BS: Stalin

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:54 PM

Do people of India subjected to famine count less then others, such as Ireland (which we hear a lot about). Mike Davis wrote about famine in Ibdia, under British colonial watch.

Famine in India 

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:08 PM

Espresso!

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:51 PM

Teribus - if i produce emotional froth,
then you are in charge of expresso total choco bollocks latte machine with whipped cream and marshmallow bits on top!!!

the fact is they could have fed the hungry. they didn;t. the hungry people died. Trevelyan talked a load of moralising tripe about it. he would have loved to chasten the flesh of the Irish with Zyklon B, momosodium glutamate and the cat o nine tails.

And the reason for this is an indisputable fact of history. Namely that the english upper classes are a shower of shit.

If that had been fat arsed Queen Victoria or her porky consort wanting extra grub, they would have got Isambard Kingdom Brunel to create a steam engine pumping extra lunch into their fat guts.

So lets talk real facts, not what some dimbo historian thinks might just have possibly occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 05:22 PM

Keep digging Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 03:33 PM

Guest Modette did the vast bulk of Irish emigrants sail from Northern Ireland? Somehow don't think so. Give you a tip look up the sailings from Liverpool and the passenger manifests - they tend to back up what Cecil Woodham-Smith stated in her book and please forgive me but I will take her well and thoroughly researched work over your word any day of the week.

"I spent 4 years on and off working on a tall ship. A tall ship the design of which predated the famine in the 1840's by a hundred years or so. As you can imagine, with your considerable knowledge, it was quite a difficult ship to sail, especially when you consider that the crew where simple souls such as I.

Ships such as this sailed in and out of dozens of ports all over the world and you are basing your argument on your limited knowledge on what is permissible today with current health and safety regulations.

Finally if you would care to look at a map (presuming you can use a compass) come back and tell me where the ports of Waterford and Cobh are (to say nothing of Bantry, Castletownberehaven and Tralee)

4 years on and off eh? So my working at sea for the best part of 35 years couldn't possibly be of any relevance then.

A Tall Ship based on a 1740 design? Which one would that be then Raggy? I did two Tall Ships races and sailed on Christian Radich, the Sørland and the Statsraad Lehmkuhl.

Well at least you finally did look at a map and added three other "ports" to your little list, none of which alters the points that I have drawn your attention to. By the way looking at a chart and knowing from the compass rose printed thereon the ports of Cobh and Waterford, as well as those of Wexford, Dublin and Belfast are most definitely located on the eastern seaboard of the island of Ireland - if you think otherwise I certainly hope that during your 4 years "on and off" that you were neither watch-keeper or navigator of your 1740s designed tall ship.

I note that you have not responded to the question I asked about Irish trade in the 19th century and why anyone in their right mind would develop a major port on the west coast when all their trade was with England - bit of a challenge for you was it? Or is your reasoning incapable of coming to any sort of answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 03:27 PM

It was pointless from the start Dave.

Spot on, Keith! any attempt to have an intelligent conversation with you is indeed pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM

Take it up with 'you people',

You people took it up with me, remember?

Keith. It has become a pointless exercise now.

It was pointless from the start Dave.
I answered that exact point from Jim himself days before.
Why did you think it worth raising again?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 02:53 PM

'Hate to disillusion you but the principal point of departure for Irish emigrants leaving for the New World was NOT Limerick, Sligo and Galway - it was LIVERPOOL.'

No, it certainly wasn't for those who emigrated from the NW of Ireland. The main points of departure were Derry and Moville, and plenty also took the long overland trip to Belfast. The Derry and Belfast ships sailed, for the most part, to New York or Boston.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 02:25 PM

Map of Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 02:24 PM

Hmmm. I spent 4 years on and off working on a tall ship. A tall ship the design of which predated the famine in the 1840's by a hundred years or so. As you can imagine, with your considerable knowledge, it was quite a difficult ship to sail, especially when you consider that the crew where simple souls such as I.

