BS: Queen Mother

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM

"Can you find a single authoritative source suggesting it was not deliberate genocide?"
Oh, for ***8 sake Keith - will you never get tited of trying to prove by negative
The subject has not been researched, not even by the Ukrainians - you want to use silence as proof - why not?
The article points out that the famine is "muted" in history" - why, fear of upsetting the Stalinists, not rocking the boat - far morle likely that either the evidence does not exist, or it that what it contains details that would upset too many people
You have proved over and over again that your definition of "authoritative" is those who agree with you.
You have not read anything on the subject, once again, your "knowledge2 is limited to selected cut-'n-pastes.
Can you thik of aa single reason fror arguing for somebody who is not interested enough in a subject to have learned a little about it - I can't?
Go and win your glittering prizes elsewhere if you are not prepared to read up on your pre-decided arguments
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:07 AM

"No communist manifesto ever required millions of people to be murdered, and claims to the contrary, or actions to that effect, are mere perversions."

Not perversions Shaw just simple well recorded fact - or the reality of the situation when a bunch of ideologists try to apply an unworkable political system to life and then find themselves totally inadequate for the job in hand. Instead of adapting their political ideals to match up to and cope with real problems they try in vain to alter how things actually happen in life to conform to their impossible ideas of how they think they should work - result utter chaos and total breakdown that has to be blamed on "someone else" - and that Stevie, old son, is when the purges and the mass blood-lettings begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 06:22 AM

You said four out of ten were communist. I said that six out of ten were not. And numbers games are very dodgy when you're trying to rank events on some kind of immorality scale. I should also remind you that no mass slaughters were ever committed under the flag of any communist ideal, any more than ISIS represents real Islam or a minority of Catholic priests who abuse children represent true Christianity. The Crusades were allegedly fought under a banner of Christianity, but we all know that that isn't what it was really about. No communist manifesto ever required millions of people to be murdered, and claims to the contrary, or actions to that effect, are mere perversions.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 05:40 AM

Jim, the cut and paste refutes your claim that, "There have been numerous attempts to portray it either way, neither are conclusive."

Can you find a single authoritative source suggesting it was not deliberate genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM

"I think you need to make your mind up whether they cost us a penny or not"

No I don't Stevie - The UK Head of State and the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a single penny - former Prime Ministers and their families (Most notably one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair) costs the UK taxpayer a fortune. Doesn't mean that a purely hypothetical exercise in costs cannot be made. Cheaper to run than any European President and far, far cheaper than the US President our HOS comes out as being extremely good value for money.

An example of Shaw logic at work - I made reference to the list of top ten democides that have existed in the world dating back to the time of Genghis Khan:

"six out of ten were not communist"

Ah but Stevie old son the four who were communist were responsible for the deaths of 64% of the 189 million people killed by that top ten - True? Helps to view things in context and with a health dose of a thing called perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:54 AM

"Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights"
Seen that one Keith - exactly what difference does it make to the argument other than it being yet another cut-'n-paste you have dredged up?
One of the great mysteries about the Ukraine famine is that there has been virtually no serious research into the facts of it - it is usually something that those who think the world is a wonderful place and in need of no change, toss round and points at saying, "Look, if you upset the apple-cart, this is what will happen" (pretty much as you are doing here).
The old Soviet regime superficially defended it, but between them, nothing conclusive was ever decided on and it remains a propaganda ping-pong.
The Canadian research study was interesting in that, if you set a totally neutral group of people in front of the known facts, the result remains inconclusive - it remains an enigma
There is one fairly comprehensive work that was written in the 40s defending the action of The Soviet Union, but it was written at a time that makes it suspect, and I'm sure people like yourself would fall over yourself to point out that the author was a Trades Unionist and "not a real historian" and therefore, not to be trusted, especially as he comes up with a different claim than your own.
For me, The Ukrainian Famine is a plum ripe for plucking for those who would show us the evil ways of communism - why hasn't it been plucked, why does it remain floating out there in no-man's land?
Anyway - scrabble away with your cut-'n-pastes and let's see if anything new emerges
Meanwhile, for those seriously interested in the history of the period (and not just winning prizes), I really would recommend the highly readable, 'The Kings, Depart', by Richard Watt, history at its very best, covering the period from the end of World War One, through to the rise of the Nazis.
"The usual suspect saying "If it were true, the historians would have had a consensus about it." -
You're right Muskie - comforting to know nothing changes and God is still in his heaven
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:25 AM

Rutgers–Newark Colleges of Arts & Sciences Rutgers–Newark Colleges Of Arts & Sciences

Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights

Ukrainian famine, 1932-1933

"Known in Ukrainian as Holodomor or "death by hunger,' the Ukrainian famine is categorized as genocide in the annals of history, however muted its presence is in mainstream history textbooks. "
http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/ukrainian-famine

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,HM King Musket III
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:44 AM

Just having a browse, wondering why people were still debating pre war attitudes to atrocities that hadn't really started happening.,

Scanning down, I noticed a comment from the usual suspect saying "no... If it were true, the historians would have had a consensus about it."

