DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 28, 2008, 05:53:10 PM
-
Why Does Obama Readily Agree To One-On-One Negotiations With Ahmadinejad,
But Decline One-On-One Briefings With Our Military Leaders?
(http://www.depauw.edu/photos/PhotoDB_Repository/2005/7/fox%20news%20logo.jpg)
McCain to Obama: The Proof Is in the Visit
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
(http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/05/mccain_nev_052808.jpg)
John McCain on Wednesday repeated his challenge to Barack Obama to take a ride with him over to Iraq and see the situation on the ground before concluding that U.S. efforts have failed to get the war-torn nation back on track.
Speaking in a town hall meeting in Reno, Nev., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he was surprised Obama's campaign considered it a political stunt when McCain proposed earlier this week that the two travel together to Iraq.
"The security of this nation is more important than any political campaign. To say that we failed in Iraq doesn't comport with the facts on the ground," McCain said to applause.
McCain has hitched on to a talking point that is echoing through Republican chambers of late "that Obama would more readily meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than hold a one-on-one with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus", the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq.
"He could meet Gen. Petraeus and he could meet Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker, and he could see he could see the fact that Sadr City is quiet. He could see that the Maliki government has taken control of Basra. He could see that the Iraqi military is leading the fight in these places with the support of American troops," McCain said.
McCain has visited Iraq eight times since the war began. Obama has been to Iraq once, in 2006, before the surge credited with allowing the oil-rich nation a chance to rebuild.
McCain suggested the two forget their political differences and see for themselves results on the ground. Obama's campaign responded earlier this week by calling the suggestion, which was proposed over the weekend, "political posturing."
Obama said Tuesday that McCain's desire to plug onward in Iraq continues a failed policy of the Bush administration.
"I don't think we want to continue a misguided foreign policy and an endless war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars while making us less safe and less secure," he said.
"That's the choice in this election. On issue after issue, John McCain is offering more of the same policies that have failed for the last eight years."
"Barack Obama wants to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops and refocus our efforts on going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan added on Wednesday.
Seeing a possible opportunity to gain points against Obama, the Republican National Committee on Wednesday launched a clock on its Web site that is counting the days since the Democratic presidential front-runner visited Iraq.
"Barack Obama has only visited Iraq once and that was 871 days ago," RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said.
"Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail. Obama's failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand and witness the surge?s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being commander in chief."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/mccain-to-obama-the-proof-is-in-the-visit/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/mccain-to-obama-the-proof-is-in-the-visit/)
-
I think the Pentagon has developed a certain expertise in "conducting tours" for visiting legislators and the purpose is not to "educate" the visitor any more than the free boat-rides and barbeques offered by condominium developers in the Caribbean are meant to "educate" the tourist.
They're both sales pitches and they're both a real waste of time. Obama'd see what the Pentagon wants him to see. Of course the real message of the offer is that you can't trust the lying press. Trust the Army instead. Well, one of the reasons we HAVE a free press is so the military can't monopolize the public's sources of information. Why not just ditch the press completely and let the military provide ALL our news?
It's comparing apples and oranges - - negotiating differences with an enemy is one thing, volunteering for a snow-job/brainwashing by Petraeus is something else. He's already HAD a chance to peddle his bullshit. McCain bought it, Obama didn't. The two of them can hash it out in November.
-
I think the Pentagon has developed a certain expertise in "conducting tours" for visiting legislators and the purpose is not to "educate" the visitor any more than the free boat-rides and barbeques offered by condominium developers in the Caribbean are meant to "educate" the tourist. They're both sales pitches and they're both a real waste of time. Obama'd see what the Pentagon wants him to see.
Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba. Or Kim in North Korea. Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted. And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran. we want to be consistent now, right?
-
even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well
-
<<Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba. Or Kim in North Korea. Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted. And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran. >>
If that's what they actually did, then yes, I mean EXACTLY like that.
<<we want to be consistent now, right?>>
You can't expect consistency when you are comparing apples and oranges. The big difference is that Petraeus wants a chance to brainwash his future boss and Obama's too smart to fall for it. A boss doesn't let his subordinates write their own evaluations, and he sees what HE wants to see, when and where HE wants to see it. On his terms and not the subordinates.
Your other examples aren't really comparable. Kim, Saddam and Fidel are not trying to give the boss a guided tour of his own plant.
-
<<Oh, you mean like what Castro's Government does with visiting diplomats "conducting tours" in Cuba. Or Kim in North Korea. Or Saddam in Iraq, before regime change was instituted. And just as likely with Ahmanutjob in Iran. >>
If that's what they actually did, then yes, I mean EXACTLY like that.
Well, since you have as much evidentiary proof of the military doing what messers Iraq, Iran, Cuba & North Korea would be doing, then good, glad we agree on something for change. Strange how its so certain how the military pulls such tours, but it's a big "if" for the rest of your gang :-\
And FYI, there'd be even MORE reason for the latter gang to "conduct tours" than Patreus, in order to properly propogandize their specific POV to the visiting dignitaries, so that position could be spread all around.
-
I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.
OTOH, everyone who has ever worked for a paycheque can understand how important it is to let the boss see what a great job you are doing and NOT to let him know, where you can cover it up, where things are going wrong. Petraeus is working for a very big paycheque - - not just the money, but honour, military pride and a place in the history books. So while I don't really know how much of a motivation Kim, Fidel and Saddam had to shine in the eyes of a bunch of foreigners, whose media were likely to be hostile to them in any event, but I DO know that for Petraeus, it would be a very good thing if either McCain or Obama thought he was doing a great job and a very bad thing if either of them came away with the impression that he was fucking up and lying to the country about it.
-
I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.
About as much as you "know" as to what the military would do in "conducting tours" and impressing their bosses. Who wouldn't want to impress them, right? A paycheck is 1 thing. + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck
-
I don't know how much interest Kim, Fidel and Saddam would have had in making a nice impression on visiting dignitaries (I guess everyone does, who doesn't?) but how much urgency they would have attached to it is something I just don't know.
About as much as you "know" as to what the military would do in "conducting tours" and impressing their bosses. Who wouldn't want to impress them, right? A paycheck is 1 thing. + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck
A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .
I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .
But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.
The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.
-
<<even the new york times admits progress in iraq>>
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-Prize-winning economist, has calculated the cost of this war to date at Three Trillion Dollsrs. So for $3,000,000,000,000 (a sum which could pay everyone's social security for the next 50 years) I would expect to see some kind of progress. I would hate like hell to see three trill poured down the drain and not one single positive development.
