He was a great communist. He was one of my favorite. He was nationalist?? Because he wanted to kick out the French imperialists. Not really.
Results 1 to 20 of 25
Do you think that Ho Chi Minh was communist, I think so. Well he and the VietMinh weren't very fond of Marx - I think. He was also a nationalist - communism - international movement.
He was a great communist. He was one of my favorite. He was nationalist?? Because he wanted to kick out the French imperialists. Not really.
I think he was a nationalist and anti imperialist.He had help from the ussr because It was the only power that offered to help them in their fight.He might a been a kind of socialist but not all the way I think.
Muere lentamente quien no viaja,
quien no lee,
quien no escucha música,
quien no halla encanto en sí mismo.
Muere lentamente
quien destruye su amor propio;
quien no se deja ayudar.
i think he was both. read the following -
"as is well known, the present world is divided into two different camps- the democratic and the antidemocratic camp. the deomcratic camp contains the soviet union, and the other worlds socialist countries"
you cant really say that and not be a communist. by the way, for those who didint know, the US was the leader of the anti democratic camp (no shit).
he also opened speeches for the workers paryt of vietnam. whoever denies hes a communist cant be right.
i suppose many people think he was only a nationialist because he always referred to " the fatherland"
(Edited by kingbee at 9:51 pm on Sep. 20, 2002)
"Speak not of revolution until you are willing to eat rats to survive" The Last Poets
Defnyddiwch Gwgl!
Help a poor amateur musician: www.myspace.com/tffync
He was a nationalist and a communist, I'm reading a biography right now; although he did not implement communism, but instead a form of democratic socialism. He was a nationalist, only because he had intense faith and love for his nation (Vietnam) which was being opressed by french colonial rule. His nationalism was more of that for his people, than for his regime.
<span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>11:18 am, Greenwich Mean Time, December 21, 2012 AD.
"If you're talking about Xvall, I think it is some date when the world is supposed to get sucked into some blackhole or some crazy shit like that." - Fist of Blood
"Einstein was a sick pervert, E=mC2 MY ARSE! pROVE IT U RED SWINE" - Bugalu Shrimp</span>
I don't think he was a communist at all. He was a authoritarian collectivist, with similar policies to both Stalin and the Khmer rouge, whom i trust none of admire.
If we all (well, most of us anyway) agree that Stalin wasn't a commie, what makes Ho Chi Minh any different. He too commited massacres, and had his fair share of "re-education" camps.
Property Is Theft.
Okay first all Stalin was a communist but that is not the point to this thread so that's all I will say. Second of all there is a thread in the Socialism-Capatalism forum started by a capatalist and he/she accusses the Vietnam gov't of precisly the same things. And I will start by telling you what I told him, where do you get your information from? Rambo?
'Similar policies to Stalin and the Khrmer Rouge'. Ignoring the bit about Stalin please try and explain the bit about the KR. To my knowledge the VC did not depopulate the cities and force everybody into the countryside while declaring the 'Year Zero' and recieve money and training from the CIA. Neither did the North Vietnam gov't impose 'military discipline' (a orginall idea of Trotsky's that one) in factories. No the facts are it was NVA tanks that liberated the people of Cambodia and the US/UN in response imposed ten years worth of sanctions.
'Committed massacres', yes atrocities were committed. Both after the war on people who had collaborated with the Japanese and those innocent people that the authorities had thought had collaborated. This happened in every country in Europe and Asia that was occupied. Also after 1954 when the French were finally kicked out, however the image of 're-education camps' is wrong. I'm sure plenty of you will be familiar with the stories of dozens of former German soldiers who had been sold into the French Foriegn Legion who surrendered to the VC and decided to live the rest of their lifes in North Vietnam.
For the next ten years the new socialist regime set about the task of rebuilding the nation. Being a socialist regime this meant that there must be a revolution to through out the old order. But because there had been war this meant that the revolution must happen now. Those that were killed were those Landlords, bosses, foriegn collaborators and mafia types who refused to give up their power to those peasants and workers that had fought for their freedom. Yes excesses were committed and the North Vietnam government later apologised for those innocents that were killed and when I say 'later apologised' I don't mean 20, 50 or 100 years after the event. The apology came in 1963 under the same gov't that the people of Vietnam had chosen 9 years earlier.
Ho Chi Minh is the Socialist leader who beat the forces of Imperialism and Capatalism. He was a genuine Communist who knew when he had made mistakes but this did not deter him from the task at hand. Liberating his people and that he eventually did.
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
"Ignoring the bit about Stalin please try and explain the bit about the KR. To my knowledge the VC did not depopulate the cities and force everybody into the countryside while declaring the 'Year Zero' and recieve money and training from the CIA. Neither did the North Vietnam gov't impose 'military discipline' (a orginall idea of Trotsky's that one) in factories. No the facts are it was NVA tanks that liberated the people of Cambodia and the US/UN in response imposed ten years worth of sanctions"
I don't care much for "liberation" when the "liberator" isn't much better than the oppressor. I bet you think the Soviet Union "liberated" Eastern Europe? What's the point of overthrowing one dictator (Hitler) and simply replacing him with another (Stalin)?
No military discipline? I don't know what you mean exactly by that term, but "From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers." (source: http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm)
That doesn't make them good guys in my books.
"yes atrocities were committed. Both after the war on people who had collaborated with the Japanese and those innocent people that the authorities had thought had collaborated. This happened in every country in Europe and Asia that was occupied. Also after 1954 when the French were finally kicked out, however the image of 're-education camps' is wrong. I'm sure plenty of you will be familiar with the stories of dozens of former German soldiers who had been sold into the French Foriegn Legion who surrendered to the VC and decided to live the rest of their lifes in North Vietnam."
So let me get this straight, you are denying the existence of harsh, inhumane re-education camps? And I don't care about Germans who decide to live in N. Vietnam. A lot of Americans, Brits, and French people decided to go live in the Soviet Union under Stalin. They probably had a very nice time there. The peasants and workers didn't, though, and that's what i'm getting at.
"For the next ten years the new socialist regime set about the task of rebuilding the nation. Being a socialist regime this meant that there must be a revolution to through out the old order. But because there had been war this meant that the revolution must happen now. Those that were killed were those Landlords, bosses, foriegn collaborators and mafia types who refused to give up their power to those peasants and workers that had fought for their freedom. Yes excesses were committed and the North Vietnam government later apologised for those innocents that were killed and when I say 'later apologised' I don't mean 20, 50 or 100 years after the event. The apology came in 1963 under the same gov't that the people of Vietnam had chosen 9 years earlier."
Well, i don't believe in such violence, even if it is against the capitalists. That's an ethical choice I've made, and i think its one that the entire communist movement should make if we are ever going to get anywhere, politically. Besides, who exactly decided who were "mafia types" and "foreign collaborators". In all likelihood, it was done arbitrarily like in other Stalinist nations. In any case, they didn't get a fair trial, which i believe is a basic inalienable human right.
And concerning the 1963 apology, what did they apologise for? Obviously not for the post-Vietnam war atrocities which i was referring to, as the war hadn't even ended yet.
Property Is Theft.
''I don't care much for "liberation" when the "liberator" isn't much better than the oppressor. I bet you think the Soviet Union "liberated" Eastern Europe? What's the point of overthrowing one dictator (Hitler) and simply replacing him with another (Stalin)?''
Do you think that the lives of those 3 million Cambodians were/are NOT better as a result of NVA tanks? Yes I do think that the Soviet Union liberated eastern Europe from the Nazis, nobody else did that's for sure. By what definition is Stalin a dictator, there was never no law declaring Stalin supreme and unquestioned leader.
Obviously you have never seen the pictures of Czech workers marching pass Prauge castle in 1948 after they had voted in the Communists. And do you not remember that the people of Yugoslavia voted for one Josip Tito (who later proved to just a tool for western capital). Did the Red Army come rolling in? No because Stalin realised that that would of been no better than the west and 'Social Imperialism' policies of Brezheve later on.
''No military discipline? I don't know what you mean exactly by that term, but "From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers." (source: http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.htm)''
By 'Military discipline' I am referring to something the KR imposed in factories. Which also happened to be the originall idea of one Leon Trotsky. I will check the website you have quoted from later but I doubt very much those figures are correct. If they are correct then remember that those numbers come from a 16 year period of war and revolution. Another thing is that I doubt very much that they 'Were all trying to improve the lives of peasants'. If they were doing that then they wouldn't of been working for the South Vietnam gov't.
''So let me get this straight, you are denying the existence of harsh, inhumane re-education camps? And I don't care about Germans who decide to live in N. Vietnam. A lot of Americans, Brits, and French people decided to go live in the Soviet Union under Stalin. They probably had a very nice time there. The peasants and workers didn't, though, and that's what i'm getting at.''
What do you mean those same peasants and workers who now in old age vote in the Communists? 'Harsh' yes, 'In-humane' like all prisons and 'Re-education camps' if you mean those prisoners who actively fought for the restoration of capatalism and were no more than CIA/French puppets then yes. But 'Re-education' centres oh please.
''Well, i don't believe in such violence, even if it is against the capitalists. That's an ethical choice I've made, and i think its one that the entire communist movement should make if we are ever going to get anywhere, politically. Besides, who exactly decided who were "mafia types" and "foreign collaborators". In all likelihood, it was done arbitrarily like in other Stalinist nations. In any case, they didn't get a fair trial, which i believe is a basic inalienable human right.''
That's fine and I respect your 'ethical' choice. But who are you or me to tell those people that are truly oppressed by Captalism to behave rationally when a revolution occurs. It was usually the workers and peasants who 'decided' who was guilty of collaboration. Those people who had suffered at the hands of the collaborators. You are wrong to say though that it was done in 'In all Stalinist nations'. The atrocities commited in France are far worse than anything the SU or VC did.
I have never denied that lots of innocent people would of been victim to accusations of collaboration and their suffering is a tragedy. But it happened in every country (capatalist or communist) that suffered fascist occupation. When studying what happened in those countries after the war remember both the circumstances and morals of the day.
Oh yes 'they didn't get a fair trial' are you denying that General Vlasov and co did not get a trial in Moscow which took nearly a year? I too believe a trial to be 'A basic human right'.
''And concerning the 1963 apology, what did they apologise for? Obviously not for the post-Vietnam war atrocities which i was referring to, as the war hadn't even ended yet.''
The apology was to those innocent victims who had by mistake been found guilty of crimes since 1945 and especially since 1954. Also your own source says that the war began in 1957 and other history book will tell you that.
'Post Vietnam war atrocities'. Like those ten million political prisoners held in Siberia in the 1980's. Who could forget those glourious scenes of BBC and CNN newsteams liberating one of those dreadful camps? While the half starved prisoners chanted 'Liberty' and Yelstin and Gorby hugged those poor innocent people.
Oh yeah it never happened, just like no big 'mass murder' happened in Vietnam in 1975. The right wing (which you sound like) has never been able to get over the fact that they really did make fools of themselves on that occassion. Get over it.
BTW I do hope that you do not live up to your name
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
"Do you think that the lives of those 3 million Cambodians were/are NOT better as a result of NVA tanks?
Yes, in the event, those 3 million cambodians WERE better off under the NVA than Pol Pot. But that doesn't mean the NVA were a beacon of benevolence. If the US went in and overthrew Saddam today, and instituted direct rule from Washington, I'm sure both you and I would be pleased that Saddam was gone. But that doesn't mean we should regard Bush as some sort of freedom fighter. In the same way, I don't believe the NVA acted out of any high moral principle in invading Cambodia. Rather, it was because of constant border clashes. By 1977, cambodia was making deep forays into Vietnam's western border provinces. Vietnam acted for its own national security reasons, not because they wanted to save the Cambodians from Pol Pot.
"Yes I do think that the Soviet Union liberated eastern Europe from the Nazis, nobody else did that's for sure. By what definition is Stalin a dictator, there was never no law declaring Stalin supreme and unquestioned leader."
When the Soviets "liberated" eastern Europe, they instituted brutal dictatorships all across the region. You know this. In many cases, the people of east europe WOULD have elected a commie to power. But, alas, these were commies that the Stalinists didn't like. Two examples that immediately come to mind are Imre Nagy (hungary) and alexander Dubcek (czechoslovakia).
As for Stalin being a dictator, I think it is self-evident to any honest student of history. It's obvious you aren't a fool, and your posts do have a lot of substance, which is why I'm totally baffled by your total inability to see Stalin for what he really was.
Whether there were any laws making him a dictator is irrelevant. If i recall correctly, he hardly ever called on the Supreme Soviet during his reign of power (because he knew they would object to his policies). He also ordered the deaths of the best Soviet scientists, because they practiced "decadent" bourgeois science (in actual fact, simply science based on the ideas of Darwin and Mendel). The worst thing he did, however, was kill off most of the best Soviet military generals, which basically screwed over the Soviet war machine for much of ww2 - and, of course, it was the civilians who payed the most for this.
I'm sure you are also aware of Stalin's antisemitic paranoia. When he died, he wasn't planning a world revolution, he was plotting to kill a bunch of Jewish intellectuals who he felt were a threat to his grip on power.
"Obviously you have never seen the pictures of Czech workers marching pass Prauge castle in 1948 after they had voted in the Communists. And do you not remember that the people of Yugoslavia voted for one Josip Tito (who later proved to just a tool for western capital). Did the Red Army come rolling in? No because Stalin realised that that would of been no better than the west and 'Social Imperialism' policies of Brezheve later on. "
Any one can organise marches like that. Hitler was very good at it. It's propaganda, nothing less. The communists were indeed elected to power, but in an alliance with other moderate parties. And guess they did in 1948, comrade, in the classic Stalinist fashion? They purged the Party of non-Stalinists, and down the drain went Czechoslovakia.
"If they are correct then remember that those numbers come from a 16 year period of war and revolution. "
When Trotsky instituted military discipline, that was during a period of war and revolution too, you know. Yet you don't seem so forgiving of him...why so? (im not a trotskyite by the way)
"If they were doing that then they wouldn't of been working for the South Vietnam gov't."
I strongly disagree. Neither you nor I are in a position to say why those people chose to work for the South Vietnamese. Maybe that was the best avenue they had for helping the poor? Or maybe they simply succumbed to the American propaganda that the Viet Cong were evil. We can't really blame them for that, and we certainly can't kill them for it, as you seem to be suggesting.
"What do you mean those same peasants and workers who now in old age vote in the Communists? 'Harsh' yes, 'In-humane' like all prisons and 'Re-education camps' if you mean those prisoners who actively fought for the restoration of capatalism and were no more than CIA/French puppets then yes. But 'Re-education' centres oh please."