Dunno what that snippet was about, and didn't bother reading to find out but thanks for giving my day a start with a chuckle Keith. Much obliged and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:23 AM

"Absolutely he did"
Stalin's 'thing' was his 'man of the people' image, which largely worked.
Slaughtering millions of peasants and workers really wouldn't have helped that, not on that scale.
"There's a big difference between an enforced "cult of personality"
If it was enforced it was incredibly effective - how exactly was that done - a soldier billeted with every family?
"There have been a number of attempts to portray the mass starvation of 1932-33 as "an accidental result of collectivisation" "
There have been numerous attempts to portray it either way, neither are conclusive.
As the Canadian article points out, there have been no actual studies carried out on the period, neither from within or without the Ukraine - just Cold War rhetoric from both sides - not reliable either way.
Stalin was a ruthless monster, and he ranks with the world's worst - I certainly don't intend to defend his monstrous acts, especially as I believe he hijacked a chance to make the world a better place in my time, but I remain unconvinced on this particular one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 10:31 PM

JC: Stalin, as meglomanic as he was, had nothing to gain by deliberately wiping out so many people.

Absolutely he did, although it wasn't so much "genocide against the Ukrainian people" as "elimination of class enemies".

This is about as accurate as your comment that the Soviet people "idolised Stalin". There's a big difference between an enforced "cult of personality" and genuine idolising of someone.

There have been a number of attempts to portray the mass starvation of 1932-33 as "an accidental result of collectivisation" but they don't really hold water when you look at the announcement made by Stalin in 1929 that "the Kulaks will be liquidated as a class". Kulaks being that group of slightly better-off peasants who were able to feed themselves and produce a small surplus and thereby might be in a position to resist or ignore "building socialism in the countryside". Typically they'd have a couple of cows and maybe 10 acres of cultivatable land. Some had more, but that was typical. Hardly landlords!

In December 1929 Stalin announced: "Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their production with the production of kolkhozes and sovkhozes".

There was a resolution of 30th January 1930 "On Measures for The Elimination of Kulak Households in Districts of Comprehensive Collectivisation" which divided kulaks into 3 categories:

- to be shot or imprisoned on designation by the local security services
- to be deported(internal exile)after confiscation of property
- To be evicted from their smallholdings and used as forced labour in local gulags

Seed corn and seed potatoes were forcibly (and deliberately) confiscated in 1931/32, so it is hardly surprising that harvests suffered hugely in 1932/33.

Sounds pretty deliberate to me. Any unbiased thorough investigation of the period would be likely, IMO, to arrive at a similar conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:34 PM

OK, Teribus, but six out of ten were not communist. Incidentally, those of us who harbour a smidgeon of idealism in our probably-deluded brains that communism might just be an answer to capitalism's horrid exploitations do not necessarily accept that the horrible experiments in state communism, as practised in China and the Soviet Union, were ever the right way to go. It's worth remembering that western capitalism is very good at snuffing out genuine attempts at communism, such as in Venezuela and Chile. When Stalin was indulging in mass murder, he wasn't doing communism, any more than Catholic priests who abuse children are doing Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:27 PM

"Mr Carroll tells us that the deaths under Stalin were down to"
I don't ptell anybody any such thing Mr Teribus - I point out that the evidence of intent is shrouded in Cold-War rhetoric - it might well have been deliberate, but it could just as well have been incompetent mishandling of collectivization and industrialisation.
I am no Stalin supporter, but at the same time, I'm not prepared to draw my conclusions on the word of nations who sent Europe's youth to their deaths in order to retain their grips on colonies, or slaughtered up to 15 million Congolese, or earlier, manipulated a famine in Ireland which led to 1 million deaths and 1 million emigrations.
Unless you have information the rest of us don't possess, neither of us knows whether the Ukraine Famine was deliberate or one of incompetence.
Achmelvich is right holocausts and mass murders no no political or religious boundaries - we know for a fact that over 11 million human beings were deliberately put to death under German industrial capitalism - largely exterminated because of their race, ethnic origins, political beliefs or their metal or physical state of health.
Four Communist leaders?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:40 PM

nothing wrong with communism. problem is that a few mass murderers have committed terrible atrocities in it's name. see also christianity, capitalism, islam etc. see american imperialism called freedom. see the uk government bringing in fascism and calling it choice. if you have any difficulty understanding how the 1% are fucking up the world read naomi klein's 'shock doctrine'

