposedly died in the Ukraine was 6 million, by the 80's it was 14 million. You don't see something odd there?


''History is rarely subject to the ideology of the historian, and when it is it, it is easily identifiable if we take the effort to study the historians in addition to their histories. Truth in history can be established, and if we don’t believe it’s possible to distinguish between truth and falsehood, then we have no means of exposing racism, anti-Semitism, and neo-fascism as doctrines of hate built on an edifice of lies. I reiterate: historians generally reach reasoned and persuasive conclusions about the past on the basis of a fair-minded and objective examination of the evidence, without major interference from their ideology.''

If you were talking about say Arch Getty then you may have a point (actually some of what you've written there is intelliegent stuff in a different context). But when it comes to Stalin and the Soviet Union, the need for any sought of vague evidence goes out the window. 'If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a truth'.

''Just because the facts don’t conform to your blinkered version of Stalin’s reign doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.''

Please provide some 'facts' then.


''This statement exemplifies how little you know about one of the most famous historian’s of the 20th century. Edward Hallett Carr was a self-professed Stalinist. After a career spent in the British Foreign Office, where he was a supporter of appeasement in the 1930’s, Carr became a leader-writer for The Times. Here his enthusiasm for Britain’s wartime ally, Stalinist Russia, and his conversion to the belief that the Soviet-style planned economy was the way for the future, resulted in him being labelled ‘the Red Professor of Printing House Square’. However his insistence on giving coverage to Trotsky as one of the architects of the Soviet system led him to be anathematised by official Soviet historiography for the rest of his life. Nonetheless he never lost faith in the Soviet Union as the embodiment of human progress. His multi-volume History of Soviet Russia reflects this. And never in this history does he deny ‘dekulakization’ or any other of Stalin’s atrocities. He only seeks justify, and occasionally minimize them.''

Sorry I had never heard of the guy before and simply jumped to a conclusion. However now he is beggining to sound like a Trotskyite, Guess what everybody respected the Soviet Union during the war. 'The Red Army tore the guts out of the Germans' your hero Churchill. I've heard Deutcher desribed as a 'Stalinist' before, when nothing could be further from the truth. Djilas who was Tito's right hand man once praised Stalin and wen't on to become a vital part in the propaganda war against him. Was Mr Carr a member of the CPGB? Did he ever travel to the Soviet Union? Did he live to see the opening of the archives in Russian in the 90's?


Oh and btw I checked that link and it doesn't work.

[Hodgo]

LL, I made a post regarding Churchill in the Mike Moore thread, as it struck me as ironic that you called Moore an "opponent of liberty" while at the same time using a quote from an outspoken opponent of liberty as your signature. I really cant be fucked typing it up again, so I just found it and cut and pasted. Some people have already gone over some of the things mentioned here, so I apologise, but I just cant be stuffed going through the post deleting bits and pieces that have already been mentioned...

Churchill was openly racist, he fully opposed granting independance to India and all other British colonies, most notably Ireland. The reason for this is because he felt non-English, especialy Africans and Indians, to be uncivilised (a rediculous notion considering most of the Indian establishment, such as the Nehru, were educated at Oxford or Canbridge) and incapable of governing themselves without Britains "help" (equaly stupid considering African society flourished for thousands of years before the British invasion). He absolutely HATED Gandhi, in fact that one time they met Churchill refused to shake his hand, dismissing him as a "half naked Indian faqua" (faqua means begger). He had an arch-conservative view on everything, he was opposed to womens rights, workers unions, gay rights, the rights of Indians, Irish, Africans and other colonies to have their own government. The man trampled over anyone who wasnt rich, white and male.

He was the only politician in English history to order British troops to open fire on striking workers.

He also used chemical weapons on Iraqis and Kurds before Saddam was even born. In 1919 after the fall of the Ottoman empire, the British stormed into what is now Iraq and claimed it as their own. The Iraqis and Kurds resisted the occupying British forces. Churchil, being the colonial secretary at the time, gave permission to the RAF to use poisen gas on resisting tribes. "I dont understand all this squamishness about gas", he stated, "I am strongly in favour of using poisen gas against uncivilised tribes".

I also find it rather ironic that you made a post about Anzac Day a while back, and it is commonly recognized that on that day, countless Australian and New Zealand troops died largely because Churchill made a monumental fuck-up.

Someone mentioned Britain knowing about the existance and purpose of the Nazi concerntration camps but doing nothing about it. This is half true, actualy, the Allied planes flew over Auschwitz several times, they even bombed it once, but they bombed the factory instead of the gas chambers.

I guess Churchill held the Jewish lives in high regard, but not high enough to actualy, you know, help save them.


(Edited by Hodgo at 10:16 am on May 4, 2003)