I liken the old people who vote for the former Stalinists to the black slaves who were so used to slavery that they didn't want to be free, and even fought for the Confederate side.
Do you really believe that everyone in the Soviet gulags were CIA puppets? Solzhenitsyn merely made a passing comment denouncing Stalin in a private letter and was sent there.
"That's fine and I respect your 'ethical' choice. But who are you or me to tell those people that are truly oppressed by Captalism to behave rationally when a revolution occurs. It was usually the workers and peasants who 'decided' who was guilty of collaboration. Those people who had suffered at the hands of the collaborators. You are wrong to say though that it was done in 'In all Stalinist nations'. The atrocities commited in France are far worse than anything the SU or VC did."
When people act out of gut-feeling, i call that nihilism, not socialism. Socialism is about planning, not about letting our emotions run rampant and killing people left right and centre. The latter only diminishes the perception of communists in the West. You've got to understand that no one falls for that blood and gore stuff any more. Besides, what was the end result of all the carnage? The Soviet Union fell, didn't it. At least anti-Stalinists can laugh and say "we told you so". What excuse to the Stalinists have?
"I have never denied that lots of innocent people would of been victim to accusations of collaboration and their suffering is a tragedy. But it happened in every country (capatalist or communist) that suffered fascist occupation. When studying what happened in those countries after the war remember both the circumstances and morals of the day."
I think I would rather have lived in American occupied capitalist West Germany than Stalinist Hungary in 1956, and I think you would have too.
"Oh yes 'they didn't get a fair trial' are you denying that General Vlasov and co did not get a trial in Moscow which took nearly a year? I too believe a trial to be 'A basic human right'. "
I'm not familiar with his particular case, but what about the "show trials" that claimed most of Lenin's politburo (bukharin, kamenev etc). They were faked, of course.
"Oh yeah it never happened, just like no big 'mass murder' happened in Vietnam in 1975. The right wing (which you sound like) has never been able to get over the fact that they really did make fools of themselves on that occassion. Get over it. "
The gulags were never liberated because gorby and his predecessors had begun a process of phasing them out. They were at a peak during Stalin's reign. You're not really denying the existence of gulags are you?
Property Is Theft.
''Yes, in the event, those 3 million cambodians WERE better off under the NVA than Pol Pot. But that doesn't mean the NVA were a beacon of benevolence. If the US went in and overthrew Saddam today, and instituted direct rule from Washington, I'm sure both you and I would be pleased that Saddam was gone. But that doesn't mean we should regard Bush as some sort of freedom fighter. In the same way, I don't believe the NVA acted out of any high moral principle in invading Cambodia. Rather, it was because of constant border clashes. By 1977, cambodia was making deep forays into Vietnam's western border provinces. Vietnam acted for its own national security reasons, not because they wanted to save the Cambodians from Pol Pot.''
Yes that is true and if you look in a thread (KR vs VC) you will see that I'm aware that the KR were was attacking Vietnam civilians. Is it just possible that if they did not wan't to save the Cambodians perhaps they wanted to save their own from Pol Pot. And I'm not sure how you can compare Vietnam in 1979 to Iraq in 2002 (yes I despise Sadam but leaving him be will be better for everybody). Also remember the cost the Vietnam nation paid for liberating (and that's what they did) the Cambodians, ten years worth of UN sanctions.
''When the Soviets "liberated" eastern Europe, they instituted brutal dictatorships all across the region. You know this. In many cases, the people of east europe WOULD have elected a commie to power. But, alas, these were commies that the Stalinists didn't like. Two examples that immediately come to mind are Imre Nagy (hungary) and alexander Dubcek (czechoslovakia).''
You seem to forget the example of Tito. The people of Yugoslavia chose him as their leader and he eventually just became a tool for western capital. But the Red Army didn't come crashing through because Stalin knew that just would of been hyprocritical to everything SU stood for. I have never supported the SU invasion of Czechslovakia it was just 'Social Imperialism' as Enver Hoxha would say.
As for Hungary, I'm actually undecided on that issue. But you must remember that the CIA's own archives now reveal that they 'planted' over 10,000 Hungarian Nazis into the country. But the Hungarian workers and peasants were justified in protesting (and overthrowing) the bueracry, corruption and the evident opportunists who had literally taken over the party. And the 'mafia' style shooting of Nagy was defiantly not right, if he was guilty of anything he should of been given a trial.
''As for Stalin being a dictator, I think it is self-evident to any honest student of history. It's obvious you aren't a fool, and your posts do have a lot of substance, which is why I'm totally baffled by your total inability to see Stalin for what he really was.''
Thankyou, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on that issue.
''Whether there were any laws making him a dictator is irrelevant. If i recall correctly, he hardly ever called on the Supreme Soviet during his reign of power (because he knew they would object to his policies). He also ordered the deaths of the best Soviet scientists, because they practiced "decadent" bourgeois science (in actual fact, simply science based on the ideas of Darwin and Mendel). The worst thing he did, however, was kill off most of the best Soviet military generals, which basically screwed over the Soviet war machine for much of ww2 - and, of course, it was the civilians who payed the most for this.''
On the contray it is not 'Irrelevant'. The facts are he could of been kicked out at any time and there would of been little he could of done about it. I am not aware of the Soviet Scientists being murdered, but I am aware of a scientist by the name of Pavlov (have you heard of him?) who was a christian and routinley criticised the governemnt. Yet nothing happened to him.
As for the purging of the military. I have wen't through this enough times recently to be bothered to do it again. Suffice to say the archives reveal that some 8,500 officers were 'purged', which means demoted, sacked, and a small minority that was jailed and a even smaller minority who were executed. But the vast majority simply retired to civilian life, others who had been sacked because of their aristocratic origins were later reinstated.
''I'm sure you are also aware of Stalin's antisemitic paranoia. When he died, he wasn't planning a world revolution, he was plotting to kill a bunch of Jewish intellectuals who he felt were a threat to his grip on power.''
So because nine doctors were arrested on charges of spying (read some Cold War book it's not that unrealistic) six of whom happened to of been Jewish (I doubt they took their religion seriously anyway) he was planning some big murder. And remember the key word 'arrested'.
''Any one can organise marches like that. Hitler was very good at it. It's propaganda, nothing less. The communists were indeed elected to power, but in an alliance with other moderate parties. And guess they did in 1948, comrade, in the classic Stalinist fashion? They purged the Party of non-Stalinists, and down the drain went Czechoslovakia.''
Only on one day's notice? 'Propaganda' oh I'm sure the Czech government would of used those pictures in school textbooks and anniversay celebrations etc. But the workers were carrying the guns, so if they had not wanted it to go ahead than I'm sure they could of done something about it.
"When Trotsky instituted military discipline, that was during a period of war and revolution too, you know. Yet you don't seem so forgiving of him...why so? (im not a trotskyite by the way)''
Well that last point is good to hear. First of all there is a difference between assaination and 'military discipline' in factories. Especially when you are a 'Socialist'. Second of all Trotsky proposed these ideas when the Red Army was about to demobilise, I'm sure you have heard of his 'Labor army's' idea. That may not be the right idea, but it was a long time ago since I read any of his stuff since I found it almost sick.
''I strongly disagree. Neither you nor I are in a position to say why those people chose to work for the South Vietnamese. Maybe that was the best avenue they had for helping the poor? Or maybe they simply succumbed to the American propaganda that the Viet Cong were evil. We can't really blame them for that, and wecertainly can't kill them for it, as you seem to be suggesting.''
Agreed, but what you just wrote was different from what your source wrote.
''I liken the old people who vote for the former Stalinists to the black slaves who were so used to slavery that they didn't want to be free, and even fought for the Confederate side.''
Well that's one way of seeing it I suppose. But your logic is rather naive, for a start those Black's that did fight for the Confederates tended not to be slaves and those slaves that did numbered around a dozen. And i'm sure you will admit it's a bit more complicated than that.
''Do you really believe that everyone in the Soviet gulags were CIA puppets? Solzhenitsyn merely made a passing comment denouncing Stalin in a private letter and was sent there.''
No I don't the majority were murderers, rapists and criminalls eg not very nice people. Not to mention the FACT that at no time in the history of the Soviet Union were there more than 2.4% of the adult population in jail. While only (compared to most estimates) 800,000 (rounded up) people died in the Soviet Prison System between 1934 and 1953 for all reasons.
Solzhenistsyn, did not just go to jail for writing a comment in a letter to a friend. He was a officer in the Red Army and for years had been suggesting publicly (infront of his men) that Russia would be better of under the Nazis. Now don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the reason he was arrested (although he should of been sacked) but in the circumstances of the day he could of expected little sympathy. BTW do you seriously believe that Stalin pacificly ordered him to jail, in most likelyhood Stalin never heard of the man.
Another point is that Solzhenitsyn was a Fascist, pure and simple. To deny that would be say the Earth is flat. If you wish for 'Evidence' just check up on his interview with Spanish television just after the death of Franco. No he may not of started of as a CIA puppet but by 1960 he most defiantly was.
''When people act out of gut-feeling, i call that nihilism, not socialism. Socialism is about planning, not about letting our emotions run rampant and killing people left right and centre. The latter only diminishes the perception of communists in the West. You've got to understand that no one falls for that blood and gore stuff any more. Besides, what was the end result of all the carnage? The Soviet Union fell, didn't it. At least anti-Stalinists can laugh and say "we told you so". What excuse to the Stalinists have?''
Well by that definition the Soviet Union was doomed to failure the moment the Cheka executed the Jewish women who shot Lenin.
''I think I would rather have lived in American occupied capitalist West Germany than Stalinist Hungary in 1956, and I think you would have too.''
Yes I would of prefered to of lived in capatalist West Germany than Communist Hungary especially in 1956 (well I may like the sound of MiG's). I think I have been over the reasons why Hungary had nothing to do with Socialism. Corruption, beuracry and a foriegn army of occupation for 40 years. But if you offered me the choice of living in Albania under Hoxha or West Germany then I would take Albania.
''I'm not familiar with his particular case, but what about the "show trials" that claimed most of Lenin's politburo (bukharin, kamenev etc). They were faked, of course.
Well Vlasov was a General who defected to the Nazis in 1942. He set up the 'Russian National/Liberation Army' (or some other inaproppriate name) which was made up of Soviet prisoners (most who joined faced no choice). Their atrocities in Warsaw in 1944 even horrified the SS.
As for the 'Show trials' I suggest you reasearch into the background and what happened in those trials. Or you could just provide some real evidence from a reliable source that proves that those trials were not fair.
''The gulags were never liberated because gorby and his predecessors had begun a process of phasing them out. They were at a peak during Stalin's reign. You're not really denying the existence of gulags are you?''
No, the same propaganda machine that said Stalin had killed 50 million said that there were ten million political prisoners in Siberia in the 1980's. No I do not deny the existence of a Soviet Prison system.
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
"Yes that is true and if you look in a thread (KR vs VC) you will see that I'm aware that the KR were was attacking Vietnam civilians. Is it just possible that if they did not wan't to save the Cambodians perhaps they wanted to save their own from Pol Pot. And I'm not sure how you can compare Vietnam in 1979 to Iraq in 2002 (yes I despise Sadam but leaving him be will be better for everybody). Also remember the cost the Vietnam nation paid for liberating (and that's what they did) the Cambodians, ten years worth of UN sanctions."
My point was that Vietnam liberated Cambodia out of national self-interest rather than supposed socialist international ideals. You seem to agree, somewhat, when you state "Is it just possible that if they did not wan't to save the Cambodians perhaps they wanted to save their own from Pol Pot". Hence, I don't think the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia can be given as evidence, as you tried to do, of the NVA's commitment to Marxism, since it was only done out of national self-interest.
"You seem to forget the example of Tito. The people of Yugoslavia chose him as their leader and he eventually just became a tool for western capital. But the Red Army didn't come crashing through because Stalin knew that just would of been hyprocritical to everything SU stood for. I have never supported the SU invasion of Czechslovakia it was just 'Social Imperialism' as Enver Hoxha would say. "
In what ways was Tito an agent of Western capital? I don't know much about this area, but my understanding is that he was neither pro-Soviet or pro-West, but in between. I think of him in a higher regard than Stalin, because he was more liberal with his people and tolerated dissent. Also, you've got to admire him for bringing all the Balkan ethnicties together living in peace for some 40 years, no mean feat when you look at the wars of the past decade.
"As for Hungary, I'm actually undecided on that issue. But you must remember that the CIA's own archives now reveal that they 'planted' over 10,000 Hungarian Nazis into the country. But the Hungarian workers and peasants were justified in protesting (and overthrowing) the bueracry, corruption and the evident opportunists who had literally taken over the party. And the 'mafia' style shooting of Nagy was defiantly not right, if he was guilty of anything he should of been given a trial. "
I'm glad we agree on Nagy. I've never heard the thing about the Hungarian Nazis and the CIA. I did a quick search on google but couldn't find anything. What was your source for the information?
"On the contray it is not 'Irrelevant'. The facts are he could of been kicked out at any time and there would of been little he could of done about it. I am not aware of the Soviet Scientists being murdered, but I am aware of a scientist by the name of Pavlov (have you heard of him?) who was a christian and routinley criticised the governemnt. Yet nothing happened to him."
I don't think it's fair to simply say that Stalin could have been dismissed at any time by the Party, and not take into account the aura of fear that existed at the time, especially after the Great Terror of 1939-38. Almost all of Lenin's politburo was liquidated by Stalin. Everyone who knew about Lenin's last testament, in particular, were targetted. Under these conditions, it was hardly likely for anyone in the party to speak out against Stalin, let alone demand his resignation.
For information on Stalin's attack on soviet scientists, i suggets you read this article. Its from the 4th international, which is trotskyist, so it obviously isnt exactly objective, but the facts they present aren't lies: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/...9/sov-gen.shtml
"As for the purging of the military. I have wen't through this enough times recently to be bothered to do it again. Suffice to say the archives reveal that some 8,500 officers were 'purged', which means demoted, sacked, and a small minority that was jailed and a even smaller minority who were executed. But the vast majority simply retired to civilian life, others who had been sacked because of their aristocratic origins were later reinstated. "
An article on the net (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpurge.htm) says that "All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed. This included fifty per cent of all army officers." In any case, Stalin's purges severely handicapped the USSR at a critical point of its history.
"Well that's one way of seeing it I suppose. But your logic is rather naive, for a start those Black's that did fight for the Confederates tended not to be slaves and those slaves that did numbered around a dozen. And i'm sure you will admit it's a bit more complicated than that. "
It was a simple analogy, I admit. But its also simplistic to claim that popular support Stalin has amongst many older Russians is indicative of his success as a leader. The many millions who died, or were imprisoned for trivial reasons, under him would think very differently.
