Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia - Part 13

103 posts / 0 new
Last post

If (hypothetically) a majority of Georgians WANT to be part of NATO - shouldn't we respect their right to self-determination and let them join?



terms like "majority" and "want" are very hard to pin down.

The "majority" of Canadians "want" our mission to be one of reconstruction, development and humanitarian aid in Afghansitan. Yet, of the money spent on Afghanistan by our government, only 10% (gross) goes to humanitarian aid, 90% to prosecuting the war. Harper has escalated our military engagement in Afghanistan not once, but twice. Would you not say that the Harper administration has ignored our democratic right to "self-determination" - our wishes to be heard and respected? Stephen Harper: "I will never allow public opinion to influence matters of importance."

When peoples' "wants" are manipulated by the Pentagon and the George Soros Foundation - as in the case of Georgia, Ukraine and the Central Asian "Stans"? What kind of "due process" and "democracy" is this?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

NATO will be holding military exercises in Georgia between May 6 and June 1. The exercises are aimed at improving "interoperability" between NATO and partner countries.

Many observers, in Abkhazia, in South Ossetia, in Russia, and in Georgia itself (among the opposition) are of the view that such exercises could encourage the militarist regime to carry out further attacks and atrocities, like the attack on South Ossetia last August that ended with a humiliating and crushing defeat of the Georgian military by Russia.

Just to quickly address Stockholm's bellicose and rhetorical question - NATO membership carries with it a mutual duty among the states to protect each other. Therefore, after Georgia's horrific bombing campaign in South Ossetia last year, member NATO countries, like Canada, would be obliged to defend the regime in any future wars over the tiny, breakaway region.

Furthermore, now that the intentions of the militarist Saakashvili regime have been made crystal clear to the political leadership in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the latter have publicly declared that they will never re-join Georgia in some kind of political union. Period. OTOH, the Saakashvili regime continues to sabre-rattle and suggest, publicly, that the issue remains unresolved and may require FURTHER fighting and warfare. While the opposition in Georgia has, quite rightly, identified this as unacceptable, insane,  and the biggest threat to Georgia today, clearly no country whose borders are in dispute will be allowed full NATO membership. It's just too volatile.

Of course, the alternative of two-tiered NATO membership is "possible". Then Georgia could be a "sort of" member of NATO. Hell, the NeoCons, racists, cold-warriers and others might even like such an arrangement. But it would blow NATO apart; it would be completely politically unacceptable in many NATO states.  

Mind you, the detonation of NATO would be a good thing in my view. NATO has long outlived its usefulness, and now seems to function as a means whereby the USA beats up on its "allies", and forces such allies to make their military interchangeable with Uncle Sam's War Machine. This is what "interoperability" means.

In the context of all this, supporting NATO membership and the abstract "right" of Georgia to join NATO is madness. Saakashvili could start World War 3. This should be enough to give pause for those people who genuinely oppose wars of aggression.


well, i'm going to put into this mix a couple points, so folks have it in mind.

the Russian South Stream option for gas transit may go through the neck of land between the Caspian sea and the Black sea, under the Black Sea to Europe.

this neck of land happens to include the basin of the Kuban river, which is now under Russia.

the mouth of the Kuban river was inhabited by Ukrainian people and others for over a millenium.  these people were deported and wiped out by various means in the last century.

there are a diversity of peoples in the Caucasus region, from many ancient tribes, none of which were 'Russian' until the tsars started their aggressions, continued by the soviets.

to whom do those lands 'belong' to?

-primarily nature, and there is no reason ANYONE should be building more fossil-fuel-extraction-facilitating transportation pipelines, when there's not even an attempt to build alternatives in a substantial manner.

-secondly, the various peoples who have inhabited different portions of the lands, including those like the S. Ossetians, the Chechnyans, etc.

