Miep Gies has died

[HoreTore]

You may not know her by name, but you've certainly know who she was (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/11/obit.miep.gies/) - one of those who hid Anne Frank and her family, and the one who recovered and kept her diary.

WW2 is getting further and further away from us now, with the last nazi trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk) underway and our last true heroes dying away.

People like her are true heroes.

:bow:

[Subotan]

I suppose it's sad that people like that are finally passing on, but it's good to be able to put that past behind us.

[Fragony]

100 is a nice age. RIP Miep :balloon2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I suppose it's sad that people like that are finally passing on, but it's good to be able to put that past behind us.

No, it is not. I mean, to an extent yes - modern Germany isn't guilty and so on. But we must never, ever forget how the Holocaust occurred and how it shaped great portions of the modern world. We cannot and should not put those things behind us, or cease to feel emotion about what happened. If we do, we have lost a valuable lesson we could have learned.

[Subotan]

I deliberately didn't use the words forget, as that wasn't what I was saying. But the past is the past, despite the best efforts of Hollywood and UKTV History to create the illusion that Hitler shot himself just last Thursday.

[Fragony]

I deliberately didn't use the words forget, as that wasn't what I was saying. But the past is the past

Yeah. At a certain point you are claiming a past that isn't yours. My grandma is from Friesland where things weren't all that bad but she still lost most of her family, she doesn't hold a grudge. Things happen, things change.

[Andres]

May she rest in peace :bow:

[Whacker]

There's a balance between 'letting the past stay in the past' and 'not forgetting' the lessons we must learn from our victories and mistakes. It's always subjective too, one's opinion probably influenced most by how affected one is, both directly and indirectly, by said events.

RIP Mrs. Gies.

[Beskar]

Unfortunately, many people have forgot the war.

Ask a teenager or a child in Britain who Churchill is, and they will reply "Isn't it the nodding dog from the TV?".

[Subotan]

Erm, That's because they are children.

[HoreTore]

Unfortunately, many people have forgot the war.

Ask a teenager or a child in Britain who Churchill is, and they will reply "Isn't it the nodding dog from the TV?".

Well "dog" isn't that far from the truth, now is it? ~;)

[Beskar]

Erm, That's because they are children.

I was meaning 10/11/12/teenagers and even young adults.

[Subotan]

Well "dog" isn't that far from the truth, now is it? ~;)
Never forget the Black and Tans


I was meaning 10/11/12/teenagers and even young adults.
I think there's a teensy bit of hyperbole then. Or they were pulling your leg.

[Beskar]

I think there's a teensy bit of hyperbole then. Or they were pulling your leg.

Trust me, it wasn't a hyperbole. I remember from my own school days ontop of it.

[Subotan]

That comparison is unfair. You said "Any child", which isn't true, and the single word "Churchill" has plenty of meanings. You could be referring to the Duke of Marlborough

[A Very Super Market]

I saw this on the news. It was a little paragraph on page A8.

Rest in Peace.

[KukriKhan]

I guess I was about 7 years old when Mom introduced me to the public library and the Dewey Decimal System. Asked what kind of book I wanted to borrow, "a story" Mom reports I answered. "Which kind of story; real or make-believe?" "Real", says youg Kukri. Thus The Diary of a Young Girl (the 1st US edition) was my very first step on my long journey into the wonderful world of reading.

Thank you Miep Gies, for that. :bow: and Rest in Peace.

[Skullheadhq]

Sad, she was 100 years old AFAIK.

[rory_20_uk]

No, it is not. I mean, to an extent yes - modern Germany isn't guilty and so on. But we must never, ever forget how the Holocaust occurred and how it shaped great portions of the modern world. We cannot and should not put those things behind us, or cease to feel emotion about what happened. If we do, we have lost a valuable lesson we could have learned.

Gulags?
Cambodia?
The Great Leap Forward?

There isn't merely one thing that occurred who'se kind has never been repeated. There are many similar ones yet most are nigh on forgotten. Either treat them all the same or accept all will fade.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

Gulags?
Cambodia?
The Great Leap Forward?


All listed above was not meant to eradicate an entire people from the face of the earth, and also, you shouldn't let yourself be indoctrinated like that. The black book of communism is a lie.

[HoreTore]

All listed above was not meant to eradicate an entire people from the face of the earth, and also, you shouldn't let yourself be indoctrinated like that. The black book of communism is a lie.

I'll see your Holocaust and raise you Rwanda.

[Brenus]

Trump with Congo

[Furunculus]

All listed above was not meant to eradicate an entire people from the face of the earth, and also, you shouldn't let yourself be indoctrinated like that. The black book of communism is a lie.

really, i'm not seeing that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

[Subotan]

I'll see your Holocaust and raise you Rwanda.


Trump with Congo

You both should have folded, since I have a North Korean Famine*, a Holodomor, and a Cultural Revolution.

*Interestingly, this is a famine that was caused not by a decline in the supply of food, but by the complete breakdown of the method used to distribute it. Thus, it is the only famine in history where the factory workers in the cities starved to death, whilst farmers in the fields did comparatively well.

[HoreTore]

You both should have folded, since I have a North Korean Famine*, a Holodomor, and a Cultural Revolution.

*Interestingly, this is a famine that was caused not by a decline in the supply of food, but by the complete breakdown of the method used to distribute it. Thus, it is the only famine in history where the factory workers in the cities starved to death, whilst farmers in the fields did comparatively well.

None of those were massacres aimed specifically at one group with the intention of extermination. As such they're not comparable to the Holocaust, Rwanda or the multiple stuff going on in Congo that nobody cares about.

Heck, two of them were famines!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Gulags?
Cambodia?
The Great Leap Forward?

There isn't merely one thing that occurred who'se kind has never been repeated. There are many similar ones yet most are nigh on forgotten. Either treat them all the same or accept all will fade.

I agree strongly.