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:09 PM

Democide - that's another word

The league table of the worlds top ten of democides dating back to the time of Genghis Khan were responsible for the deaths of over 189 million people - How odd that out of that 189 million four Communist leaders account for over 121 million of them - Mr Carroll tells us that the deaths under Stalin were down to:

"the gross mismanagement of the collectivisation plan and the move to industrialisation."

The people Stalin deliberately targeted and intentionally wiped out were "Kulak" Farmers (In the UK they were the equivalent of the Yeoman or Free land owning farmers) The unfortunate side effect of wiping these people out, that Stalin & Co were perfectly well aware of was that in destroying them for political reasons he deliberately rid his country of the only people who knew how to farm the land efficiently, the result was food shortages and famine - not once in all the time that the communists ruled Russia was it ever self sufficient and able to feed itself - such was not the case under the Tsars.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 05:27 PM

My view on the word Holocaust, capital H, is that it should only be used for the systematic murder by the Nazis of six million Jews and other people belonging to various minorities. Find other words for other mass slaughters.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM

This is a very interesting discussion. Please remember to keep the personal animosity out of the equation.
OK?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:23 PM

"but over extended periods there is rarely if ever a "consensus among historians""
Ah, but there's historians and "real historians" who sell their books in "real bookshops"
And then, there's phantom historians who say what you want them to say - like "gottle of gear "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM

There are fashionable views, but over extended periods there is rarely if ever a "consensus among historians" any more than a consensus among musicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:17 PM

"If there were, there would be a consensus among historians about it."
Oh dear - those damned historians again!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:08 PM

And there speaks the voice of reason

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 02:45 PM

there is a mass of documented information to back the claim that The (Irish)famine was deliberately mismanaged

No there is not.
If there were, there would be a consensus among historians about it.
You will remember from previous discussions that there is no consensus even for negligence or incompetence, never mind deliberate fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM

"History and evidence will sort out the truth from propaganda.

That doesn't seem too likely. I can't think of any cases where it has. If anything it works the other way.

"Holocaust" seems a fair term to use where millions of people get wiped out by human actions. The question of how far that was preplanned by government is important, but it's not the central question, which is whether the deaths happened, and whether that could have been prevented. It's very reasonable to apply it to what happened in Ukraine in the 1920s and Ireland in the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 11:58 AM

remember when the queen mother used to be wheeled out of her house once a year on her birthday so she could wave at some soldiers going by? jeez - that was annoying. possibly not as annoying as starving in ukraine, but pretty close

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 10:53 AM

No intention of entering into one of your "my "real" historian can piss higher than your "real historian" competitions, and I've certainly no intention of tryiny to rehabilitate Stalin - I've said what I believe he was.
I've been interested in Modern European history for most of my life and I've always been aware of the claims surrounding the Ukrainian famine, so I really don't need to dredge the net to prove the unprovable.
As far as I ma concerned this statement more or less sums up how I understand it
" Compared to the Holocaust, there has been little serious study of the famine even among its survivors."
And this essay more or less reflects my own views, make of it what you will.
Genocide or a vast tragedy
If you have anything to add that doesn't come with your usual agenda, feel free.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM

Again - speculation from outside, inconclusive.
The Ukrainian Holocaust was a theory mooted from The Cold War period, and, like the Irish Holocaust theory, has never been proved one way or the other.
Similar descriptions came from Ireland in their hundreds and were, and still are being denied as being deliberate.
History and evidence will sort out truth from propaganda.
Stalin, as meglomanic as he was, had nothing to gain by deliberately wiping out so many people.
Studies of the claim have been made, nearer the time of the events, which have debunked the claims - either accounts may be true, but without taking them in context, none are reliable.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM

"Eighty years ago, millions of Ukrainians died in a famine that many label a genocide by the Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin."