-then we need to understand that there may be some rankling frustration amongst those who were forcibly removed earlier, like Ukrainians, particularly when Russia is using it's proposed South Stream route to bypass transit through current Ukrainian territory, with financial implications, land which Ukraine has (perhaps tenuously) managed to regain functional control of only in the last decade or so.  now with the IMF loan Ukraine is dominated by US-EU interests, with Russia pulling from the regions.

i'm not saying it's correct that Ukraine want to join NATO over this, but i think babblers need to have more understanding or sensitivity to some of the underlying concerns. 

if there was less of an operating assumption that Russia should retain or regain its 'sphere of influence' in the region, then maybe there'd be more room for Ukraine at least not to feel it needs external support for its borders.  [it's a very big maybe, given the history, and Ukraine has also been used by Europe and the west in more recent centuries as a buffer zone from the east, supported only to the extent necessary for western EU interests to flourish.]

but this note is just to address some of the dynamics as Ukraine was mentioned, really the thread topic is about Georgia.



N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Some information :

South Stream - Gazprom gas pipeline project from Russia to Europe

Nord Stream - another planned alternative pipeline from Russia to Europe

Nabucco - gas pipeline bypassing Russia and its gasfields

East Siberia - Pacific Ocean pipeline (Russia/China)


The US and some of its European allies have been and continue to make efforts to exclude the Russians from global energy decisions. The former just can't seem to get away from cold war views of the world and deny any legitimate economic interests to their economic rivals. Russian PM Putin recently held a press conference in which he drew attention to this problem. The "Energy Charter", which covers these matters, in which "Russia [had to] give access to its pipelines for free natural gas transit from Central Asia to the European Union ... [but] Russian companies [were not] able to freely access European pipelines" will probably NOT be re-signed by the Russians. These matters will be subject to future negotiations between all concerned parties. 

By providing a billion dollars a year in military aid to Georgia, funding the colored revolutions in the region, and so on, the US and its allies have made their aggressive intentions abundantly clear.  More clear-headed political leadership, both in Georgia an in the Ukraine, neither of whom are particularly friendly to the Russians, should improve things for both of those countries and allow them to focus on much needed economic development instead of comprador activities as part of the new US-sponsored "Great Game" of the 21st century.


N.Beltov, I'd be able to read your input in a better frame of mind if you used the term which Ukrainians in Ukraine, and many here, use to name their country: in English it's called 'Ukraine'.  not 'the Ukraine'.   'The Ukraine' is a holdover from Russian colonialism.  It connotes Ukraine as a region of Russia, and as in 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic'.  These relationships thankfully no longer exist officially.   They were horrific experiences for the peoples of Ukraine. 

How many times do I have to say this at babble???


thanks wrote:
  These relationships thankfully no longer exist officially.   They were horrific experiences for the peoples of Ukraine. 

How many times do I have to say this at babble???

You neglected(again) to mention the somewhat brief Nazi occupation of Ukraine. That was pretty awful, too, I can only imagine.


Fidel, you are correct. Here, in the context of a discussion about Russia (in the thread title) I did neglect to talk about the occupation of Ukraine by the Nazis, and by the Polish, and by the Austrians, and by the Tatars, and the slaving raids of the Turks, and...


but this is off topic.

S. Ossetia is the topic.  in earlier times the peoples there were called 'Yasi' in some languages.  they have a right to their own self-determination, to align with whomever they wish, and not to be bombed.


You mentioned holdover references to Ukraine, first with imperial Russia's relationship with Ukraine and then skipped to Soviet socialist republic of Ukraine as if Ukraine was still an imperialist colony by default. And there were a number of reasons for the iron curtain being raised around those buffer countries west of Russia in the post war era. The west should have let the Russians have their revolution as I dont believe Stalinists were interested in colonizing the world, if that's what was being implied. Before the multinational corporate sponsored fascists invaded to make lebensraum of Russia, the plan was for socialism in one country.


Fidel, I wasn't implying the detail on Stalinism in the post above, but it was quite clear that Stalin and Lenin and Trotsky and those they brainwashed were intent on forcing their political system on the diverse peoples of the lands they conquered by military force, torture, rape, starvation, deportation, incarceration in slave labour camps, and all the other typical tools of the trade of vicious aggressive powers.  I am quite sure you don't want to call that plan 'socialism'.


I'm just glad we werent worried about fascism being forced on anyone. Especially not after 27, 000, 000 Soviet soldiers and 19, 000, 000 civilians were murdered by 1945. Some leftists I know are sympathetic about those numbers followed by all those zeros. It didnt occur as far back as 1932-33, but it was a significant loss of life for one country. I cant imagine what it would have been like had the Red Army not liberated Russia and Eastern Europe. Can you?  


 I wonder what might have happened if Muscovy, and later Soviet imperialists, hadn't assaulted Ukraine from the east.  What if, instead of stealing and plundering and slaughtering, they had instead allowed Ukraine to do what Ukraine had always done well in creating strong communities and fighting off oppressors from the west.  What if they hadn't usurped and destroyed all the human, natural, agricultural, mineral, and cultural strengths of Ukraine?  What if they had been collaborative and acted in solidarity instead? 

Maybe fascism wouldn't have even got a foothold in Europe.  It would have been overwhelmed by the mutual support and generosity of good neighbours at the doorstep. Good neighbours that were also willing to provide a firm 'no' to bad behaviour, early on.  Sadly, Ukraine got an eastern neighbour that stabbed it in the back, and ran it over with a tank.  yes, many tens of millions of lives might have been saved, and not only from 'one country'.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

With all this discussion of Ukraine it might be useful to discuss the use, by Georgia,  of Ukrainian mercenaries involved in the bombing and atrocities in South Ossetia last August. There were a number of media reports on this.

Georgia used US and Ukrainian mercenaries ...

Kyiv Post: Ukrainian mercenaries helped Georgia ...

You Tube: Georgia using Ukrainian and American mercenaries ...

Tank attacks by Ukrainian troops against Ossetian civilians, razing Tskinvali to the point that locals compare it to Nazi atrocities in Stalingrad in World War 2, and so on. Yes, reference to Russia's Stalinist past may be relevant, but not in the way that some think. It's relevant in that the Russians helped save the Ossetians from genocide by Georgia and its mercenaries - some of whom were from Ukraine - in the same way that the Russians turned the Nazi tide in Stalingrad and helped save the world in the 1940's. But let's not let the facts get in the way, eh?

So, what do people think of Georgian use of Ukrainian and other mercenaries in the slaughter in South Ossetia. Good or bad?


what exactly were all the nationalities of the 'Russians' who turned the Nazi tide, N.Beltov?  (and, incidentally, who comprised large portions of the millions massacred by fascists).

and there may have been mercenaries from Ukraine who did bad things.  i'm not excusing them if that's the case.


27, 000, 000 soldiers and 19, 000, 000 civilians murdered by the fascists. What do you think about that, thanks?

Because the Russians said it would never happen again and proceeded to move Russian lines of defence westward by the same layer of countries they liberated from corporate-sponsored fascists. And few leaders in the western world objected. The Russians meant it when they vowed 'never again'

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Yea, I just noticed your loud remarks about being "stabbed in the back" and all, and I thought - gee, killing all those people with Russian passports in South Ossetia,... that's got to be at least as bad as a stab in the back.

Maybe you could start a thread about the nasty Rooskies and all. Just leave the Russian role in last August's conflict in South Ossetia and Georgia out of it, since the Russians played a mostly positive role in those events. And Ukraine ... sent mercenaries ... to kill civilians in Tskinvali at US taxpayer expense. That's hard to jive with the narrative you've been elaborating on.


i think i've already said what i think about the millions of people massacred by both fascists and soviets, which included millions of Ukrainians. i think i've also said already what i think about any who participated in the S. Ossetia events.  several times, in fact.

you guys will just never admit that those you support have committed mass murders of millions.

and that's a problem.


N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Thanks thanks for your helpful and enlightening remarks about Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia. I'm not really sure what conclusions I should be forming based on events in Russia's Stalinist past that bear on the conflict last August, but I'm sure they deserve a lengthy thread in their own right. Ciao.


thanks wrote:

i think i've already said what i think about the millions of people massacred by both fascists and soviets, which included millions of Ukrainians.

Population of Ukraine was reduced from ~41M prior to the war to ~27M by 1945. ~2, 500,000 Ukrainians were marched out of the country and worked to death as slave labourers for the fascists,  as well as several hundred thousand Ukrainian Jews deliberately murdered by rightwing death squads. And anywhere from 50M to 83 million killed and missing in sum total as a result of western world capitalism in crisis part two. Lest we forget.


N.Beltov, I think it's a very important discussion, and I hope you continue to talk about it. 

As i review the comments above, I realize it wasn't you who brought up the subject of Ukraine initially, but others.  still, you joined in that on that subject, yet have not clarified the question I asked in #65 nor, it seems by your response here, are willing to make a simple acknowledgement of some of Russia's behaviour, which may have some bearing on how people in Canada interpret events.  

You were concerned in your posts about why some people in Canada have different reactions. and so i provided some input on that.  there is a big difference between people themselves, and their behaviour on occasion.  One can accept and love people but not need to think that all their actions are always good, individually or collectively. 

I think these elements are important for babblers to talk about as well.  for example, there was a feature article up at rabble on the recent Summit of the Americas.  it seems there are still resentments that block useful inter-country work, because apparently the Cuban constitution has something about Lenin in it, or because Evo Morales calls himself a Marxist-Leninist.  There are several key issues here- to what extent does a name determine a relationship?  Of course the names that Morales calls himself don't justify assassination attempts, nor economic or political assaults or physical assaults on Cuban or Bolivian peoples. 

at the same time i wonder how it can still be that people in leadership in this hemisphere seem not to know about Lenin's Cheka, for example, or if they know, have been persuaded by the volumes of material put out by the soviet regime and its current apologists that it was unimportant.  in any case, i'm saying that it would help if there was critique of the bad behaviour of last century socialists by this century's socialists.  it's those issues of acknowledgement, or lack thereof, which contribute to the ability of unscrupulous politicians and financiers to generate opposition to, and attack people like Morales and others who are doing great things in their countries.

this is all a round-about way of saying that if people are able to clarify the kinds of specific differences in a simple manner, then bigger differences can be tackled with more ease.





Some historians will explain that with true revolution and depending on size of the regime and how desperate they are to cling to power, anywhere from several thousand to several million politicians, bureacrats and key military people will tend to remain loyal to the outgoing regime regardless. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their own privileges and status quo.

The US has interfered in just about every Latin American country's democracy. How dare they question the integrity of Cuba's or Bolivia's constitution when warmongering plutocrats in America have trampled their own time and time again.


thanks Fidel for your accurate critique of the US.

do you think that Lenin committed atrocities through his police?



thanks wrote:

thanks Fidel for your accurate critique of the US. do you think that Lenin committed atrocities through his police?

wikipedia says:


Under Lenin's rule fear was used to suppress opposition. For that function the Cheka was set up in December 1917. Felix Dzerzhinsky, its leader, exclaimed with some enthusiasm: "We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly stated".[9] Western authorities estimate that the Cheka had executed more than 250,000 people.[10][11]


Lavrentiy Beria was the last chief of security to wield so much authority as head of Soviet secret police. Khrushchev ordered Zhukov and his men to arrest Beria in 1953 and murdered not long after.

Meanwhile, the vicious empire was well underway to murdering millions and installing their own US-friendly secret police around the colonies, like Batista's secret polizia "BRAC" and righting death squad governments around Latin America and the world and with the help of other capitalist countries. The total body count attributable to capitalist economics and its imperialist masters policies around the world is truly breathtaking.





thanks for your info.

by the time Beria came around, i understand the Cheka had changed names, so the numbers would need to include the people dealt with by those additional forces.

do you have numbers for the people interned in the soviet camps over the years ?







Is it best to crack an egg in the middle, the top or bottom? Should it be done along the width or length?

Ossetia and Abkhazia who?

The reason why there is such a storm in babble over these places is the importance that capitalist imperialism has placed on them.


we're trying to understand some of the dynamics of the region here.  it's of great importance.  that's why we're talking about it.


The west produced lots of numbers during the cold war. And the estimates didnt seem to corroborate from one to the next. Some survivors of the labour camps in Siberia said the pay wasnt very good during the war, and food became scarce. Very many Jews, however, have credited Stalin sending them to Siberia with saving them from the Nazis and what were the first mass exterminations in Russia and Ukraine.

New question: What do you think about more than [url= Ukrainian waffen SS troopers given refuge in Canada[/url] after the war?


Fidel, as i've said before in other threads at babble, several times, i think that we should see justice served regarding any people who were involved in atrocities.

also, as I understand it, for the record, between 7,000,000 and 14,000,000 people were killed by Stalin and his henchmen in '32/'33.  additionally there were the millions sent to slave camps or who died coming or going during the entire period of soviet rule. i haven't checked the numbers on those, that's why i asked you. 

do you acknowledge that tens of millions of people killed by a regime may be significant and have some impact on how people perceive the language associated with that regime?



Fidel do you have sources for the statements you've made about Siberia in #77?


That number appears to be cold war exaggeration, but whatever you say. And I'll agree after you agree that the Nazis murdered more than anybody, and more efficiently, in record time. And several researchers have concluded that the Nazis must have had help from the locals in rounding up so many Jews in Eastern Europe before murdering them. And the corporate sponsored war machine was aided and abetted by industrialists and bankers from Berlin and Hamburg all the way to New York. There was a reason for the iron curtain. And some western countries actually enjoyed better relations with the Soviets than the Soviets did with their own republics. For every action there is a reaction.



If you are comparing what Stalin did in his time to what Russia did recently concerning Ossetia, Abkhazia, Georgia and Ukraine, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Lenin's or Stalin's (he was Georgian, by the way) regime is one thing, Russia today is something else.

Russia, then as now, wants to be strong and have stability.

In the late 1990s, Madeline Albright publicly stated that Russia was too large and had too many resourses, more than it needed. This summed up the Clinton administration's view of the subject.

The actions of the Pentagon, the W. Bush administration, the State Department and the George Soros Foundation has been to try to foment instability and a further break up of Russia.

The actions of both (modern) Russia and the U.S.A. are financially motivated. Needless to say, the actions of Russia are also politically motivated.


(these notes are in regard to #81)

- i didn't say a number on the camps, as noted. i'll try to check if you can't.

- honestly when it comes to tens of millions of people on both sides, i'm not sure its all that useful to talk about 'who was worse'. what is important that people acknowledge that both were bad.

- i think you mean to say who 'helped' the Nazis round up the millions of people of Ukrainian and Jewish and other ethnic backgrounds. that would be their own very efficient army.  the entire village which one side of my family (was) from was decimated in this way.

- i agree that bankers in the west were involved.  you're likely familiar too with the 2,000,000 DPs including women and children who Churchill and Eisenhower sent back to Stalin after the war, who were all slaughtered.  and the deals between the soviets and germany. 



thanks wrote:

Fidel do you have sources for the statements you've made about Siberia in #77?

Various things I've read, really. A friend of the family came to Canada from the border region of Russia and Poland. She spoke both Polish and Russian.  She told us that her father actually volunteered to go to Siberia. He was a physician. Both her parents survived the war. You could try googling "father Stalin"


[url=]L'Chayim, Comrade Stalin![/url]

"L'Chayim, Comrade Stalin!" details the birth of the first Jewish homeland since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. No, not the State of Israel... the Jewish Autonomous Region, created by Stalin in a previously-unsettled stretch of land on Siberia's Far Eastern border in April 1928. Although geographically closer to Seoul than Moscow, the Jewish Autonomous Region (or J.A.R., as it became known) attracted Jewish settlers from across the Soviet Union and even as far away as the United States, Argentina, and Palestine. The J.A.R. was the first place in the world where Yiddish culture thrived, and by 1948 the Jewish population peaked at 45,000 (roughly one-quarter of the region's total demographics). The J.A.R. was home to Yiddish-language schools, theaters, publications and synagogues.


regarding #82, I know that Russia today is different from the Soviet Union of the past, in very many ways.

that is why it's so important for people to acknowledge what was bad about the past, so that they can actually think in a different way about the present.


your friend of the family was very fortunate.  many others weren't.

i see that you're presenting materials which support a view that Stalin did some nice things, and i don't know much about the Jewish Autonomous Region which that item refers to.


That's right. [url=]Very many werent as lucky[/url]


[url='It was a miracle to leave Auschwitz'[/url]



"I remember the day I left Auschwitz very well - January 18 1945. The Russians were coming nearer and the Germans were emptying the camp, sending those who could work to other camps. . . I had hope"


yes, the Holocaust was horrible. 

before that, the Holodomor was horrible.  tens of millions of people were brutally killed from mass slaughters and forced starvation, and throughout the soviet period in slave camps (pay from Stalin for slave labourers was torture, rape and early death).

some managed to avoid these horrors.  some even benefitted.

I think it's really important for people to state that any benefits (enjoyed by some in Europe, the USSR, or by those in other countries who got support from, or did deals with soviet leaders) were based on the slaughter, torture and starvation of millions, mostly the rural poor in Ukraine and in other subjugated countries.

If people want to talk about 'the communist strength of '32/'33', or soviet support for those resisting US imperialism, or Nazi fascism for that matter, it's important to acknowledge that soviet 'strength' was built on the bodies of tens of millions of dead civilians.

the soviets also benefitted from the subjugation of peoples under the tsars and western european elites: after a brief period when some tried to reasseret self-determination, they were squashed by Lenin et al.  The soviets moved into an existing system of domination over the lands and peoples who had been fighting oppression from Moscow for centuries, and basically replaced tsarist oppressors with soviet oppressors.  The suffering of civilians continued, further decimated by the soviet atrocities, then nazi atrocities, then again after by more soviet atrocities.

it was awful for people to experience the Holocaust, the Holodomor, Nazi or Soviet terror, and perhaps much worse to have experienced both.

i just wish that people who speak about the benefits from the soviet regime speak at the same time of those who paid the price for those benefits.




So you stand opposed to the several thousand Nazi, Ukrainian etc war crmininals who fled Soviet and Israeli justice and given sanctuary in North America after the war - worked for the OSS-CIA and given good jobs with the government and private corporations - collected Canadian and US pensions and lived out the rest of their lives in peace and tranquility.

And you admit that Hitler and fascists murdered tens of millions of Russians and Eastern Europeans in record time, and that they would have slaughtered tens of millions more and enslaved tens of millions for their corporate sponsors and banking friends had the Soviets not liberated Russia and Eastern Europe.

And you might agree that had Maoists not chased the US-backed Chiang Kai-shek to Formosa by 1949, that he and his gangsters would have continued adding to the 10,000,000 body count attributable to western backed fascists in that country.

I think we can all agree it's important to tell the truth about history.


Fidel, I think i've said a few times already that people of any background, Ukrainian, Jewish, or any others that have been involved in war crimes, including those responsible for bombing civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, should be tried for war crimes.

i know very little about Mao. 

i can't say what might or might not have happened if the soviets hadn't 'liberated' Eastern Europe.  I can say that if the Soviets hadn't earlier killed Ukraine's self-determination when they were starting to get on their feet, perhaps fascism might have been nipped in the bud.  strong, self-reliant and generous countries are a good antidote to those whom banker-generated poverty pushes to fascism.



Papal Bull

Fidel wrote:

And you might agree that had Maoists not chased the US-backed Chiang Kai-shek to Formosa by 1949, that he and his gangsters would have continued adding to the 10,000,000 body count attributable to western backed fascists in that country.

I think we can all agree it's important to tell the truth about history.


Chiang Kai-Shek was supported by Stalin for many years.