"Solzhenistsyn, did not just go to jail for writing a comment in a letter to a friend. He was a officer in the Red Army and for years had been suggesting publicly (infront of his men) that Russia would be better of under the Nazis. Now don't get me wrong I still don't agree with the reason he was arrested (although he should of been sacked) but in the circumstances of the day he could of expected little sympathy. BTW do you seriously believe that Stalin pacificly ordered him to jail, in most likelyhood Stalin never heard of the man."
Can you give a source where he actually stated the SU would be better of under the Nazis? Even if you can, that is hardly a reason for a man to be imprisoned. And also remember that Stalin was hardly in a position to condemn people for being pro-Nazi after the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact, where he was photographed smiling and drinking a toast to Hitler.
"As for the 'Show trials' I suggest you reasearch into the background and what happened in those trials. Or you could just provide some real evidence from a reliable source that proves that those trials were not fair. "
Bukharin's wife, for example, has revealed that his confession was forced. He only confessed for the sake of "party unity". In his "Last Testament," a letter which he made his young wife, Anna Larina, memorize for a "future generation of party leaders," and which she recited to Khrushchev's Central Control Commission in 1961, he admitted his "helplessness" before the "hellish machine," and "organized slander" practiced by Stalin, and declared his complete innocence. He appealed to future party leaders to exonerate (http://www.ku.edu/kansas/cienciala/342/ch3.html)
Property Is Theft.
''My point was that Vietnam liberated Cambodia out of national self-interest rather than supposed socialist international ideals. You seem to agree, somewhat, when you state "Is it just possible that if they did not wan't to save the Cambodians perhaps they wanted to save their own from Pol Pot". Hence, I don't think the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia can be given as evidence, as you tried to do, of the NVA's commitment to Marxism, since it was only done out of national self-interest.''
But the Vietnam gov't knew the risks of intervening military. Those risks were the UN sanctions and a Chinese invasion (tensions had been rising for years and all they needed was a excuse) which if it had been succesful would of been nothing short of annexation. Is the above in one's 'National Interest'?
''In what ways was Tito an agent of Western capital? I don't know much about this area, but my understanding is that he was neither pro-Soviet or pro-West, but in between. I think of him in a higher regard than Stalin, because he was more liberal with his people and tolerated dissent. Also, you've got to admire him for bringing all the Balkan ethnicties together living in peace for some 40 years, no mean feat when you look at the wars of the past decade.''
In 1948 he actively became a ally of the U$, over the years western capatalists flooded the SFRY with bussinesses which oppressed the Yugoslav working class. The whole economy was equally geared towards competition and capatalism as much as it was Socialism. He also created a new beuracratic elite. People like to portray Tito as some sought of 'good humane Socialist' but that is far from the truth. In the 1960's the people of Kosovar would of preffered to of lived under the 'Stalinist' Hoxha than live under Tito.
In his defence though his fight against the Nazis is the stuff of legend and yes he did keep the peace for 40 years. However he probably has to take a great deal of responsibility for the tragedy that happened. The problems that caused that war could of been prevented (such as the percieved and to some extent actual 'Serb dominace' over political affairs) and the generation who fought eachother grew up under Tito and only Tito. And what kind of 'Socialist' party allows the likes of Milosevich to get into a position of power? In my opinion it is a party led by men and women that are happy and content with their buecratic status and do not wish to confront the issues at hand, preffering to sweep them under the mat.
Ofcourse Tito could not of predicted the future.
''I'm glad we agree on Nagy. I've never heard the thing about the Hungarian Nazis and the CIA. I did a quick search on google but couldn't find anything. What was your source for the information?''
I too have tried to search on google since I heard that. The source come's from a friend whom I have no reason not to trust. Also I have read numerous western and anti-Soviet accounts of Hungary in 1956 and alot have something like this 'The protestors ranged from extreme right wing monarchists and fascists to peasants groups and anarchists'. Other anti-Soviet accounts describe the targeting of Jews pacificly who often faced the mob's anger. Also ask your self how the Rebels were able to inflict such large casualties on the Soviet Army (4000 dead). Determined teenagers with Molotov cocktails will only get you so far.
Ofcourse none of this means I am supportive of the Soviet Invasion(undecided) and I do NOT support the 'mafia' style shooting of Nagy and others.
''I don't think it's fair to simply say that Stalin could have been dismissed at any time by the Party, and not take into account the aura of fear that existed at the time, especially after the Great Terror of 1939-38. Almost all of Lenin's politburo was liquidated by Stalin. Everyone who knew about Lenin's last testament, in particular, were targetted. Under these conditions, it was hardly likely for anyone in the party to speak out against Stalin, let alone demand his resignation.''
Why not? The fact is there would of been nothing legaly or politically he could of done except write some angry memoirs. It may be true that some of the party chose to stick with Stalin during the late 1930's because they feared the political instability it may of caused (well that's the way it would of likely been percieved abroad) with the growing threat of Nazi Germany.
Those members of the Bolshevik party who were executed were executed after a court of law found them guilty of terriorism, assaination and most importantly trying to restore Capatalism in the USSR. Not for reading Lenin's will. Are you aware that Zioneve had publically quoted the speech (just the bit about Stalin though) in 1926?
And more importantly are you aware that in 1928 Stalin when writting a article for Pravda published the entire text from Lenin's will, including Stalin's rudeness? Stalin even joked that 'He was proud to be rude'.
''For information on Stalin's attack on soviet scientists, i suggets you read this article. Its from the 4th international, which is trotskyist, so it obviously isnt exactly objective, but the facts they present aren't lies: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/...sov-gen.shtml''
I tried the web adress and it came up with the whole 'refresh' thing. It then sent me to the World Socialist Web Site and I tried searching the site for the article typing in 'Persecuted Soviet Scientists' but no result.
Two points I would like to make though. I have no doubt that Scientists who followed the party line would of enjoyed greater carreer success and those scientists (I know little about Scientist, but these are probably the one's who suggest radical new theories which are against the tradiditional view) who didn't would of faced tougher challanges in getting their point of view of crossed. My second point is that there was a Scientist by the name of Pavlov who was a Christian and often criticised the gov't, yet nothing happened to him.
''An article on the net (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpurge.htm) says that "All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed. This included fifty per cent of all army officers." In any case, Stalin's purges severely handicapped the USSR at a critical point of its history.''
I have heard numerous 'estimates' as to how many officers were 'purged'. But the archives clearly state that some 8,500 officers were removed from the officer corps the vast majority simply returned to civilian life. Those that were executed were executed because they were planning a right wing military coup. Which would of been led by one Marshall Tuchekasky (spell), now the archive on his military tribuanal has yet to be realased so we will have to wait for the exact account of what happened.
But Chuchill admits in his book 'The gathering storm' that a conspiracy did exist, I will gladly post the whole quote if you wish but right now that will just take time I haven't really got. Also President Benes of Czechslovakia sais that his Intelliegent services picked up on links between the Gestapo and members of the Red Army. One Nazi official when the matter of Germany wanting to anneex Czechslovkia came up said 'You will not be able to rely on the help of Stalin, soon there will be a change in Russia and that change will be pro-German'.
''It was a simple analogy, I admit. But its also simplistic to claim that popular support Stalin has amongst many older Russians is indicative of his success as a leader. The many millions who died, or were imprisoned for trivial reasons, under him would think very differently.''
Well the Moscow police currently admits that some 15,000 pensioners celelbrate every May-Day with portraits of Stalin. So in all likely hood the figure is higher. Throughout the fomer Soviet Union the Communists almost depend on the votes of the generation who grow up in the 1930's, 40's, 50's. Infact even in 1992 that particular generation were the first to protest Yelstin and Gorby. The generation who grew up under Brezheve only started to vote the Communists in 1996 and to a lesser extent in 2000 (tending to see Putin as one their own).
Also I thought your example of the Confederate slaves was very well (and I hate saying this since I'm enjoying are debate) stupid. The number of slaves who fought for the Confederates on a vollunter basis numbers in the dozens at most. They most likely did it because of a wide range of personal reasons.
Also these slaves were not subject to 40 years of more or less on and off criticism (criticism of Stalin reached it's peak with Gorby/Yelstin) of what they were fighting for before they actually fought for it. There is the case of the pro-Stalin demonstration in Georgia in 1956 which was subject to sniper fire and armoured cars.
''Can you give a source where he actually stated the SU would be better of under the Nazis? Even if you can, that is hardly a reason for a man to be imprisoned. And also remember that Stalin was hardly in a position to condemn people for being pro-Nazi after the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact, where he was photographed smiling and drinking a toast to Hitler.''
The numerous accounts of men who served under him give testimony to the fact that he symathised with the Nazis. Ofcourse I would understand if this is not enough for you (and what I just wrote is from vague memory which I cannot state as FACT). But the man was a Fascist, just check out his interview with Spanish TV in 1976. He makes it quite clear he supports Franco and deeply opposses the 'Dangerous change' which was happening at the time.
About Stalin and the Non-Agression treaty. My first point is that when Solzhenistyn was suggesting his point of view he was doing it during a period of wartime and he was encouranging his soldiers with these views. He as a Officer is not supposed to be doing this especially during wartime and especially to his own troops.
Now don't get me wrong I still do not agree with why he was arrested, it was his opinion and he is entitled to it. But you will admit that a man with such views should not be put in such a positition in such circumstances. Also you will note that one Oswald Mosley was subject to four years in prison during wartime. Solzhenistyn got 8 years did he not?
Now onto the point about the treaty. Remember at the time the evil of the Nazis is not yet known. To the eyes of the world it appears that WW1 is about to repeat itself as the Imperialist powers fight eachother to a standstill. Now from a Marxist point of view this is good news (if you ignore all the deaths of course).
Yet for years Stalin and the Soviet Union had called for a 'United anti-Fascist front'. The only country who offered to fight for the Czechs was the Soviet Union. In September 1939 Stalin and the Bolsheviks were understandbly overjoyed at the fact that the Soviet Union would not be subject to to the Imperialism of the Nazis and who might even be joined by British and French Empires (After the Czech episode this was a just fear). But now they will fight eachother, as the main man Marx had predicted.
As for the 'toast to Hitler' I have heard this too and sadly I cannot tell you it didn't happen. I think the precise quote was 'I know how much the German people love their Fuhrer'. But if you look at the above paragraphs I hope you can put it down to 'Diplomatic courtesy' (and a mistake) as I have.
One last point about this though is that I suggest you read the extract from Stalin's radio broadcast in July 1941. In it he clearly states the benefits and the advantages to the treaty and most military historians agree with him.
"Bukharin's wife, for example, has revealed that his confession was forced. He only confessed for the sake of "party unity". In his "Last Testament," a letter which he made his young wife, Anna Larina, memorize for a "future generation of party leaders," and which she recited to Khrushchev's Central Control Commission in 1961, he admitted his "helplessness" before the "hellish machine," and "organized slander" practiced by Stalin, and declared his complete innocence. He appealed to future party leaders to exonerate (http://www.ku.edu/kansas/cienciala/342/ch3.html)''
Bukarin's wife is hardly the example of a unbiased, honest, factual based source. Bukarin admiteted that he had discussed the 'physcical removal' of Stalin with the French author John Humbet-Droz (a very pro-Bukarin source) in 1929. He actually admitted this in a meeting with Kaganovich in 1934 and also in his trial.
The trial was infront of the whole world. The worlds press (deeply anti-Soviet) was there as were camera's. Does it not strike you as odd that Bukarin (nor any others) NEVER suggested that there had been the use of torture or the threat of violence against there family by the Gov't? Do you not think that they would of had the ideal platform which to accuse the Stalin/NKVD of torture and violence against their families? Bukarin does infact heavily defend himself and criticise the gov't in his trial, yet he never makes any suggestion about torture or any other criminall practice.
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
"But the Vietnam gov't knew the risks of intervening military. Those risks were the UN sanctions and a Chinese invasion (tensions had been rising for years and all they needed was a excuse) which if it had been succesful would of been nothing short of annexation. Is the above in one's 'National Interest'? "
Well, the alternative was for Vietnam's borders to be constantly under attack by the Khmer Rouge - a most disagreeable scenario. It seems obvious to me that, whatever the ramifications, if a country's borders are directly under threat by another nation, it will act *in its national interest* to protect those borders. In fact, it wasn't simply Vietnam's borders that were under threat - by early 1997 the Cambodians were making DEEP forages into Vietnam's western border provinces. Clearly, UN sanctions and a possible Chinese invasion were the least of the Viet Kong's worries.
"In 1948 he actively became a ally of the U$, over the years western capatalists flooded the SFRY with bussinesses which oppressed the Yugoslav working class. The whole economy was equally geared towards competition and capatalism as much as it was Socialism. He also created a new beuracratic elite. People like to portray Tito as some sought of 'good humane Socialist' but that is far from the truth. In the 1960's the people of Kosovar would of preffered to of lived under the 'Stalinist' Hoxha than live under Tito. "
I myself don't oppose "market socialism" as a transition stage between capitalism and socialism, especially in then-backward countries like Yugoslavia. Also, Tito had little alternative than to invite foreign capitalists to invest, since Stalin ordered the Communist Bloc to enforce an embargo on Yugoslavia. Tito could either trade with the West or let his people starve (or give up power, which would be unfair, since he was popularly elected).
And I remind you that Lenin himself supported the NEP in the Soviet Union, not dissimilar in nature to Tito's socialism.
"I too have tried to search on google since I heard that. The source come's from a friend whom I have no reason not to trust. Also I have read numerous western and anti-Soviet accounts of Hungary in 1956 and alot have something like this 'The protestors ranged from extreme right wing monarchists and fascists to peasants groups and anarchists'. Other anti-Soviet accounts describe the targeting of Jews pacificly who often faced the mob's anger. Also ask your self how the Rebels were able to inflict such large casualties on the Soviet Army (4000 dead). Determined teenagers with Molotov cocktails will only get you so far."
I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans actively aided the Hungarian by flooding it with Nazis. However, despite this, I still take the view that the Hungarian Uprising was fundamentally a worker's uprising against the Soviet bureaucracy. This is evidenced, I think, by the resolutions that the revolting workers put forward, which were virtually identical to the one Lenin put forward in 1917 to defend the revolution against bureaucracy. This is an EXCELLENT analysis of the revolution which i've read: http://www.marxist.com/History/hungary1956_86.html. It tells how even some in the Red Army joined the Hungarian side after seeing their ideals. Also, it argues that the revolution didn't really have the nationalist bent that many Right-wingers like to claim they did.