So the question is, How Much Progress? How permanent is it? And when three trill gets you only so far, how many more trill do you want to pour down the drain to get to the next sign of "progress?"
<<everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?>>
My dots aren't so looney. I said from the start this whole thing would be a catastrophe and that's exactly what it is, "progress" or no "progress." Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, more dead Americans than died in the Sept. 11 attacks, no end in sight and U.S. prestige at its lowest ever.
<<Obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22">>
Why? Because he's not smart enough to see through Petraeus' snow-job?
<<he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well>>
Whatever "progress" he'll see won't even begin to justify one-hundredth of the misery, suffering and death that this little adventure has already caused.
When he's the Commander-in-Chief, he'll have a great opportunity to see for himself what's going on there, and he won't be dependent on General Petraeus to show him any of it either. I'm sure he'll hear what Petraeus has to say, but he'll talk to lots of people as well, some of whom Petraeus will wish he had rolled up in a carpet and suffocated first. And then, as befits a C-in-C, he'll come to his own conclusions, not Petraeus', as to whether or not the people of the U.S.A. have any interest in continuing this illegal, criminal, atrocity-scarred invasion or not.
-
<<A paycheck is 1 thing. + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck>>
My point was that for Petraeus a paycheque (in the larger sense of the money PLUS his place in history, his personal honour and his prestige) is the only benefit he'll ever see from impressing his bosses.
Global support and global PR are fine for the country, but none of it does the General any good personally, not like that "paycheque."
-
<<A paycheck is 1 thing. + global support and PR can go a hell of a lot further than just a paycheck>>
My point was that for Petraeus a paycheque (in the larger sense of the money PLUS his place in history, his personal honour and his prestige) is the only benefit he'll ever see from impressing his bosses.
Global support and global PR are fine for the country, but none of it does the General any good personally, not like that "paycheque."
There was a guy named Potemkin who got famous for this sort of thing.
Is there a potential for General Petraous to fake a lull in the fighting?
-
That $3 trillion has made a lot of defense contracting companies very wealthy.
That's progress right there. Not.
(PS good to see you.)
-
Sure might help a country's regime from being changed. Again, much greater mamifestations than a paycheck.
And no matter how many rationalizations you apply to messers Iran, NK, Cuba, can be equally applied to our military. And any criticisms you level at the military for their so-called "conducting tours" can be equally applied to the likes of Castro, Kim, and Ajhmanutjob
-
<<A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .>>
Imperfect, huh? I think the word you are looking for is "impossible."
<<I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .>>
That's hilarious. How many Americans were killed by the French Resistance after the Liberation? Now if you'll just compare that number with how many Americans were killed by the Iraq Resistance after the "Liberation" of Iraq, you'll have a good idea of how the Iraqis will compare to the French in "gratitude" to the U.S. for their "Liberation."
<<But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.>>
Yeah, I suppose that's true, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
<<The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.>>
The trouble with you, plane, is I never know when you are kidding me. Saudi Arabia isn't all that friendly, but I guess you knew that, eh?
-
Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/
Three trillian seems a little high untill you realise he is talking about the intrest a few billion would have earned in a few centurys along with everything elese.
This leaves out all of the cost of maintaining the embargo in Iraq till Saddams Children died of old age, there is a half trillian saved right there.
-
<<A prosperous and free Iraq will still be imperfect .>>
Imperfect, huh? I think the word you are looking for is "impossible."
<<I forsee an Iraq no more gratefull than France eager to kick us out and speak ill of us .>>
That's hilarious. How many Americans were killed by the French Resistance after the Liberation? Now if you'll just compare that number with how many Americans were killed by the Iraq Resistance after the "Liberation" of Iraq, you'll have a good idea of how the Iraqis will compare to the French in "gratitude" to the U.S. for their "Liberation."
<<But if they are prosperous and free that is all that we need to call the project a success.>>
Yeah, I suppose that's true, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
<<The high profit availible to them in Oil sales might speed this day , imagine an Iraq as freindly as Saudi Arabia, oh boy.>>
The trouble with you, plane, is I never know when you are kidding me. Saudi Arabia isn't all that friendly, but I guess you knew that, eh?
We can't require perfection of our freinds , freindlyness is enough to get.
-
<<And any criticisms you level at the military for their so-called "conducting tours" can be equally applied to the likes of Castro, Kim, and Ajhmanutjob>>
Well, in that case, we seem to be in agreement. I think. If visiting foreign dignitaries wish to save their valuable time and skip the Potemkin tours of Kim, Ahmadinejad and Fidel, it's probably a wise decision, and if Obama wants to similarly avoid a waste of HIS valuable time by skipping Petraeus' bullshit "tour" then that too is a wise decision. Glad to see we can agree on something.
-
If visiting foreign dignitaries wish to save their valuable time and skip the Potemkin tours of Kim, Ahmadinejad and Fidel, it's probably a wise decision, and if Obama wants to similarly avoid a waste of HIS valuable time by skipping Petraeus' bullshit "tour" then that too is a wise decision. Glad to see we can agree on something.
And no matter how many rationalizations you apply to messers Iran, NK, Cuba, can be equally applied to our military.
Absolutely
-
<<Three trillian seems a little high untill you realise he is talking about the intrest a few billion would have earned in a few centurys along with everything elese.>>
He INCLUDED interest, but since the war is being deficit-financed, that interest had already started to run when the war began. The biggest unexpected cost was the life-time care for the seriously injured, who in earlier wars would have done their country the favour of dying on the battlefield but were saved due to advances in medical science.
<<This leaves out all of the cost of maintaining the embargo in Iraq till Saddams Children died of old age, there is a half trillian saved right there.>>
Not really, since there still has to be a marine embargo on arms shipments, explosives etc. being smuggled into Iraq for the Resistance.
-
<<That $3 trillion has made a lot of defense contracting companies very wealthy.
That's progress right there. Not.>>
Depends on your POV, obviously. From Cheney's and Bush's POV, this is REAL progress. Progress you can take to the bank. But it's good for the working class too - - must be a huge boom in the PSW industry.
<<(PS good to see you.)>>
Thanks, Lanya. Glad to be back.
-
Not really, since there still has to be a marine embargo on arms shipments, explosives etc. being smuggled into Iraq for the Resistance.
Oh , from where?
-
<<Oh , from where?>>
from any port with access to the Persian Gulf, I'd guess. These guys would probably change routes and MOs all the time. That's the challenge of smuggling, isn't it?
-
<<Oh , from where?>>
from any port with access to the Persian Gulf, I'd guess. These guys would probably change routes and MOs all the time. That's the challenge of smuggling, isn't it?