All listed above was not meant to eradicate an entire people from the face of the earth

The Soviet Union did try to eradicate certain groups from the face of the earth. Just because they failed doesn't mean it was never tried.


and also, you shouldn't let yourself be indoctrinated like that. The black book of communism is a lie.

Tribesman reference:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

There may be a few problems with exact figures in the Black Book of Communism, but to deny the events themselves on a roughly similar scale as which they are described...

I believe I can fairly compare one who did that to a Holocaust denier.

And HoreTore, yes, the Holodomor fits the definition of genocide.

[Subotan]

The latter two were aimed at exterminating certain groups of people. The fact that the latter was not aimed at any specific ethnicity makes it no less appalling than Rwanda. The Holodomor was almost certainly a genocide, that is lucky to have the Five Year Plans acting as cover for that allegation. And although the first was not deliberate, the negligence by the North Korean government makes it as bad as any particular comparatively sized massacre (1,000,000 people), and far worse than any comparable conventional famine.

[HoreTore]

And HoreTore, yes, the Holodomor fits the definition of genocide.

Was the aim of the Holodomor to exterminate the Ukranians, or was it to force them into obedience?

[Subotan]

Does it matter?

[HoreTore]

Does it matter?

I'd say it's rather vital....

A genocide is trying to kill/kill an entire ethnic group. Like the jews, the tutsi's, the protestants in the 1500's and that whole bunch of groups who try to kill each other in Congo.

Killing off political opponents is not the same. What Stalin did in Ukraine, Franco did in Spain and Mao did in China was despicable acts, but they were not genocides.

[Ser Clegane]

Killing off political opponents is not the same.

While it is not the same in with regard to terminology and definition - one is certainly not "better" or "worse" than the other.

[HoreTore]

While it is not the same in with regard to terminology and definition - one is certainly not "better" or "worse" than the other.

But it does count higher in a poker game.

[Subotan]

A genocide is trying to kill/kill an entire ethnic group. Like the... the protestants in the 1500's.

http://www.linux-france.org/prj/jargonf/fig/ROFLMAO.jpg

[HoreTore]

Not sure I understand your point here, Subotan....

Do you deny the persecution of the protestant movement in the 16th century, or what?

[Brenus]

“While it is not the same in with regard to terminology and definition - one is certainly not "better" or "worse" than the other.”
Agree. However it is important in term of History… The aims are different even if the method looks similar.

Was Biafra genocide or does it fit in “breaking” a civil war by famine (Stalin in Ukraine)?
(One famine for the non-communist camp: trump again).
Does the “organised” famine in Vietnam by the Japanese count (2 famines for the capitalist side) or was it the result of a systematic looting by the occupying armies? Or should the Japanese Empire be considered as Communist?:beam:

For the victims, it doesn’t matter, as it doesn’t matter to be tortured by the Gestapo or the KGB, in the Wilhelmstrasse or in the Liubianka…

What I find funny as a former soldier trained the fight the Red Tempest, it looks like if I defend communism…

I DON’T.

But I hate when in order to fight an ideology, some just mix-up things and just “normalise” the abnormal…
Stalin wasn’t Hitler.
Goulags are not Sobibor or Treblinka.
The average mortality in the camps Vietminh from 1946 to 1954 was over 60%. When we go into detail, the findings are sometimes mind-boggling. Of the one thousand nine hundred prisoners camps 2, 4 and 5 were captured on the RC 4 between September and October 1950, only thirty-two survivors returned to Camp No. 1 in August 1952. The mortality rate was therefore over 90%. It is therefore here quick extermination (figures ANAPI, French Indochina Veteran Association).
But it was not the purpose to kill them, but to break them..

As Meneldil underlined: If to have a Red Hitler makes you feel better, Pol Pot, Khieu Samphan and the third one I don’t remember the name will fit.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd say it's rather vital....

A genocide is trying to kill/kill an entire ethnic group.

A common misconception, but false.



Killing off political opponents is not the same. What Stalin did in Ukraine, Franco did in Spain and Mao did in China was despicable acts, but they were not genocides.

Yes, because Ukrainian children are obviously political opponents. Silly of me, really.


Was the aim of the Holodomor to exterminate the Ukranians, or was it to force them into obedience?

It was to exterminate a large portion and force the rest into slavery. Ukraine is only a single example in the Soviet Union, however. The Soviets weren't just guilty of one genocide, but many.

[HoreTore]

A common misconception, but false.

False? By which of the many hundreds of genocide definitions would that be?


Yes, because Ukrainian children are obviously political opponents. Silly of me, really.

So.....

Franco committed genocide in Spain? I didn't know that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

False? By which of the many hundreds of genocide definitions would that be?

The definition according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The legitimate one, in other words.


So.....

Franco committed genocide in Spain? I didn't know that.

No, he did not. He committed some severe crimes, but not genocide. Cultural genocide, yes, you might have a case there.

[Subotan]

Not sure I understand your point here, Subotan....

Do you deny the persecution of the protestant movement in the 16th century, or what?

Partly that the idea that Protestantism is a racial group, and partly because I was dying to post that picture in this thread.

[Brenus]

“The definition according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The legitimate one, in other words.” Which is: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”

Where did Stalin intend to destroy part or entire groups on the base of national, ethnical or religion?
You do notice there is nothing about political group.

Was bombing Hanoi genocide? It intended to destoy a part of a ethnic/racial group. Was the use of orange agent, in order to creat a famine, an act of war or genocide?

READ the text before starting to comment on them was the advice of all my teachers, always…:beam:

The strange thing with your interpretation of genocide is you apply only on one "side".
Pol Pot killing Khmers in Cambodia is genocide. Franco killing Spanish in Spain is not
:inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

Partly that the idea that Protestantism is a racial group, and partly because I was dying to post that picture in this thread.

Nobody's talking about race here, my friend.


