• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Was Stalin poisoned to avoid WW III?

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The mystery of Stalin's death
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The mystery of Stalin's death


Lots of new and intrigueing information is coming out now about "Uncle Joe" as he was known to Americans during WW II. Confirming the URL given above regarding Stalin's desire to own Europe is new research showing that Stalin had planned to invade Germany and Europe in WWII before Hitler began his invasion:
Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945 : Planning, Realization and Documentation -- Joachim Hoffmann, et al; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/0967985684/qid=1046144715/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/002-5639357-1121616?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[inserte line break above to make the rest of the page readable - Jim]
[ February 24, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It pleases me to no end how people read books on history and believe every word in them.
Herb, your ally Thomas Paul claimed that Stalin trusted Hitler as his best friend and planned to conquer the world together. You guys need to decide which version you support, because you cannot have both.
Here is an interview with a son of Beria. The beginning disproves both theories mentioned above, but if you are interested in "WWIII" issue, it's at the very end (scroll down).
Here is another, moderate account, to which I tend to believe most:
"Karel Kaplan, an official researcher who had enjoyed unlimited access to the Czechoslovak communist party archives prior to his defection to the West, learned about a meeting with Stalin on January 9-12, 1951, from one of its participants, the country's minister of defense Alexej Cepicka. In 1978, Kaplan created a stir by publishing his findings, suggesting that Stalin had told his eastern European followers to prepare for an offensive war against Western Europe:
"After a report by representatives of the bloc about the condition of their respective armies, Stalin took the floor to elaborate on the idea of the military occupation of the whole of Europe, insisting on the necessity of preparing it very well.
Since the Korean War had demonstrated the military weakness of the United States, despite its use of highly advanced technology, it seemed appropriate to Stalin to take advantage of this in Europe. He developed arguments in support of the following thesis: `No European army is in a position to seriously oppose the Soviet army and it can even be anticipated that there will be no resistance at all. The current military power of the United States is not very great. For the time being, the Soviet camp therefore enjoys a distinct superiority. But this is merely temporary, for some three or four years. Afterward, the United States will have at its disposal means for transporting reinforcements to Europe and will also be able to take advantage of its atomic superiority. Consequently, it will be necessary to make use of this brief interval to systematically prepare our armies by mobilizing all our economic, political, and human resources. During the forthcoming three or four years, all of our domestic and international policies will be subordinated to this goal. Only the total mobilization of our resources will allow us to grasp this unique opportunity to extend socialism throughout the whole of Europe.'"
[Karel Kaplan, Dans les Archives du comit� central: Trente ans de secrets du bloc sovi�tique, Paris: Michel, 1978, pp. 165-66; translated by Vojtech Mastny]
Another record of the Moscow meeting, written shortly afterward by its Romanian participant, Minister of the Armed Forces Emil Bodnaras, has been preserved in Bucharest and was published there in 1995. According to this document, Stalin urged a buildup of the eastern European armies to deter an American attack rather than to prepare them for an attack on western Europe. But his insistence on exploiting what he regarded as current American weakness to achieve combat readiness within three years could be interpreted as a call for offensive action at the right time. The three-year framework he mentioned corresponded to the period of "maximum danger" that also underlay NATO's contemporary plans for the development of its armed forces --another indication that those secret plans were no secret to Stalin."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB14/index.htm
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Whether you believe in WWIII or not, it just piss me off how two "superPowers" sharped their military doctrines and speculated about nuking Europe, like if it was their property!
Nevertheless, as shown by the documents that follow, high-level U.S. officials assumed that a Warsaw Pact conventional or nuclear attack on NATO Europe would invite a U.S. nuclear response (unless the Soviets agreed to limit fighting to conventional weapons). Rejecting the idea of "no first use," senior U.S. officials took it for granted that a massive Warsaw Pact conventional attack on Western Europe would prompt a nuclear response from outnumbered Western forces.
Not surprisingly, just as the Soviet and Czech documents imputed the most aggressive purposes to NATO, the U.S. documents ascribed comparable aggressive purposes to the Warsaw Pact side.
Interestingly, however, some of the U.S. material partially validates Soviet fears of first strikes and surprise nuclear attack. Yet, when American war planners thought about striking first, they believed that it would be in response to certain information that the Soviet military was planning to strike American and European targets. In this way, American leaders thought it possible to preempt a Soviet attack.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB31/index.html
In this paper, Thompson joins U.A. Johnson in agreement that the chances of a Soviet conventional attack in Central Europe were "remote." If, however, the Soviets did make a "grab for Europe," Thompson argued that Washington should reply with a strategic first strike against the Soviet Union. Admitting that the United States "might also lose", Thompson argued that a first strike, including immediate use of tactical nukes, would be necessary because the Soviets would otherwise take the same course. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB31/index.html
"because the Soviets would otherwise take the same course" - here is "The only war plan of either the Warsaw Pact ot NATO since the 50's to come to light thus far..."
(Eugene can read the original)
"Altogether the operation will require the use of 131 nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs; specifically 96 missiles and 35 nuclear bombs. The first nuclear strike will use 41 missiles and nuclear bombs. The immediate task will require using 29 missiles and nuclear bombs. The subsequent task could use 49 missiles and nuclear bombs. 12 missiles and nuclear bombs should remain in the reserve of the Front".
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
It pleases me to no end how people read books on history and believe every word in them.
...
Herb, your ally Thomas Paul claimed that Stalin trusted Hitler as his best friend and planned to conquer the world together. You guys need to decide which version you support, because you cannot have both.
...
Here is an interview with a son of Beria.
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]