"Those members of the Bolshevik party who were executed were executed after a court of law found them guilty of terriorism, assaination and most importantly trying to restore Capatalism in the USSR. Not for reading Lenin's will. Are you aware that Zioneve had publically quoted the speech (just the bit about Stalin though) in 1926?and more importantly are you aware that in 1928 Stalin when writting a article for Pravda published the entire text from Lenin's will, including Stalin's rudeness? Stalin even joked that 'He was proud to be rude'. "
I find that very hard to believe - you do realise, I hope, that the WHOLE OF LENIN'S POLITBURO (except Trotsky and Stalin) was purged? All of 'em. Are you saying that these people, many of whom led the November revolution were all either guilty of terrorism, assassination or trying to reintroduce terrorism? The more likely answer, I think, is that Stalin was paranoid and trying to eliminate potential competiton.
I wasn't aware that Zinoviev publically read the testament out. I am aware, however, of his eventual fate.
"I tried the web adress and it came up with the whole 'refresh' thing. It then sent me to the World Socialist Web Site and I tried searching the site for the article typing in 'Persecuted Soviet Scientists' but no result."
This link should work: http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/i...b10-21/gene.htm. If not, try searching "the fate of soviet genetics". That's how I found the article.
"Two points I would like to make though. I have no doubt that Scientists who followed the party line would of enjoyed greater carreer success and those scientists (I know little about Scientist, but these are probably the one's who suggest radical new theories which are against the tradiditional view) who didn't would of faced tougher challanges in getting their point of view of crossed. My second point is that there was a Scientist by the name of Pavlov who was a Christian and often criticised the gov't, yet nothing happened to him. "
On your first point, as it turns out, the official Stalinist party line on science was moronic - that's not a personal opinion of mine, its an objective fact (read the article on soviet genetics). Lysenko, the head of scientific research in Stalin's USSR, "asserted that one species could be directly converted to another by subjecting it to external influences" and denounced the concept of genes as "bourgeois constructs"(reminds me of when the Maoists denounced Shakespeare as "bourgeois" and encouraged ppl not to read him). The non-crackpot scientists were mostly removed, and the advances made by Lenin were largely reversed.
On the second point, of Pavlov. I think the reason he wasn't hounded by the MKVD was because he was so popular in the West - he won Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904, and was well known almost everywhere. It would have been too harmful for the USSR's facade of being a worker's paradise.
"But Chuchill admits in his book 'The gathering storm' that a conspiracy did exist, I will gladly post the whole quote if you wish but right now that will just take time I haven't really got. Also President Benes of Czechslovakia sais that his Intelliegent services picked up on links between the Gestapo and members of the Red Army. One Nazi official when the matter of Germany wanting to anneex Czechslovkia came up said 'You will not be able to rely on the help of Stalin, soon there will be a change in Russia and that change will be pro-German'. "
I'll take your word on the Nazi coup plans, but I'm always skeptical as to Stalin's motives when dealing with Fascism, or perceived Fascism. It seems to me Stalin himself pulled of the biggest coup when he signed the "non-aggression" pact with the Nazis.
Well the Moscow police currently admits that some 15,000 pensioners celelbrate every May-Day with portraits of Stalin. So in all likely hood the figure is higher. Throughout the fomer Soviet Union the Communists almost depend on the votes of the generation who grow up in the 1930's, 40's, 50's. Infact even in 1992 that particular generation were the first to protest Yelstin and Gorby. The generation who grew up under Brezheve only started to vote the Communists in 1996 and to a lesser extent in 2000 (tending to see Putin as one their own).
"Also I thought your example of the Confederate slaves was very well (and I hate saying this since I'm enjoying are debate) stupid. The number of slaves who fought for the Confederates on a vollunter basis numbers in the dozens at most. They most likely did it because of a wide range of personal reasons."
Yes, well, as I said, it was a very simple analogy which i think you are reading into too much. The point, I think, was made: often slaves do not realise that their masters aren't as benevolent as they were raised to believe. Considering the amount of propaganda these elderly people were subjected to during Stalin's era, i'm not surprised they still love him. Unfortunately, we can't compare the support of Stalin in the USSR today to that of Hitler amongst the elderly in Germany today, because Fascist parties aren't allowed to form. Such a comparison would be illuminating.
Also, It's wrong for you to say present day support for the Communists amongst the elderly is indicative of support of Stalin. The Russian Communist Party today presents very, very, very different policies from Stalin, so when old people vote for them, are they voting for these policies or for Stalin? We don't really know.
"The numerous accounts of men who served under him give testimony to the fact that he symathised with the Nazis. Ofcourse I would understand if this is not enough for you (and what I just wrote is from vague memory which I cannot state as FACT). But the man was a Fascist, just check out his interview with Spanish TV in 1976. He makes it quite clear he supports Franco and deeply opposses the 'Dangerous change' which was happening at the time. "
I did some reading, and you are right, it turns out Solzhenitsyn did have a despotic side, and believes in some sort of Jewish conspiracy against Russia. Whether this amounts to fascism, I don't know. Does it justify imprisonment? I don't think so. But that's a matter of opinion. Your point that Russia was in a period of war, and Fascism was a real to be doing this especially during wartime and especially to his own threat, is taken.
"About Stalin and the Non-Agression treaty. My first point is that when Solzhenistyn was suggesting his point of view he was doing it during a period of wartime and he was encouranging his soldiers with these views. He as a Officer is not supposed troops”w don't get me wrong I still do not agree with why he was arrested, it was his opinion and he is entitled to it. But you will admit that a man with such views should not be put in such a positition in such circumstances. Also you will note that one Oswald Mosley was subject to four years in prison during wartime. Solzhenistyn got 8 years did he not?"
He was gulagged, however, after the war had been won, which seems a bit unfair. Mosley did his sentence while the war was going on, I think, which is different. The sentence was also quite harsh, 8 years of hard labor, during which he contracted cancer.
"Now onto the point about the treaty. Remember at the time the evil of the Nazis is not yet known. To the eyes of the world it appears that WW1 is about to repeat itself as the Imperialist powers fight eachother to a standstill. Now from a Marxist point of view this is good news (if you ignore all the deaths of course). "
The evil of the Nazis was not yet known? Rubbish, total rubbish. Indeed, the Soviet Union was at the vanguard of countries condemning the Nazis for their atrocities (until the pact, of course). The Nuremberg laws, basically condemning Jews to a life of servitude, had been enacted well before. This particularly would have angered Litvinov, the Jewish Soviet Foreign Minister, who Stalin had to replace with Molotov before the treaty was signed. Also, Mein Kampf –which makes clear the Nazis’ evil- was there for everyone to read, and I’m sure many Soviets would have done so. In Mein Kampf, Hitler EXPLICITLY makes clear that he would seek Lebensraum for the Germans to the east, ie Rusisa. His anticommunism was also made clear.
"Yet for years Stalin and the Soviet Union had called for a 'United anti-Fascist front'. The only country who offered to fight for the Czechs was the Soviet Union. In September 1939 Stalin and the Bolsheviks were understandbly overjoyed at the fact that the Soviet Union would not be subject to to the Imperialism of the Nazis and who might even be joined by British and French Empires (After the Czech episode this was a just fear). But now they will fight eachother, as the main man Marx had predicted. "
The idea that the pact was signed simply for the imperialists to fight amongst themselves is nullified by a number of things. Firstly, and foremostly: the pact was NOT a nonaggression pact. The secret protocols attached to it gave the Soviets the ‘permission’ to annex most of the Baltic region, as well as much of Poland. This, to me, is evidence of Stalin’s imperialism. Secondly, the USSR provided the Nazis with resources day in and day out from the time the pact was signed – this seems despicable to me, as we can only guess what these resources were doing. Thirdly, if Stalin did indeed believe that the imperialists would fight each other, he would have understood the next step after that: they would attack Russia. Why didn’t he prepare for that? Why did the SU get so royally screwed over in 1941? The reason, of course, is that Stalin actually believed he had ‘made friends’ with the Nazis, and that they were going to be his totalitarian allies till the end.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that Stalin actually deported many Germany Communist exiles, who had refuge in the SU, BACK TO NAZI GERMANY! Can you believe that? If that’s not an act of betrayal of the basic ideals of communism, I don’t know what is.
"As for the 'toast to Hitler' I have heard this too and sadly I cannot tell you it didn't happen. I think the precise quote was 'I know how much the German people love their Fuhrer'. But if you look at the above paragraphs I hope you can put it down to 'Diplomatic courtesy' (and a mistake) as I have. "
Comrade, after learning that Stalin deported German communists back to Nazi Germany, where many were killed in concentration camps, I have no reason to believe that Stalin didn’t mean what he said when he toasted Hitler. Another thing: all the Commintern spies who were in Germany plotting against the Fuhrer were recalled. Some were even planning to assassinate him. But after the pact, they had to stop their activities on the orders of Moscow.
"One last point about this though is that I suggest you read the extract from Stalin's radio broadcast in July 1941. In it he clearly states the benefits and the advantages to the treaty and most military historians agree with him."
That speech was humorous for me. You’ll recall that Stalin locked himself in a room for a week after the Nazi attack, he was so angry/embarrassed. Its hard for me to see any advantages of the treaty at all – thousands of communists around the world resigned from the Party in disgust, the SU was caught completely unaware by the German attack in ’41, the capitalists were given more ammo to attack the SU etc etc
"Bukarin's wife is hardly the example of a unbiased, honest, factual based source. Bukarin admiteted that he had discussed the 'physcical removal' of Stalin with the French author John Humbet-Droz (a very pro-Bukarin source) in 1929. He actually admitted this in a meeting with Kaganovich in 1934 and also in his trial."
The following comes from http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/moder...rnism/Zizek.htm :
So why did Bukharin confess to crimes he did not commit? For an explanation of this, we have to turn to historians like Stephen Cohen, rather than psychoanalysts like Lacan, whom Zizek cites approvingly in the final sentence of his NLR article.
Why Bukharin confessed is no mystery. It has nothing to do with fanatical beliefs in the Revolution. Rather it is explicable in mundane terms of physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks on end and summary executions. For surviving Bolsheviks, the account provided in "Darkness at Noon" "would have been the subject of a gay mockery," according to Cohen.
More to the point, Bukharin held out against these threats inside prison "with remarkable vigor" for 3 months. On around June 2, 1937 he finally relented, "only after the investigators threatened to kill his wife and newborn son." (Roy Medvedev, "Let History Judge) "
Also, Bukharin's prison book which has recently been released from the archives shows that he was coerced into pleading guilty. He never made allegations of this during the trial because he knew the Secret Police would then attack his family.
(Edited by ArgueEverything at 4:35 am on Sep. 29, 2002)
Property Is Theft.
''Well, the alternative was for Vietnam's borders to be constantly under attack by the Khmer Rouge - a most disagreeable scenario. It seems obvious to me that, whatever the ramifications, if a country's borders are directly under threat by another nation, it will act *in its national interest* to protect those borders. In fact, it wasn't simply Vietnam's borders that were under threat - by early 1997 the Cambodians were making DEEP forages into Vietnam's western border provinces. Clearly, UN sanctions and a possible Chinese invasion were the least of the Viet Kong's worries.''
It is obvious that me and you are not going to agree on the motives behind the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia. THe answer to the Vietnam gov't decision to invade Cambodia probably lies somewhere in between. So shall we end this bit of the disscussion now (gone a bit of topic really) and agree to accept eachothers point of view. Otherwise we will probably just be repeating ourselves.
''I myself don't oppose "market socialism" as a transition stage between capitalism and socialism, especially in then-backward countries like Yugoslavia. Also, Tito had little alternative than to invite foreign capitalists to invest, since Stalin ordered the Communist Bloc to enforce an embargo on Yugoslavia. Tito could either trade with the West or let his people starve (or give up power, which would be unfair, since he was popularly elected).''
But Tito wouldn't of had to accept those 'Investments' if he had stuck to anything resembling a 'Socialist' policy. The man had disscussed with Churchill in 1944 of opposing the Soviets and their allies. It was Tito who publicly spilt first. Yes I know he was 'popularly elected' this was the point I was making orginally, to of invaded would of been wrong.
You will note another example was Finland in 1940, after breaking through the Mannhermien line the Red Army could of easily marched into Helsinki, but they didn't because Stalin realised that would of been Imperialism at it's worse. This is why I oppose the 'Brezheve doctrine' and it's invasion of Czechslovakia.
''And I remind you that Lenin himself supported the NEP in the Soviet Union, not dissimilar in nature to Tito's socialism.''
There is a difference between between the state of Russia in 1920 and Yugoslavia in 1945. And Tito's 'Market Socialism' was not a temporary thing, neither was it needed to prevent people starving. Yugoslavia could of had all the aid it wanted. You will note that in Albania the Communists by 1960 had bought electricity to every town/village and the population had a 88% literacy rate. Yet this was acheived without any 'Market Socialism' and in 1945 Yugoslavia had alot more economic might than little Albania.
''I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans actively aided the Hungarian by flooding it with Nazis. However, despite this, I still take the view that the Hungarian Uprising was fundamentally a worker's uprising against the Soviet bureaucracy. This is evidenced, I think, by the resolutions that the revolting workers put forward, which were virtually identical to the one Lenin put forward in 1917 to defend the revolution against bureaucracy. This is an EXCELLENT analysis of the revolution which i've read: http://www.marxist.com/History/hungary1956_86.html. It tells how even some in the Red Army joined the Hungarian side after seeing their ideals. Also, it argues that the revolution didn't really have the nationalist bent that many Right-wingers like to claim they did.''
I have not read the article but yes I on the whole agree.
''I find that very hard to believe - you do realise, I hope, that the WHOLE OF LENIN'S POLITBURO (except Trotsky and Stalin) was purged? All of 'em. Are you saying that these people, many of whom led the November revolution were all either guilty of terrorism, assassination or trying to reintroduce terrorism? The more likely answer, I think, is that Stalin was paranoid and trying to eliminate potential competiton.''
What is so difficult to believe? A court of law found them guilty after a fair trial. The American Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time thought they were perfectly fair. Do you realise the number of people who would of had to of been involved (hundreds) in the whole conspiracy if those trials were false? Yet not one of them ever defected to the west and reveal a 'exclusive', never in the 1980's under Gorby and Yelstin was one of them 'Finally allowed to speak the truth'. The fact is the whole world at the time knew they were guilty, it was not a purge but a way of dealing with those who had broken the law in the Soviet Union. Yet somehow a myth has grown that it was all a sham in a way it is like what Goebbells once said 'If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a truth' and now if anyone attempts to point out that just maybe they were guilty they are dissmissed as some sought of nutcase.