The strange thing with your interpretation of genocide is you apply only on one "side".
Pol Pot killing Khmers in Cambodia is genocide. Franco killing Spanish in Spain is not
:inquisitive:

Indeedelidoo!

If Stalin's oppression of Ukraine is a genocide, then by god, the same must be said about the carpet bombing and oppression of the basque, for example.

[Kralizec]

Rest in peace, Mrs. Giep.

...


“The definition according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The legitimate one, in other words.” Which is: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”

Where did Stalin intend to destroy part or entire groups on the base of national, ethnical or religion?
You do notice there is nothing about political group.

Was bombing Hanoi genocide? It intended to destoy a part of a ethnic/racial group. Was the use of orange agent, in order to creat a famine, an act of war or genocide?

READ the text before starting to comment on them was the advice of all my teachers, always…:beam:

The strange thing with your interpretation of genocide is you apply only on one "side".
Pol Pot killing Khmers in Cambodia is genocide. Franco killing Spanish in Spain is not
:inquisitive:

Stalin did inflict collective punishment on different ethnic groups, and particulary the Holodomor seems to qualify as a genocide from what I know. But the idea seems to have been to starve off a decent portion of the Ukranians in order to crush dissidence. It was a means to an end. The holocaust was a genocide for the sake of genocide.

[Strike For The South]

lol. I see all of you and raiser a Christopher Coloumbus

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where did Stalin intend to destroy part or entire groups on the base of national, ethnical or religion?
You do notice there is nothing about political group.

...really? I honestly can't tell if you're being serious here. I know you've defended Stalin in the past, but you can't be serious on this. Please tell me you're joking. :inquisitive:


Was bombing Hanoi genocide? It intended to destoy a part of a ethnic/racial group. Was the use of orange agent, in order to creat a famine, an act of war or genocide?

Indeed it was not.


READ the text before starting to comment on them was the advice of all my teachers, always…:beam:

Wise teachers. I'm glad I have inadvertently followed their advice.


The strange thing with your interpretation of genocide is you apply only on one "side".
Pol Pot killing Khmers in Cambodia is genocide. Franco killing Spanish in Spain is not
:inquisitive:

Franco attempted to kill all of the Spanish people in Spain? I presume he began it with a ritual suicide, too.

I already stated that Franco's campaign against the Basque people was tantamount to cultural genocide. I believe this also answers HoreTore's question, and the laughable "AHA!" assertion that certain individuals seem to have come up with. The maxim that you repeated above would come in handy at this time.

[HoreTore]

I already stated that Franco's campaign against the Basque people was tantamount to cultural genocide.

The later oppression with the "spaniards speak spanish" etc stuff could be called a cultural genocide.

However, the way the Spanish army and in particular the Condor legion deliberately killed the civilian population must be considered a genocide if Ukraine is to be considered one.

Anyway... Spain isn't a nation consisting of just spaniards, it's a nation consisting of several different groups. Franco represented the majority population, and subdued the minority groups. However, the reason he went after the Basques and Catalonians was to crush his political opponents and consolidate his power. It was with the aim to control the nation, not to exterminate the Catalonians or Basques. Like Stalin did what he did to Ukraine to consolidate his own power and enforce his rule, not with the aim to exterminate them.

And because of that, neither of them were genocides.

EDIT: To explain further the difference between spain, ukraine and germany...

A Ukranian could state that he supported Stalin. A Basque could declare he was a fascist. If they did so, neither of them would die. However, a jew living in a nazi-controlled area could not simply declare that he supported the nazi party, he would be shot whatever his political allegiance was. That is the reason why we call it a genocide, while the first two does not classify as such.

[Meneldil]

really, i'm not seeing that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

The fact that the Black Book of Communism was written by a former Maoist who's now leaning on the frindge of far right nutness and blame 1789 and 1848 for all the evils of the world should point out that this book is not to be taken seriously.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

However, the way the Spanish army and in particular the Condor legion deliberately killed the civilian population must be considered a genocide if Ukraine is to be considered one.

I disagree. That was a war, and it falls under the category of terror bombing (as they committed similar crimes against Spanish cities as well). It is still a crime, but it is incorrect to define it as outright genocide. Again, I by no means deny that there was a cultural genocide.


And because of that, neither of them were genocides.

So essentially, if you try to exterminate a people, as a whole or in part, it can't be called genocide because you did it for political goals?

No, in any fair court Stalin would be found guilty of genocide. Not just one count of it either.


The fact that the Black Book of Communism was written by a former Maoist who's now leaning on the frindge of far right nutness and blame 1789 and 1848 for all the evils of the world should point out that this book is not to be taken seriously.

I disagree with your views, but there is an outright inaccuracy in the statement. It was not written by a former Maoist, but compiled by him from the works of several other authors. Despite some of his arguments, the book itself is generally sound. That doesn't matter though, as there are plenty of other, reliable sources that one can use to present and defend very similar arguments as to the extent of the damages created by communism. In fact, their death toll for the Soviet Union is far too low (though as the PRC count is slightly too high, so that balances it out a little).

[Meneldil]

Stéphane Courtois, who's widely regarded as the main contributor to the book (as he's an expert on history of communism) was a former maoist, namely of the "Vive le Communisme" group.

And he indeed now writes book about the sins of the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution, with some members of the "Action Française".

I'm not trying to say that communism was cool and dandy, I'm just saying Courtois is a tool.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Stéphane Courtois, who's widely regarded as the main contributor to the book (as he's an expert on history of communism) was a former maoist, namely of the "Vive le Communisme" group.

Indeed.


And he indeed now writes book about the sins of the French Revolution

...and?


I'm not trying to say that communism was cool and dandy, I'm just saying Courtois is a tool.

I do disagree with some of his methods and some of his opinions, but many of the fundamentals of the work itself are sound.