1. Again, here as elsewhere, it depends on who you chose to believe. I thought Joachim Hoffmann was a widely respected researcher who had well documented his case using actual Soviet documents.
But then again, I haven't read his book having relied on third party accounts of the book...
2. There is no real contradiction with Stalin being "friendly" with Hitler, yet Stalin also planning to attack Hitler. Politics is all about manuevering, deception, temporary alliances, and secret agendas. You don't believe Stalin capable of those things?
3. In practice, Fascism and Communism lead to the same result - totalitarianism. Morally they are the same to me. In fact my real motive for throwing out the URL to the Stalin book was to lend credence to my view that Hitler and Stalin were moral equivalents. I thought Mapra would nibble at that bait...
Perhaps she would like to make the case that Stalin was a better person than Hitler???
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Herb,

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

3. In practice, Fascism and Communism lead to the same result - totalitarianism.


agree with that one, but not with 1.
Joachim Hoffmann belonged to an extremists groups of german historians, so called revisionists. (he is dead)
Only 2% of german population believes this crap. The only reason those clowns gets some minor jobs in third-class universities is to keep discussion going. They have no chance to win with their arguments in a serious historical debate. And believe me, there are serious histoirical debates in this country.
Have one of you ever read Hitlers "Mein Kampf" ("Mi fight")? In that book Hitler constantly states that the slavic population should work for the super-inteligent germans. He wrote it in 1923. Living space in the east was one of the fundamentals goals of nazi ideology. The existence of the most perverted maschineries of destruction like Ausschwitz shows clearly that nazi-ideology was very real, not just words.
The Red Army was in a desolate state in 1941. How could they attack?
There is a diary entry by Generalstabchefs Halder from summer 1940 (!), where he states that Hitler is thinking about attacking the USSR.
There is another diary entry by Goebbels where he was joking about the desolate state of the red army (5 days before attack).

The sovjet troops will be destroyed. The Fuehrer estimates 4 month for the operation. I plan even less. The bolshevism will vanish quickly. This will be a triumphal procession without comparision.


[my own, not really good traduction]
The british and the US inteligence service expected that Germanys attack against the USSR would be successful.
Indeed Stalin did concentrate some troops on his western border. But only after the germans concentrated troops on their eastern border.
link in german
Hitler first allied with Stalin, because he feared a war on 2 fronts. After the blitzkriege in the west and not being able to cross the chanel, Hitler thought he could quickly win against Stalin and getting access to russian oil, iron and other things.
The Reichstag passed Hitler's Enabling Bill in March 1935, the only opposition coming from the Socialists. This law gave Hitler the power to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag or the President. The members of the Communist party would have opposed too. Unfortunatedly they were all in concentration camp. The members of Socialists party joined them soon.
The most effective defense of the spanish republic against fascists came from communists.
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As for the initial link, Edvard Radzinski is not even a historian, he is a writer (he used to be a playwright) and one of populist type. His target audience is people waiting for sensation. He also run TV shows, and he does have some artistic talent, or call it "demagogy", if you like. He mostly appeals to emotions, rather than to intellect.
Here is his book about Stalin (Russian)
[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
The most effective defense of the spanish republic against fascists came from communists.