'Stalin was paranoid and trying to eliminate his opposition'. This is why in the 1937 trial out of the 17 accussed only 13 were executed? Infact Stalin said he didn't think Bukharin should be executed. And if what you say is true, why did he wait 12 whole years to be rid of them? Are you aware that Zioneve and Kamenev were actually let back into the party after they had served a few months for being 'Morally and Ideology responsible' for the murder of Kirov. Surely then would of been the perfect moment to kill them but the trial isn't till 1936. These are not the actions of a man determined to rid of any opposition.
''I wasn't aware that Zinoviev publically read the testament out. I am aware, however, of his eventual fate.''
You will also note that Stalin himself published the whole will in a 1928 article in Pravda.
''This link should work: http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/i...b10-21/gene.htm. If not, try searching "the fate of soviet genetics". That's how I found the article.''
No sorry.
''On your first point, as it turns out, the official Stalinist party line on science was moronic - that's not a personal opinion of mine, its an objective fact (read the article on soviet genetics). Lysenko, the head of scientific research in Stalin's USSR, "asserted that one species could be directly converted to another by subjecting it to external influences" and denounced the concept of genes as "bourgeois constructs"(reminds me of when the Maoists denounced Shakespeare as "bourgeois" and encouraged ppl not to read him). The non-crackpot scientists were mostly removed, and the advances made by Lenin were largely reversed.''
I wasn't actually aware there was any progress under Lenin, in that particular field but like I said I know little about Science. As for Lysenko here is a very interesting article on him, http://www.geocites.com/redcomrades/3mains.html
Also if you have the time to read it (it's quite long) it will direct you to another very interesting article on Lysenko's relation with other scientists and the NKVD.
''On the second point, of Pavlov. I think the reason he wasn't hounded by the MKVD was because he was so popular in the West - he won Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904, and was well known almost everywhere. It would have been too harmful for the USSR's facade of being a worker's paradise.''
To be blunt this is only speculation. The Soviet Constitution guarrenteed the right of freedom of speech and Pavlov used that right.
''I'll take your word on the Nazi coup plans, but I'm always skeptical as to Stalin's motives when dealing with Fascism, or perceived Fascism. It seems to me Stalin himself pulled of the biggest coup when he signed the "non-aggression" pact with the Nazis.''
Take the word of the Czech intelliegent service which was far from pro-Soviet they just happened to hate the Gestapo more. The Soviet Union would of never have to of sighned the pact if GB and FR had honoured their commitments to the Czechs. Or if Chamberlin had ever taken the proposed 'United Anti-Fascist front' seriously instead of worrying about a outdated Empire. And perhaps if the Poles had been prepared to even discuss the issue of Soviet troops helping to defend them. As late as the summer of 1939 the Soviets attempted to form a alliance with the British/French/Poles but who did Chamberlin send to the talks. A few old governors of Africa and right-wing French Generals who spent most of their time accussing Stalin of trying to invade Europe.
"Yes, well, as I said, it was a very simple analogy which i think you are reading into too much. The point, I think, was made: often slaves do not realise that their masters aren't as benevolent as they were raised to believe. Considering the amount of propaganda these elderly people were subjected to during Stalin's era, i'm not surprised they still love him. Unfortunately, we can't compare the support of Stalin in the USSR today to that of Hitler amongst the elderly in Germany today, because Fascist parties aren't allowed to form. Such a comparison would be illuminating.''
'All the propaganda they were subjected to'. Even if this was real then it is worth pointing out that generation after generation was taught to love 'Papa Tsar' and guess how he ended up and since 1956 that generation had also been subject to on and off (sometimes being very much 'on') very anti-Stalin propaganda. And support for Hitler among the elderly in Germany is virtually zero. I have seen numerous documantiries on the far-right in Germany and it is the elderly who when being interviewed say something like 'They (the young ones) don't realise what it was like'. And that generation was also subject to a 12 year cult.
''Also, It's wrong for you to say present day support for the Communists amongst the elderly is indicative of support of Stalin. The Russian Communist Party today presents very, very, very different policies from Stalin, so when old people vote for them, are they voting for these policies or for Stalin? We don't really know.''
Yes I agree that the policies outlined by the Communists today are different from those of Stalin. This is because today's Russia and the rest of the world has far different circumstances to the 1930's (one could compare Bush to Hitler though). But if they were really anti-Stalin then I think they wouldn't even take the risk of voting anything with 'Socialist' in it.
''I did some reading, and you are right, it turns out Solzhenitsyn did have a despotic side, and believes in some sort of Jewish conspiracy against Russia. Whether this amounts to fascism, I don't know. Does it justify imprisonment? I don't think so. But that's a matter of opinion. Your point that Russia was in a period of war, and Fascism was a real to be doing this especially during wartime and especially to his own threat, is taken.''
'Jewish Conspiracy against Russia' I think that not only is Fascism but Nazism. Yes that is not reason enough to be imprisoned (in most normal circumstances anyway) but it reason not be a officer in Red Army in
1943.
Oh dam I have deleted your post about Mosley. Sorry, I don't think it was that important, was it? I hope not sorry.
''The evil of the Nazis was not yet known? Rubbish, total rubbish. Indeed, the Soviet Union was at the vanguard of countries condemning the Nazis for their atrocities (until the pact, of course). The Nuremberg laws, basically condemning Jews to a life of servitude, had been enacted well before. This particularly would have angered Litvinov, the Jewish Soviet Foreign Minister, who Stalin had to replace with Molotov before the treaty was signed. Also, Mein Kampf –which makes clear the Nazis’ evil- was there for everyone to read, and I’m sure many Soviets would have done so. In Mein Kampf, Hitler EXPLICITLY makes clear that he would seek Lebensraum for the Germans to the east, ie Rusisa. His anticommunism was also made clear.''
Yes the evil of the Nazis is not yet known. As I said in a previous post to the eyes of the world it appears WW1 is about to repeat itself in terms of military battles and to the eyes of a Communist the Imperialists are fighting eachother, which is good, no? Do you think in 1939 anybody could of predicted the holocaust? And I have written why the SU was put into such a position to sign the pact.
Last year I studied Hitler's international policy in History for A level. We had quite alot of disscussions of whether Hitler's policy's could of been predicted by his speeches and the book Mein Kampf (incidently I pointed out that quite a bit was written by Hess). For example one person pointed out (in response to my own question in the above paragraph) that Hilter said in January 1939 'If the Jews succeed in plunging Europe into another war then it will be the end of the Jewish race in Europe'. I would also say though that the Nuremberg Laws and Khristallnicht were nothing originall. Laws condeming Jews to second class citizens had been around before as had pogroms. The conclusion that most came up with though was that Hitler was a gambler who had no long term plan and his policy was dictated by the policies of the day. Ofcourse this is all off topic, but I would happy to discuss Hitler's policy's in another thread.
So in answer to your question. No I don't think the pure evil of the Nazis is known in 1939.
''The idea that the pact was signed simply for the imperialists to fight amongst themselves is nullified by a number of things. Firstly, and foremostly: the pact was NOT a nonaggression pact. The secret protocols attached to it gave the Soviets the ‘permission’ to annex most of the Baltic region, as well as much of Poland. This, to me, is evidence of Stalin’s imperialism.''
No, but that is what came out of it the Colonial Empires of Britain and France were to fight the Nazis in Germany and many in the world thought it would be another war of attrition. And in that 'annexation' (land taken by Poland in 1919 but that's another topic, and yes probably rather trivial) of Poland the Soviet Union saved thousands of Jews, interlectuals etc from the Nazis in the short and probably long terms. Not to mention making the Nazis start their attack that few more miles west. And evidence against 'Stalin's imperialism' would be Finland in 1940, Yugoslavia in 1948 and his proposal for a united, neutral and disarmed Germany in the 50's.
''Secondly, the USSR provided the Nazis with resources day in and day out from the time the pact was signed – this seems despicable to me, as we can only guess what these resources were doing.''
I hope you don't mean materials used for such things as the Holocaust (which didn't start till 1942). It was on the whole grain and oil.
''Thirdly, if Stalin did indeed believe that the imperialists would fight each other, he would have understood the next step after that: they would attack Russia. Why didn’t he prepare for that? Why did the SU get so royally screwed over in 1941?''
He did prepare, the Red Army of 1939 was a joke compared to the one of 1941. When the Germans attacked the Red Army was in the process of building defences in eastern Poland. Between that period the new tanks such as the T-34 and KV-1 had been produced compared to the peices of junk available in 1939. The SU got so 'Royally screwed' in 1941 because they were facing a 4 million man army which had the best equipment, best training, actual combat experience and most importantly the element of surprise. The Red Army troops thrown into battle had little training (not because of Stalin's incompetence but the Germans were advancing so fast. Not to mention that the best troops were fighting the Japanese and when the conscripts/vollunters had time to train, such as the summer of 1942 they could fight). People like to have accuse Stalin of messing up in 1941 because the Red Army was not ready. If he had actually bought all the troops and equipment forward neccessary to stop a Nazi attack cold it would of been equal to a declaration of war.
''The reason, of course, is that Stalin actually believed he had ‘made friends’ with the Nazis, and that they were going to be his totalitarian allies till the end.''
Well this really does sound like a load of rubbish (and pure speculation). Seriously, do you actually believe that the Red Army was actually going to help the Nazis in their fight against Britian for example?
''Most importantly, however, is the fact that Stalin actually deported many Germany Communist exiles, who had refuge in the SU, BACK TO NAZI GERMANY! Can you believe that? If that’s not an act of betrayal of the basic ideals of communism, I don’t know what is.''
Where did you learn this from. I know that the Times in England had a cartoon of Hitler and Stalin exchanging prisoners but that is a right-wing broadsheet. The two most prominent German Marxists Erick Honecker and Walter Ulbricht were never handed over. Honecker had been in a concentration camp since 1936 and Ulbricht took part in Stalingrad so unless the Germans handed him back he wasn't handed over to the Nazis.
''Comrade, after learning that Stalin deported German communists back to Nazi Germany, where many were killed in concentration camps, I have no reason to believe that Stalin didn’t mean what he said when he toasted Hitler. Another thing: all the Commintern spies who were in Germany plotting against the Fuhrer were recalled. Some were even planning to assassinate him. But after the pact, they had to stop their activities on the orders of Moscow.''
If that is true can I ask what is wrong with calling all the spies back from Germany? Afterall the treaty clearly states that Germany and SU will be at peace for the next ten years. Ofcourse that is unlikely but it appears Germany will be bogged down in France for atleast two years. As for 'assainating the Fueher' I am reminded of something Churchill said. It went something along the lines of I never gave the order the assainate Hitler because he could of been replaced by somebody with brains. For the Soviet Union (and it would be obvious it was them unless they could recruit somebody who hadn't had ties to Communists) to of killed Hitler would of risked facing the wrath of the German Army in 1940 with a leader who let the Generals decide (can you imagine if Hitler hadn't ordered the swing south to the Ukraine).
''That speech was humorous for me. You’ll recall that Stalin locked himself in a room for a week after the Nazi attack, he was so angry/embarrassed. Its hard for me to see any advantages of the treaty at all – thousands of communists around the world resigned from the Party in disgust, the SU was caught completely unaware by the German attack in ’41, the capitalists were given more ammo to attack the SU etc etc''
Why is the speech humourous? I really can't see that. As for the advantages, how about the T-34 or the fact that the Germans had to start their attack that much further west.
''The following comes from http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/moder...rnism/Zizek.htm :
So why did Bukharin confess to crimes he did not commit? For an explanation of this, we have to turn to historians like Stephen Cohen, rather than psychoanalysts like Lacan, whom Zizek cites approvingly in the final sentence of his NLR article.''
I will check out the link in a few hours (I fear losing all that I have written hear which has happened before). Basically all the 'evidence' supporting the theory that they were tortured is oh well they confessed so therefor they must of been forced to. Could it be that the Evidence (as alot of Historians and Lawyers said at the time) was so great against them that they faced no other choice but to confess?
''Why Bukharin confessed is no mystery. It has nothing to do with fanatical beliefs in the Revolution. Rather it is explicable in mundane terms of physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks on end and summary executions. For surviving Bolsheviks, the account provided in "Darkness at Noon" "would have been the subject of a gay mockery," according to Cohen.''
Well if it meant that I could prove my self innocent in a court of law then I would happily endorse something (I have never heard of this 'Dakrness at Noon' it sounds like some erotic film) if all it meant was having to be accussed of being Gay. I thought they were Bolsheviks anyway, so they should most defiantly not be homophobic although perhaps I'm speaking from a21st Century perspective.
Have I misunderstood what you source was trying to say?
''More to the point, Bukharin held out against these threats inside prison "with remarkable vigor" for 3 months. On around June 2, 1937 he finally relented, "only after the investigators threatened to kill his wife and newborn son." (Roy Medvedev, "Let History Judge) "
I have a strange feeling all the above relies alot on Bukarin's wife.
''Also, Bukharin's prison book which has recently been released from the archives shows that he was coerced into pleading guilty. He never made allegations of this during the trial because he knew the Secret Police would then attack his family.''
Hmm, this sounds alot like Bukharin doesn't even say in his diary that he was mistreated. Could you provide a link to where I can actually see what he wrote. 'Coerced into pleading guilty', if one of the NKVD dectectives actually threatened his son than I cannont support that and very much against it. And if he knew the 'Secret Police would then attack his family' why does he defend himself so vigously and launch a scathing attack upon the government? Yet his wife is still alive today.
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
Comrade, I apologise for the above on Bukarin, I should of read the link before responding to the quotes you had posted from it. However I have now read the article Zisek, Bukharin and Stalin and found it interesting. The guy who wrote it certainly did criticise himself alot, which I found quite amusing.
First of all am I correct in saying that the author of that article is critical of Zisek and the author of 'Darkness at Noon' Koestler? These two portray Bukharin as somebody who confessed because he was so 'Fanatical' in his believes that he was prepared to sacrafice himself for the party. Now this guy (let's call him Mr X) has taken the view that this is false, instead Mr X believes that Bukharin confessed because 'of physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks on end and summary executions'.
Mr X's beleive for all this appears to stem from reading the book 'The road to Terror' which 'contains new archival material related to the trial of Bukharin'. Now don't get me wrong I would defiantly like to see this new material but every Robert Conquest book has 'New Archival material' and most people who study the material find that Conquest has manupilated, misused, misrepresented and often the sources he quotes can easily be dissmissed as useless. That is not say I would not like to read this book, but I remain very sceptical.