[Brenus]

“I know you've defended Stalin in the past”:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
If defending Stalin is to say is was a criminal but not as evil than Hitler at least in the ideology, well, I defended Stalin…
Sorry, I can’t accept the deception en vogue in the “intellectuals” and this constant will to try to diminish Nazism horror and exceptionality with others horrible slaughters…

“Please tell me you're joking”
Answer the question: Did Stalin deported and killed million of Ukrainians, Russian and others ethnicities or religions in order to exterminate them as a group. Because THAT is the UN definition, the only one valid according to you…

“I'm glad I have inadvertently followed their advice” So you read the text. What part didn’t you understand in “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”?
Analyse the words: Intent to destroy, group. Genocide is a will to destroy a group for what they are. If you put on the table proofs that Stalin wanted to eradicate minorities because what they were, it fit in genocide. If not, it is not a genocide, which doesn’t diminish the crime by the way…

“Holodomor seems to qualify as a genocide from what I know. But the idea seems to have been to starve off a decent portion of the Ukranians in order to crush dissidence.” YES. You’ve got it!!!: But the idea seems to have been to starve off a decent portion of the Ukranians in order to crush dissidence.
So it doesn’t match the UN definition of genocide: Intent to destroy a group.
And that why to use orange agent on North Vietnam farms is not considered as genocide. It a way of starve a enemy to crush them.

“I presume he began it with a ritual suicide, too.” Well, it what we say about Pol Pot and the Red Khmers as they killed their own population. So what is the difference between Franco killing Spanish and Pol Pot killing Cambodians?

And I agree. Franco didn’t genocide. But nor was Stalin. They were two merciless dictators using anger and famine as weapons.

[Kralizec]

A word on "intent".

Premeditated murder, example A:
I hate my neighbour, and I want him dead. I devise a plan and follow through with it.

Premeditated murder, example B:
My uncle has put me in his will, so I'll inherit a large sum of money when he dies. I want money. So I make up a plan and kill him.

See the distinction?
The intent to kill is present in both examples. In A, the intention is the same as the desired effect (compare the Holocaust). In B, the intention is only a means to reach the desired effect (compare the Holodomor)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Brenus, you always, without fail, play the card that I say Stalin was as evil as Hitler to diminish the crimes that Hitler committed (in which you seem to ignore that I am one of the most ardent defenders of those who suffered from his crimes). I would expect it from a politician trying to smear his opponent, but really. I do believe you have defended Stalin because I believe you have downplayed his role (whereas I have never and will never downplay the Holocaust). Nonetheless, I don't accuse you of being a communist or presume to guess your motives for doing so.

Still, Stalin did intend to eliminate, in whole or in part, multiple ethnic, religious, or racial groups. That is the definition of genocide, and he fulfilled it many times over.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. RIP Miep Gies.
Amazing to think this woman was still alive. 100 years old.


2. For those interested in books like Anne Frank's Diary, two accounts were recently discovered, both causing a literary furore. The first is similar to Anne's story:


It has been described as a publishing sensation. Helene Berr was a young French student murdered in a Nazi concentration camp. Her recently discovered journal has now hit French bookstores -- and become an immediate bestseller.


"I sense that a great dark path awaits me." The words were written over six decades ago by a young Jewish student named Helene Berr not long before she lost her life in a German concentration camp. But they are only just now coming to light.


The "Helene Berr Journal" was published on Jan. 3 and hit the bookshops in France this week. It is a moving portrayal of how a young woman's carefree life in Paris is slowly shattered as she becomes increasingly certain of her eventual terrible fate. Described as the publishing sensation of 2008 by the French daily Liberation, the book has likewise been called a "testimonial of rare power" by Le Figaro


And there is Irène Némirovsky:
http://www.irenenemirovsky.guillaumedelaby.com/en_index.html

Némirovsky's is a story of Europe's breathtaking 20th century history and civilization. She was a Jew who fled the Ukraine after WWI and the revolution, converted to Catholicism, wrote in Parisian anti-Semitic magazines, then was killed in Ausschwitz as a Jew.

Europe...Europe...

All these breathtaking lifestories! Of which Miep Gies saved one, and was herself one.

[Megas Methuselah]

lol. I see all of you and raiser a Christopher Coloumbus

Hmm?

[Brenus]

“Brenus, you always, without fail, play the card that I say Stalin was as evil as Hitler to diminish the crimes that Hitler committed (in which you seem to ignore that I am one of the most ardent defenders of those who suffered from his crimes). I would expect it from a politician trying to smear his opponent, but really. I do believe you have defended Stalin because I believe you have downplayed his role (whereas I have never and will never downplay the Holocaust). Nonetheless, I don't accuse you of being a communist or presume to guess your motives for doing so.”

Sorry, I just comment on what I read:
Each time we spoke about Hitler and the holocaust, you introduce Communist horrors as a counter-weight.
So you are in fact downplaying Hitler as evil in always comparing with Stalin.
Each time I’ve got the impression it is in order to diminish Hitler/Nazi specificity in horror.
So it is not a smear campaign, I just read your comment and analyse what you write.
I don’t know who you are, what you do, what are your political views and actions. I can just read what you are writing.
And because I think what you write is not unbiased and I think it is part of the actual movement of Nazi Rehabilitation (even un-consciously) as the arguments you put forward are in fact mere suppositions without any supporting evidence in term of History.
Until we have evidences that Stalin did ordered the so-call Holodomore, given instruction to starve Ukraine it is incompetence, fear and stupidity that aggravated the famine.
What I read in your comment is a systematic double standard e.g.:
Famine in Ukraine: Genocide
Famine in Spain: Not Genocide

I do not downplay Stalin role. I am fully aware that the Georgian Former Religious School Boy did, and how he took power and kept it.
But if there one thing that can’t be reproach to Stalin is racism. He killed Russian, Ukrainians, Orthodox, Muslim and Jews, peasants, soldiers and engineers without any restriction in order to keep power…

I am not a communist. I could be. That is not against the law in France.
I just don’t share the methods if I share some of the ideas.
Because, ultimately:
It is not compulsory to be a monster to be a Communist (can help if you want to get promotion). You have to believe in Mankind, equality, progress and all these kind of things.
It is however compulsory to a monster to be a Nazi. You have to believe and agree that there is a master race; you have to believe and agree that some are just born slaves and others are to be exterminated for what they are… And to believe and agree that war is the ultimate test…

[HoreTore]

I disagree. That was a war, and it falls under the category of terror bombing (as they committed similar crimes against Spanish cities as well). It is still a crime, but it is incorrect to define it as outright genocide. Again, I by no means deny that there was a cultural genocide.