Yes, but the communists spent as much time killing each other for not being communist enough as they did fighting the fascists. The end result would probably not have been any better for Spain under the communists than it was under Franco.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
TP: Yes, but the communists spent as much time killing each other for not being communist enough as they did fighting the fascists.
AJ: When I remember right those who inserted chaotic auto-destructive struggles inside the anti-Franco groups were the anarcho-syndicalists. The Moscow-directed commuists acted disciplined. They did not kill anti-Franco republicans.
TP: The end result would probably not have been any better for Spain under the communists than it was under Franco.
AJ: agreed.
In the end they followed the wrong ideology. They did not know Stalins terror. On the other hand lots of the 20/30ties communists reserved some humanitarian values in face of fascist terror. Being outsiders they often helped other outsiders (jews, etc) putting their life at risk.
Communism gave "simple" workers a certain kind of constructive personal pride. That's more a personal picture of my own grandfather. My fater thinks that his father being more than aware of class-issues was important in paying the high school fee for him.
It is surely delicate to judge over people who lived in a highly ideologized environment.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
By the way, when I talked about people who "read books on history and believe every word in them" I meant Amazon reviewers, not Herb or Thomas. "As a WW II history buff I had never come across any data on the USSR except for the meetings with Churchill and Roosevelt. I have now changed my perspective after reading this book." :roll:
Here is another good one:
"It also absolutely destroys the myths of the "Great Patriotic War," "Mass Heroism," and "Soviet Patriotism" by the Soviet peoples.
It details the propaganda and above all the absolute terror used by the Soviets against there own unwilling soldiers in order to fight the Germans. Basically the Red Army soldier had two choices, either face the Germans or get a bullet in the back of the neck by the NKVD and severe consequences for his relatives."
I wonder how the author would explain such thing as volunteers...
Again, here as elsewhere, it depends on who you chose to believe.
Amazon reviewer: "When a credentialed scholar attacks a familiar topic with abundant knowledge and, above all, fresh research, a reader, who is interested in the given topic, should take notice."
Axel Janssen: "Joachim Hoffmann belonged to an extremists groups of german historians, so called revisionists. (he is dead)
Only 2% of german population believes this crap. The only reason those clowns gets some minor jobs in third-class universities is to keep discussion going. They have no chance to win with their arguments in a serious historical debate. "
Axel, do you want to publish your comment on Amazon?
Another review (this time not Amazon):
"Dr. Hoffmann’s book shows in detail how Stalin and his Bolshevik henchman used unimaginable violence and atrocities to break any resistance in the Red Army and to force their unwilling soldiers to fight against the Germans who were anticipated as liberators from Stalinist oppression by most Russians."
http://tadp.org/s/3.html
ROFL
How many Americans believe in this crap?
"Dr. Hoffmann also explains how Soviet propagandists incited their soldiers to unlimited hatred against everything German, and he gives the reader a short but extremely unpleasant glimpse into what happened when these Soviet soldiers, dehumanized by Soviet propaganda and brutality, finally reached German soil in 1945: A gigantic wave of looting, arson, rape, torture, and mass murder befell East Germany. After reading this book, the world should thank the German Army that they prevented Stalin from succeeding with his plans of World Revolution, despite all the wrongdoings the Germans allegedly committed themselves."
"allegedly" - this is a giveaway.
TADP (Theses & Dissertations Press): "We specialize in publishing historiographic books and papers that are otherwise suppressed."
Here are their suppressed papers:
Udo Walendy, Do Photographs Prove the NS Extermination of the Jews?
Ernst Gauss, The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews - An Introduction
Manfred K�hler, The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
Etc...
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There is no real contradiction with Stalin being "friendly" with Hitler, yet Stalin also planning to attack Hitler. Politics is all about manuevering, deception, temporary alliances, and secret agendas. You don't believe Stalin capable of those things?
I do, it is Tom who doesn't He said that Stalin trusted Hitler and did not expect him to attack the USSR. I am reading the book Tom pointed me to, here are some quotes:
"The poor assessment of Soviet intentions was the result not only of scant information but also the will to reinforce a deep-rooted concept. <...> The concept fed on traditional Russophobia and repugnance towards communism in both the Foreign Office and the armed forces. Since the mid-nineteenth century, when rivalry over Central Asia and Afghanistan had come to dominate Anglo-Russian relations, the metaphor of Russia as the savage bear had been embedded deep in the British consciousness."
Another quote:
"The occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (by the USSR - M.I.) in the last days of June 1940 resulted from a desire for security arrangements in the Balkans and the Black Sea littoral rather than an insatiable Russian appetite. As is often presented in the literature."
In practice, Fascism and Communism lead to the same result - totalitarianism. Morally they are the same to me.
I am getting an idea that for the American governments fascism is preferable. More posts to follow...
In fact my real motive for throwing out the URL to the Stalin book was to lend credence to my view that Hitler and Stalin were moral equivalents. I thought Mapra would nibble at that bait...
"Fascism and Communism" is one issue, and "Hitler and Stalin" is another, very different. "Hitler and Stalin were moral equivalents" - perhaps... Unfortunately my knowledge about both is mostly based on popular myths, so I would reserve my opinion.
Perhaps she would like to make the case that Stalin was a better person than Hitler???
To make such a case I first need some criteria of comparison. And frankly, I am not very much interested in comparing two dictators, who was better and who was worse. Would you prefer to be shot or gassed? :roll:
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
1947-1970s, Greece: Helping Fascists in Civil War & Coup
By Jim Huck