Onto the rest of the article. Mr X does tend to spend alot of time making comparisions of Stalin and the trials. For example he (I may of got this wrong but this appears to be his own example not one that he is ridiculing from Zezek's writings) uses the example of the days before Christ and the 'blood sacrafices' (Abrahham and Issac). I find this to be nothing more than boring and very unoriginall rhectoric. Do you think this would stand up in a court of law?
But alas Mr X does not share Zisek opinion that 'what caused Bukharin such trauma was not the ritual of his public humiliation and punishement, but the possibillity that Stalin might really believe the charges against him'. Instead Mr X calls this 'slander against Bukharin'. Mr X then procceeds to go into a fairly detailed but very anti-Stalin history/background of what led up to the differences between Stalin and Bukharin.
Basically reaching it's peak when it describes 'Stalin's policies' being responsible for the shortage of food in the early 1930's. Perhaps it is worth remembering that what was happening was a 2nd Civil War a class war involving millions of peasants and Kulaks. Thousands of Red Army, party officials and innocent peasants died in that struggle due to terriorism and Kulak Uprisings. Ofcourse I understand if you now find this to be 'warned out rhetoric' as I have described some of your source so if you wish to discuss the history of the Ukraine/Russian countryside in greater detail then please do.
Back to the source. Mr X then continues to have a go at Zisek and Koestler for believing/portraying Bukharin as a 'fanatic' who only confessed 'for the good of the party'. Instead Mr X points out Bukharin was a 'Humanist Socialist' a kind, liberal who was strongly opposed to 'Stalin's repression'. This is also nothing new.
But why does Mr X believe that Bukharin confessed? His theory is what I have allready quoted that 'physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks and summary executions' was responsible. But in the trial Bukharin showed no signs of physical harm, unlike another example being the trial of those involved in the 'July 20th' plot to kill Hitler when the accussed had clearly been victim to what Mr X alledges Bukharin was victim to.
Mr X also accusses the NKVD of threatening his wife and son if he did not confess. Yet even Mr X admits that 'Bukharin made a mockery of the proceddings'. Other accounts say he vigously defends himself (when not treating it like a joke) and attempts to humialite the prosecutor and government. But nothing happened to his wife nor son.
The source is interesting and Mr X does present a new theory to the trial and I would be very interested in reading the book 'THe Road to Terror' but none of it provides any real evidence that the trial was a sham.
Now I am eagerly awaiting for you to mock the source I provided on Lysenko
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
"But Tito wouldn't of had to accept those 'Investments' if he had stuck to anything resembling a 'Socialist' policy. The man had disscussed with Churchill in 1944 of opposing the Soviets and their allies. It was Tito who publicly spilt first. Yes I know he was 'popularly elected' this was the point I was making orginally, to of invaded would of been wrong."
I've never heard the claim that Tito tried to collaborate with the Brits to oppose Stalin, but whatever the case, that had nothing to do with his split with the USSR. Supposing it is true: If it concerned Stalin at all, the split would have occured right after the war ended (i.e. as soon as possible without compromising war interests), rather than 3 years later in 1948. What actually triggered the 1948 year split was Tito's refusal to subordinate the Yugoslav Communist Party to Moscow's interests (which led to Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Comminform). Stalin could not have known then that Tito was plotting with the Brits in '44, otherwise he would have kicked them out a long time before 1948.
"You will note another example was Finland in 1940, after breaking through the Mannhermien line the Red Army could of easily marched into Helsinki, but they didn't because Stalin realised that would of been Imperialism at it's worse. This is why I oppose the 'Brezheve doctrine' and it's invasion of Czechslovakia."
Stalin's imperialism is evident in other things, such as the Secret Protocols attached to the Molotov-Rippentrop pact which I previously talked about. These protocols allowed him to annex many Eastern European countries, especially in the Balkans.
"There is a difference between between the state of Russia in 1920 and Yugoslavia in 1945. And Tito's 'Market Socialism' was not a temporary thing, neither was it needed to prevent people starving. Yugoslavia could of had all the aid it wanted. You will note that in Albania the Communists by 1960 had bought electricity to every town/village and the population had a 88% literacy rate. Yet this was acheived without any 'Market Socialism' and in 1945 Yugoslavia had alot more economic might than little Albania."
Yugoslavians, though, had a lot more freedom than Albanians under the Stalinist Hoxha. Also, you seem to be forgetting that Albania was a member of the Warsaw Pact, and thus got billions in Soviet aid, which the Yugoslav's did not, so a comparison is unfair. Without that foreign aid, the stats you quoted would be very different.
"What is so difficult to believe? A court of law found them guilty after a fair trial. The American Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time thought they were perfectly fair. Do you realise the number of people who would of had to of been involved (hundreds) in the whole conspiracy if those trials were false? Yet not one of them ever defected to the west and reveal a 'exclusive', never in the 1980's under Gorby and Yelstin was one of them 'Finally allowed to speak the truth'. The fact is the whole world at the time knew they were guilty, it was not a purge but a way of dealing with those who had broken the law in the Soviet Union. Yet somehow a myth has grown that it was all a sham in a way it is like what Goebbells once said 'If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a truth' and now if anyone attempts to point out that just maybe they were guilty they are dissmissed as some sought of nutcase."
Considering all credible historians I have ever come across have had the opinion that the trials were staged, and since you admit that this is the common view, isn't the burden of proof on you to show that the trials were NOT staged? I challenge you to provide any source from the net that is NOT stalinist which argues they were legitimate.
"
'Stalin was paranoid and trying to eliminate his opposition'. This is why in the 1937 trial out of the 17 accussed only 13 were executed? Infact Stalin said he didn't think Bukharin should be executed. And if what you say is true, why did he wait 12 whole years to be rid of them? Are you aware that Zioneve and Kamenev were actually let back into the party after they had served a few months for being 'Morally and Ideology responsible' for the murder of Kirov. Surely then would of been the perfect moment to kill them but the trial isn't till 1936. These are not the actions of a man determined to rid of any opposition. "
The reason they weren't killed before 1936 is because Stalin needed a pretext to start the Great Purge, which came, of course, in the form of Kirov's death. Zinoviev and Kamenev weren't killed at the particular time you mention because it was in Stalin's interest to present their trials in front of the world as fair and impartial.
"I wasn't actually aware there was any progress under Lenin, in that particular field but like I said I know little about Science. As for Lysenko here is a very interesting article on him, http://www.geocites.com/redcomrades/3mains.html
Also if you have the time to read it (it's quite long) it will direct you to another very interesting article on Lysenko's relation with other scientists and the NKVD. "
The link isn't working for some reason. It just takes me to a blank white screen ?
"Take the word of the Czech intelliegent service which was far from pro-Soviet they just happened to hate the Gestapo more. The Soviet Union would of never have to of sighned the pact if GB and FR had honoured their commitments to the Czechs. Or if Chamberlin had ever taken the proposed 'United Anti-Fascist front' seriously instead of worrying about a outdated Empire. And perhaps if the Poles had been prepared to even discuss the issue of Soviet troops helping to defend them. As late as the summer of 1939 the Soviets attempted to form a alliance with the British/French/Poles but who did Chamberlin send to the talks. A few old governors of Africa and right-wing French Generals who spent most of their time accussing Stalin of trying to invade Europe."
The Czechoslovakia disaster may have justified Soviet suspicion of the West, but it was not a justification of an alliance with Fascist Germany. It wasn't simply a treaty, it was a fully fleded alliance, with both sides supplying the other with resources, and even proposals to share spy secrets. I give more detail of this below, in a response to another of your statements.
"'All the propaganda they were subjected to'. Even if this was real then it is worth pointing out that generation after generation was taught to love 'Papa Tsar' and guess how he ended up and since 1956 that generation had also been subject to on and off (sometimes being very much 'on') very anti-Stalin propaganda. "
The comparison you give of Russians overthrowing the Tsar, despite being subjected to endless pro-Tsar propaganda, seems to defeat your own case. After all, the Russian people eventually overthrew the Soviet Stalinists, despite the pro-Stalin propaganda they were subjected to. I think you exaggerate the 'anti-Stalinism' of the post-Stalin leaders. Stalinist ideas remained strong throughout the USSR's history. His greatest nemesis, Trotsky, was never rehailitated, not even by Gorbachev. There was never an actual propaganda campaign against Stalin, even under Khruschv. His de-Stalinization was the necessary response to a situation where Stalin's regime had killed millions, and created an intense atmosphere of distrust and fear. Such an atmosphere was somewhat good during wartime, but not in peacetime during a Cold War largely being fought on propaganda-related lines.
"Oh dam I have deleted your post about Mosley. Sorry, I don't think it was that important, was it? I hope not sorry. "
I said that Mosley's case is incomparable with Solzhenityn's, since Mosley was imprisoned during wartime, whilst Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned after the war had ended (8 yrs hard labour, during which he developed cancer).
"Yes the evil of the Nazis is not yet known. As I said in a previous post to the eyes of the world it appears WW1 is about to repeat itself in terms of military battles and to the eyes of a Communist the Imperialists are fighting eachother, which is good, no? Do you think in 1939 anybody could of predicted the holocaust? And I have written why the SU was put into such a position to sign the pact."
Why did it look like the imperialists were going to fight a war against each other? As I said, Hitler's desire to conquer Russia was well known for many years. The inability to predict the Holocaust is irrelevant; Hitler had already begun persecuting Jews, and Communists, who he was sending to the first concentration camps. The Holocaust shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Hitler's texts, most of which were available for everyone to read.
"Last year I studied Hitler's international policy in History for A level. We had quite alot of disscussions of whether Hitler's policy's could of been predicted by his speeches and the book Mein Kampf (incidently I pointed out that quite a bit was written by Hess). For example one person pointed out (in response to my own question in the above paragraph) that Hilter said in January 1939 'If the Jews succeed in plunging Europe into another war then it will be the end of the Jewish race in Europe'. I would also say though that the Nuremberg Laws and Khristallnicht were nothing originall. Laws condeming Jews to second class citizens had been around before as had pogroms."
Pogroms till then had been an eastern European and Russian phenomenon. In Russia, in fact, they had largely stoped since the Bolsheviks seized power and repealed the antisemitic laws. Since the Dreyfus affair near the turn of the century, Western Europe became less and less antisemitic. In Germany, Jews were treated better than in any other European country till Hitler seized power. In light of this, Kristallnacht and the Nuremberg laws cannot be seen as 'normal'.
"No, but that is what came out of it the Colonial Empires of Britain and France were to fight the Nazis in Germany and many in the world thought it would be another war of attrition. And in that 'annexation' (land taken by Poland in 1919 but that's another topic, and yes probably rather trivial) of Poland the Soviet Union saved thousands of Jews, interlectuals etc from the Nazis in the short and probably long terms. Not to mention making the Nazis start their attack that few more miles west. And evidence against 'Stalin's imperialism' would be Finland in 1940, Yugoslavia in 1948 and his proposal for a united, neutral and disarmed Germany in the 50's."
I'm not referring simply to Poland, but Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia etc which the Soviets also seized, but you fail to address in your response. These were sovereign nations, which is why the publically released version of the Nazi-Soviet treaty didn't publish these particular facts. It's not an excuse to say that these countries were needed for the SU's security; any country can use that excuse to invade another (the US is trying to do so right now with Iraq).
You mention the evacuation of Jews, intellectuals etc. I've heard this too, but my understanding is that it wasn't actually carried out on orders from above, but it was just a certain few officers who did it out of the kindness of their hearts. In many villages, such evacuations didn’t take place. Also, there were many "reactionaries" (petty bourgeois shopowners etc) who were shot without trial in these countries while the Soviets were in control.
"I hope you don't mean materials used for such things as the Holocaust (which didn't start till 1942). It was on the whole grain and oil. "
You seem to be under the impression that Hitler only became evil, and only did evil things, from 1942 onwards (when the Holocaust began). Even before that, he was dealing crushing blows to the German Communist movement, homosexuals (whom the Stalinists simply dismissed as bourgeois deviants, but thats another story), Jews, intellectuals an so forth. By supplying the Germans with raw materials, they were indirectly aiding the Nazis in a far more tangible way than any of the imperialist nations.
Hitler gained a great deal from the pact. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort.
While Hitler was fighting Britain and France, the Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Not only that, but they were helping Hitler to break Britain's blockade by supplying rubber and other essential supplies by transporting them on the Trans-Siberian Railway. It is interesting to note that while Stalin was supplying Hitler with thousands of tons of grain, his own people were starving (!).
"He did prepare, the Red Army of 1939 was a joke compared to the one of 1941. When the Germans attacked the Red Army was in the process of building defences in eastern Poland. Between that period the new tanks such as the T-34 and KV-1 had been produced compared to the peices of junk available in 1939. The SU got so 'Royally screwed' in 1941 because they were facing a 4 million man army which had the best equipment, best training, actual combat experience and most importantly the element of surprise. The Red Army troops thrown into battle had little training (not because of Stalin's incompetence but the Germans were advancing so fast. Not to mention that the best troops were fighting the Japanese and when the conscripts/vollunters had time to train, such as the summer of 1942 they could fight). People like to have accuse Stalin of messing up in 1941 because the Red Army was not ready. If he had actually bought all the troops and equipment forward neccessary to stop a Nazi attack cold it would of been equal to a declaration of war."
The buildup of the Soviet military can be seen as a general response to world war 2, not a specific anticipation of a German attack. British spies and his own spies in Berlin (Richard Sorge, Leopold Trepper etc) had told him about the attack, but he refused to heed these warnings. The information they gave was very specific. Stalin ignored it, choosing to rely on his political instinct.
Your claim that Russia was prepared is laughable. Thanks to Stalin, who WAS the government, vital intelligence was ignored. The result: in the first months of the war, more than TWO-THIRDS of the Russian Army was in captivity or dead, a million more injured. Hardly the results of a country that was 'prepared', even if its opponent was as formidable as Hitler. Eighteen months after the pact was signed, Hitler launched his invasion, virtually nothing had been accomplished in the way of fortifications, defensive lines or military airfields to exploit ground gained by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, the national armies of Finland, Romania and the Baltic States would have protected Stalin's flanks (not possible after the Soviets liquified them). As it was, Finland and Romania were turned into effective allies of the Germans, and the Baltic States provided Hitler with excellent troops.
I think, by the way, that you exaggerate Germany's strength at the time. It was fighting on two fronts remember.
