BS: Stalin

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:10 PM

Modette,

Please be assured that no offense was intended. My only defence is that like most people in England I have never been taught Irish history. My knowledge, limited as it is, has been gained from numerous visits to a wonderful country and gleaned in some part from the generous people I have had the good fortune to meet. My use of Ulster relates to the six counties we in England are told constitute that province. I would have thought if you went back far enough that Caven and Monaghan might have be been part of the ancient province of Meath, but as always am prepared to be corrected on this.

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:11 PM

"Donegal was to the fore in the original campaign of resistance to the proposed imposition of Home Rule upon the people of Ulster."
http://www.reform.org/site/2002/12/31/unionists-county-donegal/

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:14 PM

Keith

You pick the town, you pick the restaurant, you pick the bar. The people I have meet in Ireland are keenly aware of their own history.

Unlike some people on this side on the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:18 PM

Modette

I've just checked on a website and I withdraw Monaghan from my previous post !!

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:22 PM

"Jim, it is years since I read those two biographies "
What two biographies - I asked what stance Deutscher took on the Ukraine - not who he dedicated the book to - reply came there none.
"Do you still doubt I have it?"
Didn't claim you didn't have it, just that you hadn't read it.
We all have books on our shelves we have never got round to reading - you have just shown which one you haven't read.
Your attir#tude to this whole question is incredibly out-of-context and based entirely on Cold War propaganda
Basically the Russian Revolution arose from the War - Russia, having lost nearly 3 million people (over one and a half percent of their population) walked away from the war
The political parties used this as an opportunity for gaining support.
The Mensheviks demanded that the men go bacvk and finish the war - out of the question.
The Bolsheviks opposed the war and adopted a policy of "Peace, Bread and Land - No war, feed whole of the Russias (not just Russla) starving because of the war, and re-distribute the land, in essence, ending feudalism in the rural areas.
In order to carry out the second, they adopted a policy of collectivization - an incredibly difficult task because of the size of the Russian Empire - from primitive peasantry and nomaadism in the East to underdeveloped industry in the west .
Lenin was prepared to negotiate with the various opponents, even re-introducing private enterprise after a time.
The Civil war brought on to re-introduce the old order - 1917-1922 brought about another million or more casualties and left the country devastated and it was this that formed the backdrop to the later famine in the Ukraine - it was never just a question of Stalin getting rid of his enemies butt the uncompromising stance he took towards collectivization and industrialisation
By the way - nce again you ignore the evidence - Russia was never at any time an ally of Nazi Germany - from 1932 it adopted an anti Nazi policy, they took opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War - Reussia promoted the idea of international Brigades while Hitler supported Franco and supplied planes to bomb the Republicans
They were unprepared for a war with Germany, so they signed a non-aggression treaty - at no time did they fight on the same side, as you claim.
If you own any books, for Christ's sake, read them.
Few Dubliners on the scene supported the rising - the men who surrendered at the end of Easter Week had to be protected from the women gathering outside.
On the other hand, there was support throughout the week for the men elsewhere, from Bolands Mill to St Stephen's Green.
Irishmen had joined the war as British men had, (all argued out on other threads) but there was general opposition to the proposed imposition of conscription - anti conscription was one of the main motivating forces in the rise of anti British feeling.
As I say, that all changed from the days when they had to tie Connolly into a chair to shoot him because he was so badly wounded.
This was compounded of course when Britain sent in veterans from WW1 who had been unable to settle into peacetime Britain - they were given arms and uniforms and became known as The Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:30 PM

I'm sure there can't be enough nits left to pick...

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:32 PM

" Many would also be surprised to know that there are, in fact, some 44 Orange Lodges in Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan, Donegal and Wicklow. "

"Indeed, of the twenty-six counties that formed the Saorstát, Donegal had the third largest non-Catholic minority, edged out only by County Dublin (excluding the city) and Monaghan.[2] Even today there are a number of Orange lodges in the county, "

"While the Orange Order managed to maintain its structures reasonably well in the border counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, "
https://thedustbinofhistory.wordpress.com/tag/irish-protestants/

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:40 PM

Jim,
- I asked what stance Deutscher took on the Ukraine - not who he dedicated the book to - reply came there none.

You have had that question answered, and you owe apologies.

I claimed, and still claim that there is no evidence that Stalin did what he did in order to remove his political enemies

No.
You claimed that the starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasant farmers and their children was not deliberate.
Conquest contradicts that, and you claimed him as a source for your view.
Find any post cold war historian who does not contradict your view.
You can not, because his guilt is established.
Your denial is support for him and his crimes.
Dave and I call him monster.
Will you?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:43 PM

I do, Keith, but I also call some people wankers...

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:45 PM

Can we all agree, then, to call Stalin a wanker and Keith a monster?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 04:06 PM

Dave,
So, basically, another pointless argument, Keith.

Yes Dave, thanks to you people.
The history of the famine is not an interest of mine.
All the Irish stuff came from you people.
I only responded to the points you people raised and put to me.
I am so sorry you did not like the facts I put before you.

And now you revert to infantile name calling.
"Wanker" !

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

Once again I will ask who are "you people"

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 05:13 PM

I presume by saying "Yes, Dave, thanks to you people" you are implying you were just responding to me? I would point out that I did not mention anything about Ireland until well after you started so don't go saying you were only responding to me! And I have not reverted to infantile name calling. Just pointing out that I call Stalin a monster and call some people wankers. I have not specified anyone apart from Stalin and you call him a monster as well.

Do you really think that no-one will see through your use of deceit and manipulation of what actually happened? You may have tried to fool the kids you taught but no-one on here would trust you as far as we could throw you.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 05:26 PM

The history of the famine is not an interest of mine.

Nor is history, period. Fairytales, myth and nonsense apparently are.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 08:33 PM

"You have had that question answered, and you owe apologies."
No I have not - you haven't read beyond the index wich you have hastily selected a quote from, as is your wont - Deutscher devoted a great deal of coverage to the Ukraine - there are at least a dozen references to the subject - you have not read the book and you make it obvious that you don't intend to bother reading even the section on the Ukraine - I very much doubt if you have ever read any book.
It really isn't your sort of book (it doesn't have enough pictures) - you lied and now you are bluffing - I ask again WHAT WAS DEUTSCHER'S LINE ON THE FAMINE - not his wife's ort his brother' in laws, or the feller down the pub?
"Conquest contradicts that, and you claimed him as a source for your view."
No I do not - will you stop attributing statements to me that I have not made - I said I had read Conquest and two others biographies I did not cite any of them as a source for any of my views - I have drawn my conclusions from everything I have read - including those three biographies - there is a host of other material on the period.
If anything, Trotsky's 2 volume biography is probably the most factually reliable as he was a contemporary of Stalin when he first appeared on the scene as a minor minister of Nationalities and Deutscher's is the most dispassionate and carefully researched.
How the **** can it be out of date as the topic of the Ukraine has not been examined by anybody fully since - and how the **** would you know anyway as you haven't read and don't read such material? - your breathtaking ignorance proves that..
There is no evidence whatever that Stalin deliberately caused the death of the Ukrainian people who died other than as a result of his efforts to push through collectivisation to the extent he did. He behaved as any other ruthless and incompetent leader has done in pursuit of an objective - (W.W.!" revisited again) unlike the deliberate starvation of the Irish Famine victims - which was clearly proposed as an aim by Trevelyan.
"Conquest contradicts that,"
Conquest claimed that in the first version of his book - he produced no evidence in either version - as one of your references points out - the whole subject has not been researched and what we have are Cold War claims, which may well be true, but to date, are no more than claims.
You are throwing your "out of date" claims around once again as if you have actually read any of these books.
"which Donegal [some might think anomalously] was not included."
The original proposal was to inlude the entire province of Ulster - nine counties - in the partitioned section, but when the calculations were were done, it was realised that this would create a Catholic majority, so they hastily dropped three of them
"I am so sorry you did not like the facts - the stated aim was to create a Protestant State "
You have yet to produce "facts" only claims based on cut-'n-pastes which have been blown clear out of the water, most spectacularly by one of your own historians, Christine Kenneally, who you claimed "knows more than all of us" but who confirmed her belief in the "deliberate Irish holocaust" school of thought.
Please stop pretending you know anything about the things you claim.   
"Wanker"
You still are not reading what people write - he called Stalin a "Wanker" and you a "monster" - read what people write, won't you.
I too would like to know who you are referring to as "you people - as you are again on your own, I presume you mean everybody else?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:24 AM

Jim,
You still are not reading what people write - he called Stalin a "Wanker" and you a "monster"

It is YOU who does not read.
Dave called Stalin a monster and challenged me when I missed it and said he had not.

Stalin's guilt over the starvation of the peasants IS established and acknowledged and accepted by historians.
I have quoted several.
If you deny it, show it is not just a Jim whim.

Re Deutscher, you asked for stuff about the famine, and I gave you a quote.
Stalin's young wife killed herself because she could not live with the guilt and horror of what he was doing.
you don't intend to bother reading even the section on the Ukraine
There is no such section.
Have YOU read the book?

The man was a monster as Dave agrees.
Your denial is support for him and his crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:25 AM

there is a certain similarity in the approach of both of you Jim and Keith. you both enjoy doing Fred Astaire on thin ice.

Keith - he just has this demonic pleasure in saying stuff which is really offensivve. you see people are really close to this stuff - my grandfather was Irish and a an English soldier in the period you talk about. you are actually talking bollocks about MY nearest and dearest. just brcause some historian opines this or that - well that's interesting, but it doesn't make it incontrovertible fact.

similarly Jim this statement:-

'There is no evidence whatever that Stalin deliberately caused the death of the Ukrainian people who died other than as a result of his efforts to push through collectivisation to the extent he did.'

i've got a shrewd feeling that the evidence would not be too hard to lay your hands on. When I was at teacher training college in the late 1960's - the poor devils who took care of us young men, sort of college servants were a colony of East Europeans, men who had families and friends back in Estonia and the Ukraine, etc - but the soviet regime, nasty bastards wouldn't let them reunite with their families. but they had got stuck here - or escaped to this side after world war 2. thir predicament was quite pathetic, they had thir rooms with their framed photographs of families they would never see again. terrible malice and cruelty to old men.

Stalin, and his inheritors - not nice people. i bet they knew about every hurt they inflicted. Solzhenitsyn's stuff sort of confirms it. you really are talking about shit in human form. don't bother sticking up for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:36 AM

Conquest's book,
"this famine was organised by Stalin quite consciously and according to plan."

Al, I do not set out to offend.
My views are formed from reading history.
If the history does not f

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:38 AM

Jim was obviously referring to Greg's post 29 July 03.45 when he typed

" Can we all agree, then, to call Stalin a wanker and Keith a monster?"

So Jim wasn't incorrect at all and once again you are trying to fudge the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:39 AM

Conquest's book,
"this famine was organised by Stalin quite consciously and according to plan."

Al, I do not set out to offend.
My views are formed from reading history.
If the history does not fit your experience, I am sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:41 AM

Rag, Dave yesterday,
"Just pointing out that I call Stalin a monster "

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:47 AM

Sod all to do with Dave, Jim was quoting Greg's post 29th July 03.45pm when Greg typed:

" Can we all agree, then, to call Stalin a wanker and Keith a monster?"

Nothing more, nothing less and once again you cannot accept you were mistaken. However there's nothing new in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:26 AM

Rag, Jim said,
"You still are not reading what people write - he (Dave)called Stalin a "Wanker" and you a "monster" - read what people write, won't you."

He and Greg BOTH were wrong about Dave.
Dave calls Stalin a monster, and said so in two separate posts which they somehow missed.
What about you Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:51 AM

Greg posted: "Can we all agree, then, to call Stalin a wanker and Keith a monster"

Jim posted: "Wanker" "You still are not reading what people write - he called Stalin a "Wanker" and you a "monster" - read what people write, won't you"

No mention of Dave at all. You are putting(Dave)into Jim's post, no on else. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence you still argue that black is white.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:53 AM

Nitpicking at its finest. All this who said what and who called who what is ignoring the elephant in the room. It is what Keith does best.

During the Irish famine a million or so died. That doesn't matter because he can prove there were not many anti-British songs before the 20th century.

37 million people died in the first world war. That doesn't matter because he can prove they are well led. You lose.

We will probably know how many Stalin killed. That doesn't matter because I agree he is a monster. You lose.

Hundreds of millions of people lose their lives to violence and starvation. Keith always wins. Sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:55 AM

""this famine was organised by Stalin quite consciously and according to plan.""
Conquest had no basis for saying this - he was drawing on Cold war rhetoric for his information as (as your own link said) the subject has for some unknown reason, been neglected - it would be interesting to know why that is the case.
The numbers calculated of the death toll of the Ukrainian famine range between 4 to 10 million - can you imagine the reaction if the Nazi holocaust with just a mere!!" six million deaths had received so little attention.
Nowhere has it been shown that Stalin's "plan" was to wipe out so many people - the plan was to enforce collectivisation on The Ukraine.
The casualties for World War One were 37 million: over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, It was not the "plan" to produce such horrific figures - that was the end result of actions taken.
You have defended that conflict as being just and even (unbelievably), voluntarily sacrifices - because you supported the war, Imperialist as it was - never a word on the number of casualties from you.
I have no doubt of Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine, I take Deuscher's and other historians' point that there was an alternative way to handle the collectivisation crisis being dealt with - that is my feeling on that particular event.
My d#condemnation of Stalin goes far wider than that and deals with the betrayal of the Soviet people - I've already said this several times yet you, with your twisted logic, have claimed I support him.
You choose to use historical soundbites in your virtually non-existent historical analysis - I prefer to take attempt to understand the context and make my mind up on the whole picture.
Your views are not formed on reading history - you appear to have come to all of these subjects, Ireland, World War One, now this, with pre-conceived notions based on toyr extreme right-wing view of life and your fanatical nationalism, and then scrabbled around to fund quotes to back up your ignorance.
When I mentioned the situation in Germany following World War One, you dismissed it out of hand as a pack of lies - your really do not have a clue, neither do you have enough nouse to read up on these subjects - arguing with you is, I should imagine, like trying to give evidence at a McCarthy trial - you neither understand, nor car what the facts of these matters are as long as Britannia comes out with a clean bottom and the 'baddies' get theirs.
Read a book Keith, even something as incomplete as Conquest's cold war epic, and come back with some real arguments - I really have got very bored with your soundbites.
Still no indication that you have the slightest clue on what Deutscher had to say on the events in The Ukraine - surely you can get your wife to read it to you if you can't manage it yourself - or maybe wait for the film.....!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:03 AM

"You still are not reading what people write"
You're wasting tor time Guest - dyslexia rules in Hertford, it would appear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:22 AM

Are you always winning things Keith.....raffles, premium bonds, the lottery, dog races.....

Its a bit irritating for us poor luckless bastards....

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:32 AM

Dave, you lie about me.

I see the famine as a human catastrophe on an appalling scale, and would never, ever say it "doesn't matter."

I see the war, and WW1 in particular, as a human catastrophe on an appalling scale, and would never, ever say it "doesn't matter."

I see the Stalin's terror as a human catastrophe on an appalling scale, and would never, ever say it "doesn't matter."

Can you challenge any single thing that I have actually said Dave?
No.
Just made up shit and name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:45 AM

"I see the famine as a human catastrophe on an appalling scale, and would never, ever say it "doesn't matter.""
You justified it and attempted to exonerate those who used it to 'solve the Irish question"
You still have not acknowledged that facts of the Irish famine, despite the evidence you have been given and despite the fact that your star witness contradicts eveything you have claimed - neither has your friendly neighbourhood holocaust denier Torytune.
The same with World War One - denials of facts and exoneration of the bastards who caused it in order to protect their empires.
As far as Stalin's terror is concerned - you ignore the context of the events. you claim to have studies them, which you obviously have not, and you deliberately lie about the positions of those who disagree with you - you have never once withdrawn your sich accuastions.
Virtually everything you have said has been challenged and you ignore it, ans you ignore the alternative arguments.
It really is a bit rich for you - of all people - to accuse anybody of lying about to - you have made it your stock-in-trade.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:46 AM

Jim,
Conquest had no basis for saying this -

Of course he had, and if you look references are given.

Nowhere has it been shown that Stalin's "plan" was to wipe out so many people - the plan was to enforce collectivisation on The Ukraine.

There is your totally unsupported assertion again.
Find a single historian who believes it.
I have quoted several who acknowledge and accept that the famine was deliberate, and created to rid Stalin of a people, the Ukrainian (and other) peasant farmers.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:46 AM

You lie constantly professor. Even when it is clearly illustrated as I did this morning you either ignore the post or twist the words to "fit" your interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:55 AM

You justified it and attempted to exonerate those who used it to 'solve the Irish question"

A blatant lie jim.
There is no basis for that slanderous statement whatsoever!

You still have not acknowledged that facts of the Irish famine,

I know nothing about it and always acknowledged that.
I only pointed out that historians dispute culpability, which is the truth.

As far as Stalin's terror is concerned - you ignore the context of the events.

I just report the findings of the historians.
I can do that and you can not because they contradict your discredited view of the monster.

Virtually everything you have said has been challenged

Not one single thing I have said has been challenged, except by your unsupported and unsupportable assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM

Can you challenge any single thing that I have actually said Dave?

What, sort of in the same way that you challenge people for what they have NOT said? Like, you have never said he was a monster, therefore you must believe he is not?

I now know it is not just me either. Other people have started to comment about how you distort what other people have said and, even worse, change what you have said yourself when you are caught out. The main reason I cannot challenge what you say is that you keep changing what you say you meant.

I may not go as far as saying you lie, but you certainly cheat.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 08:27 AM

"A blatant lie jim."
WHAT......????
You denied Trevelyan';s statement and insisted it was a natural disaster
You used Kenneally as proof that no such intention existed and when she blew up in your face, you just went on with your claims.
You described the depictions of the Irish people as club-wielding apes as harmless run-of-the-mill cartoons.
You denied the existence of the 'No Irish Need Apply Signs'
Your attitude to Ireland has been that of a bigoted Brit from day one, on every aspect of Irish history   
"I know nothing about it and always acknowledged that."
But that did not stop you making your claims, nor did it stop you from claiming you had produced a horde of phantom historians to back them up - you did this over three treads.
You have yet to even acknowledge the facts you have been given about Ireland, let alone disprove them - nor has your mate, Torytune
"I just report the findings of the historians."
'As you always argue - you haven't read these historians - all you have done is taken out-of-context quotes to back preformed impressions.
Again, you claim to have read one of the great works on the subject, yet you are totally unable to quote from it - give us a break!!
"discredited view of the monster."
Once again - you are lying about our position -nobody is saying anything in hneed of discrediting - Stalin was what he was and we all acknowledge that.
Yoe haven't even attempted to show deliberate intent - not once - out of context claims don't hack it.
As for being insulted -= how many times have you referred to those who disagree with you as "lefties" or "liars" or "naive" o "muppets" or "sad, sad people"
How dare you complain of being insulted when you do so as often as you do - and insult our intelligence with your transparent and uninformed bigotry?
"Find a single historian who believes it."
Find one historian who provides proof that he did - your admits that the subject has not been researched.
You have been given the context of Stalin's behaviour - you have been given our attitude towards it - have the good grace to at least admit that nobody here as ever condoned his behaviour - an admission that you have never read a history book in your life is out of the question, I suppose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 08:55 AM

You denied Trevelyan';s statement and insisted it was a natural disaster LIE.

You used Kenneally as proof that no such intention existed and when she blew up in your face, you just went on with your claims. LIE.

You described the depictions of the Irish people as club-wielding apes as harmless run-of-the-mill cartoons.
I pointed out that British people especially the poor were similarly portrayed.

You denied the existence of the 'No Irish Need Apply Signs' LIE.

Not one of those accusations has any truth in them whatsoever.
All made up Jim.

All I ever argued was that historians dispute culpability, and quoted Kinealy that those who accuse Britain are the minority and had been for about eighty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:11 AM

RE: Folklore/History: Irish Famine
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Sep 13 - 03:21 AM

Jim, I am not debating the famine.
I am looking forward to following such a debate.

It is a pity you still deny that historians are split over the question of blame.
Why is blame so important to you?
It is the events of the famine and its impact on the people that is of most interest.

Al I had and have to say about blame is that most historians, especially the professional, academic ones, challenge it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:15 AM

I may not go as far as saying you lie

Oh, go ahead, Dave. Its not that far at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:18 AM

BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 11:58 AM

There really is no question regarding Britain's culpability

I know nothing about the famine, but I know that is bollocks.
I know that because Jim pasted in an essay by a historian who DOES think Britain culpable, who states unequivocally that the dominant view among historians is that Britain was not!

Also I have quoted historians disputing culpability, so when Jim says there is no question of it, he is talking bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:30 AM

Also I have quoted historians disputing culpability

But are they alive or dead? Do they wear pleated or un-pleated trousers?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 10:24 AM

I mentioned this early. It is a comment by Philip Hensher in The Spectator. He is a professional book reviewer and understands that books and authors are often contradictory. The particular comment is about a work on WW1 but is equally applicable to any major historic event.

...but still it shows no sign of respectable ossification; no armistice of opposing historians seems in prospect. It maintains a terrible, vivid, constantly mutable life. Like the French Revolution, its meaning shifts from generation to generation and according to which politician happens to be speaking at the moment.

This is what Keith cannot seem to grasp. His current 'truth' can never be the whole picture. No interpretation of past events ever will be as the "meaning shifts" depending on the current political climate, what will sell books and a host of other factors. To paraphrase someone's comment on fashion, "History is a thing so awful they have to change it twice a year".

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 10:52 AM

Thank you for confirming your ignorance on Ireland and your position based on that ignorance You have Kenneally's statement that it was deliberate genocide - you swore the one who produced her in the first place and who described her as "knowing more than the rest of us put together) yet she agreed with Coogan's conclusion that the results of the famine were deliberate.
You have also been given the full facts of the warehoused bursting to the seams, yet locked wile Ireland starved (exactly as happened in The Ukraine).
You have been linked to Trevelyan's statement that the Famine was God's punishment on the Irish people for their indolent ways.
All this, and your argument remains unchandes.
what exactly are you arguing here Keith?
Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots?
Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?
Didn't the Government lock full warehouses and put armed guards on them?
Didn't the Russell's Tory Government dismantle all the relief measures put into place by Peel's administration
Didn't they adopt a laisse faire policy of selling famine relief to impoverished Irish peasants at market prices?
Wasn't the sugestion made by Trevelyan that the Famine was a possible solution to the Irish Question?
Weeren't the Irish people geiven the alternatives, emigrate or starve?
Which of these statements do you actually dispute?
Which of them make my arguments bollocks
This is exactly what I mean about taking quotes out of context and ignroing facts
You have taken two of your own quotes totally out of context to prove that you didn't say what yo have said
Couldn't have select a better example of your dishonesty myself.
It is little wonder that people lose their patience with your obsessive dishonesty and start to call you names
The pair of you were tottally hammered into the ground n this question and you still refuse to budge - and you still are unable to quote a book you have read on the subject, just as you are unable to quote from a book on the Unkraine that you claim to have read
You really are something else!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 11:14 AM

Kenneally's statement Jim?
Christine Kinealy acknowledges that most historians do not find Britain culpable.
All I have ever claimed is that it is disputed.

I am surprised that you rate Tim Pat Coogan. You denigrated Max Hastings as a hack because of his background in journalism.
Apart from writing a few books, Coogan has no credentials as an historian.

Here historian Liam Kennedy rips him to shreds over the idea that it was deliberate.
http://www.drb.ie/blog/writers-and-artists/2013/02/25/was-the-famine-a-genocide-

Here he says, "n the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people, "
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/TheGreatIrishFamineandth

I have no opinion, except that the issue is still disputed.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 11:17 AM

Second link no good.
Use this.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/TheGreatIrishFamineandtheHolocaust/

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 12:10 PM

Here we go again - same old links, same old evasion of facts.
I have carefully set out the proof of Britain's culpability in the outcome of the famine.
Rather than throw abot historians you have not read, please adress the issues I have raised - I really can't be more specific than that
Three postings up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 02:04 PM

No Jim.
I have no opinion on the famine, but I have showed you that historians dispute that Britain can be blamed at all, never mind that it was deliberate!

You are entitled to your opinion, but do not kid yourself that the truth has been established.

Rather than throw abot historians you have not read, please adress the issues I have raised

No.
This thread is about Stalin, and I have little knowledge or interest in Irish history.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 03:13 PM

Once again Professor you are attempting to bypass something because it illustrates the degree of your duplicity. To put it in words you possibly understand your LIES.

This morning I posted :Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:51 AM

Greg posted: "Can we all agree, then, to call Stalin a wanker and Keith a monster"

Jim posted: "Wanker" "You still are not reading what people write - he called Stalin a "Wanker" and you a "monster" - read what people write, won't you"

No mention of Dave at all. You are putting(Dave)into Jim's post, no on else. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence you still argue that black is white.

Once again you have totally ignored this comment because once again it shows what a lying deceitful little (s**t) individual you are.

Respond to the accusation you are a LIAR or refrain from commenting.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 03:26 PM

"I have no opinion on the famine,"
Yes you do - you have just stated that Britain was not culpable for the death toll - what is that if it is not an opinion?
"You are entitled to your opinion,"
And you are obliged to provide proof if you disagree with that opinion - I have specified exactly why I believe that Britain was dirctly responsible for the outcome of the famine and why it was adopted as a deliberate policy to depopulate Ireland and remove the political pressure for independence.
If you refuse to respond to those reasons - either to explain them or to deny them, then you have no grounds for denial.
"This thread is about Stalin,"
Oh dear, the dreaded thread drift again - a sure sig that you no longer have ay more phantom historians lurking in the cupboard!!!
This ir relevant to what happened in The Ukraine because of the parallels of what happened in Ireland - more or less identical, except that there is no proof of intent in the former as there is in the latter.
"I do not dismiss or endorse any of the historians' views on this."
Not true - you have dismissed Coogan on the basis that he is (a) a Republican (as if Republicans have no knowledge of the country they are championing and Engish right wingers do!!), and (b) Because he is not a qualified historian.
Tell the truth now - you'll feel much better for it!
How come you were knowledgeable when you gave those reasons, but are not now.
Please say you never said those things - as a personal favour to me!
You have the reasons I have given as to why Britain was culpable in Ireland
In case you missed them - I've repeated them blow.
I will add the additional reason that, throughout the famine, English landlords were evicting Irish tenants who were unable to pay their rent due to the failure of the potato crop.
One of the first actions of Lord Russell's new administration was to close the workhouses that has been set up in Peel's time.
Many thousands died on the roadside or in holes the lucky ones ahd manage to dig for themselves in the earth - if they did this on property that was owned, they were moved on, so they die3d where they fell.
They were buried in mass, unmarked graves, "coffinless graves", many of which are kept alive in the memories of the people in the areas worst effects, such as here in West Clare - they are called "The Hungry Grass".
Jim Carroll   
One more time:
what exactly are you arguing here Keith?
Didn't Trevelyan make his statements (about both the Irish and the Scots?
Wasn't he the British appointed as advisor on the Famine?
Didn't the Government lock full warehouses and put armed guards on them?
Didn't the Russell's Tory Government dismantle all the relief measures put into place by Peel's administration
Didn't they adopt a laisse faire policy of selling famine relief to impoverished Irish peasants at market prices?
Wasn't the sugestion made by Trevelyan that the Famine was a possible solution to the Irish Question?
Weeren't the Irish people geiven the alternatives, emigrate or starve?
Which of these statements do you actually dispute?
Which of them make my arguments bollocks

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 03:30 PM

Missed a bit
"This thread is about Stalin, and I have little knowledge or interest in Irish history."
You have absolutely none about the situation in The Ukraine, yet that hasn't stopped you pontificating
Still waiting for that Deutscher quote from the book wot you 'ave red!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Raedwulf
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 03:35 PM

Teribus - there is nothing I can teach you about sneering or condescension. I didn't even mention the latter. It's a shame you won't consider what's been said, because you do talk a lot of good sense. You always have done, whether I've agreed with you or not. But if you prefer to play Cassandra, who am I to argue?