"Some historians, like Yale University's Timothy Snyder, who has done extensive research in Ukraine, place the number of dead at roughly 3.3 million. Others say the number was much higher.
Whatever the actual figure, it is a trauma that has left a deep and lasting wound among this nation of 45 million.
Entire villages were wiped out, and in some regions the death rate reached one-third. The Ukrainian countryside, home of the "black earth", some of the most fertile land in the world, was reduced to a silent wasteland.
Cities and roads were littered with the corpses of those who left their villages in search of food, but perished along the way. There were widespread reports of cannibalism.
Ms Karpenko says that when school resumed the following autumn, two thirds of the seats were empty."

"They say that Joseph Stalin wanted to starve into submission the rebellious Ukrainian peasantry and force them into collective farms.
The Kremlin requisitioned more grain than farmers could provide. When they resisted, brigades of Communist Party activists swept through the villages and took everything that was edible.
"The brigades took all the wheat, barley - everything - so we had nothing left," says Ms Karpenko. "Even beans that people had set aside just in case.
"The brigades crawled everywhere and took everything. People had nothing left to do but die.""

"As the hunger mounted, Soviet authorities took extra measures, such as closing off Ukraine's borders, so that peasants could not travel abroad and obtain food. This amounted to a death sentence, experts say.
"The government did everything it could to prevent peasants from entering other regions and looking for bread," says Oleksandra Monetova, from Kiev's Holodomor Memorial Museum.
A file picture taken on October 22, 2012, shows Russia's President Vladimir Putin (R) and his visiting Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovych
Viktor Yanukovych (L), like the Kremlin, says Holodomor was not genocide
"The officials' intentions were clear. To me it's a genocide. I have no doubt.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25058256
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25058256

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

There is no evidence that this was a deliberate act - the suggestion is that it was the cause of gross mismanagement of the collectivisation plan and the move to industrialisation.
The Genocide claim was based purely on the opposition to collectivisation by the Ukrainians - it remains unsubstantiated.
It occupies the same place in history as the 'Irish Holocaust'claim, the difference being that there is a mass of documented information to back the claim that The famine was deliberately mismanaged to turn a natural disater into a solution of "The Irish Question".
I in no way defend Stalin and his behavior, but I have little doubt that for the most part he believe that what he was doing was for the good of the Russian people, as twisted as those beliefs may have been.in doing so, he debased what I believe was a noble ideal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Keith a
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM

Stalin deliberately allowed millions of Ukranians to starve in the twenties and thirties.
They were not all political opponents, and their plight was known inside and outside of Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:46 AM

"This is bollocks."
No it isn't - Stalin's excesses were aimed at his political opponents, not the Russian people as a whole
The Moscow Trials were aimed at The Old Bolsheviks, not the people.

"The power of the party, in turn, now was concentrated in the persons of Stalin and his handpicked Politburo. Symbolic of the lack of influence of the party rank and file, party congresses met less and less frequently. State power, far from "withering away" after the revolution as Karl Marx had predicted, instead grew in strength. Stalin's personal dictatorship found reflection in the adulation that surrounded him; the reverence accorded Stalin in Soviet society gradually eclipsed that given to Lenin."

I was in Russia in the 1960s and even then, the attitude towards Stalin was ambivalent - "a flawed genius".
Stalin fostered 'the cult of the individual' in the name of Bolshevism and was pretty successful in doing so - he usurped political power by removing his political opponents - "The Terror" was aimed at them, not the people as a whole.
When we visited Lenin's Tomb, it was explained to us that the mass of the visitors that queued were largely made up of Russians who treated the visit as a pilgrimage.
In the mid sixties, W.W.2 was referred to as "The Great Patriotic War" and Stalin was still regarded in the same terms as was Churchill back home.
The idea that any dictator could enslave an entire nation is a nonsense - no leader could terrorise an entire people - Hitler won the support of masses of the German people, Stalin did the same in Russia.
The difference was that Hitler sold Germany the idea of a racially pure 'Reich' while Stalin traded on the dream of communism.
Whatever the faults of the Soviet Union, the lot of the people was far improved than it had been under Tsarism, and Russia moved from a semi-feudal State to an industrial economy, a contender on the world stage - peoples lives improved immensely.
The collapse came when the economy failed and when the Soviet leadership finally abandoned the dream of Communism - not from popular pressure.
The same was true elsewhere in the communist bloc   
A friend and I thumbed our way into Prague on the day that the Russians opened the up border after the 1968 invasion
We had been picked up hitching, by a couple of students in Germany who were returning home to see that their families were ok.
When we got to Prague, we were found empty rooms in a student hostel and were taken around to meet some of the people who were part of the anti-Soviet opposition - not one person we met wanted to change the political system in Czechoslovakia, but they objected to Russian interference in Czech affairs
The support was for 'The Velvet Revolution' - a break from the old one-party system in order to achieve communism, not for a return to capitalism.
WE spent several nights with our student friends (and a young North Vietnamese soldier on leave), at the local park where the Russians were billeted, arguing with them - the gist of the argument was that the Russian leadership had betrayed the revolution.
If you went to Germany following the war, you would be told that the German people never supported what Hitler was doing because they didn't know what was going on.
The same is very much the case in the former Soviet Union since the fall of Communism – "we were all suppressed"
CULT OF PERSONALITY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:05 AM

