Don't be daft John, you need more than one o level to get to UNI...he took a part time course at Night school.
Well..possibly..bur surely this was the argument between Stalin and Trotsky and the debate between cementing revolution at home before the crackpot ideology can be exported?
The Soviet Union was responsible for the deaths of millions in slave labour camps by "starving and working to death". As for "sponsoring revolutionary movements", is that what they did at the end of the war in Poland, Hungary, Rumania, East Germany etc?...seems to me they went and "took what they wanted" just like the Nazis. There is no moral difference between the Nazi system and the old Soviet system. They both dealt in repression and death to ordinary people.
What type of ideology, other than crackpot, can one expect from a maniac? Anyway the debate was settled in the fall of 1940.
What's this nonsense '..the fall of 1940'? You are not a Yank - you are a loyal subject of HM the Queen so be so good as to use her language. I assume you are referring to Autumn 1940. However, Trotsky got the ice pick in his head in august of that year and the last time I looked august was a summer month...unless, of course, it's different in Canada.

I'm no apologist for Stalinism ... not an easy task for anyone, however, commited he is to socialism ... but in terms of degree, I do believe the Nazis were worse. Ok millions starved in the Ukraine during the soviet version of the agricultural revolution ... revisionist history, the mock trials, the Gulags etc etc. But after the war the Soviets did what the French would have liked to do in 1919, only to a greater degree. And Hungary? German allies and mass murderers of jews. Romania? German allies and mass murderers of jews. East Germans? Nazis, and murderers of anyone they could lay their hands on.
Many lay some of the blame for WWll on the 1939 non-aggression pact. But a reading of the history of the time reveals that if the Franco-British alliance had not been so anti-soviet, they could possibly have had the same alliance with Russia. However, the Russians did not start the war, and after they were invaded by the Germans, their commitment to victory over the Nazis was unreserved.
...The Soviet Union was a brutal, murderous regime which unfortunately in the past has been romanticized by woolly-minded socialists in this country.
Aye, and don't forget China under yon mon Mao. Thirty million popped it simply because they'd nowt to put in the wok, thanks to his 'Great Leap Forward'. These days of course, the Chinese are more capitalist than the capitalists yet they still queue up to pay homage to his rotten corpse.

How could the Nazis be worse "in terms of degree"? I admit I don't have the figures to hand and figures can be manipulated, but I've read somewhere that the Soviet system was responsible for more deaths than the Nazis. Even if not true, I don't see how the Nazis were worse than the Soviets. As for the enslavement of Eastern Europe after the war, was Poland a German ally? I thought that's how we got involved because the Nazis invaded them? As for countries like Hungary being German allies, is the replacement of one evil, repressive system with another evil, repressive system progress? The Soviet Union was a brutal, murderous regime which unfortunately in the past has been romanticized by woolly-minded socialists in this country.
) don't forget the millions of Nazi soldiers that the Soviets killed, one's that would have shown up for a day at the beach in '44 if they hadn't been too busy getting the you-know-what kicked out of them on the Eastern Front. (Might also be worthwhile to go deeper into ancient history and look at the provisions of Brest-Litovsk ... and those were imposed by the kinder, gentler, warm fuzzy Germans of the Kaiser's Reich.
) One doesn't have to like what the Russians did in Eastern Europe after the war, but it isn't hard to understand why they did it. After all, 30+ million dead and a devastated country would tend to pee off even the nicest guys, let alone Stalin, Beria and other associated genocidal maniacs.Poland's been the doormat of Eastern Europe for centuries ... and if you wish to mention figures (even manipulated ones) don't forget the millions of Nazi soldiers that the Soviets killed, one's that would have shown up for a day at the beach in '44 if they hadn't been too busy getting the you-know-what kicked out of them on the Eastern Front. (Might also be worthwhile to go deeper into ancient history and look at the provisions of Brest-Litovsk ... and those were imposed by the kinder, gentler, warm fuzzy Germans of the Kaiser's Reich.
) One doesn't have to like what the Russians did in Eastern Europe after the war, but it isn't hard to understand why they did it. After all, 30+ million dead and a devastated country would tend to pee off even the nicest guys, let alone Stalin, Beria and other associated genocidal maniacs.
So you're telling me that the Soviet empire somehow wasn't as evil as the Nazi regime? Well, sorry, Eric, can't accept that. They both killed millions of ordinary citizens indiscriminately and trampled over human rights. There have been quite a few Labour party members and trade unionists who have been apologists for the Soviet system in the past; to me they're no better than those who support the Nazis.
But it's always fun to argue in a sane, civilized manner. I'm not giving up by the way. Feel free to continue

