Gwynne Dyer: Bush picked a poor moment to display his ignorance
Gwynne Dyer
May 10, 2005 DYER0510

quote:

---

Presidents aren't expected to know much history, but their speechwriters are. President Bush's speech in Riga on Saturday did not measure up.

It wasn't Bush who started the quarrel about whether the Soviet Union "liberated" or "occupied" Eastern Europe after 1945. It was the presidents of Lithuania and Estonia, who refused to go to Moscow for the ceremonies commemorating the Soviet defeat of Germany 60 years ago, and the presidents of Latvia and Poland, who only agreed to go with great reluctance. But Bush jumped into the argument with considerable ignorance.

---

Gwynne Dyer

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

How did we declare victory by leaving Saddam in place in '91? Didn't Bush tell us over and over that Saddam was worse than Hitler? Perhaps Bush the Lesser should address that failing first.

All respect is due the soldiers and the citizens of the Soviet Union for their immense sacrifice during the Second World War -- not to mention BEFORE that war or AFTER it.

In fact, I think you should get down on your hands and knees right now give thanks to about 27 million dead Russian's who perished while fending off all our enemy who laid siege to their homeland some 60 years ago.

And still on topic while in the same narrowly focused time frame of the big WW:

In case no one realized it, the "Yalta deal" was Stalin's demand for some western backup after Stalingrad. Uncle Joe demanded from Roosevelt and Churchill (who liked to stand naked in front of female servants) while pounding his evil fist on the table :

I want a second front against these bastards!

I happen to think that that was something that needed to be said at that particular time when all the two western leaders could worry about was the Russian's liberating Europe all by themselves. The afterthought was just a tad crass, imo.

And btw, where are the WMD ?. Why are the Yanks still there ?. Is it to spread peace and prosperity in Iraq ?. Give us an effin break!

seig heil?

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

But Stalin's purges also adversely affected the Red Army and deprived it of several talented generals and other officers (and no doubt troops).

Case in point: the late President Ronald Reagan, at the time of the 40th anniversary, decided to pay homage to the "Third Reich", exonerate the SS cutthroats and, what is more, pay his respect to them. President Reagan's visit to the Nazi cemetery in the (then) West German town of Bitburg was regarded all over the world as a monstrous insult to the common memory of the millions of people shot, tortured to death or killed in gas chambers. It was also a terrible insult to the memory of "Americans" killed in WWII.

History will pass a stern judgement on people who don't even have the decency to honour their own.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Why would any good socialist fixate on a BOSS rather than on the people who did the work and paid the price? Why?

Marx is deserving of honour as a world-shaking intellectual and a brave resister. I might even squeeze out a few drops of the same kind of admiration for Lenin. Quite a few more for Trotsky.

But Stalin? Fidel, he was a BOSS. He was nothing but a BOSS. Any boss, with enough resources, can do what he did, and many have.

And with the resources he had, he was also able to commit mass murder, and he took the opportunity.

quote:

---

In case no one realized it, the "Yalta deal" was Stalin's demand for some western backup after Stalingrad.

---

Um the Yalta conference was in Feb 1945 and by then there were THREE fronts. The russian front, the Italian front (invaded in 1943) and the French front (D Day 1944)

The "Yalta Deal" mwas stalin's demand for control over eastern europeHeres the agreement they came to!

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
one of history's premiere mass murderers, who subverted left wing ideals into a totalitarian nightmare and set back the cause of economic democracy for at least a century if not forever?

---

Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were especially upset about the ceremony in Moscow, for they were the victims of the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 that was the starting gun for World War II. Stalin got German assent to his annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and eastern Poland (thus restoring the borders of the pre-1914 Russian empire), and Germany got the rest of Poland.

Photos taken at the signing ceremony show Fidel's hero Stalin looking very much like the cat that ate the cream. The old mass murderer thought he had the world by the tail.

Sorry to burst your bubble Fidel, but your starry eyed worship of Stalin reveals the slavishness of your thought.

When your revolution comes Fidel, will your trucks be rolling towards the gulag? Somewhere, a portrait of Uncle Joe will be smiling.

And yes, all honor to the brave spirit and courage of ordinary soviet citizens.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: AppleSeed ]

If you're going to thank the vicious mass murderer Stalin, Fidel, then also send your thanks to the vicious mass murder Chiang Kai-Shek for pinning down Japan's armies. Or, you could be sensible and distinguish people from their dictators.

[edit to add: by the way, the lovable "Uncle Joe" was a creation of the US wartime propaganda industry.]

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: swallow ]

Fidel could prove me wrong, of course, by telling us all why Stalin the man deserves special mention in the accolades. Because so far he's kinda been ducking that fight.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
In fact, I'd like it if some of you could meet and speak with a Jewish acquaintance who survived Stalin's labour camps and who actually praised him up and down for not being sent to the Russian front at the time. I doubt very much any of you'd have the exact same opiinion after listening to her.

---

...and under Stalin at least the trains ran on time!

Shouldn't it be "all the Russias"? That's the way I've traditionally heard it said/read it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Thanks to thre Russian people for breaking the back of the Nazis. For sure.

If you're going to thank the vicious mass murderer Stalin, Fidel, then also send your thanks to the vicious mass murder Chiang Kai-Shek for pinning down Japan's armies. Or, you could be sensible and distinguish people from their dictators.

[edit to add: by the way, the lovable "Uncle Joe" was a creation of the US wartime propaganda industry.]

---

The Anglo-American backed Chiang Kai Chek murdered 10 million Chinese and was a hinderance to the Maoists who ultimately defeated both the Japanese imperialists and him.

Then again, my great-gran pappy wouldn'ta brought the clan over if it weren't for Uncle Joe. Just like Jingles

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

The Anglo-American backed Chiang Kai Chek murdered 10 million Chinese and was a hinderance to the Maoists who ultimately defeated both the Japanese imperialists and him.

---

So if your a red fascist instead of a brown who happens to be in bed with the US your excused of killing millions.....ok.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

In case no one realized it, the "Yalta deal" was Stalin's demand for some western backup after Stalingrad. Uncle Joe demanded from Roosevelt and Churchill (who liked to stand naked in front of female servants) while pounding his evil fist on the table :
[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

I really find these emotionalized appeals to the rumoured sexual indescretions of politcal enemies to be gratuitous. Marx himself was known to be quite "generous" in his "attentions" to his servants, yet I think that has no bearing on his politcal legacy for good or ill.

That said, I still do not see eye-to-eye with those who can not recognize that very real circumstances that existed in post revolutionary Russia, and what may have been the inevitable destructiveness of the rapid industrializtion process wich the Bolsheviks carried out under Stalin. It is not clear to me that any Russian adminstration that attempted that kind of process would not have ended up with quite a bit of blood on their hands, no matter what their ideological position was. Surely, there were overtly gratuitous aspects of Stalin's terror, particularly within the party, but it is always very easy to judge actions severly in hindsight.

It is however, very clear to me that there is no way that the Soviet Union, (or any Russian power) could have defeated the German army had Russia not stepped up its industrialization process, and created the technological basis to field the advanced war machine that they managed to bring into being practically overnight, between 1941 and 1942.

Russia as the Soviet Union in the post revolutionary period tried to emulate in 20 years a process that had taken place over a period of 300 years in Germany, France, Great Britian and the USA. A tablulation of casualties due to the harsh economic restructioning, over that period, in the capitalist countries is also quite startling when viewed as raw numbers. For instance the Land Closure Act in England -- a project which had tremendous impact of England peasant farmers and caused tremendous privation that made many have to decide between starving to death and moving to the cities to become Britain's industrial working class.

However, the process was slower and so the surface impression may be that it was less harsh than the one taken on by the Soviets.

In retrospect, given the overt ambitions of the various capitalist countries toward the extermination of the Bolshevik movement, the rapid indusrialization movement seems quite logical. The German invasion of 1941 using the most advanced technology and military docterine in the world, makes concrete the very real fear that justifies the harsh restructuring undertaken under Stalin.

Of course we can always wish that it was done otherwise, and hypothesize about other means but I don't think it is possible to condemn every measure taken by the fledgling Soviet Union as completely gratuitous abuse. There were tough decision to be made under the circumstances, and it is nice to think that we could have done better, but as Lenin is most famous for saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," (I am temtped to note that he was an expert in this regard, as his best intentions went awry in many areas doubtlessly) but we should always keep in mind the very difficult circumstances in which the Soviet Union came into being when judging what is right and wrong in what they did.

One thing is clear the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, and while the war might not have been won without the participation of the US and Britain, there is no way it would have been won without an industrialized Russia, wether under Stalin or some other less controversial figure who is as mythical as the image that Stalin devised for himself within his cult of personality.

As for Yalta Dwyer is right. Bush need a history lesson. The other option was immediate war with the worlds most powerful land war machine. The allies were lucky Zhukov didn't stop in Paris rather than Berlin.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I see you have gone over what I was saying thoroughly.

What is particularly "respectful" about:

• Surely, there were overtly gratuitous aspects of Stalin's terror, particularly within the party, but it is always very easy to judge actions severly in hindsight.
• ...under Stalin or some other less controversial figure who is as mythical as the image that Stalin devised for himself within his cult of personality.

You consider those statements a ringing endorsement of Stalin?

Perhaps the reason that I have a less appreciative view of Layton than yourself is that I have done him the courtesy of more closely reading the content of what he says, than you have done me in reading mine.

I was trying to take the historical long view, and analyze the actual conditions wich spawned events as opposed to screaming hysterically like many people seem to when it is suggested that there are reasons that certain things happen in the world. Knee jerk denounciations may serve the purpose of proving that you are the most rightious but do little to actually forward understanding.

I am on record in several thread of condeming the whole Leninist project, for various reasons, including Stalin. It is too bad that you can't see beyond what I have offered as an analyisis of events and see them as more than just excuses for tyrrany.

You would do well do try an figure out why it is that Stalin got to the position he did so that he could do what he did, rather than ranting pro-forma politcal denouciations for the sake of establishing your ideological purity for public consumption.

The floor boards on your soapbox are wearing thin.

You see:

I refuse an analysis of history that identifies mindless spite as the sole motivation of any political figure or movement in history. I think it is a useless approach.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

1) Is it true or not that every single major world power actively sought to defeat the Soviet Union through military and non-military means from 1919 to the begining of the Second World War?

2) Would an non-industrialized Russia have been able to defeat the Wermacht during ww2?

3) Could the industrialization of the Soviet Union have taken place without massive economic dislocation due to changes in the infrastructure?

4) Were tragic results of such programs as the NEP and the Colletivization of Farms the result of the attempt industrialize, or was the motivation for those policies simply mindless spite?

I think they are fair questions and deserve to be answered when looking at the Stalanist years. Or would you prefer other questions?

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Although Stalin was guilty of monstrous crimes, the Soviet Union would not have been able to take on the Nazi regime without the rapid industrialization policies that his regime put in place.

The industrialization of Russia started long before the communists took power.

Its interesting how those who are completely consumed by ideological rigidity, find exception to even the most widely accepted facts, when contextualized in a form that does not jive with predeterimed ontololgy.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

swallow: by the way, the lovable "Uncle Joe" was a creation of the US wartime propaganda industry.

---

quote:

---

Why did the west wait for millions of Russian's to die in a bloodbath with the Nazis before offering a hand to Uncle Joe at Yalta ?

---

I think this had more to do with British imperialism than any support for the nazis, Fidel. Churchill preferred to dicker around in Egypt and Burma etc., which he thought he had a chance of keeping, rather than open a second front in Europe, which he wasn't sure he could win. Remember, this was the guy who said he didn't become prime minister to lose the British Empire. And the Americans threw most of their resources into keeping the Atlantic sea lanes open and fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.

Besides, didn't I read somewhere that Stalin's poor strategies and constant undermining of his generals worsen the death toll in Russia? He was hardly a star commander from what little I;ve read. And would he even have succeeded without the American trucks the Russian army used to move their troops and supplies around in? (And there was other aid to Russia, too, yes? Money, supplies etc...)

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

I was suprised to find out that Stalin's asminstrative style was actually based in a pragmatic decision making, whereby he would listen to various arguments and position and then decide on a course of action, based on that. The main thing was that all of his decisions were defined first by political, not military consideration. First and foremost was the maintenance of his own power within the structure, all other practical considerations were secondary. But when it came to day to day adminstration he was basicly hands of and left operations to (his civil war buddy) Voroshilov and then later Zhukov.

This struck me because it is in marked contrast to Hitler who actually tried to directly intervene at the tactical level of operations at Stalingrad.

In a large part his focus on the "politcal" was the reason he was so absolutely hoodwinked by the Germans. He was convinced that there was no way Hitler would attack Russia until after Britain fell (quite logical actually) and so disregarded all the evidence of a pending German invasion as German disinformation designed to win political concessions. This even though the Luftwaffe was flying reconisance missions on a daily basis of Russian lines.

On the night of the German attack (June 22 1941,) even as Russian front line units were announcing that they were under attack by German airforce and artillery, Stalin ordered that Russian units should not return fire, for fear that they would provoke a German invasion. He was so enamoured of machiavelian scheming that he almost invariably thought that any conclusion that was overtly obvious was a cover for other ulterior motives.

In this sense he was too clever by half.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Your last point gives Stalin far too much credit. I would admit he was relativley intellgent militarily compared to Adolf Hitler or your average dictator, but that's not saying too much with regards to the example of the Soviet Union first being invaded. Stalin wouldn't respond for days on end when he knew that yes the Germans were invading! I'm pretty sure his staff would be far to afraid of him to lie to him. It wasn't just the first night, he was completely caught of guard, and was emotionally suprised and hurt that he would be betrayed like this. The time he took in isolation while the Nazi Armies plunged into the USSR gave the Nazi's a huge tactical advantage.

Anyhow to actually get back to a more direct point I have an intresting what if scenario though. What if Trotsky was able to become the head of the Soviet Unoin? Maybe he would've been able to successfully export a communist (probably authoritarian though) revolution to Germany, that would've been able to defeat a fascist revolution. After all Stalin believed in a policy of building up the strength of the USSR, whereas Trotsky believed in exporting "the revolution", so perhaps if Trotsky was able to get into power Hitler would've never been able to himself...and the German communists might have.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Um the Yalta conference was in Feb 1945 and by then there were THREE fronts. The russian front, the Italian front (invaded in 1943) and the French front (D Day 1944)

---

Thanks for the history lesson, and I know when the Italian front was because my father was there as they traveled to a first front in North Africa, then on to Sicily, Italy and finally Holland and Belgium.

Roosevelt and Churchill met with Stalin on several occasions, and each time with Stalin demanding a second front. Let's at least be clear about that much, shall we?.

In January 1943, a meeting between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca, the two western leaders played coy to that demand while about two-thirds of the Nazi war machine was laying siege to several major Russian cities and surrounding Moscow by a 20 mile perimeter.

The point that should be made clear here is that not until after some 50 000 Red Army soldiers and Jewish partizanis turned the tables on the Nazis at Stalingrad did the western leaders realize that Nazis would not be sitting in the Kremlin as soon as predicted. In fact, some historians are saying that this was the turning point and deciding factor for a second front against the Nazis, and not nearly the fact that 27 million were being slaughtered in Russia.

The Russian's were laying railway every blood stained inch of the way to Berlin. And as Cueball points out, we're lucky that the Red Army didn't stop at just Paris.

Was Russia ready for another world war after revolution, civil war, WWI, a 14 nation invasion with hired mercenaries from imperialist Germany, Latvia, Estonia etc. ?. People like Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, Henry Ford and more who poured money and trade toward Hitler's cause were certainly betting on Nazi Germany being a good place to invest for a long time, apparently. Then industrialists and banking elite profited again when taxpayers had to declare war on Hitler and imperialist Japan.

quote:

---

The "Yalta Deal" mwas stalin's demand for control over eastern europeHeres the agreement they came to!

---

I stand corrected. Yalta was in '45. And it was not a coincidence that the western leaders had to trek from Malta to the mainland and drive for five hours over mountainous region and viewing the carnage, the blasted out Nazi artillary and tanks and levelled towns on their way to settling accounts with Stalin. Churchill must have felt a little put out over having to meet with Joe Stalin on his terms, I'm sure.

quote:

---

Now, in May 1943, you and Mr. Churchill have decided to postpone the Anglo-American invasion of Western Europe until the spring of 1944....Your decision creates exceptional difficulties for the Soviet Union, which, straining all its resources for the past two years, has been engaged against the main forces of Germany...and leaves the Soviet Army, which is fighting not only for its country, but also for its Allies, to do the job alone, almost single handed

---

Stalin's letter to Roosevelt, 11Jun43

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Cueball, I think JimmyBrogan's point is relativley simple, you dance around criticizing an obvious mass murder (Stalin) directly, even though your not giving him a Fidelesque ringing endorsement...and yet the level of annoyance you show with a (historically) relativley unimportant and obviously begning figure such as Jack Layton make you look like you lack perspective.

---

The tenor of what you just said is quite a bit different than Brogan's accusation that Stalin is the kind of leader I respect.

quote:

---

Your last point gives Stalin far too much credit. I would admit he was relativley intellgent militarily compared to Adolf Hitler or your average dictator, but that's not saying too much with regards to the example of the Soviet Union first being invaded. Stalin wouldn't respond for days on end when he knew that yes the Germans were invading! I'm pretty sure his staff would be far to afraid of him to lie to him. It wasn't just the first night, he was completely caught of guard, and was emotionally suprised and hurt that he would be betrayed like this. The time he took in isolation while the Nazi Armies plunged into the USSR gave the Nazi's a huge tactical advantage.

---

And yes, I know all about the two weeks that Stalin, abandonded his post, and how they had to summon the politbureau to get someone to go and see him other than his servants, blah blah. I was just recounting the first night to exemplify something about Stalin's style. Please read the book I reffered to, its all in there, from the civil war to the end of WW2. Also you could read Zhukov, and there are a number of other books.

Did I mention the failed winter offensive of 1941/42 that Stalin ordered over the advice of Zhukov? Geeze how dumb of me, not to recount only what an evil dummy he was.

Why is it that some people seem to be unable to actually have a discussion what happened in history, complete with attempts at accurately accounting the events, without being condemened for not qualifying every mention of Stalin by adding the appelation "The Dark Lord," or "The Evil One, Joe Stalin."

It really makes trying to discuss history objectively a real trial.

And as for Jack Layton, you still don't seem to understand that I condemn Jack Layton for taking George Bush's line on Ariel Sharon's West Bank policy. It is clear from the numerous disucssions we have had on this subject that you do not yet understand that that is the essence of my complaint. If you do understand that this is my complaint you have yet to challenge it directly, so I must assume you do not know what my complaint is. It is not just his stupid mustache.

I happen to think that Ariel Sharon's policy in the West Bank is a criminal and murderous endeavour of the type embarked upon by Stalin when he moved the Chechyn's to the far side of the Ural mountains. Jack does not. Jack thinks that "much of what is being done is necessary."

That is the quote.

That is what he said in public interview in the subject. And I condemn it.

In fact Jack is engaging in very much the same kind of apologetics on behalf of the Zionist, as the Communist Parties of the world did in the defence of Stalanism. I condemn both.

[Thought To Self]: Why is it necessary to have these discussion always were one must always condemn this or that, as if its part of public display. Why can't people just discuss?[/End Thought to Self]

As for Trotsky, I take Victor Serge's line on him, and I think that there is every likelyhood he would have embarked on very much the same kind of murderous course as Stalin. That was a part of my thrust on the topic actually. Trosky's reputation was largely saved by the fact that he lost the power struggle, not by anything that he did. He was quite suportive of the activities of the Cheka, even after he became its victim.

Serge says it best: A Reply to Trotsky

quote:

---

One would gather from him that it was simply a matter of repressing conspiracies; however, the Cheka’s full title was “Extraordinary Commission for the repression of counter-revolution, sabotage, speculation and desertion”. If the necessity for secret procedures could reasonably be invoked in the case of conspiracy, is it proper to invoke it for the housewife who sells a pound of sugar that she has bought (speculation), the electrician whose fuses blow (sabotage), the poor lad who gets fed up with the front line and takes a trip to the rear (desertion), the socialist or the anarchist who has passed some remark or other in the street, or has some comrades together at home (agitation and illegal assembly)? Cases of this sort literally swamped those of conspiracy, whether genuine or non-existent; of this Trotsky cannot be unaware. Nor, at this stage, can he fail to be aware how favourable to the manufacture of non-existent conspiracies was the darkness which he champions; there were just as many of this kind of plot as of the real variety. He cannot be unaware that in all the different kinds of case that it dealt with, the Cheka made a frightful abuse of the death penalty. Why then is he so eager to defend the indefensible, and with such poor arguments?

---

If you want to know I condmemn them all: Attila the Hun, Julias Ceasar, Alexander Nevsky, George Bush, Gheghis Khan, Kubila Khan, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Adolph Hitler, William Lyon Mckenzie, Jack Layton, Xerxes, etc. etc. There you go. Is that enough condemnation? All the filthy bloody murders, and there appologists, all of them, but most of all I condemn their followers for following.

Now can we talk about what happened?

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Anyhow William Lyon Mackenzie King (do you mean Mackenzie King?), Jack Layton included with Attilla the Hun, Hitler, Stalin etc...that's the problem. It shows a bizare lack of perspective.

Really though that thought to yourself, is quite a pointless little excercise, as clearly you wanted me to see it...and heck it's a bit ironic too. This is a public domain, if you make public statements, be prepared to be critiqued from various angle's including those from which you may find annoying or un-nessecary. I find your perspective fascinating, and often wrong, therefore I will make various observations that often include what I precieve to be your ideological purity. Thus yes, I am personalizing things somewhat because it's important to me when understanding your positions and for me to forumlate a disagrement with them, because of the way you craft said disagreements. BTW don't ask me to expand upon that further, I won't (if its even possible).

So did he or did he not say that "Much of what is being done is necessary," in discussion of the Ariel Sharon's imposition of marshal law in the West Bank? Well?

I really don't take it personally, but this whole pro-forma posing in outraged condemnation of this or that is what is annoying. I thought you would have gotten the gyst of that when I made my list. Of course there are differences.

That is were I entered into this discussion, when I was trying to devine the causes and politcal motivations that guided Stalin and the Bolsheviks. In order to develope the "perspective" you mention one must understand the differences.

Leaders come to power under wildly different circumstances, for instance we have no idea how Jack Layton would have behaved were he in the Bolsheviks in Russian in 1918, do we? Determining who is good and who is evil seems pretty pointless when you ignore the political contexts in which individual leaders exist, don't you think?

Are you sure Jack Layton wouldn't have shat his pants and gone into hibernation, were he in Stalin's shoes in 1941? Poland, France, Yugolslavia, Greece, Norway, Belgium? Now me? What would you do? Frankly I'd be shitting bricks.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Also if Layton said it, he said it. That's not really the point, as sometimes people say one thing and mean/do another thing, words are important intent and actions are more so, who knows if that was the case here....clearly you don't think it is (or if it was you would then condemn him for being so clumsy). I suppose that's as simple as it gets.

Responding to your strange edit, I don't see how it's relevent as Jack Layton didn't even exist or isn't a communist anyhow. Trotsky did in 1918, if Trotsky was more intrested in taking control of the Communist Party he could've then become leader, Stalin was the more intellgent person in that case as he was more focused on building the connections nessecary to cement his leadership position. If you find historical "what if's" irrelevent, that's your perogative, I think the case I posed was plausible.

As for the Isolation, I don't particularly care about the psychological way that Stalin reacted, I'm just pointing out the consquences of it. Besides the USSR was a lot stronger than those other countries Hitler kicked around, minus perhaps France.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
A little quibbly correction I should've said "don't you mean Mackenzie King", as WLMK was actually quite a reformer and progressive minded person, probably "ahead of his time".

Also if Layton said it, he said it. That's not really the point, as sometimes people say one thing and mean/do another thing, words are important intent and actions are more so, who knows if that was the case here....clearly you don't think it is (or if it was you would then condemn him for being so clumsy). I suppose that's as simple as it gets.

Responding to your strange edit, I don't see how it's relevent as Jack Layton didn't even exist or isn't a communist anyhow. Trotsky did in 1918, if Trotsky was more intrested in taking control of the Communist Party he could've then become leader, Stalin was the more intellgent person in that case as he was more focused on building the connections nessecary to cement his leadership position. If you find historical "what if's" irrelevent, that's your perogative, I think the case I posed was plausible.

As for the Isolation, I don't particularly care about the psychological way that Stalin reacted, I'm just pointing out the consquences of it. Besides the USSR was a lot stronger than those other countries Hitler kicked around, minus perhaps France.

---

And my point was that Stalin's psychology as reflected in his leadership methdology had a lot to do with delegation, brueaucratic consensus, and engendering personal competions between competing adminstrators as tools that he used to consolidate his position in the party. This is how he built "the connections nescesary to cement his leadership position," which you refer to. These means were the same ones he used to bring the Stavka together as a cohesive unit capable of defeating the German army.

Where Hitler undermined his strongest generals, Stalin rewarded on the basis of merit. The only caveat was that they should be politcally allied (Voroshilov) or politcally neutral (Zhukov.)

I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of the thought experiment. I guess that is just the difference between you and me. Odd though given that you originally entered into this discussion by talking about the leaders relativistically in their historical contexts:

quote:

---

Cueball, I think JimmyBrogan's point is relativley simple, you dance around criticizing an obvious mass murder (Stalin) directly, even though your not giving him a Fidelesque ringing endorsement...and yet the level of annoyance you show with a (historically) relativley unimportant and obviously begning figure such as Jack Layton make you look like you lack perspective.

---

Aren't you depending on making a historical comparison between the benign Layton and the heinous Stalin here?

And as for Layton's position on Palestine, I want you to think back to any of the discussions wherein this topic has come up and remind yourself, that in each and every case over the last six months, it is the sore you choose to pick, and the only time that I have mentioned it, is when you bring it up. I made my point clear then, and I will do so evertime you raise the issue. But as far as I am concerned I made my case clear then, and I don't bother with it.

In the intervening time Layton has avoided the topic, and so there has been no reason to say anything about his position. But you insist (and Mr. Brogan, as well, now it seems.) If it bothers you so much why don't you take a page from Jack's book and stop bringing it up?

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Aren't you depending on making a historical comparison between the benign Layton and the heinous Stalin here?

---

quote:

---

No. I'm making an observation of the irrlevance of your observation, and your ability to introduce two un-related subjects into one discussion. BTW I'm not going to deny fueling this strange back and forth.

---

Excelent!

Jack Layton is irrelevant to the discussion. Good. Now we also agree that Palestine is irrelvant to the discussion. Fine.

Now go back to the original post that Jimmy Brogan responded too, before you stepped in to defend Brogan. Now please show me where in that post I intorduced these two unrelated topics?

The accussation that I have introduced the unrelated topics is absurd and obvious to anyone who bothers to chart the course of this bizzare digression, given that it is you and Brogan who intorduce these two completely unrelated topics, not I.

Brogan introduces Layton. And you and I know that when you are taking me on about Jack you are taking me on about Palestine. I never said Jack about Jack until you two brought him up.

Hey Bud. Roll me another one. Just like the other one.

Jack bores me mostly. Calling him begnign is generous in my view. Milquetoast is a better, your characterization of him as someone who might say one thing then do another is spot on frankly. Just another run of the mill politician, with some kind of overiding ambition to be liked by as many people as possible. That seems to be his primary objective.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Oh yeah, btw Fidel, yes of course Hitler sucked too, creepy, evil little genocidle man that he was.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Which Roman Senator said: "How can you accuse me, when I accuse everyone else?"

I can see why you think its ok that Jack Layton might "say one thing and mean/do another thing" -- perhaps you will "forget" that you said that too.

Anyway I'm tired of this. Your a Nazi. Goodnight.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Fidel, explain something to me.

Why would any good socialist fixate on a BOSS rather than on the people who did the work and paid the price? Why?

---

Perhaps I should have placed "All Russia" as the first subject clause of the title. Because I'm unable to thank leaders of the day who capitulated to and appeased Adolf Hitler when what the situation needed was an international show of force before the Nazis could murder as many as they did in just 10 short years before focusing their attention on Russia; Stalin's Russia. Stalin was reacting to a multiple of internal and external influences in Russia. He didn't invade France or Poland; bomb London or invest massive capital and moral support in German fascism. Perhaps Joe Stalin was a product of his surroundings - chaos. Russian's and Asian's in general had lived a brutal existence for centuries under amoral imperialism. Imperialism taught hundreds of millions that life was cheap. Joe Stalin wasn't a graduate of Eaton College or even Sunday school.

Russia was on its knees, and western imperialists had a plan to keep it that way, much like the state of African and Latin American affairs have existed during and after the cold war as anywhere from 6 to 13 million human beings starve to death on an annual basis in and around the capitalist third world today. This amounts to planned and enforced genocide during modern times. What one leader can shoulder the blame for the sake of pointing political fingers ?. Is it the capitalists who export food from those countries to "the market" as millions of bereft and defenseless human beings expire from severe malnutrition or lack of clean water ?. Who's the monstor in this current situation ?.

No one is saying we need a leader like Joe to pound his fist on tables at the UN and demand: I want a second front against global hunger. Because Fidel Castro has done that already with a similar non-response from world leaders and multinational conglomerates now concentrating ever more wealth and power in the hands of a few elitists and economic feudalists.

When "Father Stalin" died, millions of Russian's actually mourned his death. I suppose that for them, he was someone who led their nation through a time of timultuous change. Could Joe have done things better under the circumstances? - Certainly. He was the son of Georgian peasants, not Marx or Lenin.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
As for the Isolation, I don't particularly care about the psychological way that Stalin reacted, I'm just pointing out the consquences of it. Besides the USSR was a lot stronger than those other countries Hitler kicked around, minus perhaps France.

---

Stronger in what way ?. Because Russia was still recovering from being kicked around in the previous world war and civil war. There were tens of millions of Russian's wandering around homeless and who starved or froze to death in the 1920's.

But Nazi Germany was ready for war. Industrialists and banking elite made sure of that. At Kursk, Russian women manned inferior tanks, two in three of which were without any shells to fire at the attacking Panzers. Soldiers crawled out into no mans land to dig up Nazi land mines because Russian ones didn't work most of the time. Bullets and most goods were still not plentiful in Russia as the Nazis surrounded Stalingrad and Moscow. Meanwhile, the SS and wehrmacht drove Ford and GM trucks all over Europe, ate the best of rations and Carnation milk as the English were rationed. And Churchill grew fatter still after telling Brits they would have to tighten their belts. Plenty of Brits turned the radio off when the old windbag was on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Oh yeah, btw Fidel, yes of course Hitler sucked too, creepy, evil little genocidle man that he was.

---

Yes, "genocidal" and all. Perhaps an "E" for effort to you.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Notice how none of them have said a single derogatory word about Hitler and the Nazis?. Creepy.

---

Are you calling us nazis Fidel?
Go fuck yourself.

quote:

---

Anyway I'm tired of this. Your a Nazi. Goodnight.

---

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AppleSeed:

Heh. Cueball and Fidel, why don't you get yourselves a room and hash out your plans for the world. Keep us posted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Um Fidel, Stalin DID invade poland, along WITH hitler with whom he signed a pacy

---

Yes, and after the capitalist-Nazi war of annihilation against communism in Russia was hashed-out and done with, the Russian's liberated Auschwitz. In order to liberate the rest of Eastern Europe, the Red Army necessarily had to go through places like Auschwitz and bombed out Warsaw. I know it seems like a great insult to Nazi-sympathizing conservatives, but those were simply the terms of the deal at that time. And I'm glad Hitler wasn't up against a Neville Chamberlain type or a Herbert Hoover back then, because, you know, I think we'd all be speaking another language by now. Or worse, not be around to discuss our hatred of the man who demanded a second front against a corporate-backed mass murderer and his army of psychopaths. Got a problem with that, comrade ?.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Anyway I'm tired of this. Your a Nazi. Goodnight.

---

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Yes, and after the capitalist-Nazi war of annihilation against communism in Russia was hashed-out and done with, the Russian's liberated Auschwitz. In order to liberate the rest of Eastern Europe, the Red Army necessarily had to go through places like Auschwitz and bombed out Warsaw. I know it seems like a great insult to Nazi-sympathizing conservatives, but those were simply the terms of the deal at that time. And I'm glad Hitler wasn't up against a Neville Chamberlain type or a Herbert Hoover back then, because, you know, I think we'd all be speaking another language by now. Or worse, not be around to discuss our hatred of the man who demanded a second front against a corporate-backed mass murderer and his army of psychopaths. Got a problem with that, comrade ?.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Honestly I don't think Stalin had the kind of balls you are suggesting. And I also think Chamberlain's bid for time at Munich is much misunderstood. It was very similar to Stalin's bid for time through Molotov-Ribentrop. War was inevitable, I am sure no one was that naive as to think it was not, so both leaders engaged Hitler in time wasting treaties, perhaps with the faint hope that the war was not inevitable.

I mean Stalin could certainly not have been so dumb as to see Hitler tear up one treaty after another, even the ones he signed, like Munich. Stalin was fairly passive internationally, as can be seen in the letters exchanged between Mao and Stalin on the issue of Korea.

Even after Stalin had officially committed to Mao's asia policy of direct confrontation with the US, it was very hard to get the Soviets to do more than defence air patrols over China and North Korea.

quote:

---

Less than two and a half months after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began.

It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944. Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender. Food and fuel stocks were very limited (1-2 months only). All the public transport stopped.

By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food. In January 1942, in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day.

In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But some of the war industry still worked and the city did not surrender.

Several hundred thousand people were evacuated from the city across Lake Ladoga via the famous "Road of Life" ("Doroga Zhizni") - the only route that connected the besieged city with the mainland.

During the warm season people were ferried to the mainland, and in winter - carried by trucks that drove across the frozen lake under constant enemy bombardment.

Meanwhile, the city lived on. The treasures of the Hermitage and the suburban palaces of Petrodvorets, Pushkin, etc. were hidden in the basements of the Hermitage and St Isaac's Cathedral.

Most students continued their studies and even passed finals. Dmitry Shostakovich wrote his Seventh "Leningrad" Symphony and it was performed in the besieged city.

In January 1943 the Siege was broken and a year later, on January 27, 1944 it was fully lifted.

At least 641 thousand people had died in Leningrad during the Siege (some estimates put this figure at 800 thousand). Most of them were buried in mass graves in different cemeteries. The Piskariovskoye Memorial Cemetery, where almost 500 thousand people are buried, became one of the most impressive national war memorials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Honestly I don't think Stalin had the kind of balls you are suggesting. And I also think Chamberlain's bid for time at Munich is much misunderstood. It was very similar to Stalin's bid for time through Molotov-Ribentrop. War was inevitable, I am sure no one was that naive as to think it was not, so both leaders engaged Hitler in time wasting treaties, perhaps with the faint hope that the war was not inevitable.

---

Yes, as has come to light that Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the concentration camps before previously established, we've known that Churchill was aware of Hitler's drive to build war ships in direct violation of the post WWI agreement. In fact, socialists across Europe had called long and hard for raising taxes on industries which profited from WWI.

I think you know many finer details of history that I don't, Cueball. But what about Neville Chamberlain willfully ignoring the German coup plotters request for backup from London. Most of us here realize that politicians have pre-packaged speeches for public consumption. IMO, Chamberlain used the position of refrain from war as a cover for ulterior views of Hitler and his agenda. That Chamberlain was the definitive bureaucrat wanting no part of a costly war made for good headlines. But watching a documentary on the A&E channel several weeks ago, I heard one historian say that Chamberlain referred to the German conspirators as "anti-Nazis" and not to be taken seroiusly. Instead, the conservative Chamberlain made conciliatory gestures toward Hitler. Had the conservative government in Britain entirely forgotten what the national sport was in Germany so soon ?. My British grandfather, fresh off a mustard gassing not so many years prior, had some idea of what was about to happen. Ol' Albert told me grand' as much, and she re-told it to me as a child. He was just an average coal miner(and later, head footman for a very rich family in England), but he knew.

quote:

---

When Count Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin visited London on Beck's behalf in late August 1938 to obtain from Britain a concrete pledge of support (a pledge to defy Hitler over Czechoslovakia), British ambassador to Berlin, Sir Neville Henderson, advised Whitehall not to rebuff Schmenzin blatantly but not to take any initiative to receive him either

---

If Stalin wasn't as ballsy as all that, then what was Chamberlain, or France's Daladier with the largest land army in Europe at the time ?. The German conspirators apparently made back-door visits to Daladier and Roosevelt who both wanted London to make the call. We know that Stalin was trying to ready-up Russia for what he intuitively knew would be yet another assault on Bolshevism in Russia. Stalin knew it was a matter of short time, and Russia had to abandon the meek and mild ways of Marxism for at least a little while. German's returned to Germany from Stalins Russia and describing a booming economy.

What were conservatives and liberals doing in England and North America besides struggling with economic depression ?. The Yank's and our military had never seen so many emaciated young men unfit for combat against you know who as millions rode the rails in search of work and farmers lost all they'd worked for to banks and capitalists.

Cueball, Tommy Douglas knew that Hitler was a dark horse before any of our own conservative or liberal politicians would speak out against the Nazis. Oh aye, Chamberlain and the rest had the hind sight of Mein Kampf in their midst to develop some idea of what Hitler was all about. Hitler was their best bet against communism and the loss of all the super-rich capitalist's had worked so hard to steal, cheat and rob for all their lives. Yes, I agree that all leaders did know that war was inevitable.

Whether Chamberlain thought Britain could avoid German aggression part II or not I don't know. But with the Royal Family Inc., British wealthy and even Chamberlain himself having invested personal finances in Nazi Germany, I don't think the weak and ineffective conservative PM gave much thought at all to rocking the boat.

quote:

---

Even after Stalin had officially committed to Mao's asia policy of direct confrontation with the US, it was very hard to get the Soviets to do more than defence air patrols over China and North Korea.

---

I dunno. As we know now, Soviet pilots flew MIG's with Chinese markings against the UN force as some 50K US, Canadian and other troops stood on the south side of the Iallou[sic] River and staring across at China a day after ThanksGiving. As UN troops digested their turkey dinners, about 300 000 Chinese and Korean troops mobilzed to forward positions during night. The "UN peace keeping" force was run over the next day.

[ 15 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Um Fidel, Stalin DID invade poland, along WITH hitler with whom he signed a pacy

---

He did. Now think about it. Chamberlain bought two years with Munich. Stalin bought two years with Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Now think: The Russians believed war with Germany was inevitable, sooner or later. Later Stalin was proved wrong on the timing of the invasion, believing that the Germans would not invade until after they subdued Britain, but they were right that Germany would attack. Given this correct understanding and the knowledge that Germany would have to invade Poland in order to forward their overall plan, and that Germany had strong territorial claims on Poland, and when the Russian negotiators became aware that Germany intended to invade Poland during secret negotiations, wasn't it entirely logical for Russia to push their frontier 200 mile further westward.

This benefited the Russian military position substantially, in that it reduced the length of the frontier they had to defend by 1000 miles and at the same time increased the buffer zone that Russia had to absorb the initial shock of the inevitable German invasion.

Hypothetically, Molotov-Ribbentrop might have been the treaty that won the war.

Given that it took the German 2 weeks to capture the annexed Polich territory. This means (hypothetically) that without Molotov-Ribbentrop, Minsk might have fallen on June 23rd not June 28th and German devision might have reached the gates of Moscow in early November, rather than late November, when the Russian winter began to set in. German operational ability might have been substantially enhanced, and the siege and capture of Moscow a historical reality. As well, much needed Siberian reinforcement (Zhukov) would still be on route from the east.

Another way to look at it might be simply to take the November 1941 front line (the Maximum extension of the German advance on Moscow,) and move it 200 miles further east, in ratio to the Polish territory annexed with German consent in Molotov Ribbentrop. That line is far behind Moscow.

It is very concievable that with the fall of Moscow the USSR would have collapsed, Engalnd might have sued for peace, and the Germans would have been able to put their plan to creat Vichy Russia into place, while annexing the Ukraine.

Given that Germany told them they were going to occupy Poland, its very arguable that it made complete strategic sense for the Russians to keep the German's that much further away.

Molotov-Ribbentrop partition --- notice the sharp reduction of the length of the Russian frontier.

Should they have let the Germans have it all? Two weeks of good wether in 1941 might have substantially changed the German prospects.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It is very concievable that with the fall of Moscow the USSR would have collapsed, Engalnd might have sued for peace, and the Germans would have been able to put their plan to creat Vichy Russia into place, while annexing the Ukraine.

---

That's a scary thought. I think what was brilliant was someone's order for munitions factories to be disassembled and carried by hand, by horseback and whatever means necessary by tens of thousands of Russian able bodied, to the other side of the frozen Urals. There, machinery and equipment were re-assembled and set in motion again to keep the resistance alive.

By what I've read, it was Hitler's insistence on using Roman battle line attack instead of listening to field generals. Experienced field generals, many of whom were being promoted to deskjobs and replaced with green officers, knew what might have worked against the superior in numbers Russian army. And that was to air drop everything they had left to a surprise attack behind the Russian front and leaving the Red Army no choice for retreat to the Urals or inner cities. The Russian's would have been caught in complete disarray and cities left undefended for a time. Along with ordering an expansion of the army, the watering-down of Panzer divisions and luftwaffe, Hitler's own megalomaniacal ego ensured the worse possible outcome for the Nazis.

In the end, Hitler was said to be moving military pieces around on a map of Europe and Russia that weren't representative of the casualties reported from the field. Hitler refused to believe that his military strategies weren't working.

Ultimately, the Nazi war machine ran out of oil and gasoline, thanks in part to Tito's guerilla fighters sabotaging supply routes. Meanwhile, Stalin-guns were introduced to the front and pulled by a dozen horses. It was a battle of low-tech and determinism against a corporate-sponsored army of fascist invaders. The Nazis were having to resort to horseback themselves in some cases. German soldiers began to starve and freeze to death as supplies were unable to get through to various locations. And of course, the Russian's were coming.

[ 18 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

That's a scary thought. I think what was brilliant was someone's order for munitions factories to be disassembled and carried by hand, by horseback and whatever means necessary by tens of thousands of Russian able bodied, to the other side of the frozen Urals. There, machinery and equipment were re-assembled and set in motion again to keep the resistance alive.

---

On an aside:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

The Nazis were having to resort to horseback themselves in some cases. German soldiers began to starve and freeze to death as supplies were unable to get through to various locations. And of course, the Russian's were coming.

[ 18 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
"Sprechen Sie Deutsch?" sorry, lame flame.

By the way, Marx spoke Deutsch, and so did Rosa Luxemburg, although the latter was Polish.

---

And I hear that Rosa was a red-head, and that counts for a lot. Especially if she were befreckled too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The plan was to drive the Russian army to the Urals and then use German heavy bombers to blow all that up. In fact the only strategic bomber the Germans designed and manufactured was named the Ural Bomber.

---

What's a strategic bomber ?. Because I remember some of mum's older relatives mentioning Heinkels? and Messerschmitts over Sheffield during the
blitz. That page doesn't mention Sheffield, mum's hometown more or less. Whem I was a wee lad, I remember her and I walking past a former factory site in Sheffield which had been flattened during an air raid.

I remember relatives talking about "buzz bombs" and the English with their barrage balloons. Me old mum pulled a few night shifts to stamp out plane parts at a Dutch factory called Firth-Derrihons and another Belgian place with an odd name, "Steel, Peaches and Tozers" an absolutley huge mill that mum said couldn't have been less ready for war time production with antiquated machinery. She said there'd be rain pouring in thru holes in the metal roofs. I guess the holes were a result of flack from anti-air craft fire. A factory she worked in was destroyed one night along with a pub full of people not far away. I still count my lucky stars whenever I imagine her speaking about it.

Thank you, Cueball and everyone. After re-reading your first comments of this thread, I'm glad I started it. Cueball's very good at summarizing key events of what many consider an important point in history.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The plan was to drive the Russian army to the Urals and then use German heavy bombers to blow all that up. In fact the only strategic bomber the Germans designed and manufactured was named the Ural Bomber.

---

Not quite (how did I miss a WW2 thread?)

The Nazi plan to bomb New York

There are photos of these planes here and there but I can't find them this morning. The "New York" bomber is in a book I have at home. The Americans captured the prototype at the end of the war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

What's a strategic bomber ?. Because I remember some of mum's older relatives mentioning Heinkels? and Messerschmitts over Sheffield during the
blitz.

---

During WW2 both Russians and Germans concentrated on building mid-range dual purpose tactical bombers like the Doiner 17 and the Hienkel 111. These were 2 engine aircraft that functioned both to attack strategic targets, such as factories and cities, as well as in a ground support role. Only Britain, Canada and the US invested heavily in long range aircraft whose sole purpose was attacking strategic targets. These were aircraft such as the 4 engine Lancaster bomber and the B29 Superfortress.

The only German strategic type bomber to be built in significant numbers by the Germans was the FW-200 Condor.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Joe gave to me a Nuremberg RAF tribute stationary and envelope with British sheep dog on the unposted stamp. I guess he liked the little lad from Canada in his shop and asking about war stories. On the face of envelope is a black and white photo of Nuremberg, devastated from the bombs. I guess its a photo only the surviving veterans themselves might appreciate because I always thought it was a morbid reminder.

Yes, the Americans began sending air support for the Lancasters along with B29's, apparently. The whole world came to know the Yanks then, and we are all still eternally greatful for people like "Rosie" the riveter, Merchant seamen of both our fine countries and the average Canadian and American men and women who lent a hand when it was needed most. Are we "In the Mood" for a little tribute ?.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

My uncle was a mechanic on Halifaxes in England.

The B-29 was used exclusively in the Pacific to wipe Japanese cities from the face of the earth.

The Hiroshima Pilot: The Case of Major Claude Eatherly

quote:

---

This book tells the saga of Claude Eatherly, the pilot who radioed the all-clear message to the Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. After the war, Eatherly blamed himself for the deaths of 100,000 people and sought psychiatric care. The author explains how Eatherly was in and out of mental hospitals and jails after committing a plethora of bizarre crimes in the hopes that society would punish him for his horrendous act. The author describes Eatherly various roles as pilot in the service of his country, a holdup man, a mental patient, and ... a symbol of mass guilt.

---

And American General Doug MacArthur's enthusiasm for battling the axis of evil would have to be restrained just six years later in Korea.

UN forces reached the 38th parallel, crossed it, and were quite entrepeneurial about driving north toward the Yaloo[sp] River, the boundary between China and North Korea. The Chinese warned MacArthur not to cross over into China. Of course, he didn't backdown. The UN force had to hightail it.

MacArthur's personal vision was that the Korean war was holy war; The megalomaniac kept blathering about "unleashing Chiang Kai Shek," from Taiwan, and dropping nukes on North Korea in order to draw the Chinese and Soviets into a nuke-yoular war. The plan was to murder 100's of millions of human beings to kill an idea and preserve "freedom. Nobody was exactly sure whose freedom he was meaning at the time. MacArthur, acting on behalf of free people everywhere, took it upon himself to orchestrate US(corporate) foreign policy on his own while on tour. The UN and Truman gave him the hook.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]