Interesting question, Rumncoke, and Wikipedia has the answer. It was called the Bellamy salute, named after Francis Bellamy, the Christian socialist minister and author who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge and salute were instituted in 1892.

Mussolini's Fascists adopted what the called the "Roman Salute" in the 1920s, and the German Nazis quickly copied it. The U.S. instituted the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942.

So, maybe the Queen Mum was doing an American salute?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 12:42 AM

Read "Wigs On The Green" by Nancy Mitford. It was written in the years before WWII, and includes a character named Eugenia, who is an eager young facist. Mitford makes her sympathetic. Her adoration for Hitler and a fictitious British facist called Captain Jack, are shown as a charming sort of youthful idealism.
In her Facist dream, Jews are to be sent to "Jerusalem the golden, with milk and honey blest." Not gassed. I don't think people believed that Hitler would really do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Rumncoke
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:19 PM

Just out of general interest - when did Americans stop using the gesture to salute their flag and to take the oath of allegiance?

It was considered correct for depictions of Ancient Romans so it was used in films and in paintings.

Hitler's own version was the one used at my school to indicate a readiness to answer a question put by a teacher - I don't think that there was any other significance - but in years to come I suppose it might be re interpreted...

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 07:02 PM

Jim: The Soviet people idolised Stalin because basically they never reaslised what he was until long after his death.

This is bollocks. I'm sitting here in Russia now, where I've worked for a good part of the last 4 years. I've had a lot of discussions with Russians and other formerly Soviet nationalities about Stalin due to the recent "semi-rehabilitation" that Putin is encouraging. Most of them, especially those with ties to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and the Baltic republics, have family stories from parents, grandparents or great grandparents about the climate of fear that pervaded every town, city and village during his time. People disappearing at night. Being afraid to upset a neighbour in case he denounced you, etc.

He wasn't *idolised* by most people, but he was feared. Tremendously.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:22 PM

Jim,
The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler

Yes it was.
Not just me saying that, read this.
Guardian,
"And alliance indeed it was. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 04:13 PM

Weird, innit. When people with whom we would like accommodation do despicable things, we find it so easy to turn a blind eye. You're not wrong, Michael. It's rather reminiscent of an earlier part of this thread when it was said (by me among others) that we sought appeasement with Hitler despite our knowing that he had been persecuting Jews for years, had an aggressive expansionist policy, had sent his bombers to Spain to help Franco and had invaded Czechoslovakia. I think we call it being in denial. Or worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM

Agree absolutely, Steve. But this assertion, that no-one knew what he was up to until Kruschev blew the gaffe in 1956, is unutterable pigshit, as you well know -- implying that these 'commentators' & 'naysayers' you admit to weren't even there. Even when it was known, and admitted by Kruschev et al, there were plenty of doctrinaire commies, several in my acquaintance [& indeed my own family] who just didn't want to know.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:58 PM

"Yes it was."
No it was not as somebody said "The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics" - oh - that was you!!
The Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Hitle, them prepared for war with him.
The Soviets allies were Britain and the US (when the latter finally decided to join the war)
"Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time"
Of course they were, and Stalin sold them as an anti Nazi move against enemies of the State (so much for an alliance with Hitler).
Stalin's opponents, Trotsky being the leading one, were presented as allies of Fascism - and that line was accepted inside and outside Russia (by bothe the left and the liberal 'fellow travellers'.
He presented The Soviet Union as a 'Workers State, in need of defending
The Soviet people idolised Stalin because basically they never reaslised what he was until long after his death.
His relationship with the people was largely based on being in the right place at the right time - pretty much like Churchill, who could happily shoot down striking miners in South Wales and then become an adored wartime leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:54 PM

"Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress"

Now that is odd Jim - Fitzroy Maclean was present during Stalin's great purges in the late 1930s and he most certainly knew and told people about what was going on. I think what Khrushchev wittered on about at the 20th Congress was purely face saving and for inter-party domestic consumption - the Russian people after all could see what was going on before their eyes plainly enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:52 PM

"Yes it was."
No it wasn't - as somebody here said "The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics" - Oh, that was you.
Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Germany and then set about preparing for war with them - anything done between the two on the part of the Soviets was defensive.
This is not to say that the pact was the right thing to do, though I'm not sure what alternative the Soviet Union had in the circumstances - Stalin had ceased to be interested in building a Socialist state, but the idea that the Soviets were allies is a nonsense - as you rightly said, the Soviets and the Bolsheviks were natural enemies.
Russia became an ally of Britain and later, The U.S., when they got round to joining in.
"Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time"
The Moscow Trials were aimed at politicians and were sold as trials of enemies of the Soviet Union - Fascists - exactly how Trotsky and other leaders of the old guard were described (again, so much for the Soviet Union being an ally of Hitler)
The Trails hardly touched the ordinary man in the street, who were fed the propaganda, and fell for it, as did the left and liberal left outside.
Stalin was idolised by the Russian people, even after the 20th congress.
He was, in fact a leader who was in the right place at the right time, pretty much like Churchill who one minute could be shooting down striking miners in South Wales and next, be adored as a wartime leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:43 PM

Michael, you are being far too black and white. Yes there were commentators who reported on Stalin's atrocities but there were also plenty of naysayers who were ready to discredit Stalin's opponents. And, after all, Stalin had the trump card in his hand after the war, having been instrumental in Hitler' s downfall.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:30 PM

No it isn't! -- see my post 5 back

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:05 PM

Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death
Correct,Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM

Again I will ask where do I state:

"that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven"

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM

This in reply to comment that those in the clip are all dead except the Queen.

Raggytash - PM
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:54 AM

True and then we can add her four children, 8 grand children, 4 great grandchildren ..................... so one becomes 16 plus the original one.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:40 PM

Professor please remind me and the other good people on this forum where I suggested "that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven" (your quote 22nd July 2015 12.23pm)

I really don't remember doing that, although if YOU are suggesting that it is in fact the case ...............

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:36 PM

There was good reason for the popularity of both Hitler and Stalin. The Great Depression was worldwide, over ten years of hopelessness for the whole human race. In times of hopelessness, the leaders on the extremes preach messages that are very appealing to the suffering masses, and the faults of the extremists tend to be disregarded or disbelieved.

Hitler created an economic miracle in Germany - near-instantaneous prosperity after years of paralyzing inflation. Those who enjoyed or admired that prosperity no doubt thought Hitler's detractors were creating or exaggerating stories of his atrocities. How could such a benevolent leader do such horrible things? Of course, it must be untrue. I'm sure there were many in England and the U.S. who hoped for a Hitler to bring their countries out of the Depression.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM

===Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death===

.,.,.

Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time: were the subject of Koestler's novel Darkness At Noon, 1940, "set in 1938 during the Stalinist Great Purge and Moscow show trials"(Wikipedia).

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler

Yes it was.
Guardian,
"And alliance indeed it was. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:17 PM

"because it was rather well known that he was a murderous, dangerous bastard who had killed millions."
Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:01 PM

"Arrangements and deals" were struck between parliament and the royals that legitimised the usurping of land from the common people, not to speak of deals that gave the royals unjustified rake-offs from the blood, sweat and tears earnings of same common people. Just because "deals" were struck hundreds of years ago it doesn't mean that they were any fairer than "deals" struck recently. That's a logical fallacy, arguing from antiquity. In fact, Tesco is not allowed to strike "deals" that bypass the law that applies to everyone else, despite the best efforts of their army of accountants. Apples and apples.

But as I said the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a penny but if they did it has been calculated that it would amount to 53 pence per person in today's money , a few years ago it stood at 69 pence so their "costs" are coming down

I think you need to make your mind up whether they cost us a penny or not. :-) Actually I saw a swastika badge for sale for 53p once. Making a chap like like me pay 53p for the royals would be tantamount to forcing me to buy that badge. Ah well. I suppose the good Lord did warn us that to them that have, it shall be given, to them that have not, it shall be taken away. Makes Osborne a hell of a good Christian too, innit.