Author Topic: No Stalin, no Hitler?  (Read 92047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #180 on: November 21, 2007, 02:54:15 PM »
Members
I did not realise other opinions were so one sided in all of this, and i should put my facts in place when posting, but i only have what is written by others,  i tend to judge history on the present and if you look at the current major war of today, you will find the two main allies Britain+ America, Poland Ausralia along with former enemies of ww2, German, Italian, and the Japanese, it's probable that these countries feel they owe a dept still for the past, but i would object to any E.U country taking part in this crusade,
i would not denounce the holocaust as i'm sure there was mass murder, however Stalin and Hitler did have a strong pact, and communism and socialism are the scourge of capitalism
Churchill helped to established m.I5 around 1900 and his motto was truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies, all i am saying that the old divide and conquer trick may ave been used to seperate Stalin and Hitler, over the Polish affair, and the Versailles treaty which was intended to cause 20 million German lives, it all set off a chain of events, that caused one invasion after another, having read Hitlers speeches, i am of the oppinion that he wanted peace for his people, and not as i was led to believe. now that Germany is well out of the way since the 1940's,  the capitalist allies are moving closer to the Rusian border with the missile defence system to drive home the real plan
apologies if i have offended any race or religion.
 
 
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 03:00:14 PM by Colm »

Offline Peter C

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #181 on: November 21, 2007, 06:07:18 PM »
Hello again rgellately!

I'll be traveling until next week so you'll have to wait for a detailed answer.

I notice that you don't answer any of my questions. Why not?

You write "you still do not cite anything published in this century, by the way, and it shows”. Can't you read? The Medvedev book was published in Russian in 2003 and in English in 2006. Which century are you living in?

Robert Conquest worked for MI6. Dissemination of disinformation has always been his profession. In The Great Terror he wrote that that rumor is the best source of truth. Do you agree? Answer the question and skip the childish insults, also the “all due respect” rubbish. The majority of Conquest’s sources in Harvest of Sorrow are Ukranian or German Nazis. Do you regard them as reliable? Answer the question. Have you read From Hitler to Harvard by Douglas Tottle? Answer the question.

Since you don’t give any evidence that contradicts Neumann, Schweitzer or Mandel we can assume that this particular case is closed.

Montefiore may work hard, but he is still a charlatan. I’ll provide you with an example next week. Curious that you are irritated by criticism of professors in the US and at the same time feel free to denigrate professors in Sweden. Have you read Getty, Manning, Ritterspoor, Zemkov, Tauger, Wheatcroft and others who have refuted Conquest, Pipes et al? Answer the question.

I don’t have any friends at the Swedish Academy of Science. My neighbor is a member. Have you really read Stalin’s article on dialectical and historical materialism? Did you understand it?

“There’s hardly time to provide the better evidence that exists in abundance.” There’s plenty of time, given the length of your posts. Provide it.

Next week I will give you some figures on the capitalist holocaust. In the meantime, have a look at Late Victorian Holocausts, by Mike Davis. “…no need to get into body counts”. Why not? Hasn’t that been a staple argument of Conquest et al?

Here’s a body count for you. In 1990 the first UN Human Development Report indicated that about 10 million children under 5 years would die that year for want of basic medical care. Virtually all of them died in countries controlled by capitalists. Since then the figure has been 10-12 million annually, or at least 170 million over the past 17 years. Who cares? Do you? Answer the question.

As for “my thread” one of the contributors to this site made a comment about fascism.. I made another. You replied. But you continue to evade questions. I have never suggested “No capitalism, no Hitler.” You’re making things up again.

As to Pol Pot, you are surely aware that the US, the UK and other Western nations recognized his one of his underlings as Cambodia’s representative to the UN for years after the Vietnamese drove his forces out of Cambodia. If you’re in doubt, get in touch with John Pilger.

I also suggest that you read The Condition of the English Working Class by Engels. But it’s probably too old for you. What is the cut-off date for historical accuracy?

Yours for more truth in academia.

Offline Terence

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #182 on: November 22, 2007, 01:39:00 AM »
Here’s a body count for you. In 1990 the first UN Human Development Report indicated that about 10 million children under 5 years would die that year for want of basic medical care. Virtually all of them died in countries controlled by capitalists. Since then the figure has been 10-12 million annually, or at least 170 million over the past 17 years. Who cares? Do you? Answer the question.
What utter nonsense.
What is the cut-off date for historical accuracy?
Apparently none in your mind.
Yours for more truth in academia.
I don't think so. Call me silly, but I see an agenda here. JMHO
Terry
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 01:43:09 AM by Terence »

rgellately

  • Guest
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #183 on: November 22, 2007, 07:51:50 AM »
Terence,

You are quite correct. Good to know there are sensible people around. I see an agenda as well. It's obvious.

Anyone who would try to answer the complete nonsense that Peter C keeps dragging out of the grave must give up in despair. I must.

I shall have no more exchanges with him. Indeed, Peter C's contributions, in combination with Colm's particularly sad ones, have led me to the conclusion it's time to trade in my password and move on.

Peter C is not interested in discussion, but polemics. It's like the Cold War never ended for him. He takes my "non-responses" to his incredibly biased and nonsensical claims as validation for them, just the way fanatic would do. When I refuse to answere his very strange claims which reached a new low in his latest post, he adopts an interrogative tone worthy of a member of the Cheka. He's not interested in dialogue, but diatribes.

Auf Wiedersehen!


Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #184 on: November 22, 2007, 11:38:37 AM »
Open debate is a great thing and it's such a pity that world leaders at the time did not engage in more of it, but what the capialists want they always get, I noticed that George Bush's great Grandfather contributed to Hitlers Nazi party in a financial way, i'm not suprised that a Klu Klux Klan member would back  such a party, in an infiltrated way to get at the bigger fish.
Stalin. (who could not be bought)
Just as Bush Snr. backed the Baath party in support of Hussein and then turned on him, i don't support any leader of any other country, but i do notice that any one who, when Britain+America and allies are finished with come to a bad end, this has been proved in countless conflicts and you do not have to be a scholar to figure it out how they have operated, and still continue to this day, in spite of public oppinion
 both Stalin and Hitler would not have proved so brutal, if not for outside influence from these two Western countries who always use a lot of propaganda followed by democracy as a cover to plunder and murder,
it might be sad outlook but it's my oppinon and i am entitled to it
 
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 11:55:02 AM by Colm »

Offline Lyss

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #185 on: November 22, 2007, 01:34:00 PM »
I wonder in what effect the lack of colonies had anything to do with the rise of Hitler and Stalin?
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #186 on: November 22, 2007, 02:18:02 PM »
Lyss

Well done for breaking the ice with this question, i would say, (and it's only my oppinion) that if it was not for colonies in the first place,then these two leaders would not have to protect and rule with iron fists,  and it may well have contributed to their coming in power, it would appear there was attempts to set up colonies in the region and it was not until after WW2 that it sort of dissapeared and independence was won for most colonised areas, it still exists now in a totaly diffirent immoral form ,if anyone could elaborate? or correct me if i am wrong?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 02:21:49 PM by Colm »

Offline Lyss

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #187 on: November 23, 2007, 06:38:31 AM »
Hitler wanted to colonize eastern europe (because of the lack of German colonies, Germany became a country when the other western european countries already had colonies) but so did Stalin (in his case the excuse was "communism" but more a Russian sovjet leninism with Moscou as it's centre).
What I'm trying to find out is if we can see Hitler and Stalin's actions in a process of colonisation?
Were national-socialism and leninism theories of colonisation or were they something else?
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #188 on: November 23, 2007, 09:13:46 AM »
Stalin did have a big input in Yugoslavia and i think when Hitler's troops invaded there,it started the war with Russia,
but the overall cause of the war was British attempts to colonise Poland.

Offline Lyss

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #189 on: November 23, 2007, 09:42:38 AM »
I'm not talking about the attemps of the war, but those of the ideologies. I guess you didn't understand my question.
And where do you get this information about Britain wanting to colonise Poland? I'm Polish and my stepmom is a Polish historyteacher and none of us have ever heard or read anything like this. The British wanted to re-establish the Polish throne, but because of Hitler's invasion, that never happened.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #190 on: November 23, 2007, 11:22:34 AM »
I would rather we did not discuss Polish history, as a reminder was posted earlier what the thread is about no Stalin no Hitler
but the access to Danzig and a construction of a road through the Polish corridor was a major starter coupled with that, the Polish government were in London at the time of invasion,and the nonaggression pact signed with Hitler and Poland in 1934 was broken through British influence, ie a form of colonization

Offline Lyss

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #191 on: November 23, 2007, 12:43:19 PM »
As you point out this thread is about Stalin and Hitler, and not about Polish history, so I won't discuss it further.
I would like though, as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, you would use sources for your assumptions. As you clearly avoid doing this, I assume your statements are your own opinion and I will consider them as being so.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Offline Colm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #192 on: November 23, 2007, 02:21:22 PM »
I have had the pleasure of visiting Poland on 3 occasions, while there i went to most museums, my main source of information comes from the library of congress cathaloging in publication data,
which parts do you need clarified?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 02:25:09 PM by Colm »

Offline Peter C

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #193 on: November 29, 2007, 03:15:28 AM »
Terence claims that the figures in the annual UN Development Report for deaths of children under five are nonsense. I’d like to see him prove his claim.He also hasn’t understood my reference to a historical cut-off date for truth. Rgellately seems to think that books printed in e.g. the 1960s are too old to rely on, if they contradict his own convictions. That’s why I asked for a cut-off date.

Gellately has now moved on, so I won’t continue flogging him. But if you read our exchanges you will see that his replies to questions are simply insults. For example, see replies 80-82.

A few comments on Richard Pipes are in order for the sake of historical accuracy and his links to US and Israeli crimes in the Middle East (I am an atheist Jew and anti-Zionist). Rgellately was horrified when I called Pipes a propagandist. “Your defamation of Richard Pipes is also inexcusable. He does not need me to defend him, but suffice it to say that as the emeritus professor of Russian history at Harvard, with a half-dozen classics to his name, I think it is fair to say that he has forgotten more about Russian history than most people will ever learn.”

A scoundrel like Pipes can’t be defamed. Among other things, he was head of he infamous “Team B” assembled by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush Sr. in 1974, when Gerald Ford was US president. Rumsfeld and Bush believed that  CIA intelligence reports on the USSR were unreliable and underestimated the “Soviet threat”. Team B’s task was to generate alternative, more accurate reports. The team was selected by apprentice criminal Richard Perle and included at least one other other apprentice criminal, i.e. Paul Wolfowitz.
 
In 1974 Richard Pipes’ Team B obediently submitted a report which stated that the CIA was unaware of a new and secret Soviet WMD - nuclear submarines that were undetectable and could penetrate US coastal waters, where they could launch missiles with nuclear warheads that would annihilate the US.

The only problem was that the Pipes team’s entire report was a pure fabrication. As such it was a prototype of the lies which the Bush Jr. administration used to justify the attack on Iraq, which Pipes considers to be correct. This makes him an accessory to war crimes. Although – or perhaps because – the report was a lie, Pipes was appointed to the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, where he presumably endorsed the criminal attack on Grenada.

Like the other neo-cons, Pipes has always been a fervent supporter of Zionism, which also makes him an accessory to war crimes.

Pipes’ scholarly productions include a history of the Russian revolution that is a travesty. See e.g. Peter Kenez, The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes’ The Russian Revolution, The Russian Review, 50 (1991). Pipes does not discuss the secret US financing of Cossack terror, for which see America’s Secret War Against Bolshevism, David Foglesong, University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Pipes also wrote Property and Freedom, an ahistorical quasi-metaphysical work in which he claims that there is an “inseparable connection” between private property and freedom. He does not explain how this connection is reflected in e.g. the slave-trading operations of the US and UK bourgeoisie and the cotton and sugar-cane plantations they owned in the US and the Caribbean.

For a typical evening of rubbish by Richard Pipes, visit http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/property.asp, where he reaches new depths as he states that Plato was “the first communist in intellectual history”.

Offline klava1985

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: No Stalin, no Hitler?
« Reply #194 on: December 11, 2007, 07:54:40 PM »
Well, I am glad my comment about Gellately's book caused him to chime in; sorry I missed the show. I repeatedly am disappointed in this board: we sometimes attract the participation of professional, published historians, and then we drive them out. So we're left with the same old people saying the same old thing and the people who could tell us something new leave. Drag.

I'm sorry that I said that only one chapter of RG's book seemed worth reading; what I meant was that only one chapter or so seemed to present new information, or to marshall it in a new way. But now I see I will have to take a more careful look. Anyway, I hope that if RG peeks back at this thread he'll perhaps engage again. He need not enter into sparring matches if he doesn't care to, but he could perhaps provide information that could clarify some of these issues.

As for Montefiore, I agree that he's done a lot of research and I'm interested in the info he presents. However. He's a crappy writer. Peter C is correct--he has a sordid style that really makes you question whether he is presenting history or going for ratings. For example, a chapter entitled "The Bolshevik Temptress," and the like. But if I can look past that and try to get at the meat of what he's saying, surely we can work with a far more solid historian such as Gellately. Just because a writer makes a point you disagree with or has a rotten style doesn't mean he or she is a total idiot. And few people on this board have the credentials to make such a dismissal anyway. Go write your own book...