Ships such as this sailed in and out of dozens of ports all over the world and you are basing your argument on your limited knowledge on what is permissible today with current health and safety regulations.

Finally if you would care to look at a map (presuming you can use a compass) come back and tell me where the ports of Waterford and Cobh are (to say nothing of Bantry, Castletownberehaven and Tralee)

Basically my friend you are talking through your anal orifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 02:00 PM

"This simple sort of soul also knows that Limerick, Galway and Sligo were ports that could transport thousands of people to America and Canada."

Let us go a bit further with this one, this time applying a bit of historical accuracy to the argument.

Hate to disillusion you but the principal point of departure for Irish emigrants leaving for the New World was NOT Limerick, Sligo and Galway - it was LIVERPOOL.

The primary destination was NOT the USA but CANADA and the reason for that was quite simple it was cheaper (Often completely free of charge) as opposed to a passage direct to the USA where you had to pay your fare but also prove yourself to be in good health and have at least £10 in cash, wares, or means of trade to get aboard a ship bound for a US Port. Any ship arriving off a US port with sickness aboard was held off the coast until the contagion had abated. Doubt any of this then please consult Cecil Woodham-Smith's Book "The Great Hunger" - she goes into this in great detail. The principal point of entry into the USA for Irish Emigrants was not New York, Boston or Baltimore but Chicago, those emigrants having traveled to Canada, gone up the St,Lawrence and across the Great Lakes.

So please Raggytash stop wittering on about ports on the west coast of Ireland - In fairly recent times I have been involved with the operations involving potential exploration for oil & gas off the West Coast of Ireland - our bases have always been on Eastern harbours because those on the West Coast do not have quays that can support the loads required - they were even worse and less developed in 1845.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM

"GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:51 AM

Even this "simple sort of soul totally bereft of any common sense or understanding" knows that Waterford and Cobh are on the southern coast of Ireland.

Ehmmm NO Raggy they are NOT on the south coast of Ireland they are very much on the eastern coast of Ireland - take a good look at a map FFS.

1: "This simple sort of soul also knows that Limerick, Galway and Sligo were ports that could transport thousands of people to America and Canada."

Really?? And that proves what Raggy?? You really do not have the foggiest notion of what is involved regarding people verses cargo do you? Now just think what you need to accommodate those two vastly different "cargoes". Bringing food in the 1840s you would require what? People to unload the ship, wagons to transport what was being unloaded to warehouses, people to unload the goods from the wagons or transfer to other wagons for onward transport or onto whatever method of transport that was suitable for the existing infrastucture. Transporting people on the other hand requires only that people turn up and the dunage is available for them, in the 1840s, to "build" their own "cabins" - no people required to load, very unintensive when it comes to "labour" if you are only transporting people.

Now tell me how the British Government of the day could have purely by magic instantly provided the harbours, the warehouse capacity, the labour and transport to land and distribute the food to where it was needed. Care to tell me for how long this should have been done?

2: "This simple soul also knows that even small towns like Baltimore, Dingle and Clifden had working ports."

Of course you do dear heart but your 20th/21st Century conceptions of what constitutes a "working port" do not relate in any way, shape, or form to what was practicable in 1845 on the west coast of Ireland.

3: "Are you suggesting that Britain, that proud sea faring nation, could not transport good there. Balderdash."

It WAS transported there by sea, and the people had to move to where the food was delivered because there was not means of transporting it to them (To move one full wagon of relief supplies would require another five wagons of food for the horses pulling the fucking carts you idiot) - haven't you got your thick head round that yet??

4: "And finally although I do not wish to write a treatise on the matter, I think we all know that starvation was not the ONLY cause of the drop in population during the "Great Famine" but it was a very significant one"

Ehmmm NO IT WASN'T

"In 1851, the census commissioners collected information on the number who died in each family since 1841, the cause, season and year of death. They recorded 21,770 total deaths from starvation in the previous decade, and 400,720 deaths from disease. Listed diseases were fever, dysentery, cholera, smallpox and influenza; the first two being the main killers (222,021 and 93,232). The commissioners acknowledged that their figures were incomplete and that the true number of deaths was probably higher" But the proportions were roughly correct.

Ireland lost approximately 2.5 million people - 1.5 million emigrated, 1 million died, 90% of those died from disease NOT HUNGER - Do you still want to contend that the majority died of starvation? If so then give me your figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM

Take it up with 'you people', Keith. It has become a pointless exercise now.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 12:36 PM

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into." 
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM

I said,
"I was responding to your assertion that Stalin was not a despotic monster."

I took his statement to be such an assertion.
He quickly acknowledged the despot bit, but still has not agreed monster.

He has avoided the question a number of times.
He said "Of course he was a despot, but.."
No mention of the other description.

He said, "Is there much point in repeating what we've already said?"
He had never said any such thing.

He said, "I did not say he wasn't a monster,"
True, but he never said he was either.

Over and again he has avoided the question.
My understanding of his statement may still prove correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 11:05 AM

No, Keith, your opinion was about what he meant. The fact remains that you said you were answering an assertion that Jim never made. If left uncommented you would have eventually claimed that it was a fact that Jim believes that Stalin was a good man. You do it all the time and it is that that gets up my nose. Stick to what people actualy say rather than claiming they said something else. If you do misinterpret something just say that you did rather than make out it is someone else's fault and I think you will find not as many people will seem belligerent.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 10:42 AM

I believe your interpretation was wrong but it was your opinion which you are entitled to hold.

Thank you.
That is what I believed him to mean.

However, to then state that Jim asserted that Stalin was not a despotic monster is beyond an opinion.

No! It was my opinion that he meant just that, and as you said, I am entitled to.
If it was a misinterpretation then I am sorry, but all these days later Jim will not say if he rejected the description monster or not.
I may yet be proved correct Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 09:18 AM

Sorry, imagine an 'end italics' after the first instance of despotic monster.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM

So, in your opinion, It's a little facile to just write off Stalin as a despotic monster means the same as "Stalin was not a despotic monster"? I believe your interpretation was wrong but it was your opinion which you are entitled to hold. However, to then state that Jim asserted that Stalin was not a despotic monster is beyond an opinion. It is an outright misinterpretation, which is the point that you turned the thread from a discussion into an argument. Whether it was from lack of comprehension or pure maliciousness I do not know but it is the point at which the thread took a nosedive.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 09:02 AM

"Gotta love the British.
Few can do a pissed-off disdain act like these folks."

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM

"It's a little facile to just write off Stalin as a despotic monster."

I took that to mean he disagreed with the description, and that is a reasonable assumption which he could easily have corrected.

Instead he just said, "Of course he was a despot, but..."

I took that to mean he agreed with despot but disagreed monster.
Again, a reasonable assumption which he could easily have corrected, but chose not to.

That could not be described as sending the thread astray.
It was establishing our views of Stalin.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:51 AM

Even this "simple sort of soul totally bereft of any common sense or understanding" knows that Waterford and Cobh are on the southern coast of Ireland.

This simple sort of soul also knows that Limerick, Galway and Sligo were ports that could transport thousands of people to America and Canada.

This simple soul also knows that even small towns like Baltimore, Dingle and Clifden had working ports.

Are you suggesting that Britain, that proud sea faring nation, could not transport good there. Balderdash.

And finally although I do not wish to write a treatise on the matter,
I think we all know that starvation was not the ONLY cause of the drop in population during the "Great Famine" but it was a very significant one.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

so why so belligerent and why accuse me of sending the thread astray?

Belligerence is purely down to knowing that you will manipulate whatever is said. Call it a preemptive strike. I accuse you of sending the thread astray because you took a perfectly harmless statement, which you now agree with, and turned it into an argument. It was going fine until you said "I was responding to your assertion that Stalin was not a despotic monster." which is nothing like what was said.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:39 AM

We are in complete agreement Dave, so why so belligerent and why accuse me of sending the thread astray?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:38 AM

Have mercy, Dave - Keith has serious reading comprehension difficulties.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM

How then is it facile to describe him as such?

It isn't. No-one has said it was facile to describe him as such. It was stated it was facile to write him off as such and you agreed. What are you arguing about?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:34 AM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:41 AM

.......It's a little facile to just write off Stalin as a despotic monster -.....
Jim Carroll

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:52 AM

I do not "write him off," but he was "a despotic monster."

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:32 AM

I never wrote him off as anything.
I said that in my first post to Jim after Jim used that phrase.

I do say that what Stalin did makes him a despotic monster, and you say you agree.
How then is it facile to describe him as such?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:22 AM

Raggy you must be a very simple sort of soul totally bereft of any commonsense or understanding - why do I say that? Because of this:

GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:16 AM

1: "Can't help but wonder why food could be got to ports for export, when Teribus also tells us the infrastructure didn't exist to transport food around the country. Curious."

Now then Raggy it was you in your brief thumbnail sketch of the Famine who came out with the following:

" GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:18 AM

The famine wasn't a countrywide affair. Some 4,000 shiploads of food left Ireland in 1847 alone.

In the more industrialised areas deaths were relatively uncommon, in the mainly poor agricultural lands of the west and south west famine was much more widespread. The poor isolated population had become over dependant on a single crop, i.e. the potato.

Raggy take a look at your list of ports and take the trouble to research what those ports were like in 1845. Ireland's trade was almost entirely with England so rationally could you please provide a sensible explanation of why large ports would be developed on the west coast of the island? Ireland's main cities at the time were in the east and whatever infrastructure THEY required did exist That Raggy is how food could be exported and that is how money could be made and taxes collected to aid the not inconsiderable effort being made to alleviate the suffering. As food could not be got to the people where they lived (According to you in isolated communities in the South-West and West of Ireland) then the people had to move to where the food could be distributed to and stored.

2: Take a look at a map of Ireland and tell us where the following ports are located:

Cobh/Cork/Wexford/Waterford/Dublin/Belfast are all on the east coast of Ireland.

Limerick/Galway/Sligo are on the west coast but none were major developed ports then - they barely are now.

Londonderry is located in the North of the island and in the 1840s had very poor road access to Donegal

So of the 10 ports you mentioned 7 are in entirely the wrong location and could not be used for distributing food to the famine striken areas any more than they actually were (i.e. nothing more could have been done) and the 3 remaining ports located on the west coast were not major ports by any meaning of the term. Sorry Raggy bit you cannot just magic up solutions and say the British Government should have done more - the aid that was given at the time was unprecedented.

1983 - 1985 the famine in Ethiopia with all the advantages of modern technology, communication, means and modes of transportation and the speed of reaction at the world's disposal people still died in their hundreds of thousands. Now consider what the death toll would have been if the only resources available were those available to Trevelyan and the British Government in 1845.

3: "And there was Robert Peel ordering £100,000 worth of American Indian Meal just for it to sit on a dockside somewhere for lack of the means to deliver it. Extremely curious."

Not curious at all Raggy - they got the people to move to where the food could be transported to - not even sheep or deer are stupid enough to remain on hills with no grazing.

Once again I will say for the umpteenth time death by starvation (i.e. lack of food) was NOT the major factor in the drop in the population. The greatest contributor was emigration people left Ireland as the land could not support the population without major farming reforms being implemented. The second biggest factor in the drop in the population and the greatest cause of death was NOT hunger but diseases for which at the time there were no known cures - so once again the Government cannot be blamed for not being able to "magic up" cures and treatments for diseases that were barely understood at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 08:01 AM

So you say there is much more motivation for those crimes than him being a despotic monster. Yes? In other words, it's a little facile to just write off Stalin as a despotic monster. There is a lot more to it than that. Which is what was said.

Glad we are agreed on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:58 AM

"In May 1942 a British-Soviet accord was agreed upon, thereby fulfulling British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's wish for a "grand alliance" between his country, the Soviet Union, and the United States. For the second time in four years,Time Magazine named Stalin its "Man of the Year" – this time for stopping the German army in its tracks and, by joining forces with the U.S. and Britain, increasing the chances for an Allied victory in Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

"Did Stalin commit those crimes against humanity simply because he was a despotic monster, or were there other reasons?"

I believe he committed them for political expediency and to bolster his own position.
To me, that makes him a monster.
Right Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:43 AM

I did try to take it up with him Dave, but then you posted yesterday accusing me of sending the thread "astray."

That was when I asked for you view, and you did not express it until this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:41 AM

Fairs, Fair Kieth. You asked Dave to do something which he did. He asked you a question which you have avoided again (bit of a pattern really) "Did Stalin commit those crimes against humanity simply because he was a despotic monster, or were there other reasons?"

You have now asked him another question without responding to his.

Do you have an answer for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:37 AM

Do you have a view on that?

Only from what I have read in Marina Lewycka's excellent book "A Short History of Tractors in Ukranian". Oh, and what I learned from people who had escaped the Russian oppression in both the Ukrainian and Byelorussian clubs I went to on a regular basis in my youth. They believed that Stalin was a despotic monster. They believed that the USSR was an oppressive state. They believed that they could take back their homeland with a cavalry charge like in the old days. People believe lots of things and the reasons are never clear cut. Jim's original statement is perfectly valid. I suggest you take anything else up with him rather than 'you people'.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:20 AM

Hey Keith- read Leonard Cohen's poem about Eichmann some time - if you can force yourself to pick up a book, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM

Sorry Dave, I missed that second paragraph.
You have gone further than Jim is prepared to go.

Jim also claims that there is no evidence that Stalin's starvation of the Ukrainian peasant farmers was deliberate.
Do you have a view on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 07:13 AM

Free the Gnomes 

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:54 AM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 05:32 AM

...

I am more than happy to say they were despotic monsters

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:14 AM

...

Will none of you denounce him as such?

Do you purposely ignore what I wrote less than an hour before because you cannot understand plain English or do you just do it to cause arguments? Now, how about that straight answer from you. Did Stalin commit those crimes against humanity simply because he was a despotic monster, or were there other reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:39 AM

"My conscience is clear."

"We will burn the old grass and the new will grow."

"He who protests is an enemy; he who opposes is a corpse."

"Everything I did, I did for my country."

Pol Pot

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:37 AM

To many of us monsters are things like dinosaurs or the creations of science fiction and things that lurk under childrens beds.

To describe a brutal tyrant as a monster seems to make him a bit cuddly really.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:15 AM

Pol Pot is an interesting inclusion, in my view the planet is being slowly destroyed by technological "progress".

Pol Pot, no doubt a despot, had the mad idea of changing the world overnight into an agrarian paradise. Millions of city dwellers died in the process

But the big questions of overpopulation, lack of renewable resources and reliance on technology still remain.
The world is becoming more polluted daily, and only the dimmest of us believe that this can go on for ever?
Are we who shut our eyes to what we bequeath our children and grandchildren any less...monsters?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 06:14 AM

After his statement about not writing off Stalin as a despotic monster, he refined his statement by saying he was a despot, but signally refused to say he was a monster, and has refused to acknowledge that there is clear evidence that the Ukrainian starvation was deliberately instigated.

And all you people have followed suit.

Jim said, "Of course he was a despot, but....."
Why not, "Of course he was a despotic monster, but.....?"

Will none of you denounce him as such?
Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 05:32 AM

The perception of what both Stalin and Hitler were is pretty obvious, Keith, and doesn't need saying. Everyone is well aware of what they were and saying it is facile to write them off as such does not detract from what they were in any way, shape or form. I do entirely agree with Al's sentiment above, though, and to say they did these things because they were despotic monsters is an invalid over-simplification which will only result in us enabling more despotic monsters in the future. We need to concentrate on what led to their actions rather than simply demonising them.

I am more than happy to say they were despotic monsters, along with Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe and a host of others. Are you now going to provide a straight answer and tell us why they did these things? I suspect not.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:55 AM

Jim has agreed that he was a despot

Definition of despot in English:
noun

A ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.

what are you arguing about. no he wasn't a monster. it would be nice if we could write off everyone who was a shit as being intrisically different to us - they had three cocks or something. sadly they are just like us.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:39 AM

Dave,
I think it is facile to write him off as a despotic monster. There is lot more too it than that. Which is exactly what was said.

I agree that there is more to it than that, but I am prepared to say that he was a despotic monster as well.

None of you people have yet been prepared to denounce him as a monster or hold him responsible for the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, besides the millions of other deaths he is responsible for.

Why will you not do that?
I am sure you would not hesitate to join me in denouncing Hitler as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:16 AM

Can't help but wonder why food could be got to ports for export, when Teribus also tells us the infrastructure didn't exist to transport food around the country. Curious.

He told us that ports like Wexford, Waterford, Cobh, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Londonderry, Belfast and Dublin could not handle large volumes of cargo. Very curious.

And there was Robert Peel ordering £100,000 worth of American Indian Meal just for it to sit on a dockside somewhere for lack of the means to deliver it. Extremely curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM

No, MUFC fan, it wasn't aimed at you but maybe you can explain why posting anonymously does anything to help or alter the situation you describe. If you don't want to play, fine, don't play. But for heavens sake why pretend to join in while staying hidden?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jul 15 - 03:15 AM

"this was the England that was [planning the Great Exhibition. bigging ourselves up as the greatest power on earth. in stead of tending to the poor, we let them die. we had the money for all other sorts of shit

and yet we didn't do enough for people on our doorstep - fellow subjects of The Queen.
isn't this essentially what hitler and Stalin did. they said, my vision for the world is more important than the lives of these people.

call it a sin of ommission - if it makes you feel better. but it was murder. perhaps if zyklon b had been available....or we had a handy gulag..."

Big Al to try and attempt to say that an assistant Secretary in the Civil Service has the same power as a Head of a totalitarian state is patently ridiculous.

It was also the England in the middle of one of the greatest financial crashes it had ever experienced.

The views of the likes of yourself, Raggy and Jim Carroll are those of people looking at a problem that arose in the 1840s then condemning the British Government for not reacting then in a way they could now, i.e. looking at the 1840s with 2015 eyes. You all say that the British Governments of Peel and Russell should have done more but when asked what you are unable to give any practicable answers or solutions. Please don't say they should have stopped the exporting of food because that would have solved nothing it would have just rotted in warehouses due to the total lack of means of distribution.

You were asked to give an example of Trevelyan ever ordering the murder of anyone in Ireland during the "Famine" period - I note that you have ducked that one. As I said before I can give you millions of examples of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin doing just that. Now that being the case Big Al I think your crack in your last paragraph about zyklon b and gulags way out of line and reduces your argument to baseless, empty, meaningless, emotive froth.

If you are going to discuss something then read up on it from all points of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 08:04 PM

Dave not all guest posts are the same person. Myself if I get into anything interesting I'll stick an identifiable tag for the thread. If your gusset/sniping was at me because of the joke thread you need to lighten up.It was a bit of light hearted banter as I'm sure was understood.The guest above (who I agree with) isn't me.
      I don't post much but when I do it's casual and light hearted, far too many on here don't have the emotional intelligence to debate anything anyway.The few who could are deterred by the atmosphere of sheer anger,fear,stupidity and angst.Not because you are big boys..seriously.With your current craic you are in a cycle of making each other feel shit, people are not going to want to play.
       As for Stalin yes another diseased man.
Me done as I'm off to bed.
    Regards Dr Orgasm Gussetwaver the Mufc fan.