That is Basra , only.
-
Smuggling is a funny thing. The routes always change. Basra would be ideal but it doesn't have to be Basra, because something can be off-loaded at any point on the Gulf and smuggled in overland. It all depends, where are they cracking down and where is somebody paid to look the other way? You're a Southerner, I bet you know more about blockade runners than I do.
-
Smuggling is a funny thing. The routes always change. Basra would be ideal but it doesn't have to be Basra, because something can be off-loaded at any point on the Gulf and smuggled in overland. It all depends, where are they cracking down and where is somebody paid to look the other way? You're a Southerner, I bet you know more about blockade runners than I do.
Yes , the tecnology of the 18th century ws too advanced to allow much to get through.
More to the present point, you really don't know any of the sorces for the arms showing up in Iraq?
-
<<you really don't know any of the sorces for the arms showing up in Iraq?>>
Huh? Never said that I didn't. We were discussing routes, interdictment, alternate routes. I got a pretty good idea where they're coming from, but if you really wanna know, you should ask OBAMA. Barak HUSSEIN Obama, know what I mean? He's the guy who's behind it all. Him 'n them libruls he hangs with that just hate America so much they won't even wear flag pins to prove they don't.
I think some of the Shi'ite militias are getting weapons from Iran. The biggest Shi'ite militia, the so-called "Iraqi Army" is getting its stuff from the U.S.A. and Britain, probably Israel as well. The Sunni are getting theirs from the U.S.A. via the Kurds or maybe also the Israelis and probably some from the Pakistanis. The Kurds from Israel and America. All of which are really just guesses on my part, I hasten to add.
-
even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well
So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq? I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?
-
So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq? I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?
===============================
(1) It was a dumb idea to invade Iraq in the first place. If it is dumb to go somewhere, is it not dumber to stay?
If one makes progress at tatooing one's body with Looney Tune characters, does that justify doing it?
How can the US win an Iraqi Civil War, when we have not even chosen sides?
(2) It is costing us a fortune and causing serious inflation.
-
even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well
So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq? I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
.
Send More Keep SameNumber WithdrawSome WithdrawAll Unsure
% % % % %
15 17 28 34 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority doesn't like war , a minority wants to retreat.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
-
even the new york times admits progress in iraq
so now lets see
everybody including the NY Times is in on the big conspiracy to connect your looney dots?
obama doesn't want to go to iraq because he'll be in a "catch 22"
he'll see lots of progress and thus his doom/gloom wont make sense or sell as well
So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq? I'm serious here, if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
.
Send More Keep SameNumber WithdrawSome WithdrawAll Unsure
% % % % %
15 17 28 34 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority doesn't like war , a minority wants to retreat.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Thanks for the poll Plane, I looked for a recent one but couldn't find one.
A majority doesn't like war , a minority wants to retreat.
That's certainly one way of putting it, another would be that 32% favor escalation or the status quo, while 62% favor either complete or partial withdrawal. This is important, what with all the saber rattling about Iran and all. Twice as many people favor some form of withdrawal opposed to staying the course, this actually surprises me. I would have thought that the number would have been closer.
All this said, while I would like to see a drawdown soon, I think that Petraeus and Gates are very intelligent and capable men, and I would, for the most part, defer to their judgement, unless I see reason to do otherwise.
-
All this said, while I would like to see a drawdown soon, I think that Petraeus and Gates are very intelligent and capable men, and I would, for the most part, defer to their judgement, unless I see reason to do otherwise.
A partial withdrawal is a means of maximiseing our losses ,that isn't hard to understand , the bigger gang dominates the fight.
-
"So why are the majority of Americans still against the war in Iraq? I'm serious here,
if the bastion of liberalism, the NYT is admitting progress, why are the people against it?"
Fatman for the sake of brevity and to answer your question my opinion is:
I think it is because in general people do not like war. War is ugly. War is costly.
As General Sherman said "War Is Hell". So it is not a surprise that people are "against war".
Also Fatman I believe there is an element of most of the people not realizing the
consequences of pulling out of Iraq. A short attention span and the need for immediate
gratification is one of the disadvantages we face against an enemy that views "the battle
with the infidel" as a conflict that can last for centuries if needed. I am pleased to see you
have confidence in President Bush appointees Petraeus and Gates. Both seem to be doing
a very good job under difficult circumstances.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44420000/jpg/_44420154_iraqgates_ap203b.jpg)
-
<<A partial withdrawal is a means of maximiseing our losses ,that isn't hard to understand , the bigger gang dominates the fight.>>
Partial withdrawal is a purely political compromise. From a military POV I think you're either in or you're out. Pulling out some just signals to the enemy that he is on the right track and his sacrifices have paid off. Keep fighting and nest time they'll pull out more and so on until they're all gone. So I think the only viable choices are stay in the fight with the same number of troops, stay in and raise troop levels or pull out.
If this thing to date really has cost three trillion bucks, as Prof. Stiglitz says, then IMHO you just cannot afford to see this through even if progress were being made (which I don't believe is the case anyway.) So the decision has to be to pull out. This will become more apparent as the collapse of the U.S. dollar really sinks into the consciousness of the people through its effect on their daily lives, as it is now starting to do at the gas pumps.
<<Also Fatman I believe there is an element of most of the people not realizing the
consequences of pulling out of Iraq. >>
With all due respect, CU4, I don't believe anyone really knows "the consequences of pulling out of Iraq." A lot of things might happen, some good, some not so good. I remember when everyone in authority used to trot out the "Domino Theory" to explain all the bad things that would follow if the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam, specifically the serial collapse of pro-U.S. regimes all across Southeast Asia. Never happened.
OTOH, the consequences of continuing the war are becoming clear - - a ruined U.S. dollar which has lost the power to buy the gas the average family needs and will soon fail as well in purchasing food, to the extent that the cost of food reflects the cost of fossil fuel.
-
the "Domino Theory" to explain all the bad things that would follow if the U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam, specifically the serial collapse of pro-U.S. regimes all across Southeast Asia. Never happened.
Yes after exausting the Communists fighting first the french then the US , they still managed to knock ove three dominos , but the Cambodia Domino went so disgustingly wrong that Communism will never clean the stain from itself .
If Communism had not been resisted it would have all the more spread and dominated, ruining the environment of the lands it took , ruining the lives of every person in the name of the People.
Fighting Communism was never a bad idea , even when it hurt us severely , it hurt even more the people who were taken under the iron curtain.
-
<<If Communism had not been resisted it would have all the more spread and dominated, ruining the environment of the lands it took , ruining the lives of every person in the name of the People.>>
That is pure speculation on your part, and it's not even likely, given the national character of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the National Liberation Front. As most serious historians seem to recognize, the struggle was conducted by the Vietnamese people, led by the Communists and Ho Chi Minh, not by any international or even regional communist movement. For example, the Vietnamese Communist Party had no interest in Burma (Myanmar,) Malaysia, Indonesia or any other country, although they did in fact have fraternal relations with other communist parties.
As opposed to your speculation, the FACTS are that the "loss" of Viet Nam to the Communists was NOT followed by the collapse of any single domino referred to in the Domino Theory. Laos and Cambodia were brought into the war by U.S. attacks against them (in Cambodia's case, by deliberate U.S. subversion and overthrow of the existing neutralist government) but the "dominoes" of the theory were strategically important pro-American governments of Thailand, Malaysia, etc. The Domino Theory was a complete fraud. There was never any evidence supporting it other than pure speculation, and in the actual historical event, when it was tested, it failed completely. No dominoes fell.
<<Fighting Communism was never a bad idea , even when it hurt us severely , it hurt even more the people who were taken under the iron curtain.>>
When you judge the worth of an activity by who got hurt more, it's like beating yourself and another guy over the head with a hammer, three strokes to your own head for every five strokes to his. According to you, it's not a bad idea if the other guy comes off the worse. Sorry, but to me, that's just nuts.
Apart from everything else, there are probably millions of widows, orphans, cripples and majorly fucked-up individuals all over America and Viet Nam who might want to differ with you on how good of an idea it really was after all.
-
"That is pure speculation on your part,..."
Since world dominion of Communism was a stated goal of Communist leadership , why is repeating this speculative at all?
-
<<Since world dominion of Communism was a stated goal of Communist leadership , why is repeating this speculative at all?>>
It's speculative because you can't connect victory of the Vietnamese Communists to world dominion of communism. Their victory had very little effect on the ability of the capitalist powers to protect their own interests closer to home.
Anyway, you're a little behind in your knowledge of communist goals. Stalin gave up world dominion of communism for "socialism in one country" back in the 1930s. Trotsky didn't get the message, so Stalin sent him a follow-up, in the form of an ice-pick to the brain. "World dominion" died a long time ago, plane, before you were even born.
-
<<Since world dominion of Communism was a stated goal of Communist leadership , why is repeating this speculative at all?>>
It's speculative because you can't connect victory of the Vietnamese Communists to world dominion of communism. Their victory had very little effect on the ability of the capitalist powers to protect their own interests closer to home.
Anyway, you're a little behind in your knowledge of communist goals. Stalin gave up world dominion of communism for "socialism in one country" back in the 1930s. Trotsky didn't get the message, so Stalin sent him a follow-up, in the form of an ice-pick to the brain. "World dominion" died a long time ago, plane, before you were even born.
After Stalin said that he was not for world dominion , he proceeded to conquer half of Finland , a big wedge of Poland , and kill off the resistance in his new territorys .
After the time of the war was over and the Allience was no longer needed , there seemed to be a Iron curtain made for the domination of everything the Soviet Union could cover , I think of the Soviet Crush of the Prague spring as a simple exercise in imperialism , why shouldn't I.
Go ahead and find for me the Quote you speak of which preceeded all of this , I am pretty sure that I can find some thing Kruchev said afterwards.
-
<<After Stalin said that he was not for world dominion , he proceeded to conquer half of Finland , a big wedge of Poland , and kill off the resistance in his new territorys.>>
In Finland, Stalin made very limited territorial demands for naval bases and that the border be moved a short distance back from Leningrad, out of fear of a German attack through Finland. The Finns refused these limited demands and Stalin took the action he felt he needed to take to protect the U.S.S.R. from an inevitable Nazi attack. As it turned out, Stalin was right about the dangers he faced.
In the case of Poland, Stalin had two choices: hang back and let the Nazis take the whole country, landing them right on the Russian border, or grab a strip of land 200 miles wide, formerly Russian territory, and taken by force during the Russian Civil War by Polish troops. Poland in any event was lost. If he did not grab the 200-mile strip, the Nazis would have.
Both of those essentially defensive actions are not even remotely connected to the "world dominion" that you ludicrously claim to have been Stalin's goal. There is a lot of world left over after you take the 200-mile strip of Poland, and the 16-mile readjustment of the Russo-Finish border.
<<After the time of the war was over and the Allience was no longer needed , there seemed to be a Iron curtain made for the domination of everything the Soviet Union could cover>>
All of those "dominated" countries with the exceptions of Poland and the Czech part of Czechoslovakia were former Nazi allies which had participated in the Nazi invasion of the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. had every right to dominate them militarily. What did you think, they should have freed them to join NATO and participate in yet another Western attack on the Soviet Union?
<< I think of the Soviet Crush of the Prague spring as a simple exercise in imperialism , why shouldn't I.>>
Kinda like the U.S.-British imperialism's crushing of the anti-fascist Greek Resistance in the Greek Civil War in 1944? Or the forcible return of Viet Nam to the French colonial orbit as a reward for their anti-Japanese resistance during WWII? Yeah, I kind of see what you're driving at. Still doesn't add up to a quest for world dominion, any more than the Viet Nam War taking place at the same time as the Prague Spring and with a lot more bloodshed too, I might add.
<<Go ahead and find for me the Quote you speak of which preceeded all of this , I am pretty sure that I can find some thing Kruchev said afterwards.>>
"Socialism in One Country?" It's a pretty well-known quote. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time to verify it. Everyone knows it. I accept it, and you're free to take it or leave it, as you choose.
-
I really doubt that the land grabs of Stalin had anything to do with defense , if Stalin were interested in Defense he might not have armed and trained the German Panzer forces and air forces with equipment and training grounds in Soviet territory. Perhaps he might have avoided killing half of his officer corps in purges for the sake of political purity , at the cost of getting rid of most of his well educated officers.No even the Polish and Finnish territory taken was useless for defense because no defense was prepared there. The Red Army instead got busy carrying out its orders to consolidate dominance of the locals , in Poland this amounted to killing most of the well educated.
At wars end, We should have treated France the way that the Soviet Union treated Poland and Chezhoslovachia? Perhaps we should have treated Austria the way the Soviet union treated Hungary?They all participated in Natzi works and fighting but the excuse is hollow.
After the war the us and the Allies underwent a massive return to civilian activity , if Stalin had understood the wisdom of that he might have preserved the allience into peacetime and instead of wasteing all the resorces that went into domination of his empire and the pursuance of the cold war , the Soviet Union could have got into the business of recovery full force the way the Allies did. There was no preparation at the end of the war to invade the Soviet Union , none at all , the imperialism of the Soviet union is unexcused by anything but greed.