"Where did you learn this from. I know that the Times in England had a cartoon of Hitler and Stalin exchanging prisoners but that is a right-wing broadsheet. The two most prominent German Marxists Erick Honecker and Walter Ulbricht were never handed over. Honecker had been in a concentration camp since 1936 and Ulbricht took part in Stalingrad so unless the Germans handed him back he wasn't handed over to the Nazis. "
It's not just propaganda, its an historical fact. The most famous victim was Margarete Buber-Neumann. Others include Carola Neher, Betty Olberg and Wally Adler. There's a wealth of information on the net about most of them. I learnt all this, by the way, in a book I recently read called "Betrayal" by Wolfgang Leonhard, a German ex-Communist.
Here you, as a supporter of Stalin, have to ask yourself some serious questions about Stalin's commitment to Communism's internationalist ideals.
"If that is true can I ask what is wrong with calling all the spies back from Germany? Afterall the treaty clearly states that Germany and SU will be at peace for the next ten years. Ofcourse that is unlikely but it appears Germany will be bogged down in France for atleast two years."
Yes, the treaty did say that. So? Countries at peace always install spies to investigate each other. The US spies on all European countries, I can guarantee you. In fact, its been proven that ESHALON (spelling?) has spied on French companies. The Soviets should have been even more inclined to keep the spies in Germany considering Hitler's intense anti-Communism and his devotion to invading the USSR.
Also, assuming your argument is true (that since Germany and the SU were at peace, there was no need for peace) then that makes you un-Stalinist, since Stalin had many spies throughout the world in countries that were at peace with the USSR (Philby, for example, in the UK).
"As for 'assainating the Fueher' I am reminded of something Churchill said. It went something along the lines of I never gave the order the assainate Hitler because he could of been replaced by somebody with brains. For the Soviet Union (and it would be obvious it was them unless they could recruit somebody who hadn't had ties to Communists) to of killed Hitler would of risked facing the wrath of the German Army in 1940 with a leader who let the Generals decide (can you imagine if Hitler hadn't ordered the swing south to the Ukraine). "
I don't think so. Without Hitler, either the Reich would have fallen apart (his power was largely based around a personality cult), or it would be replaced by more moderate Nazis, like the officers who planned the assassination attempt on Hitler in 1944.
"Why is the speech humourous? I really can't see that. As for the advantages, how about the T-34 or the fact that the Germans had to start their attack that much further west."
It's humorous not so much due to the content, but the historical context (Stalin trying to find an excuse making a pact with the Devil, then getting punished for it). The fact that the Germans had to start much further west is one military advantage of the pact, which turned out to be a very minor one anway, as shown by the sheer speed of the attack. I think this minor military advantage is outweighed by the damage it did to the morale of Communists abroad.
"First of all am I correct in saying that the author of that article is critical of Zisek and the author of 'Darkness at Noon' Koestler? "
I believe so, yes.
"These two portray Bukharin as somebody who confessed because he was so 'Fanatical' in his believes that he was prepared to sacrafice himself for the party. Now this guy (let's call him Mr X) has taken the view that this is false, instead Mr X believes that Bukharin confessed because 'of physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks on end and summary executions'. "
Not only torture of himself, but also threats of killing his family members.
"Onto the rest of the article. Mr X does tend to spend alot of time making comparisions of Stalin and the trials. For example he (I may of got this wrong but this appears to be his own example not one that he is ridiculing from Zezek's writings) uses the example of the days before Christ and the 'blood sacrafices' (Abrahham and Issac). I find this to be nothing more than boring and very unoriginall rhectoric. Do you think this would stand up in a court of law? "
It is his own example, but Mr. X doesn't actually believe in that particular allusion. He's using the allusion to illustrate what he sees as Zezek's simple-mindedness, I think. But yes, you are right, it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. I don't think he's presenting it as though it would, though, its just a rhetorical device.
"Basically reaching it's peak when it describes 'Stalin's policies' being responsible for the shortage of food in the early 1930's. Perhaps it is worth remembering that what was happening was a 2nd Civil War a class war involving millions of peasants and Kulaks. Thousands of Red Army, party officials and innocent peasants died in that struggle due to terriorism and Kulak Uprisings. Ofcourse I understand if you now find this to be 'warned out rhetoric' as I have described some of your source so if you wish to discuss the history of the Ukraine/Russian countryside in greater detail then please do. "
The Russian civil war is another vast topic, but I don't want to go into it here. I'm confident we have vastly different interpretations of it, so we might leave that for another day, lest this debate become too far-reaching that neither of us will be able to cope
"But why does Mr X believe that Bukharin confessed? His theory is what I have allready quoted that 'physical torture, continual interrogation for weeks and summary executions' was responsible. But in the trial Bukharin showed no signs of physical harm, unlike another example being the trial of those involved in the 'July 20th' plot to kill Hitler when the accussed had clearly been victim to what Mr X alledges Bukharin was victim to."
That there was no outward physical manifestation of torture is not enough to discard its possibility. There are ways of torturing people that aren't clearly visible when people are dressed up. Anyway, I myself don't necessarily believe Bukharin and co were tortured; I do, however, believe that their families were threatened, as do many others such as the historian Medvedev who is quoted in the source i provided.
"Mr X also accusses the NKVD of threatening his wife and son if he did not confess. Yet even Mr X admits that 'Bukharin made a mockery of the proceddings'. Other accounts say he vigously defends himself (when not treating it like a joke) and attempts to humialite the prosecutor and government. But nothing happened to his wife nor son. "
Well, obviously nothing happened to his wife or son, since he eventually confessed to his 'crimes'. Basically, by at the end, he was saying "I love Big Brother".
(Edited by ArgueEverything at 12:11 pm on Oct. 1, 2002)
Property Is Theft.
''I've never heard the claim that Tito tried to collaborate with the Brits to oppose Stalin, but whatever the case, that had nothing to do with his split with the USSR. Supposing it is true: If it concerned Stalin at all, the split would have occured right after the war ended (i.e. as soon as possible without compromising war interests), rather than 3 years later in 1948. What actually triggered the 1948 year split was Tito's refusal to subordinate the Yugoslav Communist Party to Moscow's interests (which led to Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Comminform). Stalin could not have known then that Tito was plotting with the Brits in '44, otherwise he would have kicked them out a long time before 1948.''
This is Tito's/SFRY's side of the story. It is not just a case of the politburo sitting in Moscow disscussing 'How Tito had dared to defied are Evil Empire (insert evil Stalin laugh here)''. I am in the process of trying to find something on what the Soviets thought (primarily Molotov since I remember reading something of his on the issue) but it is very hard given the lack of pro-Soviet sources on the net.
But like everything the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
''Stalin's imperialism is evident in other things, such as the Secret Protocols attached to the Molotov-Rippentrop pact which I previously talked about. These protocols allowed him to annex many Eastern European countries, especially in the Balkans.''
First of all Stalin never annexed anything from Eastern Europe, there was a reshaping of the border with Poland after WW2 but that was land that had a majority ethnic Ukrainian population so to avoid trouble the land was given to the Ukraine. I presume you mean the Baltics and not 'Balkans'. Yes History shows us that this was a great injustice, and judging by the violence in early 90's caused alot of resentment.
However your point that (somewhere further down your post) these governments would of happily allied with the SU in the fight against the Nazis is plainly wrong. Estonia for example had had terrible relations with Moscow since a Communist uprising in 1926. They would of provided the Fascists with forward bases and actively allied with them. The government policy of those countries (and Finland) was run by the ex White (and thats what they were Landlords, princes and ex gov't ministers) guard. It would of taken a time traveler with a atlas of WW2 to of convinced those governments to ally with SU.
About Finalnd, the Soviet government negotiated for 3 months before the war broke out. The Soviets asked for 2,200 square miles to protect a naval base from bombardment and more importantly Leningrad. In return the Soviets offered 3,500 square miles of land in compensation. The extra terriotary taken in 1940 meant that Leningrad was NOT taken in 1941.
''Yugoslavians, though, had a lot more freedom than Albanians under the Stalinist Hoxha. Also, you seem to be forgetting that Albania was a member of the Warsaw Pact, and thus got billions in Soviet aid, which the Yugoslav's did not, so a comparison is unfair. Without that foreign aid, the stats you quoted would be very different.''
If they had more freedom then why did the people of Kosavor demonstrated to be free of Yugoslavia and to join Albania? In one of those millenium poles Hoxha was voted the greatest Albanian in history, despite the right wing's persecution of his family. And in 1997 the people rose up against the Mafia/Capatalist state and fought for what they had under Hoxha. Eg Freedom.
You say that those statistics would be different if Albania weren't a member of WP or if Yugoslavia had got Soviet aid. But Albania was essentially isolated from Soviet aid by 1960 (a process which had begun in the mid 50's) and actually withdrew from WP, so this point is wrong. Also Yugoslavia got plenty of aid through Western Capital/Investors and it's '3rd World Neutral' allies and tiny little (you should be feeling sympathy) Albania was essentially isolated.
Not to mention the difference in terms of economic power and natural rescources between Albania and SFRY in 1945.
''Considering all credible historians I have ever come across have had the opinion that the trials were staged, and since you admit that this is the common view, isn't the burden of proof on you to show that the trials were NOT staged? I challenge you to provide any source from the net that is NOT stalinist which argues they were legitimate. "
All credible historians once believed that Richard 3rd had had the the two princes murdered in the tower. For 500 years they presented this as FACT, but never actually presented any evidence. Now all the evidence points to Henry Tudor and it is almost certain that he did it. 'Credible historians' they maybe (I presume you are not talking about Conquest etc) but so were the ones who told you the above.
Is the burden on me to proof that the trials were NOT staged? With regret and taking into consideration the current view of Stalin you are probably right. But the burden is still on you to proove that they were staged. I can provide you with a source but it is Stalinist.
How about the American ambassdor to Russia at the time? Or the English Lawyers who say that the trial was conducted far more fairly than any English court and claim that they never saw any malpractice. Or how about Bertolt Brecht (a Marxist),whose plays are all about making you question what is put infront of you never even suspecting the trials were were staged?
''The reason they weren't killed before 1936 is because Stalin needed a pretext to start the Great Purge, which came, of course, in the form of Kirov's death. Zinoviev and Kamenev weren't killed at the particular time you mention because it was in Stalin's interest to present their trials in front of the world as fair and impartial.''
Ofcourse it was in Stalin's interest to present the trials of those who were guilty as fair. The people who were behind the 'July 20th' plot were infact guilty but their trial was NOT fair, for example. The rest of your post is just speculation. The trial of Kamenev/Zioneve took place nearly two years after the murder of Kirov, during which time they had been imprisoned, released, given a platform to criticise the government/Stalin and then finally arrested and bought to trial. Once again this does NOT sound like the actions of a man determined to rid of any opposition, if that were true then surely they would of been put to trial in early 1935 not late 1936. Despite the fact that Nikolaeve (spell! but the man who killed Kirov) had admitted upon arrest that he had been recruited by Kamenev/Zioneve.
One party member said when Kamenev was allowed back into the party 'That only the patience of Comrade Stalin has prevented the party from crushing you politically'. The facts are that Stalin showed considerable patience and took incredible slander (not to mention physical threats to his life) by the opposition before they were finally bought to justice.
"The link isn't working for some reason. It just takes me to a blank white screen ?''
It should be, try again. It is quite interesting.
''The Czechoslovakia disaster may have justified Soviet suspicion of the West, but it was not a justification of an alliance with Fascist Germany. It wasn't simply a treaty, it was a fully fleded alliance, with both sides supplying the other with resources, and even proposals to share spy secrets. I give more detail of this below, in a response to another of your statements.''
I do NOT believe that it was a treaty of alliance. Do you compare the relations between SU and Nazi Germany between 1939-41 to that of Italy and Nazi Germany between 1940-43? You see there is a difference. Infact relations were allways strained even during those 2 years, for example see Molotov's meeting with Hitler in 1940.
A point perhaps I should of made earlier (especially from my side of the argument) is that when the circumstances (and I have explained the reasons why in a previous post) of the day dictated it Lenin was forced to sign a treaty with Imperial Germany. And a minor and less important note is that co-operation between Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany had happened in early 20's when Lenin was still alive.
''The comparison you give of Russians overthrowing the Tsar, despite being subjected to endless pro-Tsar propaganda, seems to defeat your own case. After all, the Russian people eventually overthrew the Soviet Stalinists, despite the pro-Stalin propaganda they were subjected to. I think you exaggerate the 'anti-Stalinism' of the post-Stalin leaders. Stalinist ideas remained strong throughout the USSR's history. His greatest nemesis, Trotsky, was never rehailitated, not even by Gorbachev. There was never an actual propaganda campaign against Stalin, even under Khruschv. His de-Stalinization was the necessary response to a situation where Stalin's regime had killed millions, and created an intense atmosphere of distrust and fear. Such an atmosphere was somewhat good during wartime, but not in peacetime during a Cold War largely being fought on propaganda-related lines.''
You forget my example of Hitler and the current far right in Germany and the population of the Soviet Union was subject to anti-Stalin propagada. It was more less on and off for 40 years, Khruschev did/said a number of things even renaming Stalingrad to Volograd. A prime example being the protests (pro-Stalin) of 1956, Khruschev called them American spies or something equally ridiculious merely to silence the pro-Stalin sentiment. In the 60's and 70's the government seemed to forget him completly and under Gorby and especially Yelstin there were the same sought of accusations as Robert Conquest alledges.
You say that Stalin killed millions but the now opened archives state that 799,445 people died in Soviet prison system from the early 1930's to 1953. This is for all reasons including execution. Ofcourse you may not agree with capital punishment but that's another issue. Anyway the vast majority of those in prison were rapists, murderers and others who had broken the law.
Also Stalinists believe in workers democracy, after 1953 the Soviet Union was gradually taken over beucracy and corruption.
''I said that Mosley's case is incomparable with Solzhenityn's, since Mosley was imprisoned during wartime, whilst Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned after the war had ended (8 yrs hard labour, during which he developed cancer).''
I believe that Solzhenistyn began his sentence in early 1944. I think that the case of Mosley is infact 'Compariable' afterall you admitted that you had taken into account that it was during a time of war and the fact he was supposed to be a officer in Red Army.
''Why did it look like the imperialists were going to fight a war against each other? As I said, Hitler's desire to conquer Russia was well known for many years. The inability to predict the Holocaust is irrelevant; Hitler had already begun persecuting Jews, and Communists, who he was sending to the first concentration camps. The Holocaust shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Hitler's texts, most of which were available for everyone to read.''