Which "similar crimes" are you talking about...?

I cannot for the life of me think of any crimes committed by the Basque army "against spanish cities". Please, do enlighten me.

And at any rate, Stalin was involved in a continuous war for the entirety of his rule, against both real and imagined threats(mostly the latter).

[Furunculus]

The fact that the Black Book of Communism was written by a former Maoist who's now leaning on the frindge of far right nutness and blame 1789 and 1848 for all the evils of the world should point out that this book is not to be taken seriously.

i'm reading the commentary about how the book was received, nothing more. while it appears contentious (from either side) it does not appear ridiculous (from any side).

[Skullheadhq]

Anyone can give me proof that the Holodomor really happened?

Because....
Prominent British writers who visited the Soviet Union in 1934, such as George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, are also on record as denying the existence of the Famine in Ukraine
And they were there!
In 1934 the British Foreign Office in the House of Lords stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations against the Soviet government regarding the Famine in Ukraine, based on the testimony of Sir John Maynard, a renowned famine expert who visited the Ukraine in the summer of 1933

And all photos are actually from the 1922 famine, which was caused by the Western Intervansion.
Also...

and the mythical numbers of millions of victims of socialism have increased by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years.


Also, I read a conservative (a.K.a fools) encycopedia and found this:
In 1997 the Soviet Union finally aknowleged the Holodomor.
Didn't the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991? :clown:
So much as a good source :)
How I love conservative nonsense...

[Subotan]

But if there one thing that can’t be reproach to Stalin is racism. He killed Russian, Ukrainians, Orthodox, Muslim and Jews, peasants, soldiers and engineers without any restriction in order to keep power…

He accused entire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_German) ethnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Koreans_in_the_Soviet_Union) groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Tatars#In_the_Soviet_Union:_1917-1991) of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Ukraine)plotting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lentil_%28Caucasus%29) against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkars) him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayal_of_Cossacks)


It is not compulsory to be a monster to be a Communist (can help if you want to get promotion). You have to believe in Mankind, equality, progress and all these kind of things.
It is however compulsory to a monster or an opportunist to be a Nazi.

[Skullheadhq]

Volga Germans, that's a good example, especially since it happened it WWII...

[Fragony]

It is however compulsory to a monster or an opportunist to be a Nazi.

Not really, for many it was just the only way to survive and be able to keep feeding their family's, that's not really opportunism. Nowadays you have to be a member of certain party's if you want a certain government position as well.

[Skullheadhq]

Not really, for many it was just the only way to survive and be able to keep feeding their family's, that's not really opportunism.
Then what is it, if not opportunism?

[Fragony]

Then what is it, if not opportunism?

Is some cases simple necessity, if you weren't a party member you risked losing your business to the state, what would you have done if you got mouths to feed. Antisemitism wasn't exactly new they heard it all before, even Marx wrote about the 'Jewish Question'. If they say they didn't expect it then I believe them.

[Brenus]

"He accused entire ethnic groups of plotting against him"
Yeap. He deported, alaughred and did horrible things to them without any distinction... But it was repraisals against alledge plots, not beause they were su-humans or because they were who they were...

[Fragony]

"He accused entire ethnic groups of plotting against him"
Yeap. He deported, alaughred and did horrible things to them without any distinction... But it was repraisals against alledge plots, not beause they were su-humans or because they were who they were...

So it were more people doing it, but the Russians didn't exactly need that much Germans to motivate them to be pretty nasty against their jewish population. Nazi Germany was more than Hitler as well, would be great if it would be all on Hitler but there is a whole lot more to it. Same with Stalin, something is always the product of something else.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Which "similar crimes" are you talking about...?

I cannot for the life of me think of any crimes committed by the Basque army "against spanish cities". Please, do enlighten me.

I'm talking about Franco committing similar crimes against his own people as acts of war. They were, in my opinion, war crimes and not genocide. Not until later on, when he attempted a cultural genocide against the Basques and others.



Yeap. He deported, alaughred and did horrible things to them without any distinction... But it was repraisals against alledge plots, not beause they were su-humans or because they were who they were...

It doesn't matter though. If you try to exterminate, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, or religious group, you can't just say "oh, I thought they were plotting against me" for it to somehow magically become a crime other than genocide. The truth is that Stalin was scared of plots, or at least said he was, but was also prejudiced against certain groups. If you commit a genocide to strengthen your own power or to eliminate a rival, you have still committed genocide.

But how can I take you seriously when you don't believe there is any evidence that Stalin caused the Holodomor?

[Kralizec]

Anyone can give me proof that the Holodomor really happened?

Because....
Prominent British writers who visited the Soviet Union in 1934, such as George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, are also on record as denying the existence of the Famine in Ukraine
And they were there!
In 1934 the British Foreign Office in the House of Lords stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations against the Soviet government regarding the Famine in Ukraine, based on the testimony of Sir John Maynard, a renowned famine expert who visited the Ukraine in the summer of 1933

And all photos are actually from the 1922 famine, which was caused by the Western Intervansion.
Also...

and the mythical numbers of millions of victims of socialism have increased by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years.