I really doubt that the land grabs of Stalin had anything to do with defense , if Stalin were interested in Defense he might not have armed and trained the German Panzer forces and air forces with equipment and training grounds in Soviet territory. Perhaps he might have avoided killing half of his officer corps in purges for the sake of political purity , at the cost of getting rid of most of his well educated officers.
I am not sure when Stalin rejected expantion verbally , but I am quite aware that he never passed up a chance for expantion in fact. Later on Breznev did the same and stated that no Communist Government should ever be allowed to backslide and leave the communist fold .
Luckily they were swimming against the current , people who experience Communism often wish for better.
-
<<I really doubt that the land grabs of Stalin had anything to do with defense , if Stalin were interested in Defense he might not have armed and trained the German Panzer forces and air forces with equipment and training grounds in Soviet territory. >>
The training program you are referring to began during the time of the Weimar Republic and was not renewed when it terminated some time in the mid 1930s. The so-called "land grab" occurred in 1939, by which time Stalin's ideas on defence had evolved considerably, as had the ideas of every other European leader.
<<Perhaps he might have avoided killing half of his officer corps in purges for the sake of political purity , at the cost of getting rid of most of his well educated officers.>>
I don't know where you get this "half the officer corps" bullshit - - probably the same anti-Soviet garbage that accuses Stalin of "millions" of murders - - but in fact the trial of Marshal Tukhashevsky proved clearly that Stalin had every reason to fear a coup from the officer corps and probably led by Tukhashevsky, although there is some indication now that the Marshal MAY have been framed by German intelligence. No one will ever know. In any event, there is no inconsistency between a desire to defend the Motherland by force of arms and a desire to avoid a military coup. The two are not only mutually compatible, but good policy as well.
<<No even the Polish and Finnish territory taken was useless for defense because no defense was prepared there. >>
Nonsense. The frontiers were re-located accordingly once the land was secured, and defended in accordance with whatever the general defence plan of the USSR prescribed for the frontiers. Why wouldn't they be?
<<The Red Army instead got busy carrying out its orders to consolidate dominance of the locals>>
I'm SHOCKED. An occupying army that consolidates its dominance of the locals. What an amazing concept. Obviously at odds with the idea of adding land as a buffer to an attack.
<< , in Poland this amounted to killing most of the well educated.>>
Who by some strange twist of fate happened to come from the aristocratic and haute-bourgeoisie classes and were fervently anti-Communist and anti-Russian. What Stalin SHOULD have done, obviously, was teach them all to sing the Russian version of Kumbayah, then they could have held hands together and swayed to the beat.
<<At wars end, We should have treated France the way that the Soviet Union treated Poland and Chezhoslovachia?>>
I know, that's sarcasm. Based on the idea that the USSR was just beastly and horrid to Poland and Czechoslovakia, right? Well here's a news flash for ya, plane -- - they weren't anywhere near as beastly and horrid as America was to the Vietnamese. Never dropped napalm or WP on them, that's for God-damn sure. Never killed millions of 'em. Never put 'em in tiger cages. I never saw a Polack burning himself alive to protest the Soviet occupation. Never saw a Czech prisoner thrown out of a helicopter.
<<Perhaps we should have treated Austria the way the Soviet union treated Hungary?They all participated in Natzi works and fighting but the excuse is hollow.>>
Oh, the excuse is hollow, eh? And I suppose that comes out of your vast knowledge of the Nazi occupation of the USSR, in which the Hungarian army was a full-fledged participant? Maybe you should take a look at this, plane, read it to the end if you can, it's an account of the Nazi occupation, and THEN tell me how "hollow" the excuse is, in your esteemed opinion:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420106b.html
<<After the war the us and the Allies underwent a massive return to civilian activity . . . >>
Huh? They DID??? I musta bin living on another planet or something. In the world I lived in, the Selective Service Act was allowed to run its original term to one or two years after the end of the war and then extended into a permanent peace-time draft.
<<the Soviet Union could have got into the business of recovery full force the way the Allies did. >>
Yeah, sure, while the U.S. continued to enforce its Selective Service Act, which was enacted in 1940 expressly to prepare for WWII, after WWII was all over.
<<There was no preparation at the end of the war to invade the Soviet Union >>
I don't think that would have been a good idea. There WAS this little thing called the atom bomb though, something that America had a monopoly on at the time, and just wouldn't give up. Sure woulda made ME nervous, if I were Uncle Joe. Considering the hostility to Communism so prevalent in American ruling class circles. And not unknown in the American military either, as General Patton's example clearly proves.
<<none at all , the imperialism of the Soviet union is unexcused by anything but greed.>>
It was perfectly natural for the Red Army to lend assistance to local anti-fascist Resistance leaders, many of whom were in fact Communists or socialists, when they came into conflict with surviving collaborators who had served the Nazis in the course of the war. The USSR was not going to fight an exhausting war on Nazi Germany, only to be stabbed in the back after the war by Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian or other fascist collaborators who would like nothing better than to be allowed to sabotage the Revolution and set up "nationalist" parties to continue the Nazi project of fascist rule and killing off whatever local Jews were still left alive. A lot of Red Army men and women were raised on slogans like "Death to Fascism" and when they said it they meant it.
-
Huh? They DID??? I musta bin living on another planet or something. In the world I lived in, the Selective Service Act was allowed to run its original term to one or two years after the end of the war and then extended into a permanent peace-time draft.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So you don't know that the Armed forces shrank ?
You didn't know that dozens of PT boats were burned , battleships sunk , tons of rifles thrown into the ocean, pistols and binoculars smashed with bulldozers , planes and jeeps sold for a song.
In the world you lived in the Allies didn't build down? In the world of Stalinist propaganda everything we really did was reversed.Were you liveing in that world.
In Korea not only did we have no tanks , we forbid our ally from getting any of his own. There was really no preparation for invadeing North Korea , or the Soviet Union at all.
-
Perhaps we should have treated Austria the way the Soviet union treated Hungary?
Austria was partitioned like Germany after the war. My parents lived in the Soviet section.
-
It is ridiculous to compare the Iraq War with WWII or any aspect of the Cold War, such as the Korean War or the Vietnam War, other than to point out that these wars were all avoidable, destructive and stupid.
One can dispute the size of the Red Menace and the intent of the Communists, but it is pretty clear that Al Qaeda is in no way comparable in any way with the Soviet Red Army or the Chinese Army.
-
The so-called "land grab" occurred in 1939, by which time Stalin's ideas on defence had evolved considerably, as had the ideas of every other European leader.
The lands that the Soviets took "just happened" to be the same lands that they asked the Germans for in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - just a coincidence, huh?
-
<<You didn't know that dozens of PT boats were burned , battleships sunk , tons of rifles thrown into the ocean, pistols and binoculars smashed with bulldozers , planes and jeeps sold for a song.>>
I believe the thinking at the time was that with the A-bomb on the racks, the other stuff was kind of pointless. The monopoly on nukes trumped all those binoculars, pistols, etc. Nobody (apart from a few visionaries) foresaw wars of national liberation. The U.S. refused to share the Bomb's technology with its Soviet Allies, maintained a peacetime draft which was previously unheard of and maintained a constant stream of anti-Soviet bullshit to the extent that politicians like Henry Wallace, FDR's VP, had to leave the Democratic Party to run as a Progressive in the 1948 elections. The U.S.S.R. had a pretty good indication of the Allies' real intentions during the Greek Civil War, as early as 1944, when the British Army intervened on behalf of Royalist guerrillas against the Communist forces which had conducted the major part of the anti-Nazi Resistance.
I think if you really want to get into the origins of the Cold War, you'd also have to investigate the so-called Polish Question, and the pro-fascist activities of the Knights of Columbus in the U.S.A., first on behalf of Fascist Spain, preventing any Allied retaliation against a country which had sent an entire division of "volunteers" to invade the U.S.S.R. and was now, thanks to U.S. and British foreign policy, to be allowed to continue its Fascist regime indefinitely into the future.
The bottom line is that the Soviets had a great deal to fear from an anti-Communist U.S.A. with a nuclear monopoly and as they soon became encircled by a string of U.S. bases, events proved them right.
-
I don't know where you get this "half the officer corps" bullshit - - probably the same anti-Soviet garbage that accuses Stalin of "millions" of murders - - but in fact the trial of Marshal Tukhashevsky proved clearly that Stalin had every reason to fear a coup from the officer corps and probably led by Tukhashevsky, although there is some indication now that the Marshal MAY have been framed by German intelligence. No one will ever know.
According to records, well over half the upper officers:
The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. In total, 30,000 members of the armed forces were arrested and executed.
The Great Purge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army)
Also, the documents incriminating Marshal Tukhachevsky are known to be forgeries, since several of the people supposedly writing those letters had already been jailed at the time they were supposed to have been written.
-
<<The lands that the Soviets took "just happened" to be the same lands that they asked the Germans for in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - just a coincidence, huh?>>
Of course it's not a coincidence. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between the two countries signed by Russia after failing in three years of negotiations to get a defence agreement from Britain and France. It was Stalin's last option. Since it provided that Germany was going to get Poland anyway (one of the reasons for failure of the Anglo-French-USSR negotiations was that Poland refused to grant a right of passage to the Red Army in the event of hostilities breaking out between France and Germany, so Russia could not have come to France's aid without having to fight Poland too) so the Soviets figured, fuck it, if the Germans are gonna take Poland, we need a little buffer. And I guess you could say the Polacks brought this one on themselves because of the anti-Soviet bias of their leader, Marshal Pilsudski, which had deprived Stalin of his first choice, a defence pact with France and Britain.
The Finnish lands referred to in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were the same lands previously demanded by Russia from Finland - - a couple of naval bases and a border readjustment of about 16 miles to move the border back from Leningrad in case of a German occupation of Finland with or without Finnish complicity.
Neither one of these piddling little demands were anything like the evidence of a Soviet goal of world domination that plane tries to make them out to be.
-
The Finnish lands referred to in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were the same lands previously demanded by Russia from Finland - - a couple of naval bases and a border readjustment of about 16 miles to move the border back from Leningrad in case of a German occupation of Finland with or without Finnish complicity.
Actually, the "Finnish lands" that the Soviets asked for was all of Finland.
Here is a map of the partition in the pact:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg
Cute map. Actually it's one of two; above is the link. On the first map, all of Finland is assigned to the Russian "sphere of influence" as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. On the second map, showing the actual occupations undertaken by the USSR and Germany under the pact, it shows how much of Finland was actually taken - - more or less as I originally stated, a small sliver, just enough to push back the border about 16 miles from Leningrad. Can't tell from the scale, but it looks like less than 1% of the Finnish land mass.
Again, in the context that this matter was first raised, Russia's alleged desire for world domination, sure looks to me like there's a lot of world left over after this tiny sliver of Finnish territory is taken out and moved into Russian domain.
-
Cute map. Actually it's one of two; above is the link. On the first map, all of Finland is assigned to the Russian "sphere of influence" as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. On the second map, showing the actual occupations undertaken by the USSR and Germany under the pact, it shows how much of Finland was actually taken - - more or less as I originally stated, a small sliver, just enough to push back the border about 16 miles from Leningrad. Can't tell from the scale, but it looks like less than 1% of the Finnish land mass.
I never disagreed that the Russians only acquired a small portion of Finland; as such, your argument here is a strawman.
The point I made, which the original map reinforced, was that Russia wanted all of Finland. Just because Hitler never intended to give it to them (even though he initially agreed) doesn't mean that they didn't want it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg
Cute map. Actually it's one of two; above is the link. On the first map, all of Finland is assigned to the Russian "sphere of influence" as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. On the second map, showing the actual occupations undertaken by the USSR and Germany under the pact, it shows how much of Finland was actually taken - - more or less as I originally stated, a small sliver, just enough to push back the border about 16 miles from Leningrad. Can't tell from the scale, but it looks like less than 1% of the Finnish land mass.
Again, in the context that this matter was first raised, Russia's alleged desire for world domination, sure looks to me like there's a lot of world left over after this tiny sliver of Finnish territory is taken out and moved into Russian domain.
The Soviets tried to take all of Finland , but their recently purged forces were not up to it .
Imagine the glee of Hitler seeing his prospective target displaying such weakness in the face of a much smaller opponent , such things led him to say that a kick on the door would down the whole house of the Soviet Union.
I still do not see any evidence that Stalin or any other Soviet leader ever passed up a chance at aggrandisement of the Empire.
-
<<The Red Army instead got busy carrying out its orders to consolidate dominance of the locals>>
I'm SHOCKED. An occupying army that consolidates its dominance of the locals. What an amazing concept. Obviously at odds with the idea of adding land as a buffer to an attack.
Good start thinking of Iraq in terms of a buffer against attack.
<< , in Poland this amounted to killing most of the well educated.>>
Who by some strange twist of fate happened to come from the aristocratic and haute-bourgeoisie classes and were fervently anti-Communist and anti-Russian. What Stalin SHOULD have done, obviously, was teach them all to sing the Russian version of Kumbayah, then they could have held hands together and swayed to the beat.
So he really needed to shoot a few thousand of them?Mostly as exicutions without trial?
-
Can't tell from the scale, but it looks like less than 1% of the Finnish land mass.
When you include all three sections taken by the Soviet (Karelia, Salla, and Pechenga) Finland lost about 10% of it's land mass and 20% of it's industrial capacity to the Soviets. And it was more like 50 miles, not 16.
-
<<I still do not see any evidence that Stalin or any other Soviet leader ever passed up a chance at aggrandisement of the Empire.>>
Austria's the first example that comes to mind, of course.
But "aggrandisement of the Empire" is a loaded phrase. The U.S.S.R. has suffered terribly from invasions launched from the west, so I think "keeping the former aggressors on a very short leash" is just as accurate a way of describing Stalin's European policy. And much nicer, too. I recall some very ugly scenes when the fascists briefly got the upper hand in Budapest in 1956, but thank God they were put down relatively quickly by the Red Army, while the USSR's former American ally merely stood by and fanned the flames via the Voice of America.
-
<<Good start thinking of Iraq in terms of a buffer against attack.>>
Well, I would, except that, like all the rest of Bush's explanations, it's just one big lie.
<<So he really needed to shoot a few thousand of them?Mostly as exicutions without trial?>>
No, he should have forgotten all about preparing for the coming Nazi attack and devoted at least fifty per cent of the state's resources into providing trials for tens of thousands of anti-Soviet enemies of the people. And left the non-communist Polish intellectuals up to their usual habits of undermining socialism, plotting against Russia and writing ever more elaborate treatises on why the Jews are a poison in the noble soul of the Polish people.
Just to put a little perspective into this, plane, it wasn't even twenty years since the last Polish attack on Russian territory, when the Poles, taking advantage of the Russian Civil War, had attacked Russia and taken the very territory that Russia was only now, in 1939, going to get back. Land that wasn't even inhabited by Poles, but by Belorussians and Russians. Something I'm sure that none of your American "history" textbooks ever mention, just as they'll never mention the Russo-Polish War. Of course not, how can they? Russia is the "aggressor." Russia has always been the "aggressor."
Whoever is in charge of the Great Brainwashing of the American People really did a magnificent job on it. I congratulate him or her without reservation.
-
Austria's the first example that comes to mind, of course.
Actually, Austria pretty much bought off the Russians to get them to leave.
But "aggrandisement of the Empire" is a loaded phrase.
You're complaining when someone else uses loaded phrases like you constantly do? Think you have a copyright on use of loaded phrases?
-
<<Actually, Austria pretty much bought off the Russians to get them to leave.>>
Gee, those evil, greedy little red bastards. And after all the good things Austria did for them, too.
<<Think you have a copyright on use of loaded phrases?>>
If I ever did, either it's expired a long time ago or you and your right-wing pals are pretty brazen.
-
<<Good start thinking of Iraq in terms of a buffer against attack.>>
Well, I would, except that, like all the rest of Bush's explanations, it's just one big lie.
Why do you accept this line from Stalin then , was he famous for honesty?
<<So he really needed to shoot a few thousand of them?Mostly as exicutions without trial?>>
No, he should have forgotten all about preparing for the coming Nazi attack and devoted at least fifty per cent of the state's resources into providing trials for tens of thousands of anti-Soviet enemies of the people. And left the non-communist Polish intellectuals up to their usual habits of undermining socialism, plotting against Russia and writing ever more elaborate treatises on why the Jews are a poison in the noble soul of the Polish people.
They were not enemys of their own people.
-
Personal Message (Offline)
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 09:25:35 AM
<<Good start thinking of Iraq in terms of a buffer against attack.>>
Well, I would, except that, like all the rest of Bush's explanations, it's just one big lie.
Why do you accept this line from Stalin then , was he famous for honesty?
=======================================================================
I accept what Stalin said because the truth of it is evident just from looking at the map. He's obviously kept the German front lines 200 miles away from Russia's borders by annexing that strip of Polish land. It's a no-brainer. I can't even see room for debate, it's so obvious. And as for that land having been ripped off by Poland from Russia in 1919 or 1920, it's in the history books.
And I don't accept what Bush says because not only is it an obvious lie (which any map will clearly demonstrate) but because Bush himself is a notorious liar, which most people now unfortunately recognize.
===========================================================
<<So he really needed to shoot a few thousand of them?Mostly as exicutions without trial?>>
No, he should have forgotten all about preparing for the coming Nazi attack and devoted at least fifty per cent of the state's resources into providing trials for tens of thousands of anti-Soviet enemies of the people. And left the non-communist Polish intellectuals up to their usual habits of undermining socialism, plotting against Russia and writing ever more elaborate treatises on why the Jews are a poison in the noble soul of the Polish people.
plane's answer: They were not enemies of their own people.
============================================================
Sure they were. They were class enemies of the Polish workers and peasants.
-
<<Imagine the glee of Hitler seeing his prospective target displaying such weakness in the face of a much smaller opponent>>
That glee did not last too long. He who laughs last, laughs best. Hitler's skull, or at least the top part of it, is in a little cardboard box in a historical institute in Moscow.
<<such things led him to say that a kick on the door would down the whole house of the Soviet Union.>>
Said a lot of things, as I recall. Something about a "thousand-year Reich" comes to mind. But a thousand years seems to be a long, long time. I wonder sometimes if Hitler was a manic-depressive or whatever politically correct term I should have used.
-
<<Imagine the glee of Hitler seeing his prospective target displaying such weakness in the face of a much smaller opponent>>
That glee did not last too long. He who laughs last, laughs best. Hitler's skull, or at least the top part of it, is in a little cardboard box in a historical institute in Moscow.
<<such things led him to say that a kick on the door would down the whole house of the Soviet Union.>>
Said a lot of things, as I recall. Something about a "thousand-year Reich" comes to mind. But a thousand years seems to be a long, long time. I wonder sometimes if Hitler was a manic-depressive or whatever politically correct term I should have used.
Hey ,I am not prone to defend the wisdom of Adolph , he made several very bad choices and operation Barbarosa was one of the worst. I just don't see Stalin being any smarter.
-
plane's answer: They were not enemies of their own people.
============================================================
Sure they were. They were class enemies of the Polish workers and peasants.
Why do you say this?