Well that's your opinion and like I said many people share it. To a certain extent I share that believe but we have the benefit of hignsight (spell!). I posted my opinions on whether Hitler's policy's could of been predicted from his speeches or Mein Kampf. But do you believe that if a time traveler gave every European leader in 1937 (Chamberlin, Stalin, Benes) a atlas of WW2 and the Holocaust/Destruction that they would not of acted? The likely answer is that they would put aside their differences and crushed Hitler as fast as possible. This is what they should of done anyway and yes both the SU and GB/France both made mistakes and acted like petty fools at times but the great deal of blame for that lies at the feet of GB/France NOT the SU.
''Pogroms till then had been an eastern European and Russian phenomenon. In Russia, in fact, they had largely stoped since the Bolsheviks seized power and repealed the antisemitic laws. Since the Dreyfus affair near the turn of the century, Western Europe became less and less antisemitic. In Germany, Jews were treated better than in any other European country till Hitler seized power. In light of this, Kristallnacht and the Nuremberg laws cannot be seen as 'normal'.''
This discussion does appear to be heading towards the Holocaust (what were we talking about orginally?). So that is your opinion and I respect that. But anti-semitism had not just been confined to Eastern Europe. Laws expelling Jews had begun in western Europe (albeit this is ages ago). But anti-semitism was popular (as much as it can ever be if that makes sense) in France at the time.
A point is that the Holocaust probably finally (and hopefully forever) ended the 'fashionable' anti-semitism among the upper classes/middle classes forever of western Europe from the 19th Century to the 1930's.
BTW on 9/11 were you not shocked. However even now and probably to a greater extent in 50 years time people will say that it was inevitable and people should not of been surprised.
''I'm not referring simply to Poland, but Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia etc which the Soviets also seized, but you fail to address in your response. These were sovereign nations, which is why the publically released version of the Nazi-Soviet treaty didn't publish these particular facts. It's not an excuse to say that these countries were needed for the SU's security; any country can use that excuse to invade another (the US is trying to do so right now with Iraq).''
I have allready explained my point of view on the issue of the Baltics at the beggining of the thread. Please do not take this as 'Rudeness' or me just ignoring the question but I am just to tired to write the same thing twice. Actually this is my fourth attempt to reply to this but so far I have allways been interupted by real life because it takes so god dam long.
''You mention the evacuation of Jews, intellectuals etc. I've heard this too, but my understanding is that it wasn't actually carried out on orders from above, but it was just a certain few officers who did it out of the kindness of their hearts. In many villages, such evacuations didn’t take place. Also, there were many "reactionaries" (petty bourgeois shopowners etc) who were shot without trial in these countries while the Soviets were in control.''
But wait I thought (and you further down the post say that Stalin was Soviet government) that Stalin controlled Soviet government and that supposedly a Red Army officer couldn't brief without a commisar's permission. So either it is not the case that Soviet society was so rigidly controlled and that officers acted independtly of government policy (highly unlikely anyway) or that Stalin controlled everything and infact endorsed such actions, which means he deserves credit. You decide.
''You seem to be under the impression that Hitler only became evil, and only did evil things, from 1942 onwards (when the Holocaust began).''
No not at all, I'm sorry If I gave that impression.
''Even before that, he was dealing crushing blows to the German Communist movement, homosexuals (whom the Stalinists simply dismissed as bourgeois deviants, but thats another story), Jews, intellectuals an so forth. By supplying the Germans with raw materials, they were indirectly aiding the Nazis in a far more tangible way than any of the imperialist nations.''
I'm aware of your points you present in there. However your point that because the Germans were getting raw materials from SU and thereby helping the Nazis is while correct rather strange. By that same definition you could say that Brest-Litovsk helped kill 500,000 more working class Germans, French, English etc and somebody would be correct in saying that but it was not the aim of Soviet government in either case to kill people.
''Hitler gained a great deal from the pact. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort.''
That is all true, but I have never heard that it was all 'Vital to the German war effort'. What most historians say is that Hitler threw away quite a nice treaty (eg he's getting all this stuff for not a single German soldier.) from his perspective but decided to risk it all.
Also the oil that fed the Wechmart (spell!) came from Romania and Hungary, the heavy armour came from the sundentland, iron from the Ruhr and Nazi Germany had been planning to become self-sufficient since 1935 with it's Autobahn policy and now it had France/Low countries plus eastern allies to exploit. To put it simply what came from SU was not vital to German war effort. If that had been the case then Hitler must of had a long term to sign peace treaty yet you say that Hitler's long term plan = destruction of Soviets (which I agree with). Also the German war machine continued for another 4 years in the most intense fighting in history without the rather trivial supplies coming from SU.
''While Hitler was fighting Britain and France, the Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Not only that, but they were helping Hitler to break Britain's blockade by supplying rubber and other essential supplies by transporting them on the Trans-Siberian Railway. It is interesting to note that while Stalin was supplying Hitler with thousands of tons of grain, his own people were starving (!).''
'Starving' please provide source for this.
''The buildup of the Soviet military can be seen as a general response to world war 2, not a specific anticipation of a German attack. British spies and his own spies in Berlin (Richard Sorge, Leopold Trepper etc) had told him about the attack, but he refused to heed these warnings. The information they gave was very specific. Stalin ignored it, choosing to rely on his political instinct.''
Yes but what people allways forget to mention is that MI6 and some (just some) in his own intelliegent services had warned (not just warned but told as FACT) the Soviets in May that the Nazis were going to attack in May. Consquently Red Army had been put on high alert but for no reason. The reason ofcourse the attack did not happen in May was because of Yugoslavia and Greece.
But when MI6 has just told you false information ('The Germans are going attack we promise. The attack is happening this May, you must mobilise and defend yourself or better yet plan a pre-emptive strike') , and judging from political chaos in Balkans does this not streghthen theory that British are merely trying to get the Soviets to spill blood and fight Germany for Britains interest?
And now MI6 are suddenly saying actually the attack is going to happen on JUNE 22nd and Churchill (to his credit he was trying to help in this case) the same man who declared a holy war on Bolsheviks in 1919. What is Stalin/Politburo supposed to think? That is the background to why Stalin chose to trust 'His political instict' and I hope you understand now why he made such a mistake.
''Your claim that Russia was prepared is laughable. Thanks to Stalin, who WAS the government, vital intelligence was ignored. The result: in the first months of the war, more than TWO-THIRDS of the Russian Army was in captivity or dead, a million more injured. Hardly the results of a country that was 'prepared', even if its opponent was as formidable as Hitler. Eighteen months after the pact was signed, Hitler launched his invasion, virtually nothing had been accomplished in the way of fortifications, defensive lines or military airfields to exploit ground gained by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, the national armies of Finland, Romania and the Baltic States would have protected Stalin's flanks (not possible after the Soviets liquified them). As it was, Finland and Romania were turned into effective allies of the Germans, and the Baltic States provided Hitler with excellent troops.''
I have allready answered all of this in various other parts of the current post and the reasons why the Red Army got so 'Royally screwed' inanother post. I hope this does not inconvient you too much in finding out my opinions on what you wrote.
''I think, by the way, that you exaggerate Germany's strength at the time. It was fighting on two fronts remember.''
Britain was in no state to do anything as of May 1941 except hammer the Italians in North Africa. The bombing campaigns hadn't begun yet and GB was still reequiping army so was in no state to launch invasion of Europe. Plus America hadn't entered war yet. So as of June 22nd 1941 it was very much a one front war. Indeed all of the above was what Hitler was gambling on he believed that the SU was what was keeping the British from peace table. So if he elimanted SU (Gb's only hope) then GB would crumble is well.
''It's not just propaganda, its an historical fact. The most famous victim was Margarete Buber-Neumann. Others include Carola Neher, Betty Olberg and Wally Adler. There's a wealth of information on the net about most of them. I learnt all this, by the way, in a book I recently read called "Betrayal" by Wolfgang Leonhard, a German ex-Communist.''
But the example Walter Ulbricht (and plenty of others) proves the theory that Stalin deported all Communists back to Germany wrong. I am not aware of the Marxists above, but could you please provide some basic info on them and how they came to their deaths. For example were they actually in Germany as of September 1939?
''Here you, as a supporter of Stalin, have to ask yourself some serious questions about Stalin's commitment to Communism's internationalist ideals.''
I too not deny mistakes were made (the key is to learn from those mistakes) and if what you say above on the German Communists is true, that they met their death due to indirect (a Communist in Nazi Germany doesn't tend to face good odds anyway) policy of Stalin then that is a tragedy. But I never the less remain convinced that Stalin was a faithful Marxist-Leninist and committed to the 'Communism's Internationalist ideals'.
''Yes, the treaty did say that. So? Countries at peace always install spies to investigate each other. The US spies on all European countries, I can guarantee you. In fact, its been proven that ESHALON (spelling?) has spied on French companies. The Soviets should have been even more inclined to keep the spies in Germany considering Hitler's intense anti-Communism and his devotion to invading the USSR.''
You have yet to prove that ALL the spies from Germany were actually withdrew. When that is proven I will try to answer this point. In other words I'm too tired, but I hope you see I have a valid point anyway.
''Also, assuming your argument is true (that since Germany and the SU were at peace, there was no need for peace) then that makes you un-Stalinist, since Stalin had many spies throughout the world in countries that were at peace with the USSR (Philby, for example, in the UK).''
Spies such as Kim Philby had been spying for SU since early 30's and were active in fight Nazis in Grand-Alliance between 1941-45. Spies in Nazi Germany were probably only spying due to blackmail by NKVD (all nations/Spy rings do it. It's not nice but it happens) all genuine Leftists would of been killed, imprisoned or abroad whereas in Britain/America spys did it for ideological reasons.
So what if they were Communists, they were still anti-Nazi and wanted to defend their country. Also I will direct you to the point I made just above, that NOT all spies were withdrawn from Nazi Germany.
''I don't think so. Without Hitler, either the Reich would have fallen apart (his power was largely based around a personality cult), or it would be replaced by more moderate Nazis, like the officers who planned the assassination attempt on Hitler in 1944.''
Is there such as thing as a moderate Nazi? My point was that killing Hitler though means of assaination in 1940 would of been diaster. Like I said Red Army in 1940 (alot worse than 1941) would of faced wrath of German Army led by Generals who knew what they were doing. A prime example being Hitler's decision to order Von-Ruddstendt to swing south to Kiev in August 1941 when his forces were on the way to Moscow. This is just one of many examples of Hitler making mistakes which cost Germany victory and they became more common as time went on.
''It's humorous not so much due to the content, but the historical context (Stalin trying to find an excuse making a pact with the Devil, then getting punished for it). The fact that the Germans had to start much further west is one military advantage of the pact, which turned out to be a very minor one anway, as shown by the sheer speed of the attack. I think this minor military advantage is outweighed by the damage it did to the morale of Communists abroad.''
Well what was Stalin supposed to say? 'Comrades I have made a terrible mistake, your government has really cocked up this time. To think we actually trusted that bastard. Oh by the way please now fight and risk your lifes for that same country which has got you into this mess'.
No instead he concentrated on the positives. The German Army had to start it's advance a few hundred miles west. The Red Army had had time to produce new equipment like the T-34 and modern aircraft. And that the Red Army had allready inflicted enourmous casualties (750,000) on the Fascists. He also explains how and why the Nazis will eventually be defeated.
In short he performs the same task as Churchill did for Britain in 1940.
''Not only torture of himself, but also threats of killing his family members.''
Without no evidence.
''The Russian civil war is another vast topic, but I don't want to go into it here. I'm confident we have vastly different interpretations of it, so we might leave that for another day, lest this debate become too far-reaching that neither of us will be able to cope
''That there was no outward physical manifestation of torture is not enough to discard its possibility. There are ways of torturing people that aren't clearly visible when people are dressed up. Anyway, I myself don't necessarily believe Bukharin and co were tortured; I do, however, believe that their families were threatened, as do many others such as the historian Medvedev who is quoted in the source i provided.''
But Mr X actually alledges that Bukharin had been victim to the kind of physical torture that can be clearly shown. It does not matter that there are forms of torture which do not show, Mr X (and numerous others) alledge and believe that Bukharin was victim of horrible physical torture. Yet there is NO evidence for this.
''Well, obviously nothing happened to his wife or son, since he eventually confessed to his 'crimes'. Basically, by at the end, he was saying "I love Big Brother"
I will have to read the transcipt again but it is my understanding that the prosecutor (whose name I forget) finishes the trial accussing Bukharin of lying (or not telling the full truth) and Bukharin still denying.
'What is 11 million dollars compared to the love of 11 million Cubans' Felix Savon
''That morning, my father took my hand and we went out. I saw how upset all the Algerians looked and how the French were rejoicing. I asked my father what had happened. He gravely replied: 'Stalin is dead...' I asked who Stalin was. My father said: 'He was the greatest man of our time. He was the leader of the Soviet Union, the greatest revolutionary country. Stalin was the son of a cobbler.' And I thought the son of a cobbler, someone like me...' Algerian Revolutionary in fight against French Imperialism.
The World Revolution is ongoing history. Even if you win the war, which I don’t think you will, the World Revolution will not and cannot be stooped by military means, Your very powerful army can do much harm to us, can kill many of our people - but it cannot kill ideas! Its movement might seem dormant to you at the moment, but it s there and will come to the fore again out of the awakening of the poor, the downtrodden orginary people the world over in Africa, the Americas, in Asia and Europe too. People in their masses will one day understand that it is the power of capital over them which not only oppresses and robs them, but stifles their human potential, which either uses or discards them as mere pawns to make monetary profit out of the,. Once the people grasp that idea, it will mature into an almost material force in popular uprisings like spreading wildfires and will do what has to be done in the name of humanity. It will not be Russia who will do it for them, although the Russian working people were the first who have borken the chains. The people of the will do it for themselves in their own countries, against their own oppressors, in their own ways and in their own time!’
A 'Stalinist Beuracrate' to his Fascist Guards in Nazi Camp.
Cassius Clay,
I'm unable to reply right now, as I don't have the time. I'm going interstate tomorrow, and won't have access to the internet for about one week. Upon return, I promise I will reply. Thanks.
Property Is Theft.
According to the HistoryChannel Bio, he was a Lennist, he saw Communism as another form on Imperialism, but if they were willing to free his people, he saw it as a good step. When China gave support he offered tried to play down this relationship, due to US - China relations. Also another note he was the CIA's "Communist", the VietMinh helped the CIA during the Japanese Occupation in Indo-China, so they contributed to the VietMinh's rain to power.
"Common to all Anarchists is the desire to free society of all political and social coercive institutions which stand in the way of the development of a free humanity." - Rudolf Rocker