Also, I read a conservative (a.K.a fools) encycopedia and found this:
In 1997 the Soviet Union finally aknowleged the Holodomor.
Didn't the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991? :clown:
So much as a good source :)
How I love conservative nonsense...

If you ran a totalitarian state that habitually murders its own people, wouldn't you make sure that visiting foreigners would never see any indication of it?
Besides, it's well known that George Bernard Shaw was a Soviet apologist. Don't know about Wells or that Maynard bloke. Noam Chomsky also dismissed stories coming from Cambodia during the days of the Khmer Rouge as western fabrications, do you question that part of history as well?

If you want to argue, for example, that the 100 million figure from the black book of communism is an exaggeration, go ahead. But what you're doing here is almost as bad as holocaust denial.

[Kralizec]

"He accused entire ethnic groups of plotting against him"
Yeap. He deported, alaughred and did horrible things to them without any distinction... But it was repraisals against alledge plots, not beause they were su-humans or because they were who they were...

None of that is part of the definition of genocide.

The UN's definition:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is absolutely nothing in this text that suggests that it has to be motivated by the desire to entirely exterminate the group. In fact, the part "intent...in part" implies the contrary.

Now I agree that Stalin's motivations were not quite as hideous as those of Hitler, but that's irrelevant when qualifying his actions.

[Brenus]

"None of that is part of the definition of genocide." Agree

[Skullheadhq]

It makes me sad you guys hate comrade Stalin...
Also, the Holodomor is a lie.

[HoreTore]

It doesn't matter though. If you try to exterminate, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, or religious group, you can't just say "oh, I thought they were plotting against me" for it to somehow magically become a crime other than genocide. The truth is that Stalin was scared of plots, or at least said he was, but was also prejudiced against certain groups. If you commit a genocide to strengthen your own power or to eliminate a rival, you have still committed genocide.

But how can I take you seriously when you don't believe there is any evidence that Stalin caused the Holodomor?

No, only if you have intent to destroy is it a genocide. And his intent was not to destroy but to force.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It makes me sad you guys hate comrade Stalin...
Also, the Holodomor is a lie.

Are you a troll, or the far-left equivalent of a Holocaust denier?


No, only if you have intent to destroy is it a genocide. And his intent was not to destroy but to force.

He did intend to destroy certain ethnic and religious groups. Why he intended to destroy them is irrelevant.

[Skullheadhq]

Holocaust is kinda proven, holodomor not. and does denial make you a troll?
Guess half the world is troll then...
And even less thinks it was a genocide.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/World_recognized.png

[Louis VI the Fat]

How old are you?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Holocaust is kinda proven, holodomor not. and does denial make you a troll?
Guess half the world is troll then...
And even less thinks it was a genocide.

Oh, that obviously means it never happened, since only a few legislatures have recognized it as a genocide. How silly of me.


Really, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. You are exactly like a Holocaust denier in that you ignore clearly available evidence to satisfy your own agenda.

[Skullheadhq]

Oh, that obviously means it never happened, since only a few legislatures have recognized it as a genocide. How silly of me.


Really, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. You are exactly like a Holocaust denier in that you ignore clearly available evidence to satisfy your own agenda.

Well, show me the proof then, if there is any...

Found an interesting article here:


The man who is in charge of the “historic providing” of Holodomor recognition - the great famine of the 1930s - has never gone into higher education.


The news comes after the results of an ‘independent investigation” held by the Crimean police head and MP, Gennady Moskal, were announced by the Ukrainian Peoples’ Self-Defense movement press-service.

Moskal has long been concerned with the biography of the country’s security service deputy head, Andrey Kislinsky, accusing him of trading in prostitution, but this time things have gone too badly and seriously for Kislinski.

After a deputy’s enquiry, Moskal found out that Kislinsky – officially certified historian and professor of History – never graduated from the Kiev State University. More than that, he never even studied there, at least between 1994 and 2000 – the period Kislinsky was supposed to have been pounding the books. The University’s register boasts no student with such a name.



Moskal has demanded Ukraine’s government and the Prosecutor’s Office give their “assessment of Kislinsky’s using a fake document.”

Kislinsky is now in charge of the Holodomor case, busy with discovering more and more proof of Moscow’s “genocide of the Ukrainian population.”

Meanwhile, it may turn out that Ukrainian claims have little to do with history. As quoted by the Russian Izvestia newspaper, Vladimir Kornilov of the Kiev branch of the Institute of CIS Countries has discovered why the official number of alleged Holodomor victims has significantly increased since the launch of Yushchenko’s campaign. According to Kornilov, the so-called “Book of Memory”, published in Ukraine’s regions, is full of falsifications. Instead of real victims of famine, one can find in the book alcoholics, different crash victims, and even those who weren’t alive in 1932-1933.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, show me the proof then, if there is any...

It's everywhere! This is precisely the same line a Holocaust denier gave in another Monastery thread. I shouldn't need to "show you..if there is any", all you need to do is look!

Obviously you are on the far-left and don't want to believe reality that conflicts with your own viewpoint, but this is a bit much. Whether you think it was a genocide or not, it still happened, which you will notice that everyone but yourself seems to agree with.

[Kralizec]

Holocaust is kinda proven, holodomor not. and does denial make you a troll?
Guess half the world is troll then...
And even less thinks it was a genocide.

:rolleyes:

Even Russia doesn't deny that the Holodomor took place. They just don't see it as a deliberate policy of starvation, i.e. genocide. With extermination camps it's obvious, with a famine not necessarily so. Personally I think that the Holodomor probably was purposefully engineered, but I'm not a historian.