Less than a year before V-E Day, British troops entered Greece after the German Army was defeated. This victory was largely a result of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS) which was founded by the Greek Communist Party. Two months after German troops evacuated Greece, clashes broke out between ELAS and British troops. In 1945, the two adversaries signed an armistice, but civil war continued in Greece.
Civil War, 1947-1949
In 1946, Britain looked to the U.S. to fight the leftists in Greece. In 1947, U.S. arms shipments arrived. They built up the rightist Greek war machine with fighters, napalm, small arms and patrol boats. They helped construct air fields, bridges, docks, railways and communication networks. The civil war lasted three years. Finally, in 1949, the leftists announced a cease fire. The neo-fascists won and created a brutal regime. The CIA established the Greek secret police (KYP) whose officers had been trained by the OSS and CIA in the U.S.
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/coat/our_magazine/links/issue43/articles/1947_1970s_greece.htm
When President Truman announced the decision to help the Greek monarchy win the civil war, he stressed that the commitment was prompted by the "terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists.'' The United States was to use its power to put down violence. But, clearly, violence itself was not the issue, for throughout 1946, according to correspondents of the London Times and other U.S. and British papers, the Greek government itself had been carrying out mass arrests, tortures, beatings, and other retaliation against those who had been on the wrong side of the earlier civil war that ended in January, 1945. The foreign minister had resigned in early 1946, charging "terrorism by state organs." In Greece, as elsewhere, the violence of constituted authorities, however oppressive their rule, was judged by one criterion and the violence of insurgents by another. President Truman alluded to the corruption and brutality of the Greek government by conceding that it was "not perfect." But while the fascist character of the government genuinely bothered some members of the U.S. government, most National-Security Managers shared the judgment of former Secretary of State James Byrnes: "We did not have to decide that the Turkish Government and the Greek Monarchy were outstanding examples of free and democratic governments."
<...>
For the next twenty years the Greeks struggled to solve the staggering economic and social problems that had led to the bloody civil war.
Despite massive U.S. economic and military aid the Greek government has remained unable to feed its own population. In his exhaustive review of contemporary Greek economics and politics, Les Forces Politiques en Grece, Professor Jean Meynaud documents the continuation of economic stagnation and political chaos in Greece. Despite improvement in the economy, the same basic conditions of the forties-widespread poverty, illiteracy, shortage of foreign exchange, repressive and ineffective government-remained in the sixties, leading to a series of constitutional crises and, most recently, to a particularly brutal and backward military dictatorship.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Insurgency_Revolution/Truman%20Doc_GreekCW_IAR.html
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Strange, then, that the agency has displayed anything but empathy and a desire to come clean with its decision to censor the latest official history of US dealings with Greece. The book, part of the influential Foreign Relations of the US series, documents the turbulent years from 1964-1968.
They include the 1967 seizure of power by George Papadopoulos, the petty colonel who initiated seven dark years of dictatorship with a regime of such risible repute that only Spiro Agnew, then US vice-president, deigned to visit Athens.
For 18 months, 750 copies produced for public sale by the US Government Printing Office have been under lock and key labelled: "Embargo: This Publication Cannot be Released". Another 780 copies destined for libraries have also been stockpiled.
The book contains embarrassing disclosures about covert CIA operations, including brazen plans to buy off votes to keep the Greek left at bay. Although they were never approved, the prospect of these operations being laid bare has given the agency palpitations.
The CIA is apparently convinced that if the once-Strange, then, that the agency has displayed anything but empathy and a desire to come clean with its decision to censor the latest official history of US dealings with Greece. The book, part of the influential Foreign Relations of the US series, documents the turbulent years from 1964-1968.
They include the 1967 seizure of power by George Papadopoulos, the petty colonel who initiated seven dark years of dictatorship with a regime of such risible repute that only Spiro Agnew, then US vice-president, deigned to visit Athens.
For 18 months, 750 copies produced for public sale by the US Government Printing Office have been under lock and key labelled: "Embargo: This Publication Cannot be Released". Another 780 copies destined for libraries have also been stockpiled.
The book contains embarrassing disclosures about covert CIA operations, including brazen plans to buy off votes to keep the Greek left at bay. Although they were never approved, the prospect of these operations being laid bare has given the agency palpitations.
The CIA is apparently convinced that if the once-classified material is released, it would not only wreck Greek-US relations but entice Athenian terrorists to strike at American targets.
From the onset of their involvement in Greece, administering the Truman Doctrine during the bloody 1946-49 civil war, American authorities connived in dreadful things to keep the communists out. Unlike the British, who combined patience with diplomacy in dealing with the Greeks, Uncle Sam was more heavy-handed, identifying anyone left of centre as a nasty red.
Emboldened rightwing governments became increasingly repressive. Through the 60s, leftists were imprisoned, exiled or prohibited from finding a job. Tens of thousands were sent to concentration camps.
The Greek tome is not the only one to be pulled. This spring the latest Foreign Relations of the US volume on Indonesia was also withdrawn for citing US culpability in the murder of thousands of Indonesian communists in the mid-60s.
Surely the time has come to confront America's misguided policies towards Athens? President Clinton did when he apologised in Athens for Washington's failure "to support democracy". Open-minded diplomats, including the outgoing US ambassador, Nicholas Burns, have done the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,543170,00.html
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Axel, do you want to publish your comment on Amazon?