Poland's been the doormat of Eastern Europe for centuries ...
Well if you can't accept it, that's fine. If I were looking for coverts to my opinions, even tho' I've given them lots of thought, I would probably look somewhere elseBut it's always fun to argue in a sane, civilized manner. I'm not giving up by the way. Feel free to continue
![]()
Interesting article here, Eric. Seems the Soviet death count wasn't as high as first thought but a lot of their death toll was due to a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing as a result of their own evil ideology, not some kind of noble failed experiment or act of self-defence.
Seems to me there's not much to choose between 'em - death counts in the millions, many of them quite deliberate. A legacy of mass misery from both of these vile regimes!
Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More? by Timothy Snyder | The New York Review of Books
Adolph and the Nazis. Uncle Joe, Beria etc. are fading into history, along with other ethnic cleansers such as the Turks and General Philip Sheridan. Hitler isn't.
... isn't really all that important in terms of the British political scene in the 20th century. British democratic socialism has, in the main, always been more democratic than it has socialist. And no matter how much you try to argue that left-wing genocidal maniacs are as bad as, or worse than the nazis, you can't alter that fact.Still counting, eh. Doesn't make any difference ... crunch numbers till all atomic motion ceases in Hades ... you can't change the fact that popular historical memory has voted. And the winner isAdolph and the Nazis. Uncle Joe, Beria etc. are fading into history, along with other ethnic cleansers such as the Turks and General Philip Sheridan. Hitler isn't.
And the point you seem to be trying to make ... let me see ... is is that some democratic socialists, or many of them, cozied up to Stalin... isn't really all that important in terms of the British political scene in the 20th century. British democratic socialism has, in the main, always been more democratic than it has socialist. And no matter how much you try to argue that left-wing genocidal maniacs are as bad as, or worse than the nazis, you can't alter that fact.

Right, Less, send for the firing squad. For my last meal, could I have black pudding from that stall on Accy market with English mustard please?![]()
What I'm saying is this...the Soviets, just like the Nazis, killed millions of people to satisfy their own perverted ideology, therefore there is NO moral difference between them. Whether people chose to remember the evil of Stalin and other Soviet leaders or to let them "fade into history" is irrelevant. That's a fact.
Therefore, for a Labour party politico to support the Soviets is just as morally reprehensible as a right wing politico expressing Nazi sympathies. So what I was saying to C'mon is, no, you don't get Labour types supporting Adolf, but you have had them flirting with Soviet communism even in its most extreme Stalinist form, which is just as bad.
Right, Less, send for the firing squad. For my last meal, could I have black pudding from that stall on Accy market with English mustard please?![]()
Hote kwiseen du Lancashire. One food I really miss ... right up there with steak and kidney pudding. Can't get 'em here. Closest thing is some Quebecois muck called boudin. But can get the real mustard .... Now, this is a wander; unless the UKIP has policies governing the manufacture and marketing of black puddings. Come to think of it, the EU probably has regs governing the black pudding ... these regs, no doubt, fill at least fifteen volumes, closely typed.
Hopefully, UKIP will, when they have power, move swiftly and decisively to streamline the regs, and clarify what it is that makes a true Black Pudding.
Black puddingsHote kwiseen du Lancashire. One food I really miss ... right up there with steak and kidney pudding. Can't get 'em here. Closest thing is some Quebecois muck called boudin. But can get the real mustard .... Now, this is a wander; unless the UKIP has policies governing the manufacture and marketing of black puddings. Come to think of it, the EU probably has regs governing the black pudding ... these regs, no doubt, fill at least fifteen volumes, closely typed.
Hopefully, UKIP will, when they have power, move swiftly and decisively to streamline the regs, and clarify what it is that makes a true Black Pudding.
By the by ... what's your take on the Cambridge Four (or Five)?

We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.