Also, when you quote an article it's common courtesy to provide a link:
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-28/reliable-ukraine-holodomor-history.html

Wikipedia article of that particular source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Criticism

Western state and commercial media claim that RT has close ties with the Russian state authorities[10][11][12][13][14] and a few years after the channel started broadcasting, for being a "cheerleader" of the Kremlin,[12] applying positive spin to reports about governmental institutions, refraining from criticizing Prime Minister and former Russian president Vladimir Putin or the government, and deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-western "experts" are interviewed--without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view.[2] RT itself claims to be funded by the Russian government.[15] A CBC News story contains allegations that RT is "a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services".[2] Western commercial media, including The New York Times, routinely call it "state-run".[16]

One senior journalist at RT called these allegations of bias "nonsense". "The Russian coverage I have seen has been much better than much of the Western coverage," he said, adding, "My view is that RT is not particularly biased at all. When you look at the Western media, there is a lot of genuflection towards the powers that be. Russian news coverage is largely pro-Russia, but that is to be expected."[17]Also the head of the Russian governmental media watchdog Russian Federal Press and Mass Communications Agency, Mikhail Seslavinskii, denied there is any state censorship and stated that the RT works on its own as an independent editorial office.[11] Supporters say that putting forward a "positive view of Russia" is no different than what many other countries do.[2]

[Skullheadhq]

How come then that a lot of western journalist and writers, who went there in '33-'34 haven't seen anything resembling a famine and said everybody had enough food...

[Kralizec]

I already adressed that.

[Furunculus]

It makes me sad you guys hate comrade Stalin...


rofl. that is all.

[Brenus]

“He did intend to destroy certain ethnic and religious groups. Why he intended to destroy them is irrelevant”
Oooh, non non non non.
It is relevant. In fact it is the entire debate; because in war I want to destroy a group from certain ethnicity. Well, they are soldiers and let’s say Vietnamese, or Japanese, or Martian.

In your enlarge notion of genocide that is a genocide, because well, I intent to destroy a part as large as possible of them.:beam:

To decide to exterminate Jews because they are Jews is not as to deport and kill Tatars and Cossacks because they allied with your enemies…
The fact that they were or not involved in a plot or never betrayed is irrelevant.

“Obviously you are on the far-left”
Not so obvious as in Russia the ones denying the Famine and the Holocaust are ultra-nationalist…
I had even some telling me that in fact Lenin (Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov –sorry for the spelling) and Stalin (Josef Besarionis Jughashvili) were Jews…

[Fragony]

rofl. that is all.

Meet the dutch left

[Subotan]

Besides, it's well known that George Bernard Shaw was a Soviet apologist. Don't know about Wells or that Maynard bloke. Noam Chomsky also dismissed stories coming from Cambodia during the days of the Khmer Rouge as western fabrications, do you question that part of history as well?

Communist regimes are well known for hiding appearences of their situation to foreigners. Bertrand Russel springs to mind as being a Westerner who saw the truth behind the USSR.


No, only if you have intent to destroy is it a genocide. And his intent was not to destroy but to force.
You can't force people when they're dead.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is relevant. In fact it is the entire debate; because in war I want to destroy a group from certain ethnicity. Well, they are soldiers and let’s say Vietnamese, or Japanese, or Martian.

In your enlarge notion of genocide that is a genocide, because well, I intent to destroy a part as large as possible of them.

:rolleyes:

Far from it. You know exactly what I meant, and now you have introduced a lovely red herring.


The fact that they were or not involved in a plot or never betrayed is irrelevant.

So all you need to do is make the excuse that you thought they were involved in something, and suddenly you aren't guilty of genocide? Hitler had paranoid thoughts about the Jews too, as well as the Roma and the other groups he tried to eliminate. He harboured these thoughts because he was strongly and irrationally prejudiced against them. It's still genocide. Likewise, Stalin was prejudiced against certain ethnicities. The point is that he targeted specific ethnicities.

The basic point is that Stalin killed groups just because they were what they were. The inane excuses that it doesn't matter because he was paranoid shouldn't enter into the question. Did he intend to eliminate an ethnic group? Yes. Does that make it a genocide according to the definition, regardless of why he did so? Yes. Ergo, Stalin committed genocide.



Not so obvious as in Russia the ones denying the Famine and the Holocaust are ultra-nationalist…
I had even some telling me that in fact Lenin (Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov –sorry for the spelling) and Stalin (Josef Besarionis Jughashvili) were Jews…

Well, in the east ultra-nationalism can come out of the far-right or the far-left. They're both silly either way.

[Brenus]

“You know exactly what I meant”:
Yes I do. You want Stalin = Hitler.
At all cost even in twisting reality.
Fair enough whatever your intend. I don’t know why this insistence to qualify an absolute horrible fact as a famine combined with a political repression as genocide.
The crime of genocide was created to qualify the unqualified: The determination to kill the entire ethnical, religious population or human group for what they are.
Not for political reason, not for plotting, not for good or bad reason, just for the fact they were breathing…

“So all you need to do is make the excuse that you thought they were involved in something, and suddenly you aren't guilty of genocide”
Yes. Because it become still an horrible massacre but not a genocide.
To enlarge the notion of genocide kills it.

I am one who wants the crime staying what it is… And that is why I find the decision of The Hague Tribunal to qualify Sebrenica as genocide a complete non-sense. It water down the meaning of genocide.
And it is what I show in why “lovely red herring”.

The dilution of the notion of crime of genocide will just make all crime equivalent, so Hitler will be just a normal criminal. Then one will be able to happily contest the figures, then hoops, no more war criminals, and Allies and Nazi are equal in term of war crimes, then what?
Hitler = Roosevelt because the US deported their American Japanese in camps? Well. Goering tried this as his defence…
Will you go this way? Is US having Genocide in 1941 against the Japanese?

“Did he intend to eliminate an ethnic group?”
No. That is not true. You are denying the reality. As much I know, Stalin never order to kill an ethnic group for being what they are. Never. Deportation is not killing.
Deportation, yes, by killing them as ethnic group, no…
Either wise all anti-guerrilla plan are genocide.
Or even the deportation of English convicts to Australia is genocide, or the French deportation of the political opponents from the commune de Paris in Algeria or New Caledonia is genocide…

“The basic point is that Stalin killed groups just because they were what they were”: Again, not according to History and facts:
Not all the Cossacks were targeted, not all the Jews were deported, not all the Generals were killed…
What is annoying with Stalin is he killed so many people that it hard to make the distinction. He killed more Russian than any body else considering it was not done in one go. Did Stalin “genocided” the Russian as well?

If you come with a proofs, a document, a logistic plan which can show me that Stalin had his "Wansee Conference" I will conceade.
If you can give me few names, and don't make it up, of Russian Communist involved of such things I will agree with you.
But until you do, and I am quite confident you can't, well, Stalin, horrible as he was, was not Hitler. Tyrant, mercyless, paranoid and all what you want. But not Hitler.

[Brenus]

"Well, in the east ultra-nationalism can come out of the far-right or the far-left. They're both silly either way." Well, at least we agree on this, but only in the Eastern Europe...
It is how the extreme-left became ant-semitic because supporting the Palestinian cause...

[Skullheadhq]

Well, at least we agree on this, but only in the Eastern Europe...
It is how the extreme-left became ant-semitic because supporting the Palestinian cause...

Does not being a zionist makes you an anti-semite?

[Brenus]

"Does not being a zionist makes you an anti-semite?" No. Not automatically. Only if you link all Jews with Israel policy...

[Fragony]

Does not being a zionist makes you an anti-semite?

For most lefties it's calling the exact same thing something different, the fixation on Israel and the mental blockage of other much more worse conflicts doesn't exactly speak in favor of having an unbiased approach. Egypt is actually gassing Palestinians in their tunnels, did you know? no. Do you care? no. Would you care if it was Israel doing it it? yes.

[Skullheadhq]

For most lefties it's calling the exact same thing something different, the fixation on Israel and the mental blockage of other much more worse conflicts doesn't exactly speak in favor of having an unbiased approach. Egypt is actually gassing Palestinians in their tunnels, did you know? no. Do you care? no. Would you care if it was Israel doing it it? yes.

I never said Egypt was OK, now did I?

[Fragony]

I never said Egypt was OK, now did I?

Doesn't matter, leftie/muslim fixation is on Israel and Israel alone, ever heard anybody talk about Marocco's illegal occupation of the western-sahara, of course not, or the situation in Iran or the genocide in Middle-Africa. But Israel isn't even allowed to defend itself by (Dutch brainwashed) lefties it really upsets them, only Israel does, despite it being a tiny country in a very hostile world. And you still think it isn't about Israel being a jewish state?

edit, on the brighter side, they also hate America, a place they have never been but know all about regardless. And ok it's pretty big.

[Skullheadhq]

People actually live in the Western Sahara :laugh4:
And what is defend itself, according to you, maintaining an apartheid regime like this, you know, people in Gaza can't import/eat spaghetti, because that would be a danger to Israel :inquisitive:

How exactly can spaghetti be a danger to Israel?

[Veho Nex]

It'll be a truely sad day and one of great loss when the last vet or survivor of such a destructive war passes away.

[Fragony]

People actually live in the Western Sahara :laugh4:
And what is defend itself, according to you, maintaining an apartheid regime like this, you know, people in Gaza can't import/eat spaghetti, because that would be a danger to Israel :inquisitive:

How exactly can spaghetti be a danger to Israel?

Tell that to the people who live in fear of a rocket landing on them every day, prolonged paper-cuts are the very definition of terror, a life of uncertainty. And they will never give it a rest, that is the reality of the jewish people.

And yeah people live in the western-sahara, usually not very long though, you can't know that because you probably are told to read 'quality newspapers', but they don't inform you. I'll just stick to blogs, Dutch newspapers are just another gear of the red machine.

[Samurai Waki]

Two wrongs don't make a right Frags. Respect Israel's right to exist, as much as the Palestinian's right to eat. The problem is, is that Hamas was never using the tunnels for humanitarian purposes, it would make a much more compelling story if they were smuggling food and medicine through them, instead of more weaponry.

The Israelis won't leave, the Palestinians don't want peace... who should I side with? Personally, I don't much like Israel's policies towards Palestine, but then again I'm not blowing myself up on a crowded bus to make a statement. Palestine waved it's innocent, freedom fighter flag goodbye a long time ago when it used terrorism against civilians as a perfectly justifiable excuse to independence. Israel is a modernized western democracy, Palestine is a prison state ruled by mafiosos, who spout demagoguery instead of appealing to human rights.

Personally, I'll go with Israel.

[Fragony]

Two wrongs don't make a right Frags. Respect Israel's right to exist, as much as the Palestinian's right to eat.

Put that fertilizer in the ground and grow crops instead of explosives, or be hungry if you don't enjoy your deflated belly. The Palestinians get what they deserve, if it wasn't for their primitive bloodlust they would have had their state decades ago, but it isn't about a existence of a Palestinian state it's about the demise of jewish one. If you want a war you shouldn't cry if someone is better at it.

100% behind Israel

[Skullheadhq]

Put that fertilizer in the ground and grow crops

And then let the Israeli soldiers destroy your farm?
http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6235
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article169

100% behind Palestine!

[Fragony]

100% behind Palestine!

100% behind people who would commit genocide if they had the means, and try whenever they have even the slightest of an opportunity, like getting fertilizer for free and building weapons instead of using it for what it is meant. Palestinians hit the Israeli's a 100 times and cry when the get a slap back I have zero sympathy for them, they are lucky the Israeli's are more civilized than I am, I would go in a little bit harder personally. Screw them they have the right to shut up and die.

[Ser Clegane]

I guess this thread has served its purpose.

Now we are just going into the same old same of Isreal vs. Palestine - which might be fine if it would be done woth a less broad brush.

Thanks to all who commemorated Miep Gies.

:bow:

Closed