BS: Stalin

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 06:35 AM

May as well be speaking Klingon. Come to think of it, trying to communicate with "you people" is like some sort of fantasy role playing game where no-one knows the rules :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM

"Why are you so certain that his motivations could not have been similar to those of Sir Charles, operating in (what you admit to be) comparable circumstances?"
Trevelyan's motives were clearly stated - he hated the Irish, he claimed that the Famine was "God's punishment for their sinful ways" and he suggested to the Government that it was an opportunity to solve the 'Irish Question'.
In the early days in Russia, I believe that Stalin believed that his policies were for the good of the Soviet Union as a whole, as harsh and brutal as they were.
This is very different from the claim that he did what he did deliberately - there is no evidence for this and there doesn't seen to be the desire to root out such evidence, so far anyway
I've read three biographies of Stalin; Trotsky's Izaac Deuscher's and Volkogonov's - all were all sharply opposed to Stalin and the latter had full access to State documents on his policies - my opinions are based on these rather than the Cold War position defending from both sides.
Of course we knew Stalin was capable of liquidating his political opponents - my lifelong reading includes 'Darkness at Noon' and the much superior, in my opinion ''The Case of Comrade Tulayev' by Victor Serge.
I probably have more reason to hate Stalin than anybody arguing against me here.
On a personal level, he starved the Spanish Civil War of any decent support by sending obsolete and virtually unusable weapons.
More important, he destroyed the dream of making the world a better place by turning the first workers' state into an undemocratic dictatorship.
Stalin destroyed the Socialist dream in the same way as various Israeli administrations have destroyed the original dream of a Jewish State.
I have no argument with honest and informed criticism of Stalin and analysis of the evils of his leadership - I'd be first in line to join such criticism.
I do object when it is used by people who use that criticism to show that Socialism is evil and murderous and can't work, especially when some of those leap to the defence of acts of despotism and mass-murder when it is committed by 'Stalins' elsewhere.
"I took that to mean he did not accept that description of Stalin."
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word 'facile' - can't help you there.
Didn't for a moment think you would apoligise or withdraw your accusations - which, as far as I'm concerned, make them a deliberate and ongoing lie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 08:08 AM

tricky one really...

hitler probably thought his actions were for the general good od europe.
stalin, as you say, for the good of the soviet union.
this sir charles trevelyan character probably thought a chastened Irish povince was for the good of something or other....

people have strange perspectives on good

basically if you justify yourself acting like an arsehole on a regular basis. you degenerate into one.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 08:41 AM

Comparing Hitler, Stalin and Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan is a bit like comparing an orange to an orange to an apple. The first two were Heads of State and totalitarian dictators who made the policies that those serving under them had to follow on pain of death if they did not, or if they failed. Trevelyan when all said and done was a civil servant who had to play the cards he was dealt as best as he was able - he did not formulate policy that was done by the Government of the day.

Tell me what "aid" was arranged for the Jews by Adolf Hitler?
Tell me what "aid" was organised for the Ukrainians by Stalin?
It is a recorded fact that over £10 million in "aid" was given by the British Government to help alleviate the suffering in Ireland during the "Famine" years.

In Hitler's concentration camps the inmates were deliberately and systematically murdered, starved to death or died from disease.

In Stalin's purges people designated by Stalin were murdered or sent to camps where they were worked to death, starved or died of disease. In addition to that because of the group targeted by Stalin millions died from starvation.

In Ireland millions did not die from starvation, records show that that the greatest killer was not starvation but disease - and those diseases at that time could neither be treated or cured (It would be another 30 years before cures and treatments were identified). The bulk of the fall in population over the famine years was due to emigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 09:15 AM

"Trevelyan when all said and done was a civil servant "
Trevelyan was Britain's advisor to Ireland - they relied totally on his information for advice and they carried out that advise to the letter.
Wheter it was hunger or disease that wiped out the population is immat
immaterial - one was the result of the other and both were down to British policy.
Emigration was forced on the Irish people - starve or emigrate were the alternatives; the effects of that policy carried through into the 20th century and are still to be felt today.
His was the policy that was adopted without question.
Both Trevelyan and the British Government of the day were equally responsible for the Irish holocaust - one for proposing the solution, the other for putting it into law.
Comparing Stalin and Hitler, on the other hand, was "apples and oranges"
Hitler set out to create a racially pure German Empire and deliberately wiped out many millions who did not fit into the Grand Objective.
Stalin's policies, as crudely brutal as they were, were aimed at creating a fairer and more equal society - "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs", was very much the line he adopted.
In many ways, this was the philosophy of leaders who sent millions of young people to die in conflicts such as World War One
What you need to decide in such cases is whether the game is worth the candle and whether it is carried out efficiently and fairly, and, of course, whether there are other alternatives   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 10:03 AM

the thing you don't seem to grasp Teribus is that one probably doesn't give shit whether you're being murdered by an orange or an apple.

it probably feels very much the same.

i don't know if you've come across E.L. Doctorrow's Book of Daniel   - basically its a re-telling of the Rosenberg spy couple from the point of view of the their son. I'm sure you will have seen footage of the little chaps running joyously out of Sing Sing - obviously blithely unaware that their parents are about to be executed.

Doctorrow is such agreat writer. that he doesn't reallly need to expound his ideas and shove them up your nose. The description on the execution is so intense - that the reader is made to understand, whatever the justification - defending democracy, fighting Stalin etc. that level of vile behaviour is wrong.

the simple device he uses is that he explains clinically from a text book almost how an electrocution is accomplished. but instead of saying the criminal - or the subject ....he says my mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM

Big Al Whittle: "the thing you don't seem to grasp Teribus is that one probably doesn't give shit whether you're being murdered by an orange or an apple.
it probably feels very much the same."

Good point!....what a lot of political hacks don't see as easily, is that one probably doesn't give shit whether you're being lied to by a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative....but if YOUR party does it, then it's OK!

Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshingly amazing if the wannabe hack 'activists' would be equally indignant at ALL political liars????

...at least when you play music, the truth comes out, right now...you're either hot, or ya' suck!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 04:19 PM

Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshingly amazing if the wannabe hack 'activists' would be equally indignant at ALL political liars????

no ones got that much energy..

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:56 AM

"the thing you don't seem to grasp Teribus is that one probably doesn't give shit whether you're being murdered by an orange or an apple."

Fair enough point Big Al - now all you have to do is find any instance of Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan ever having murdered anyone, or of him ever having ordered that anyone to be murdered. I can give you millions of examples of Messrs Hilter and Stalin having issued such orders.

"Stalin's policies, as crudely brutal as they were, were aimed at creating a fairer and more equal society"

Thanks Jim that provided me with the best laugh I have had all week. Unless you hadn't managed to take it in, in all those books you have read on Stalin and the former USSR - the message that shines through as clear as crystal is that under that system the people were subservient to the STATE and the state was the Communist Party that you could only be part of by invitation - "fairer and more equal society" my arse - worked out well for them didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:22 AM

"Thanks Jim that provided me with the best laugh I have had all week"
Thanks for providing me with the old usual from somebody who offers as an alternative society where workers who are unable to find work should take to their bicycles, presumably along with their families - and from somebody who spent a great deal of time supporting the Irish holocaust (and is still happy to do so, judging from more recent postings) Will go off smiling broadly this morning
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM

There's o evidence of Stalin personally murdering anybody BTW - facilitating murders, certainly -as did Trevelyan and Prime Minister Russell
Whence the difference?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:12 AM

Jim, there was no blight or food shortage in Ukraine.
They people starved in their millions because Stalin ordered it.
It was a deliberate genocide by his decree.
Your defence of that atrocity and of Stalin is nauseating.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:18 AM

Teribus,

As has already been stated you cannot compare oranges and apples. During what we in England know as the famine years 1845-51 (there were many other famine years) Ireland was a mass exporter of produce. 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. There were ever decreasing plots of land to each family. (Dad had 10 acres, the two sons inherited 5 each etc.In 1843 a Government commission found that 326,000 people were occupying land that was insufficient to support a family of more than five.
The Irish population between 1821 and 1841 had risen by a quarter. The British Government had been warned of an impending disaster in 1826 Dominic Corrigan a Dublin doctor told the government that "A pestilence and disease of unprecedented magnitude will befall us" unless the Irish people were provided with a new source of food. The government did little to provide aid. Robert Peel bought £100,000 worth of American Indian Meal and set up a commission to investigate the cause of the potato blight.
Now I realise that you like winding Jim up and are probably being deliberately obtuse, however there is a very serious aspect to this part of the discussion. Your (and my) national government allowed the famine to rage throughout Ireland and did next to bugger all to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:18 AM

No defene Keith - and no evidence of intent
Your continued attempts to smear are nauseating
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:21 AM

As is your defence of the WW1 bloodbath and the Irish holocaust
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM

god knows i don't agree with Jim Carroll on much, but whoever was administering Ireland through the years of the great famine didn't have much to learn from Stalin or Hitler, about mass murder.

why squabble about who was the biggest arsehole?

how come i can't get anyone to talk about Josh White - everybody's too busy talking about arseholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 08:03 AM

Why, Al, the usual perversity of bad news and good news. As they say, bad news runs from end to end of town while good news is still getting its shoes on. Josh White was good news; Stalin & Hitler & the other arseholes were bad news. So there you are.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:02 AM

Rather over simplified thumbnail sketch of the period Raggy -let's put a little flesh on it shall we - maybe you could provide some of the answers as to what the "British Government" could have done about it - It is all old ground that has been gone over time and time again in the past - but here we go:

"During what we in England know as the famine years 1845-51 (there were many other famine years) Ireland was a mass exporter of produce."

Easily disproven MYTH more food was sent to Ireland during the "Famine Years" THAN WAS EVER EXPORTED - simple well recorded fact that you can check up on. Yes food was exported from Ireland during that period, it had to be or otherwise the "famine" would have been nationwide, that food could not be transported and distributed to the areas where it was needed because the infrastructure and means of transport to do so just simply did not exist. The food exported from Ireland during the period was exported so that the money could be earned and taxes collected.



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

So glad you mentioned that year, supposedly the worst year of the "Famine", the one with the highest death toll - want to know how many people in Ireland starved to death that year Raggy? - Might surprise you to know it was 6,000. IIRC that was the year the blight took a breather but they ate the seed potatoes instead of planting them.


"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."

OK then Raggy give me the names of the ports in the west and south west of Ireland in the 1840s that had any sort of real capacity to handle large quantities of perishable goods and store them - Save you the trouble though - there simply weren't any. The British Government couldn't magic them up over night, what the Government did do however was to put at Trevelyan's disposal the Royal Navy's latest and fastest steam ships with shallow enough draught so that they could get into what ports that did exist without having to depend on favourable winds. To get the food distributed to those who needed it how could the British Government arrange that? Wagons? any idea how many wagons and horses you would need to shift just one fully loaded wagon of relief supplies a distance of say 20 miles? Give you an idea a battery of six guns just 30 years earlier required 180 to 200 horses and 20 wagons to move it and keep it operational. What would the horses eat - please do not say grass, horses are incapable of working if they simply eat grass, they need corn or oats (rather large quantities of it)


"The poor isolated population had become over dependant on a single crop, i.e. the potato. There were ever decreasing plots of land to each family. (Dad had 10 acres, the two sons inherited 5 each etc.In 1843 a Government commission found that 326,000 people were occupying land that was insufficient to support a family of more than five.
The Irish population between 1821 and 1841 had risen by a quarter. The British Government had been warned of an impending disaster in 1826 Dominic Corrigan a Dublin doctor told the government that "A pestilence and disease of unprecedented magnitude will befall us" unless the Irish people were provided with a new source of food. The government did little to provide aid."

Who was it that forced the Irish to grow potatoes? Certainly not by diktat of the British Government. How land is divided on the death of the Dad does not in any way dictate how that land is farmed by his descendants - there are still 10 acres of land that could be farmed. The landowners and farmers in Ireland were told time and time again that there were far too many on the land and that urgent reform and improvement in agriculture in Ireland was necessary - that advice and those pleadings were ignored - and no not all land in Ireland was owned by absentee Englishmen. Care to tell us all what made up the Civil Service in Great Britain in the 1840s Raggy, can you name the different Ministries - No Welfare or Benefits; No Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; No Ministry of Health; No Ministry of Transport - so would you care to enlighten us as to what Government Department could have been used to provide this aid? What British Government aid had been handed out to others in the United Kingdom prior to the Potato Famine in Ireland that wasn't given to the Irish? Rhetorical question Raggy the answer is none. The British Government gave over £10 million pounds in aid, the next in terms of amounts given was £2 million by British Society of Friends (The Quakers) The Potato blight did not just hit Ireland it manifested itself throughout Europe - not one single country in Europe gave aid to their populations in anything like the amount given by the British Government to Ireland, elsewhere the peasant farmers were not foolish enough to rely on a single crop their farming was more varied but the food shortage across Europe did put pressure on the price and amount of cereal crops that could be bought - hence the purchase of the Indian Corn you mentioned - it was the only thing left to buy in any large quantity.

"I realise that you like winding Jim up and are probably being deliberately obtuse, however there is a very serious aspect to this part of the discussion. Your (and my) national government allowed the famine to rage throughout Ireland and did next to bugger all to help."

On the contrary the British Government did a damn sight more than anybody else to help but they were bound by very real practical difficulties that had no easy fixes. The "famine" did not rage throughout Ireland (You draw attention to that yourself) The drop in the population in Ireland over this period was due in descending order of magnitude to:
- Emigration: Getting people off the land that could not sustain them
- Disease: epidemics for which at the time there was no treatment and no cures
- Starvation.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM

Jim,
No defene Keith - and no evidence of intent

The historians disagree with you Jim.
They are clear that it was deliberate.
He obviously knew that if he stole all the food and seedcorn, and prevented them getting more, they would die, which was his intent.

You have double standards Jim.
You try to make excuses for Stalin that you would not make for Hitler just because he was a communist monster and not a fascist one.

And, I have never defended the "Irish holocaust."
I merely showed that the majority of historians do not find Britain culpable.

Nor have I defended any "bloodbath."

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM

yes Hitler had something to learn from Sir Charles.

i think theres only David Irving who was in any doubt as to whether Hitler was a shit.

whereas Sir Charles...seems like he left the statistics to prove he was blameless.
we all tried our hardest but those darned Irish kept dying on us. we could get the sandwich van round their street.

fer fucks sake, don't argue jim...that way lies madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:40 AM

Of course it was a simplification, there are hundreds of entire books written about the period of history surrounding the "Irish Famine" I have no intention of trying to emulate the people who wrote those books. However I would suggest your "facts" are somewhat weighed in favour of the British perspective of events.

Just one thing that stuck in my craw "but they ate the seed potatoes instead of planting them" If you're bloody starving what the hell would you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 01:44 PM

Has anyone noticed why this thread started to go astray?

One person, who shall remain nameless, stated

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

Let us look at this statement. Facile: ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. A little facile to write someone off as a despotic monster does seem to be the case here. The actions of the Stalin regime were indeed monstrous to many people. But, as was quite clearly said, there was a lot more going on and to simply put it down to one person being a monster is very much an over simplification.

The response, by another nameless person, was

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

Where, may I ask, did person A assert that Stalin was not a despotic monster?

Is there any doubt that the argument was fomented on the basis of an obvious disparity of language? And have I not been saying that for years?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 02:38 PM

Sadly Dave the person you refer to has complete lack of understanding. He reads what he expects to see and not what is written, That is why he' such an irritating little **** and that's a word I rarely use.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 02:58 PM

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

I took that to mean he did not accept that description of Stalin.

He next said, "Of course he was a depot, but...."

Note how he dropped the word "monster."

I took that to mean he did not accept that description of Stalin.

My case is that someone directly responsible for the the genocide of millions of ordinary people is indeed a despicable monster.

The historians are quite clear that he WAS responsible, and Jim's denial of that fact is tantamount to defending the man and the crime.

Do you think the historians wrong about it being deliberate Dave?
Jim does.
Do you deny that Stalin was a monster Dave?
Jim will not call him that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:07 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:38 PM

Anyone else notice that when it comes to diabolic despots and terror groups the "leftists" tend to employ weasel words and concepts like "facile" and "there is lot more too it than that" but when talking about a democratic and liberal country like Israel they don't mince their words......funny that. Like I said before I used to be a socialist but there was a time when I realized that "The Left" as it used to be, was long dead. These are a different species of nouveau fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:55 PM

Just possibly, ake, "leftists" are capable of using more nuanced words to convey meanings. In this country, too, 'rightists' tend to be more blunt, more vulgar, perhaps, than the more subtle words and phrases our 'leftists' employ. More use of the stiletto, perhaps, than of the club.

In America, just contrast Donald Trump with President Barack Obama.

Make of that what thou wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:06 PM

I don't think that is ake, Ebbie. More likely to be BB or some other plonker who hides behind a mask.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:15 PM

i don't care who started it.

its a bit like that chart on th door of hospital toilets - it just different sorts of turd.

unless you're a connosieur of turds, its a blooody pointless argument. in which case convene a turd tutorial - great turds and tossers of history A101.

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:50 PM

i think maybe i should refer you to Anthony Trollop's observstion on the famine. he was working for the post office, riding through Ireland, and bore witness to the conditions - he called 'a charnel house'.

remember 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...

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:12 PM

I merely showed that the majority of historians...

Keith, are those historians living or dead? Are you sure you didn't mean to say ALL historians? Do they write for the tabloid press? Are their works available in book shops? Do they all agree with you? What are their hat sizes? What sort of autos do they drive?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM

some other plonker who hides behind a mask.

Like Dave the Gnome, eh?......Hypocrite!

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:57 PM

Like Dave the Gnome, eh?

No, not at all. I am called Dave and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see who I am in real life from my postings. Unlike you, Gusset, I have enough courage in my convictions to not hide in anonymity and snipe at people from the sidelines while being afraid to give their own name. Why do that? Frightened that the big boys in the playground will make you cry or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Stalin
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 07:00 PM

the big boys

Yup, that says it all.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:13 AM

Free the Gnomes 

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: 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: 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'.