-
<<Hey ,I am not prone to defend the wisdom of Adolph , he made several very bad choices and operation Barbarosa was one of the worst. I just don't see Stalin being any smarter.>>
A LOT smarter, IMHO. He won the war. Mistakes were made, no doubt, but that particular match ended with one very clear winner and one very clear loser.
Also don't forget, Stalin was one of a very small clique that masterminded the entire transformation of a society from capitalism to communism, a tremendous upheaval and through the industrial growth of the 1930s, when the Soviet economy was outperforming every other economy on the face of the earth. All Hitler did was oversee a political change while the basic societal underpinnings remained more or less as they were.
-
Sure they were. They were class enemies of the Polish workers and peasants.
Why do you say this?
=================================
plane, I'm beat and I'm gonna turn in. Wikpedia has a good intro under "class struggle" but basically it's because the intellectuals and the educated people in Poland were mostly from wealthy land-owning, merchant or industrial families. The workers and peasants worked on assets (farms, mines, factories) owned by others who parasitically drained the profits of labour from the people who created the profits in the first place. The means of production (land, factories, mines) belong to the people and a natural war or struggle occurs because the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy won't give up the lands unless the workers and peasants take them by force.
So they are enemies because the one class has what is rightfully that of the other. Either the people must suffer the injustice in silence or they must fight for what is rightfully theirs.
-
Sure they were. They were class enemies of the Polish workers and peasants.
Why do you say this?
=================================
plane, I'm beat and I'm gonna turn in. Wikpedia has a good intro under "class struggle" but basically it's because the intellectuals and the educated people in Poland were mostly from wealthy land-owning, merchant or industrial families. The workers and peasants worked on assets (farms, mines, factories) owned by others who parasitically drained the profits of labour from the people who created the profits in the first place. The means of production (land, factories, mines) belong to the people and a natural war or struggle occurs because the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy won't give up the lands unless the workers and peasants take them by force.
So they are enemies because the one class has what is rightfully that of the other. Either the people must suffer the injustice in silence or they must fight for what is rightfully theirs.
Was this what give Stalin the lisense to kill them off?
When the Poles fought for themselves they fought the Natzis or they fought the Soviets ,over time they had to do both.
Doing without them did not benifit the Polish people in any way at all, in general what happened in every country that got rid of landlords was houseing shortage. Exceptions ?
What replaces the elete when you kill them all? A less educated elete , a less motivated management?
Stalin beleived in smashing the culture to facilitate change , the Katin forest grave was the product of Stalins attempt to decapitate the Polish culture.
-
<<Was this what give Stalin the lisense to kill them off?>>
Well, Stalin had his reasons, and I'm sure they were good ones, but he never saw fit to confide them to me. So I am only gonna speculate here.
Probably Stalin foresaw what later actually happened in other countries of occupied Europe - - the upper bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy tended for the most part to side with the German occupiers and collaborate with them, when the issue was presented to them as one of forming a common front against "Bolshevization," which translated readily into "Communist expropriation of private property." In Poland, the all-pervasive anti-Semitism, which permeated every level of Polish society, made collaboration and anti-Soviet activities even more likely, and so Stalin probably figured it was better to nip the problem in
the bud.
As it happened, due to their racial beliefs, which relegated Slavs, Poles included, to the role of "untermenschen" or sub-humans, the Nazis undertook occupation policies of such brutality and contempt that they effectively galvanized the Poles, who are generally very proud people, against them. However, the main Polish underground fighting organizations such as the Home Army, while not actually collaborating with the Germans, maintained very strong anti-Soviet and anti-Russian positions and were jockeying for a post-war, anti-Communist Poland to emerge.
So, on balance, I think Stalin probably made the right move.
<<When the Poles fought for themselves they fought the Natzis or they fought the Soviets ,over time they had to do both.>>
Well, "the Poles" is kind of an overbroad classification. The "Lublin Poles," (the Communists) fought the Nazis and the Home Army only, never the Soviets. The Jewish partisans, communist and non-communist, also had to fight both the Nazis and the Home Army, never the Soviets.
<<Doing without them did not benifit the Polish people in any way at all, in general what happened in every country that got rid of landlords was houseing shortage. Exceptions ?>>
Well, first of all, a huge bloc of anti-Soviet, anti-socialist potential saboteurs was eliminated in one stroke, which would have enormous but unseen benefits in that the beneficial reforms of the new Communist state in education, housing and health-care could proceed unimpeded. It's by what DIDN'T happen that one measures the benefit of this particular action. It didn't all happen in one swift stroke. For example, the last recorded massacre of Jews in Europe happened in Kielce, Poland, in 1946 when over 40 Jews were massacred by an anti-Semitic Polish mob and the local police forces, as usual, failed to intervene and in fact may have facilitated the massacre. Obviously, the failure to eliminate anti-social elements such as the mob ringleaders was a major factor leading to the massacre. I don't fault the Communists, because at that point in time they had not yet acquired absolute power in Poland. And in the aftermath, they did manage to hang all the ringleaders, albeit belatedly. But I often wonder, how many MORE such massacres would have occurred had Stalin not had the foresight to eliminate many of the instigators of racial, religious and class hatred
<<What replaces the elete when you kill them all? A less educated elete , a less motivated management?>>
No, the abolition of an elite class, followed by worker education and worker management. BETTER motivated because they are now working in their own plant for their own benefit, rather than in the Boss's plant for the Boss's benefit.
<<Stalin beleived in smashing the culture to facilitate change >>
I don't think that's true at all, I think that under Stalin, culture was preserved rather than smashed. Even more so than under capitalism. The only negative effect of Stalinism on culture that I can see was the iron-fisted control over content, which strangled the growth of new art and new art forms and killed spontaneity and cultural innovation. The West also imposed a heavy hand on new artists and new art forms, as anyone familiar with the Lenny Bruce saga, the Hollywood Blacklist saga or the publication travails of Lady Chatterley's Lover can attest.
<< the Katin forest grave was the product of Stalins attempt to decapitate the Polish culture.>>
The Katyn Forest victms were Polish Army officers, who would have had a minimal influence on Polish culture and posed a maximal threat to the Soviet State.. These were some of the most reactionary, ultra-conservative and politically unreliable elements in all of Poland. These were desperate times. The U.S.S.R. was facing the greatest threat in its history from the most barbaric of all enemies (I hope you read Molotov's report on German atrocities in occupied Russia, which I linked to for you in another post.) Against an adversary like that, with the clock ticking relentlessly, some harsh and extreme defensive measures had to be taken. (Of course, if Stalin had merely sent them to re-education camps instead, you would have bitched about that too. Whaddayagonnado?)