I have no time for reading this crap so I've problems with posting comment.
I know arguments of revisionists mostly from our internal debate about fascism in the media.
I am absolutedly shocked about what happens on english and as I found out now also german spoken (!) amazon. I will send emails to gremiums of historicians and jewish organizations this weekend.
Falsification of history is very dangerous. Once I bought Hitlers "Mein Kampf" as spanish traduction in some street in Chile. Its prohibited in Germany. After reading I know why, though I generally am very against censorship. It is quite clever written. He writes a lot about german history. People who doesn't have a suficient background knowledge won't see his lies, simplifications and omissions.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Correction of myself: Fascism and Communism both leads to totalitarian results, but in his systematic evilness german fascism is unique. Period.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I am getting an idea that for the American governments fascism is preferable. More posts to follow...


This has to do with cold war. Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, a democratic president quite left-wing in his economic policies, once said "they may be bastards but they are our bastards" in this context.
This policy often put supporters of "western" values like freedom of speech and democracy in serious troubles. Not all the persecuted by western-friendly governments were communists.
The glorious victory of democracy and free market economies is - as many things in history - full of contradictions.
In Western Germany similar things happened:
The most important date in the radicalization of german left wing student protest towards terrorism was when in 1968 or 67 the shah of persia visited Berlin,
- the students protested against human rights violations in Persia,
- Persian supporters of the Shah hit the demonstrators with wooden sticks
- the german police did nothing against the persians but stopped the demonstration using violance.
- One quite moderate student was killed during those events.
In Nicaragua Reagan supported right wing terrorists, so called Contras, after the victory of the Sandinistas.
When I remember right, Bush sr. stopped this support. After the internal thread was gone, the Nicarag�enses voted a moderate catolic woman as new president. The Sandinistas had to leave office.
The in this context often named Pinochet/Chile is not a very good example in my view. Pinochet is quite a very unique beast. He made no differences between chilean or american leftist. He simply put them all in prision. He also hired killers in USA to perpetrate the killing of Augusto Letelier, who lived in U.S. exile (especially CIA documents, Chile: Implications of the Letelier Case, CIA, May 1978
). This resulted in a significant cooling down of US-Chilean relationships.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 4716
9
Scala Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
sorry i didnt read all the post on this topic, but i really don't care how Stalin die. i'm just glad he is dead he was a monster. a vicious murderer of millions of his own people.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I do, it is Tom who doesn't He said that Stalin trusted Hitler and did not expect him to attack the USSR. I am reading the book Tom pointed me to, here are some quotes:


Except that wasn't the book I pointed you to. I never read that book. This was the one I read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679729941
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Your quotes about the Greek Civil War were an interesting twist on reality. This is waht is reported by historians:
In December 1945 the members of the KKE Central Committee had met with various Bulgarian and Yugoslav officers. The Greek Communists were assured that they could use Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia as bases. For more than three years their troops did so, retreating with their wounded into these countries and using them to regroup and build up supplies and munitions. These preparations took place a few months after the creation of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform), the Moscow-dominated grouping of world Communist parties. It seems that the Greek Communist uprising was perfectly coordinated with the Soviet Union's new policies. On 30 March 1946 the KKE declared that a third civil war was under way. The first attacks by the Democratic Army (AD), which had been established on 28 October 1946 and was led by General Markos Vafiadis, followed the usual pattern: police stations were attacked, their occupants killed, and leading local figures executed. The KKE openly continued such actions throughout 1946.
In the first months of 1947 general Vafiades intensified his campaign, attacking dozens of villages and executing hundreds of peasants. The ranks of the AD were swollen by enforced recruitment. Villages that refused to cooperate suffered severe reprisals. One village in Macedonia was hit particularly hard: forty-eight houses were burned down, and twelve men, six women, and two babies were killed. After March 1947 municipal leaders were systematically eliminated, as were priests. By March the number of refugees reached 400,000. The policy of terror was met with counterterror, and militant left-wing Communists were killed in turn by right-wing extremists.
In June 1947, after a tour of Belgrade, Prague, and Moscow, Zachariadis announced the imminent formation of a "free" government. The Greek Communists seemed to believe that they could follow the same path taken by Tito a few years earlier. The government was officially created in December. The Yugoslavs provided nearly 10,000 volunteers recruited from their own army. Numerous reports from the UN Special Commission on the Balkans have established the great importance of this assistance to the Democratic Army. The break between Tito and Stalin in 1948 had direct consequences for the Greek Communists. Although Tito continued his aid until the autumn, he also began a retreat that ended with closure of the border. In the summer of 1948, while the Greek government forces were engaged in a massive offensive, the Albanian leader Enver Hoxha also closed his country's border. The Greek Communists became increasingly isolated, and dissent within the Party grew. The fighting continued until August 1949. Many of the combatants fled to Bulgaria and thence to other parts of Eastern Europe, settling particularly in Romania and the U.S.S.R. Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, received thousands of refugees, including 7,500 Communists. After this defeat, the KKE in exile suffered a number of purges, and as late as 1955 the conflicts between the pro-and anti- Zachariadis factions [were] still extremely fierce, so much so that at one point the Soviet army was forced to intervene, resulting in hundreds of casualties.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I did some research on Jim Huck (the author of Map's piece on the Greek Civil War). He is a left wing nut that thinks the US is out to destroy the world. His books are all self published because no decent publisher will touch him. He is featured on the Marxism mailing list. He has no credentials as an historian. His "history" tends to be what he wishes happened as opposed to what actually happened.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Except that wasn't the book I pointed you to. I never read that book. This was the one I read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679729941


You pointed me to three books. I have no idea how many of them you read. I tried to discourage you from reading the last one, but you did not listen to me
The first one, seems deals mostly with psychological issues, and I am more interested in something that can be proved or/and documented. So I picked up the second book, which is good, because it is totally unemotional, as I believe, serious history books should be.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Your quotes about the Greek Civil War were an interesting twist on reality. This is waht is reported by historians
The book you quote is called "The Black Book Of Communism". If you do not trust somebody who is on "the Marxism mailing list", then why should I trust "The Black Book Of Communism".
"A few words about The Black Book Of Communism before we begin the article. This long-awaited account of the "crimes, terrors, and repressions" of the destructive phenomenon known as Communism has been widely-known and read internationally since 1997. That the book finally got published in the U.S. after much delay and difficulty is another story: A story that any reader of this website can most likely easily surmise since it is assumed that anyone reading TGR is aware of how "sensitive" the publishing and media cabal in America is to any criticism of the twin idiocies of Socialism and Communism. The reader will also not be astounded by the fact that, though this book made headlines in Europe, one would be hard-pressed to find even a back-page mention of it in American newspapers, literary journals, critical reviews, or on radio and television.
http://www.grecoreport.com/the_black_book_of_communism_and_the_greek_civil_war.htm
"how "sensitive" the publishing and media cabal in America is to any criticism of the twin idiocies of Socialism and Communism" - clear me, where is this sensitivity? I did not notice any.
 
Sasparilla and fresh horses for all my men! You will see to it, won't you tiny ad?
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards
https://gardener-gift.com
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic