Now such proof has been discovered (or rediscovered, really - the order was quoted in a more obscure history book in 1998) and it's causing a sensation in Germany.

quote:

---

after the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, East Germany's former leaders and top Stasi secret service officials insisted there had been no shoot-to-kill order, and the absence of evidence to the contrary helped many of them to escape prosecution or get away with only lenient sentences in a series of trials.

Now, coinciding with the 46th anniversary of the start of construction of the Berlin Wall on August 13, 1961, a seven-page document has surfaced in an archive of Stasi files that contains an explicit firing order. It was issued to a special team of Stasi agents tasked with infiltrating regular units of border guards to prevent their colleagues from defecting.

---

[ 15 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I'm actually amazed at the ability of an educated intelligent population to accept completely unreasonable laws infringing on their freedoms.

However, the wall had a very different origin. The part of post-war Germany occupied by the Soviets had all kinds of subsidized food, consumer goods, etc. One of the ways the capitalist countries sabotaged the early regime was to hoard subsidized items in East Germany, smuggle them back to West Germany, sell them for a profit while still being cheaper than what was available, and financially undermine the early GDR. The wall was originally built to keep crooks out. However, it eventually turned into its opposite.

Borders are like that. While it may be true that many Mexicans today try to cross to El Norte any illegal way they can, 150 years ago when Mexico was a republic (before the US attack and appropriation of gigantic swaths of Mexican territory) and the US was a slave society, crossing the border into Mexico meant instant freedom for the zillions of victims of the atrocity of slavery.

Freedom of mobility might seem as natural as sunshine and blue sky to some, but many countries have requirements that those who emigrate must have proper paperwork and be approved to go before going. A country like Cuba has to do that; the skilled workers, some morally weak or ignorant athletes, etc., are the constant target of the rich capitalist countries who will stop at nothing, short of using nuclear weapons against civilians, to undermine that country economically and in every way they can. The current US government deliberately violates the few emigration agreements that exist between them and the Cubans in order to disorganize smooth emigration for Cubans who have the authority to emigrate, etc. The US also beams all sort of well funded misleading propaganda at that tiny country in order to brainwash weak minded people about the benefits of capitalism. It's really warfare by another means.

Even the military in countries that allow complete "freedom of mobility" demand that those who get free education and training while in the military must stay and serve for a number of years. This is only a difference in degree, but not in kind, from countries that insist on the right to control the numbers of emigrants and the administration of that emigration.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: torontoprofessor ]

quote:

---

Freedom of mobility might seem as natural as sunshine and blue sky to some, but many countries have requirements that those who emigrate must have proper paperwork and be approved to go before going. A country like Cuba has to do that; the skilled workers, some morally weak or ignorant athletes, etc., are the constant target of the rich capitalist countries who will stop at nothing, short of using nuclear weapons against civilians, to undermine that country economically and in every way they can.

---

S., You've demonstrated your support for the half century of warfare on Cuba by the US many times here on babble. Rest assured that no one thinks you hate socialist Cuba any less than the vampires in Miami, or the CIA, or the Mafia, or the current US administration hates Cuba.

All I ever said is that I want Cuba to have a free, fair multi-party election and a freeing of all political prisoners. I hope that in the subsequent election, Cubans will take the opportunity to reject any US backed parties and show to the world that they CHOOSE not to go down the US dominated path.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

All I ever said is that I want Cuba to have a free, fair multi-party election and a freeing of all political prisoners.

---

Political prisoners in Cuba? You mean in Guantanamo?

quote:

---

I hope that in the subsequent election, Cubans will take the opportunity to reject any US backed parties and show to the world that they CHOOSE not to go down the US dominated path.

---

Until such time as the U.S. lifts its 47-year blockade, stops funding and recruiting forces aimed at overthrowing the Cuban government, forswears interference in Cuban affairs, and apologizes and makes restitution for past invasions, assassination attempts, sabotage, economic losses, etc. - I personally support the complete banning of any pro-U.S. political party in Cuba.

As I've noted, the link seems to be your consistent antagonism to all things not capitalist. Or maybe this is another tiresome attempt by you to change the subject?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guêpe:
And in good babble style discussion is now about Cuba…this is frakking ridiculous!!!

---

Does anyone know some good sources for the early history of the Berlin Wall? It might make for some fascinating reading.

Edited to add:

quote:

---

unionist: Cuba is somewhat more interesting and timely a topic than a "new" discovery that East German guards were authorized to shoot border crossers.

---

Agreed. But it deserves its own thread, as Guêpe and Heywood have pointed out.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

What do multi-party "elections" have to do with emigration laws and shooting victims in the Gulf of Mexico? And, more to the point, what do they have to do with the Berlin Wall?

---

First of all, I didn't bring up Cuba, it was one of the usual apologists for Stalinism.

Multi-party elections actually have a lot to do with the Berlin Wall. The fact that these did not exist in East Germany was a major reason why people wanted to flee to West Germany and regularly got shot dead trying to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What the Berlin Wall became has very little relation to its origin. Eventually, the GDR spent so much on internal surveillance that it became a gigantic proportion of their GDP and the regime was bound to collapse.

However, the wall had a very different origin. The part of post-war Germany occupied by the Soviets had all kinds of subsidized food, consumer goods, etc. One of the ways the capitalist countries sabotaged the early regime was to hoard subsidized items in East Germany, smuggle them back to West Germany, sell them for a profit while still being cheaper than what was available, and financially undermine the early GDR. The wall was originally built to keep crooks out. However, it eventually turned into its opposite.

Borders are like that. While it may be true that many Mexicans today try to cross to El Norte any illegal way they can, 150 years ago when Mexico was a republic (before the US attack and appropriation of gigantic swaths of Mexican territory) and the US was a slave society, crossing the border into Mexico meant instant freedom for the zillions of victims of the atrocity of slavery.

Freedom of mobility might seem as natural as sunshine and blue sky to some, but many countries have requirements that those who emigrate must have proper paperwork and be approved to go before going. A country like Cuba has to do that; the skilled workers, some morally weak or ignorant athletes, etc., are the constant target of the rich capitalist countries who will stop at nothing, short of using nuclear weapons against civilians, to undermine that country economically and in every way they can. The current US government deliberately violates the few emigration agreements that exist between them and the Cubans in order to disorganize smooth emigration for Cubans who have the authority to emigrate, etc. The US also beams all sort of well funded misleading propaganda at that tiny country in order to brainwash weak minded people about the benefits of capitalism. It's really warfare by another means.

Even the military in countries that allow complete "freedom of mobility" demand that those who get free education and training while in the military must stay and serve for a number of years. This is only a difference in degree, but not in kind, from countries that insist on the right to control the numbers of emigrants and the administration of that emigration.

For many developing countries, the horrific consequences of the well-orchestrated "brain drain" siphons off the expensively trained domestic specialists and experts and undermines their economies. It's one of the many ways that rich countries stay rich and developing countries stay behind. But that's capitalism for ya.

---

quote:

---

EmmaG: (question addressed to me, I think) ... do you support similar restrictions on Canadians' freedom of movement? Am i morally weak if I choose to work in Europe when my county needs social workers so badly? Am I wrong to work in BC when my province needs social workers so badly?

---

If I'm not mistaken, governments in Canada already restrict the movement of certain people.

Immigrants. They are assigned to live in certain areas, some of them stay only long enough to work here seasonally and then are sent back to their home country, and immigrant doctors are directed to practice in less well supported areas as a condition of being allowed to live and work here.

This sort of thing is also done in many other employment situations. Soldiers and Mounties are assigned to outposts way out in the boonies. If they want that job they have to accept it. The control is exercised over them by their employer, instead of the state, but it is exercised nonetheless.

So the first point is that our governments and bosses do it already.

I would recommend having a read of the remarks by the former (amateur) heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Teófilo Stevenson, on moral choices.

"Not treason but ignorance."

The interview is in relation to some athletes that "defected" or whatever term you want to use.

quote:

---

And there was Don King, who came to visit me at the Madison Square Garden." "Right now I think about the million dollars or the five million dollars [that I could have obtained], and that's not important," he says. "For me, more important are the love that people give me in Cuba and millions of revolutionaries who are working in the world to make it a better place."

---

I'm reluctant to just jump in and try to morally evaluation your situation, Emma. But that these individual decisions have moral aspects and consequences ... I don't see how you can deny that.

We live in a society where social good is often held under the boot heel of individual rights. And we somehow treat that as normal. But that is not the only, nor necessarily the best, way to do things.

Canadian society is full of people whose "freedom of movement" got them here in the first place. It's not difficult to imagine the views of most people on this issue. However, the first to arrive did not get the permission of the indigenous peoples to take their land and, frankly, our arrogance continues to this day. "freedom of movement" assumes that we have somewhere to go in the first place; why is it that the question of "whose land are we going to anyway isn't part of this issue? It should be.

And when we look at it in these terms, I think Canadians come off as morally weak. All of us. Or, at least, all of us who do not make it their business to support First Nations in their just struggle for land claims, self-government, and justice for sharing their fabulous continent will all these outsiders who showed their thanks by trying to exterminate them.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Any chance we could take the upcoming cuban thread diversion and move it to another thread? SVP?

---

Oh, never mind. The discussion had moved on. I hadn't refreshed the thread for quite a while when I posted.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Political Repression in West Germany: "Berufsverbote" in Modern German History:

quote:

---

For the past five years political repression of intellectuals in West Germany has increased to such an extent that Uwe Wesel, former Vice-President of the Free University of West Berlin, has felt it necessary to compare it to former fascist actions: " It is my sincere belief that the extensive practice of political regimentation, snooping into people's convictions, and oppression, which has taken place in this section of the city, has not been equalled since the time of National Socialism."

---

The social democratic party of Germany, the SPD, comes in for some especially damning criticism. The authors make reference to their "fanatical anti-communism" to silence dissent.

Sound familliar?

Freedom, West German style. ahem.

Edited to add: I'm having a tough time with the link and, strangely, babble won't let me use the url in my link. That's never happened before.

The link is to JSTOR with an article of the same title as I have listed. Only the first page is available.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

What's not to like compared to the horror of life in the DDR?

---

Have a look.

S, you should be comfortable with the fanatical anti-communism in any case. Isn't that precisely what you mean by "freedom" anyway?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
This sounds totally hyperbolic and absurd

---

Not really, no. There was in West Germany a certain idea of militatendemokratie - that democracy required the militant protection of the state from radical elements in society so that a dictator might never take power there again. Accordingly, the extreme left and extreme right were subject to a greater degree of repression there compared to elsewhere in the democratic world. Nothing on the GDR, of course.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

DW-WORLD.DE: What's the significance of the resurfaced shoot-to-kill order?

Ferdinand von Schirach: It's negligible. It's a document that's been known for a long time to everyone involved, including the Berlin state prosecutor's office, which now claims that it has to investigate this again. This piece of paper has no known author and no clear addressee. It's a simple piece of paper that could have been written by anyone and that will not hold up for convictions or even the initiation of a criminal investigation.

---

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Freedom of mobility might seem as natural as sunshine and blue sky to some, but many countries have requirements that those who emigrate must have proper paperwork and be approved to go before going. A country like Cuba has to do that;

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in Article 13(2):

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

So yes, it IS a basic right to be able to leave one's country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
While "many countries" (Cuba, USSR, North Korea, Iran, Pinochet's Chile) DO assert the right of the state to force its citizens to remain inside national boundaries unless they have state permission, that is an argument against those systems, and NOT an argument for weakening the right.

---

There are thousands of Cubans travelling all over the democratic capitalist third world and providing what free markets cannot. They come and go all the time, Jeff.

And how many of the 35 million Americans categorized as food insecure can ever afford a Greyhound bus ticket out of state never mind another country ?. And the Yanks warehouse over 2 million more poor Americans in private and publicly-partnered gulag industrial prisons. That's more Americans barely subsisting in a system that's failing with every war the clique wages on poor oil-rich countries than Cuba has people.

And Canada has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. We've got Newfoundlanders, PEI'ers and Nunavutians who've never been outside their territories and in all likelihood never will leave for greener pastures due to a lack of means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
There are thousands of Cubans travelling all over the democratic capitalist third world and providing what free markets cannot.

---

Only with permission of their government and usually for a particular job they're being sent on.

quote:

---

And how many of the 35 million Americans categorized as food insecure can ever afford a Greyhound bus ticket out of state never mind another country ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

There's a big difference between being legally prevented from traveling and just not being able to afford it. At any rate, probably quite a few of those Americans can afford a bus trip on an occasional basis. It sure isn't the American middle class riding the buses given all the discount airlines around.

---

quote:

---

There are thousands of Cubans travelling all over the democratic capitalist third world

---

Trusted Cubans are let out of the country if they are involved in state-sanctioned activities.

However, commonly their families are required to remain in Cuba, and are subject to various types of administrative punishment if the person outside Cuba decides to stay away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Trusted Cubans are let out of the country if they are involved in state-sanctioned activities.

However, commonly their families are required to remain in Cuba, and are subject to various types of administrative punishment if the person outside Cuba decides to stay away.

---

Ah, so they become doctors and nurses and humanitarian aid workers because they are forced to, and their families are held hostage by doctor evil back at the ranch. That's an old one.

quote:

---

When I was in Nicaragua, I spoke to Cuban doctors doing heroic service in a hospital near Diriamba. Their main complaint was that they couldn't have their families with them, because the state security apparatus which decide who can be permitted to leave Cuba, trust almost no one.

---

Jeff if you look into it further, you'll discover that any Cuban can apply for a travel permit. With the situation of professionals volunteering to work abroad in the developing world, it's actually easier for less skilled and less educated Cubans to obtain a permit. The only barrier is money, the same obstacle to world travel faced by millions of working poor Americans and Canadians who've never been outside the county or province in their life times.

How many doctors and aid workers from Haiti or Dominican Republic or Guatemala or El Salvador did you bump into in Nicaragua?. I imagine their only complaint might have been the conditions of the burned out hospitals and schools in Nicaragua care of U.S.-backed contra mercenaries at the time. The Cubans have returned to Nicaragua to help Ortega sort out the mess created there by U.S.-backed neo-Liberal reform crooks who did nothing for Nicaragua but steal hundreds of millions of dollars in the 1990's.

If you compare economically isolated Cubans with Ozark Mountain people, Kentucky hill people, New Orleans' discarded people, Mississippi River communities, inner city ghettos of LA and Chicago, or any of the segregated native reserves across Canada and U.S., I think you'll understand what I'm talking about with lacking economic freedom to wander outside designated zones.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Ah, so they become doctors and nurses and humanitarian aid workers because they are forced to, and their families are held hostage by doctor evil back at the ranch. That's an old one.

---

No, they become humanitarian aid workers for many reasons. But their families ARE held hostage, as you put it.

Maybe you think it is a matter of choice that none of them bring their spouses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

No, they become humanitarian aid workers for many reasons. But their families ARE held hostage, as you put it.

---

Jeff, have you ever viewed the American movie, The Terminal with Tom Hanks?. The movie personifies this same type of cold war propaganda. Hanks' character is no longer a citizen of his former Eastern Block country when a war breaks out, and his passport ID isn't recognized by border police at JFK Airport. They tell him he can enter the U.S. if he declares refugee status and that he was politically oppressed in his former fictional Eastern European country. Hanks says in broken English, ~"But I am not oppressed. Blogaria is my mother country. Hanks' character just wanted to get the autograph of a jazz musician for his father but not defect.

There were a few Cubans who went to the States during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980's who told the Yanks anything they wanted to hear. They became "businessmen" in Miami, and some were as ruthless a criminals as those released from Soviet gulags and made the FBI crazy in the 90's with pulling some of the most complex crimes and ripoffs they'd ever seen before in the U.S. and Canada. The Yanks got the creme de la creme of Cuban and Russian criminal society in the 80's and 90's and mouthing the words freedom from communist oppression and anything the Yanks told them to say to newspapers at the time.

I'm just not aware of a hostage situation in Cuba, Jeff. I am aware that American citizens are not permitted the personal freedom to travel to Cuba.

And there is the business of five Cuban anti-terrorists being held hostage in the largest prison system in the world in the USA however. Why didn't their wives mention the hostage situation in Cuba when they were here in a cross-Canada tour to raise awareness for their husbands whose basic rights are being violated in the USSA?. I ask you.

quote:

---

aybe you think it is a matter of choice that none of them bring their spouses?

---

The aid workers leave Cuba to do important humanitarian work in third world capitalist hellholes around the world. Their families are safe at home attending school and working. Some Cubans train doctors at medical schools developed in partnership with African countries. I just read about a Cuban aid worker who met a woman in South Africa and is now married, big house and kids on the way. He said nothing in the interview about family members held hostage on Devil's Island or even Cuba for that matter.

quote:

---

What is an "old one" is not that I talk to Cubans daily about the actual policies of the Cuban government; the "old one" is your acting as an apologist for any Communist regime that ever existed. That one goes waaaaay back.

---

I've spoken with Cubans. My own family members and friends have spoken with Cubans. I honestly don't remember anyone telling us about being held hostage in Cuba. As I've said before, Cubans come and go from the island all the time.

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Does every frigging thread on babble have to be about Cuba? Is that really necessary? Start a Cuba thread if you want to talk about Cuba!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Good lord. Who started the whole Cuba thing up YET AGAIN?

---

Perhaps these gentlemen genuinely feel that any assertion about Cuba which they disagree with must be vigorously denounced. That's their business. However, I am not willing to be silenced on Cuba if there is something Cuba-related that has bearing on the subject of the thread.

In any case, we have (another) Cuba-specific thread to fight it out in. Maybe someone will try to derail that one over the Berlin Wall. ahahahaha ha!

Could this be the ultimate Cuba thread? Probably not. But check it out anyway.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

The context was the fact that the East German regime had ordered its soldiers to "shoot to kill" anyone who wanted to leave.

The invocation of Cuba by Bel'tov was part of his general defence of the right of the state to imprison its citizens.

quote:

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in Article 13(2):

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

So yes, it IS a basic right to be able to leave one's country.

While "many countries" (Cuba, USSR, North Korea, Iran, Pinochet's Chile) DO assert the right of the state to force its citizens to remain inside national boundaries unless they have state permission, that is an argument against those systems, and NOT an argument for weakening the right.

---

Fair enough, so you wouldnt consider any such country which prohibits such freedom to be democratic, am I right?

Well in that case, please do tell your opnion on Israel's policy of no-return for 7 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

quote:

---

Well in that case, please do tell your opnion on Israel's policy of no-return for 7 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

---

As you can see from the text of the Universal Declaration, it makes no reference to "descendants". So, legally speaking, no descendant of a Palestinian emigrant would be entitled to return to Israel.

However, this is an entirely different point from the one we are discussing, which is the RIGHT to leave, and the RIGHT to return.

Surely this point is self-explanatory. We are discussing whether the East Germans, and (because Beltov brought them in), the Cubans, give effect to this internationally-recognized right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Ha ha. Nice skate job. BetterRed has pointed out that the relevant UN declaration (that you brought up) refers to the right to RETURN as well. Cherry picking things of concern, and ignoring things that don't help your case, why, .... that's just like what a lawyer would do. Ahahahahaha ha!

---

Thanks, N.Beltov
thats funny.

In response, I quoted the Universal Declaration:

quote:

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in Article 13(2):

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

So yes, it IS a basic right to be able to leave one's country.

---

Notice the words "and to return to his country".

Now you guys are reminding me it's a two way street? Of course it is, just as I said. For the record, Cuba violates the Universal Declaration because it does not guarantee the right to LEAVE freely. Same for East Germany. We have not been discussing whether these countries violate the right to return, also.

Of COURSE you don't have the same freedom of mobility if you're convicted of a crime in your country, and of course if you've left your country in order to escape a jail term, you're going to have to serve it if you go back.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who just wanted to have the choice to leave East Germany and they didn't have that choice, not because they committed any crime or because they had jail time to do, but simply because it was against the rules.

That's wrong. I'm sorry, but it's really wrong. It's undeserved confinement, imprisonment.

My grandparents had family on the west side when the border was created. They had to sneak back and forth, and finally, once security was tightening to the degree that this was becoming too dangerous, they had a horrible choice to make - leave their hometown so they could be free, or stay and be prisoners and separated from their families for good.

Why? Because the thought of what could happen to them if they returned terrified them. My grandparents finally went back once reunification happened - 40 years later. They were too scared to go back beforehand.

So as to the question of whether East Germans could return after having left without leave - I don't know for sure. But somehow, judging from my mother's family's reaction to the idea, I very, very highly doubt it.

Very interesting, Heywood. Thanks for the link.

quote:

---

About one year after the construction of the wall, Fechter attempted to flee from the GDR (German Democratic Republic) together with his friend Helmut Kulbeik. The plan was to hide in a carpenter's workshop near the wall in Zimmerstrasse and, after observing the border guards from there, to jump out of a window into the so-called death-strip (a strip running between the main wall and a parallel fence which they had recently started to construct), run across it, and climb over the two metre (6.5 ft) wall topped with barbed wire into the Kreuzberg district of West Berlin near Checkpoint Charlie.

While both reached the wall, guards fired at them. Although Kulbeik succeeded in crossing the wall, Fechter, still on the wall, was shot in the pelvis in plain view of hundreds of witnesses. He fell back into the death-strip on the Eastern side, where he remained in view of Western onlookers, including journalists. Despite his screams, he received no medical assistance either from the East or the West side. He bled to death after about an hour. Hundreds in West Berlin formed a spontaneous demonstration, shouting "Murderers!" at the border guards.

---

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I think for a bit of flavour of that possibility one needs only look at the Japanese internment and theft of all their propety after the end of the secon world war. Or maybe the RCMP kicking in doors in Kingston and other cities in Ontario when Trudeau invoked the WMA.

I think there are problems with Cuba and democracy but then I think there are problems in Canada with democracy. We had an election over one issue; free trade with the US and two thirds of Canadians said no. Our great democracy however gave us free trade because that is what the corporate elite want. Look at the other threads talking about SPP and then compare democracies.

quote:

---

The Council of Canadians agree: “The first report of the SPP in 2005 described how all future decisions affecting Canada-U.S.-Mexico relations would be made: “meetings” for business, “consultations” for stakeholders and “briefings” for Parliament. In other words, there would be no legislative debate on the SPP and the public would be left out of the picture completely. North America’s corporate elite, on the other hand, has a permanent seat at the table. (http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/ABCs.html)

---

There was never a world war waged inside Canada or the USA's borders. Toronto and New York were never blitzed, and neither Southern Ontario or Idaho had millions of gallons of agent orange dropped on them and poisoning farmland for decades afterward. North America has always been a good place to emigrate to after various wars were financed by warfiteering banksters and industrialists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So if the right to mobility is guaranteed how do I get out of Canada if I am on a No Fly list.

---

Have you ever heard Jeff House or I speak out in support of No Fly lists? I don't think so.

It sounds so similar to some friends of ours. They were able to leave the former East Germany in the early 1950s before the border wall was built, leaving behind the rest of their family.

While they did well in Canada, there was always an element of deep sadness and regret in their lives. They never were able to return to visit their parents or other family in East Germany. Their parents passed away before the border wall came down.

quote:

---

So if the right to mobility is guaranteed how do I get out of Canada if I am on a No Fly list.

---

Listen to the speech the East German cosmonaut gives at the end of "Good Bye, Lenin".

Socialism and democracy need to become inseperable.
Or at least socialism and the right to come and go from your country at will. A socialist country can't use its borders as prison gates.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The lesson we need to learn from the Berlin Wall is that socialism cannot be built in a society under military occupation.

---

But the reality today, as we well know, is that Germany is not under military occupation. But Korea and dozens of other countries are.

We boycotted an Olympics because the Soviets were in Afghanistan. Today it's American, British, Canadian and NATO troops who have marched into that country and declared local people the enemies of freedom. The U.S. has more than 700 military bases around the world. No other country has its nuclear missiles on foreign soil, supposedly to protect Europeans from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. The East German Stasi and Soviet Union are no longer the issue. We know which countries should be leading the way with prior cold war promises for democracy and global prosperity and are not.

The bombing and military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are a continuation of the cold war with resource grabs and strategic military alliances - same-old same-old. The west wants to surround China and Russia with troop bases and missiles. And this is where we're at now with western corporations and governments pretending not to know anything about billion dollar arms sales to middle eastern countries and mercenary armies in Africa and other countries. Same old tune the cow died on, and China and Russia and Iran and Korea don't want our militaries parked in their backyards anymore than Latin America wants democracy by School of the Americas and Pentagon aid anymore.

US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First-Strike Threat

quote:

---

"These European ABMs are an adjunct to the longstanding US policy of nuclear first strike against Russia, ..."

---

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

There's no point in even bothering to defend any aspect of that failed attempt at socialism. Genuine socialism, if it is to revive, must avoid all of those methods. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have learned this lesson, Fidel. It's time everybody on the left joins them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
All of that is true. None of it justified the wall or anything else associated with Stalinism.

---

I agree with the general sentiment that people don't want another iron curtain situation. Stalinists tried to justify the iron curtain occupation of Eastern Europe with the body count of the war of annihilation against communist Russia.

William Lyon Mackenzie King said Hitler had a "sweet face" after their meeting, and that the night of broken glass might have been "a blessing in disguise." Our Liberal government made it illegal for Canadians to travel to Spain to fight fascism as did a conservative government in Britain declare Spain off limits for Brits during the work week.

Hitler and Mussolini sent 4-6000 trucks and motorcycles to aid Franco's fascists. GM, Ford and Edsel sent 12, 000 vehicles to Franco in aid of fascism. And Canada's Norman Bethune said that Spain was where world democracy would be won or lost.

Chamberlain referred to the Oster conspirators pleading for Downing Street's help as "anti-Nazis who weren't to be trusted." Daladier and Chamberlain handed Hitler Czechoslovakia with the Munich appeasment.

The Russians waited over two years for a second front as Hitler poured two-thirds of his corporate-sponsored military machine into the heart of Russia.

An estimated 27 million Red Army soldiers were killed and another 19 million Russian civilians dead by 1945. There were no obligations for the Nazis to take Russian POW's and feed them as was the policy for Canadians, Americans and Brits when captures. The policy in Russia was flamethrowers, relentless shelling and blitzkrieg but no prisoners.

And there were an estimated 50M -83M dead and missing at the end of WWII. Did the body count justify moving the Soviet line of defence westward in anyone's opinion here ?.

I'm sure we weren't the only ones repeating the words, "Never again" on an annual basis.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, governments in Canada already restrict the movement of certain people.

---

Yes they do. Aboriginal people. I am a beneficiary of a treaty in another province. Because I have chosen not to live there, I do not have access to many of the programs and services as they are only for the settlement area. Where I live now, I can't get the services because I am not a member of the nation in the area.

It goes against the nomadic nature of aboriginal peoples, not to mention just about every human right there is. But since Aboriginal people are so hated in this country, nothing will be done about it.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: 1234567 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
Yes they do. Aboriginal people. I am a beneficiary of a treaty in another province. Because I have chosen not to live there, I do not have access to many of the programs and services as they are only for the settlement area. Where I live now, I can't get the services because I am not a member of the nation in the area.

---

EmmaG raised this issue in the thread earlier, but there was little by way of reply or discussion. The context of "freedom of movement" is, of course, where are you going to, exactly? And the question of going to land stolen from other people somehow never "comes up".

Of course, I'm referring to North America and not the former West Germany. I'd to repeat what I typed earlier in this thread:

Canadian society is full of people whose "freedom of movement" got them here in the first place. It's not difficult to imagine the views of most people on this issue. However, the first to arrive did not get the permission of the indigenous peoples to take their land and, frankly, our arrogance continues to this day. "freedom of movement" assumes that we have somewhere to go in the first place; why is it that the question of "whose land are we going to anyway isn't part of this issue? It should be.

And when we look at it in these terms, I think Canadians come off as morally weak. All of us. Or, at least, all of us who do not make it their business to support First Nations in their just struggle for land claims, self-government, and justice for sharing their fabulous continent with all these outsiders who showed their thanks by trying to exterminate them.

The issue of "Freedom of movement" leads directly to the unresolved questions about the rights of the native peoples whose land was stolen for the benefit of the non-native settlers. That's a much more sound and leftist way of looking at these issues than the approach of cherry-picking from international documents to lead to pre-determined conclusions and denunciations.

Our federal Liberal and Conservative colonial administrativeships have been preserving millions of acres of moose pasture for the sake of future corporate needs. Tommy Douglas said there would come a day when we'd run out of oil and gas and probably water at some point because of our relationship with U.S. needs given high priority over and above any kind of nationalism in Canada.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
What a load of crap about Cuban citizens being free to leave Cuba.

---

quote:

---

When inviting a Cuban friend to visit Canada, the problem typically is not with Cuba's bureaucracy, but rather with the immigration departments of other countries. Canada's Immigration Dept., for example, often seems to think that all Cubans want to "defect." That's perhaps the biggest hurdle. Cubans who are travelling on official business of their organization (i.e., a university professor attending a conference in Canada) tend to have much less difficulty

---

And the Cubans followed the U.S. and their very fascist South African partners in crime into Angola over 30 years ago.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you tell us why you seem to approve of shooting people for trying to get over the Berlin Wall or of the Stasi arresting political dissidents and sending them to concentration camps.

Daddy's flown across the ocean
Leaving just a memory
Snapshot in the family album
Daddy what else did you leave f'me?
Daddy what'ja leave behind for me?!?
All in all it was just a brick in the wall.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Why even bother defending any of the repressive measures the USSR and the Warsaw Pact used, especially since they were very often used not against capitalist roaders but against people whose only crime was believing in and fighting for the idea that socialism did NOT require a police state?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Are you trying to tell us that it was perfectly a-okay for the CIA to hire former Gestapo and former SS officers of the Third Reich to run the spy outfit in West Germany instead of handing them over to a war crimes tribunal or even the Soviets as they'd agreed to ?.

---

And these weren't mere administrative clerks or pawns of fascism, they were willing participants and high-ranking officers of the Third Reich running the spy operation out of West Germany. They were Nazi war criminals accepting U.S. government paycheques. I'm sorry, but my father and uncles fought against the Nazis. Scuse while I finish pointing up these last few stone blocks.

[ 19 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

However, the topic here was the shoot-to-kill order. The people who issued that order were Communists, not former Nazis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
The Americans used too many former Nazis during their occupation of Germany. The Soviets used some, but not as many.

---

I can't imagine very many ardent Nazis volunteering to serve the Soviets, Jeff. I imagine many of them had their last cigarettes standing infront of a cement wall. They would be the ones who were unable to escape by the ratlines or with full cooperation of the American CIA. Nope, the USSR would not have been my first choice to seek sanctuary had I been gestapo or waffen SS.

The Americans gave carte blanche to General Gehlen to recruit upwards of 3000 former gestapo, SS rank and file. And many were war criminals, like Klaus Barbie, SS General Burckhardt and several prominent Nazis close to Eichmann and Borman. They trained thousands of Eastern Europeans for insurgencies in countries like Germany, Ukraine and Hungary. Some even participated in CIA subgroups responsible for contributing to MK Ultra and its many sub-programs from the 1950's onward.

Do you support or oppose East Germany shooting with intention to kill anyone who tried to escape to West Germany and do you support or oppose East Germany having 200,000 paid informers in order to jail anyone who was under the slightest suspicion of questioning the government.

Yes or No?

That is all we want to know.

[ 19 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The shoot to kill order has existed for decades.

---

You got it! For almost 30 years, the East German border guards were under orders to shoot to kill anyone from East Germany who tried to go to West Germany - part of their own country.

quote:

---

No one in this thread is saying the shoot to kill order was justified,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Just out of interest, why are topics like this of such interest on babble? It would make sense if this were a subject of discussion amongst marxists but most people on babble are social democrats. It makes sense for social democrats to analyze and debate the theory and practice of unfettered capitalism, since it rules the world. But marxism most emphatically does not. So why these intense threads on the sins (or claimed sins) of marxists? I really don't understand it.

I am not questioning the people who jump in and I don't deny that marxists and communists have committed atrocities (as have christans, muslims, hindus, and capitalists - though that's no excuse) but, rather, those who initiate these topics. WHY?? (note: I am saying this in a polite tone of voice.)

---

Why not?

Cuba is a state like many others. It has several good points, and several bad points. It is not the worst country in the world, and it is not the best country in the world, either.

Unfortunately, a fair number of babblers are committed to arguing/pretending that Cuba is a perfect country. They will not allow any criticism of it. They take this position because Cuba is a model for how they would organize the world, if they could.

I don't want the world organized in this way. I believe that the democracy which we have in Canada, and the freedom of speech that implies, are positive features of this society.

It may be true that most people on babble are social democrats. But some are not. They don't believe in most of the things I believe in. I don't believe, as one of them said a while ago, that Iran is an example of socialism. I don't think it is sensible, or democratic, to make excuses for Iran, or for East Germany. And I don't believe that Cuba is democratic, or that it has free institutions generally.

So, every time one of them misrepresents Cuba, or argues that failure to follow the Cuban line means someone is an imperialist, I plan on speaking up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
RosaL asks a good question. Here is my answer:

Cuba is a state like many others. It has several good points, and several bad points. It is not the worst country in the world, and it is not the best country in the world, either.

Unfortunately, a fair number of babblers are committed to arguing/pretending that Cuba is a perfect country. They will not allow any criticism of it. They take this position because Cuba is a model for how they would organize the world, if they could.

I don't want the world organized in this way. I believe that the democracy which we have in Canada, and the freedom of speech that implies, are positive features of this society.

It may be true that most people on babble are social democrats. But some are not. They don't believe in most of the things I believe in. I don't believe, as one of them said a while ago, that Iran is an example of socialism. I don't think it is sensible, or democratic, to make excuses for Iran, or for East Germany. And I don't believe that Cuba is democratic, or that it has free institutions generally.

So, every time one of them misrepresents Cuba, or argues that failure to follow the Cuban line means someone is an imperialist, I plan on speaking up.

I've spent a long time in Latin America, have worked or spent time in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina and Chile, and so I know that there are lots of other left traditions besides that of the Communist Party of Cuba.

---

I think we all know that even if we haven't had some of the opportunities to move around the world that you apparently have had but I'm not clear on why you mention this. It seems to work against your position.

Do you think there's some particular "danger" from that particular tradition? Is that why you and others spend so much time and effort criticizing it?

My own suspicion is that there's a kind of resurgent anti-communism in response to developments in Latin America.
I realize, of course, that nobody in Latin America (or anywhere else) is advocating what for lack of a better term I'll call "the Soviet model". But that, of course, is beside the point (indeed, a point to be suppressed) in the current propaganda offensive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Nicaragua has been "in the toilet" for a lot longer than just the 90s. There is a reaosn why the Sandinistas lost power in 1990 - because a majority of Nicaraguans thought they had been a bad government.

---

Oh come off it, Stockholm. Do you really think the fact that the U.S. government maintained a total trade embargo with Nicaragua even after the Sandinistas had kept their promise to hold elections and was continuing to provide weapons to a bandit army(a bandit army that existed solely because the U.S. had invented it) that was slaughtering innocent people throughout the campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with the right-wing victory of 1990?

Do you honestly think that good came of Nicaraguans being forced to vote to end their revolution and revert to U.S. colonial status(which is what voting UNO meant)?

Why do you always let the Yanks off the hook?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Do you think there's some particular "danger" from that particular tradition?

---

quote:

---

I realize, of course, that nobody in Latin America (or anywhere else) is advocating what for lack of a better term I'll call "the Soviet model".

---

I think that in many particulars, Cuba does indeed follow the Soviet model, and recommends it to other Latin Americans. They don't call it that, but deeds speak.

Do I see a "danger"? Well, of course there is always the danger that revolutions turn sour, lose the support of the public, become undemocratic and ultimately dictatorial.

Overall, I haven't seen much of that yet in Venezuela, or Bolivia, or elsewhere. Supporters of radical change in those countries should remain wary of usurpers, of patriarchs who may come to substitute themselves for the people, but should also support positive changes in property ownership, rights, etc,.

I mention the fact that I have travelled in these countries to give weight to the proposition that Cuban Communism is not the only left tradition in Latin America. The left there is FAR broader than that. Lots of leftists in the South don't think Cuban Communism is an appropriate path for them, precisely because of the undemocratic nature of the regime there.