[url=]Friendly trading card #17[/url]


In my midnight confessions
When I tell all the world that I love you
In my midnight confessions
When I say all the things that I want to
I love you


wow ! those are good words.


thanks wrote:

i can't say what might or might not have happened if the soviets hadn't 'liberated' Eastern Europe. 

Hitler planned to make living space of Russia. Hitler and the Nazis began to realize it would be a war of annihilation against Soviet communism when they were calculating how and where the German army would be fed and fuel obtained while marauding through Russia. Some Baltic and Ukrainian collaborators thought that by cooperating with the nazis that they would be given preferential treatment. But there isnt much evidence for it with Hitler planning to enslave the general non-German populations of occupied countries. As an example, an estimated 2.5 million Ukrainians were marched out of Ukraine and worked to death in slave labour conditions. Hitler once said something in one of his squawking oratories about setting the whole world on fire. And throngs of his worshippers answered him with, sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!! sieg HEIL!!

And some of what youre relaying to us about the evils of Soviet communism sounds somewhat similar to the things Joseph Goebbels said in radio broadcasts to European countries in the 1930's - that Stalin was exterminating the middle classes of the Soviet Union. And that the rest of the world would be next. Of course, the Red Army stopped the Nazis and liberated Eastern Europe. And Stalin was named man of the year, and "biggest winner" of the last century by Time Magazine.


it's too bad it was a Nazi saying those things about Stalin.  it would have been more helpful if the US or UK or others told the truth. what bothers me is that the US was complicit in Stalin's murder of millions of poor.  and he killed middle class dissidents too.  but when the NYTimes sent a reporter, Duranty, to the USSR, he got the royal tour to all the show places and said nothing was wrong.  kind of like what some reporters have been saying about the massacre of Tamils- that civilians weren't getting bombed by the government army.  only today satellite photos taken by a UN agency were leaked showing all the shelling craters in civilian 'safety zones' [see Sri Lanka III thread]. 

Let's see how many reporters follow up and report on the proven obscenity.

We need Canadian media to speak truth, and Canadian politicians to take steps through the channels available to them. I'm going to put up this quote again from a Tamil Canadian lawyer (though it's already at the link in the Sri Lanka thread #88)

"Canada should take a bold step and increase its pressure on Sri Lanka to cease all hostilities. As a first step, Canada should recall its high commissioner to Sri Lanka, and bring this matter to the United Nations Security Council through one of its allies. It should join other foreign governments and impose trade restrictions. Canada can also contribute by offering to be part of a human-rights monitoring mission and certainly will be asked to assist with the humanitarian efforts in the weeks and months to come."

instead of allying with a murderous leader through inaction, it would have been nice if Canada or the US had done these things for peoples getting massacred by the soviets over the decades. 

now leaders in North America have a chance to do something real for people getting slaughtered again.  Are they up to the job? 

anyway, i could keep babbling on, but this is getting off topic. and i have food on the stove.




i'm tired Fidel, words are later


You mean, it's too bad that he was a prolific liar and Nazi propagandist broadcasting all those things about Russia and Stalin. Meanwhile the Nazis were receiving financial help and resources from capitalist friends around the western world in rebuilding for war in clear violation of the Versailles agreement. Stalin was preparing for war, too, with burgeoning steel mills and secret munitions factories churning out steel and weapons for what Stalinists suspected would be western aggression against the revolution part two.


frmrsldr, i hear the argument in the article you've posted, but i'm conflicted because at the time Trotsky and Lenin used nasty means to achieve their goals, however honourable the goals may have been.  i can never agree that torture, rape and murders by the Cheka should be justified as a means.

can we possibly agree that the means which the soviets used were bad while the theoretical goals of some of them might have been good?


"You mean, it's too bad that he was a prolific liar and Nazi propagandist broadcasting all those things about Russia and Stalin."

Fidel, I don't know all of what Goebbels said, i was commenting on your comment that there was a critique of Stalin's exterminations of people, which should have been critiqued, and it was too bad it wasn't a critique coming from the US or UK or anyone else.

Do you still not believe that Stalin murdered millions of peoples, mostly the rural poor, but as well dissident middle class people?


Topic locked