BS: Stalin

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: 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: 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 - 07:46 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: 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 - 07:32 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 04:41 AM

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

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: 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 - 04:36 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: 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 - 04:24 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

Once again I will ask who are "you people"

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:10 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: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 03:02 PM

have you ever spent an evening with someone who keeps saying - i don't know, i never seem to get a chance to buy a round - you blokes keep buying 'em.....

it doesn;t fool anyone in the pub.
and all this bollocks about the rich fuckers, many of them with huge Irish estates, not being able to help the starving folk of Ireland.

you're not that naive. or are you the one that never seems to get the chance to a round? maybe you identify with them emotionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 02:50 PM

"Correctly"?, Modette.

But unfortunately the name has two usages, both 'correct' within their context --

i -- One of the ancient Four Kingdoms of Ireland, Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht (anglice Connaught) --

within which meaning Donegal would have been subsumed;

ii -- An alternative name for the State of Northern Ireland created by the Partition of 1921 —

within which Donegal [some might think anomalously] was not included.

So it was not being used 'incorrectly' above, so much as in the other sense from that which you, as a Donegal native, would naturally prefer.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 02:28 PM

'No fairs fair. Keith (for once) is accurate in the very narrow things he has said. Many Dubliners in 1916 did not support the rising, many Irishmen fought for Britain in both wars and many people (especially in Ulster) want Ulster to remain part of the UK.'

Raggy, I don't think you're qualified to talk about Ireland if you think that the inhabitants of Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan want to stay in the UK.

Please use the term 'Ulster' correctly.

Modette

(Born in Donegal and proud of it)

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 02:22 PM

Do you still doubt I have it?

No, we doubt that you've read it and understood it.

But it doesn't matter either way - he's dead, so by your own reckoning, he doesn't count.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 02:18 PM

I too have Deutsher's book on hand - perhaps you'd like to tell me exactly what your copy says about the famine.

"famine" is not in the index.
under "Ukraine collectivisation" p333 is referenced.
"Nadia Alliluyeva (his wife) spoke about the famine and discontent in the country and about the moral ravages which the terror had wrought on the party........
The same evening she committed suicide."

My copy was originally prices 63s.net.
Yours the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 02:06 PM

Rag, are you suggesting that your friends would do me violence for saying things that even you concede are true?
Why would they?

Jim, it is years since I read those two biographies and they were good in their time but long out of date (1967 and 1966)and superseded by information uncovered since then.
Deutscher dedicates his book thus, "I dedicate this book a link in our friendship to TAMARA.
Do you still doubt I have it?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 01:52 PM

So professor, are you going to take me up on my offer to buy you a meal and pay for all your drinks in a bar on the West coast of Ireland?

At your convenience of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 01:43 PM

So, basically, another pointless argument, Keith. There were anti British feelings before the 20th century. Some historians dispute that Britain was culpable. So what's new? As my link pointed out earlier, they are not yet agreed about the emperor Claudius! As to the songs, well, old Cecil himself did not start collecting English folk songs until the 20th century. That does not mean they did not exist before.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 01:40 PM

"Jim, I have the 3 books to hand now."
I don't give a toss how many you have - if you had read Deutscher you would not have made some of the stupid statements you have made about historians
Simply not your sort of book - a - 600 page tome, masses of footnotes, and requiring some foreknowledge of the topic - part of a series of three on Soviet leaders
Knowing your preference for basing your knowledge on cut-'n-pastes - I simply don't believe you, and as you have no compunction about calling others liars and distorting their position - as you have mine, I have no compunction in saying so.
Conquest was very much a cold war historian who rewrote The Great Terror as ''The Great Purge' when he acquired access to Soviet archives - so cut''n-pastes don't do it, I'm afraid.
You have deliberately distorted my position on Stalin from the beginning -
I claimed, and still claim that there is no evidence that Stalin did what he did in order to remove his political enemies - he did no more than Britain did in Ireland - pushed though a policy of collectivization with disregard of the consequences - there has been no research into the Ukrainian famine to suggest otherwise and if you had read Deutscher, with all his footnotes and references, as you dishonestly claim to have done, you would know that this was the generally accepted line.

I too have Deutsher's book on hand - perhaps you'd like to tell me exactly what your copy says about the famine.
"I pointed out Dubliners spat on the rebels in 1916, "
I pointed this out to you two years ago - I also pointed out that this changed within months when the British brutishly shot the rebel leaders - making them martyrs and turning a small demonstration into a war of independence.
The idea that there were no anti British songs before the 20th century is utterly ludicrous - Anti British feeling goes back befoore the Flight of the Earls - The 1798 Rebellin, the Famine, The Fenian uprising, THE evictions,Land Wars ....
- are you mad?
your behavior toward other members contributions - your distortions and deliberate lying, has now got beyond a joke
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 01:21 PM

Whatever you say,Professor. But do work on improving reading comprehension & logic, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 12:56 PM

Greg,
Sorry, Professor, but it WAS you: no quotation marks, no attribution & even if there were, YOU posted it.

I pasted in Martin's post.
Nothing of mine there.
The thread name was given for reference.
You were calling him ignorant (!) not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

You people put one thing to me, and then berate me for not responding to something else.

I did want to discuss the famine.
I know little about it and am not read on it.
I do know that Britain's culpability is disputed by the historians.

It was suggested that I we should know because what bit of "F off" did I not understand.

I pointed out Dubliners spat on the rebels in 1916, hundreds of thousands of young Irishmen volunteered to fight to save Britain in two world wars and millions are still passionate about wanting to remain part of UK.

Someone said what about all the anti-British songs, so I pointed out that there were rather few before 1916 and fewer before 20th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 12:34 PM

Jim, I have the 3 books to hand now.
You were right about the spelling of Deutscher. Sorry.

The only book you specifically gave as having informed your views was Conquest's.
You said that there was not enough evidence to show Stalin guilty of deliberately starving the peasants in Ukraine and elsewhere.

On page 20 Conquest writes,
"As recent Soviet accounts put it, "this famine was organised by Stalin quite consciously and according to plan." "

So Jim, how do you support your claim, or is it just one of Jim's whims?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 11:48 AM

Did not have time to respond properly before we went away
Definition of 'facile' = easily achieved but of little value - glib.
Keith:
You have had EXACTLY my feelings on Stalin
There is as little chance that I have ever supported him or his actions than there is of you having read Isaac Deutscher, as you claim.
If I eved did support him I would not feel the need to lie about it, unlike you on your claimed reading.
If you have one shred of evidence that I ever have - once again, feel free to point it out.
Will catch up on some of this garbage later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 10:12 AM

Greg, that was not me but Martin Ryan

Sorry, Professor, but it WAS you: no quotation marks, no attribution & even if there were, YOU posted it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 08:58 AM

I am not asking about anti-English songs, I am asking about anti-English feelings. If there was no anti-English feeling before the 20th century, what were rebellions about in this list?