Since your name is RosaL, perhaps you will remember what Rosa Luxemburg said about the Communist Party of Lenin:

quote:

---

"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element."

---

What would she say about Cuba?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
When Ortega was defeated electorally ten years ago, he accepted it; his adherence to democratic procedures is highly praiseworthy.

---

1. The Cuban government for all its virtues ought to stop imprisoning people for criticizing the government and ought to implement some sort of an electoral process where the voice of people can be heard and where they are free to accept or reject their current government.

2. East Germany was totally wrong to build the Berlin Wall and to murder people who wa nted to cross into West Berlin. The Stasi was also a bad thing and people who were apart of it should b e punished.

3. The Soviet union was wrong to have invaded such foreign countries as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Afghanistan and it was also not nice of them to throw Czech democrats like jan masaryk out of a window in 1948.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
You know Fidel, all you have to do is say the following three things and these endless threads of Stalinism and democracy will die from a lack of oxygen. All you have to do is repeat after me:

---

1. American gulags - get the hell out of Gitmo -and close the very undemocratic SOA once and for all.

2. General Reinhard Gehlen, and thousands of Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. and Canada should have been lined up against a cement wall not handed government paycheques, and later, social security and Canada pensions!.

3. Yanks want embargoing for their present day military occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and missile deployments in Eastern Europe.

quote:

---

Just say yest to all of the above and we can start a new thread on a new topic.

---

Likewise

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

That is the difference, we are willing to criticize things we disagree with no who is responsible. You just refuse to ever acknowledge that totalitarian Communist regimes have made some major mistakes and have shown serious disregard for human life and for human rights.

What bizarre world do you live in where saying that people should be free to criticize their governments without fear of going to jail and saying that it is wrong to "shoot to kill" people trying to leave a country like East Germany becomes an exmaple of "support for American imperialism"???

In answer to your "questions"

1. American gulags - get the hell out of Gitmo -and close the very undemocratic SOA once and for all.

I agree. Gitmo should be closed down. I'm waiting to hear if you also agree that forced labour camps in Communist countries shodl also be shut down.

2. General Reinhard Gehlen, and thousands of Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. and Canada should have been lined up against a cement wall not handed government paycheques, and later, social security and Canada pensions!.

I oppose the death penalty so i would not favour "lining anyone up against a cement wall", but I think that Nazi war criminals should be prosecuted whereever they are.

3. Yanks want embargoing for their present day military occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and missile deployments in Eastern Europe.

The Nicaraguan example shows that the US is capable of exerting pressure on democratic elections;

The Venezuelan example shows that: despite such pressure, it is possible for a free people to exercise a real choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

The most recent elections in Nicaragua, in which Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, was re-elected after a ten year hiatus, show that when revolutionaries have accepted the democratic results in the past, the people will more readily trust them with power in the future.

---

But they weren't free or fair elections from which the people's choice emerged in spite of outside "pressure" as you described it. The CIA and television broadcast stations attempted a military coup against democratically-elected president Chavez.

And Haiti is missing its democratically-elected leader altogether. Haiti isn't in Central Asia where a U.S.-backed stooge is referred to as the mayor of Kabul, or where Salvadoran-style death squads have been operating in Iraq.

But you are suggesting that Cubans and ourselves simply ignore all these other examples of U.S. interference in democracy to concentrate on the one Latin American country which has successfully avoided neo-colonialization by way of U.S. military or CIA or by graft and corruption of its political leaders. That's a helluva lot of undemocratic maneuvering to sweep under the rug for the sake of a hollow sermon on democracy, Jeff.

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

What would she say about Cuba?

---

I think most people in the "revolutionary tradition" have drawn certain conclusions from the Soviet experience, one of which is that democracy is essential to socialism, though I wouldn't call what we have here democracy. (It's not that we have too much but that we have too little.) And, yes, I think Rosa was right, though she wasn't caught up in the midst of the civil war and sabotage and pressures that followed the October revolution so it was easier for her to take the position she did. (Lenin had said much the same before the revolution.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I oppose the death penalty so i would not favour "lining anyone up against a cement wall", but I think that Nazi war criminals should be prosecuted whereever they are.

---

I'm sure the war criminals would find comfort in your opposition to their death penalties. Especially when they themselves showed no such mercy for the millions of Jewish men, women and children who were prodded and pushed to the gas chambers and incinceration ovens - the millions of Russians killed, drowned, burned alive by flamthrowers, POW's tortured and beaten to death or died horrible deaths in general.

quote:

---

3. Yanks want embargoing for their present day military occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and missile deployments in Eastern Europe.

---

quote:

---

This point is too incoherent to respond to. Learn to write for a change.

---

Well if you or anyone who looks like you ever once uttered misgivings about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, then you should be saying the exact same things about Canada's aiding and abetting U.S. imperialism in the exact same country today. It's easy when I think about it. It appears to have stumped you though.

[ 20 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I'm sure the war criminals would find comfort in your opposition to their death penalties. Especially when they themselves showed no such mercy for the millions of Jewish men, women and children who were prodded and pushed to the gas chambers and incinceration ovens - the millions of Russians killed, drowned, burned alive by flamthrowers, POW's tortured and beaten to death or died horrible deaths in general.

---