75th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Starvation

[Higgly]

And don't forget the happy smiling faces in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge! BTW, Batista didn't make a habit of slaughtering thousands under extra-legal whim judgements by Che, the psychotic under-endowed freakshow.

And some would argue that Bush arranged 911 and that man never set foot on the moon. Some would even argue that the earth is flat. You're aligning yourself in good company!

Nobody mentioned Cambodia, but since you brought it up, it has been argued that the Suspension of US Aid to the government of Lon Nol is what made it possible for the Khmer to Gain power in Cambodia.

Batista was a violent guy. After taking power (1933), he executed many of the old guard and he used violence and torture throughout his administration(s)s to repress resistance. The Wikipedia article on Guevara says the show trials involved hundreds, not thousands of people. Since the Castro revolution was a popular uprising, there was not a lot of need for the kind of violence Batista had to employ.

Your last sentence is unsupported, but typical of you.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Higgly

[Higgly]

I hate to break this little historical tidbit to you, but the South wasn't fighting to occupy North Vietnam, it was fighting to keep North Vietnam out of South Vietnam. I have another newsflash for you too...Vietnam wasn't a civil war; it was two sovereign nations at war. And just what does the overthrow of Diem have in parallel with some hypothetical never-contemplated occupation of North Vietnam?

In a recent PBS interview Robert McNamara said otherwise. He admitted that it was in fact a civil war and that the US administration was badly informed. So too are you.

[M.Dancer]

According to wiki....

Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Some sources say 156 people were executed, while others give far higher figures. Thomas E. Skidmore, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Brown University, estimated the number executed in the first six months of 1959 to have been "about 550".[

And in the following 600 months.....

British historian Hugh Thomas, in his extensive study Cuba or the pursuit of freedom[15] alleged that "perhaps" 5,000 executions had taken place by 1970,[12]

[Higgly]

According to wiki....

And in the following 600 months.....

Perhaps, but to say that this was attributable to Communism alone is mis-leading. You can find many non-Communist governments with a more sorry track record than this.

However, this thread is not about Communism, and I am not interested in being a defender of a form of government that I do not believe in.

I merely want to make the point that it is not the form of government, but its leaders who are most to blame for the murderous activities of any given regime, and I lay the slaughter of millions of Ukrainians at the feet of Stalin, which is where this began.

[M.Dancer]

I merely want to make the point that it is not the form of government, but its leaders who are most to blame for the murderous activities of any given regime, and I lay the slaughter of millions of Ukrainians at the feet of Stalin, which is where this began.

Fair enough yet there is not one communist gov't that hasn't had a bloodbath while you can find numerous non coms who haven't.

And I would say it is precisely because of its ideaology that makes it possible. It demands that the greater good be met, come hell or high water, individuals or groups who stand in the way get beaten down. This may be true of non com dictatorships too, but then again, all communist gov'ts are dictatorships.

[Higgly]

Fair enough yet there is not one communist gov't that hasn't had a bloodbath while you can find numerous non coms who haven't.

And I would say it is precisely because of its ideaology that makes it possible. It demands that the greater good be met, come hell or high water, individuals or groups who stand in the way get beaten down. This may be true of non com dictatorships too, but then again, all communist gov'ts are dictatorships.

Allende was democratically elected and there are a few Indian states with democratically elected communist governments. Italy would likely have peacefully elected one in 1948 were it not for CIA interference.

Here's a link to a list of general mayhem and bloodbaths the US has instigated in its search to bring freedom and democracy to the world. There are a few inaccuracies, but it still tells a pretty sorry tale: Gautemala, Panama, the Congo...

Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -- indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The poor man was obviously a "communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guardsmen and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"

George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Higgly

[DogOnPorch]

Allende was democratically elected and there are a few Indian states with democratically elected communist governments. Italy would likely have peacefully elected one in 1948 were it not for CIA interference.

Here's a link to a list of general mayhem and bloodbaths the US has instigated in its search to bring freedom and democracy to the world. There are a few inaccuracies, but it still tells a pretty sorry tale: Gautemala, Panama, the Congo...

Higgly: How about if we decide to debate that point in another thread so that the important issue (the mass murder of millions of Ukrainians for a political purpose and its subsequent cover-up) is front and centre?

Hmmmm?

lol

---------------------------------------------------------

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

---Karl Marx

[Higgly]

Yes, well you see it is my thread

[Sulaco]

Allende was democratically elected and there are a few Indian states with democratically elected communist governments. Italy would likely have peacefully elected one in 1948 were it not for CIA interference.

Here's a link to a list of general mayhem and bloodbaths the US has instigated in its search to bring freedom and democracy to the world. There are a few inaccuracies, but it still tells a pretty sorry tale: Gautemala, Panama, the Congo...

Now this - this is thread hijacking writ large. Let's look back a few pages - hmmm...

Ooops, I guess I wasn't the only one to spot this little tidbit of hypocrisy.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

Or the burning of Atlanta.

In a civil war you have two sides fighting for control of one country. They fight until one side defeats the other.

If the south had won in Vietnam you can be damned sure there would have been a bloodbath in Hanoi. Just look at what happened to Diem while the US conveniently looked the other way. You think the south was run by a bunch of school ma'rms?

However, I concede that the execution of landowners by the North Vietnamese (which I missed)3 takes them off the list.

I see Cuba has still not been mentioned. I take then, M.Dancer, I have named the one you asked for ?

That is not an answer to my question. Perhaps there is no real answer. Whether the Vietnam conflict constituted a civil war (and I tend to believe it falls outside of the definition - I guess I disagree with McNamare - but then he foguht the whole thing badly as well so what the heck) is not really relevant to any judgments we are discussing here. Why then is that "fact" constantly trotted out?

[M.Dancer]

Allende was democratically elected and there are a few Indian states with democratically elected communist governments. Italy would likely have peacefully elected one in 1948 were it not for CIA interference.

Allende was elected but Chile was not a communist state.

[Oleg Bach]

Allende was elected but Chile was not a communist state.

Getting back to the Ukrainian holocaust- it was primarily the killing of non-compliant Christians and Jews. Those that resisted having their ancestoral identity and land taken by corporates. Like I said - international incorporation by private hands is akin to communist collectivism - they are the same - as we see farms swallowed up by the big boys and the families that cared for the land for 200 years being pushed aside...well - what is taking place with the people of the land in America and Canada is no different other than starving them rapidly they in a sense kill them quickly but leave them breathing...got some onions the other day - from Mexico...why? I thought we could grow an onion - apparently they do not want us to grow food...or be free.

[ScottSA]

In a recent PBS interview Robert McNamara said otherwise. He admitted that it was in fact a civil war and that the US administration was badly informed. So too are you.

Robert McNamara has got to be in his 90s by now, so he can be forgiven the addled memory. Perhaps he would be so good as to point at the plans for Southern occupation of the north? He can't, so he's just being silly. Saigon never ever planned to take over Hanoi. You are, as usual, arguing well out of your depth.

[Rue]

. Stalin may go down in history as the greatest murderer who ever existed.

I have heard some articles say as high as 20 million. It can never be forgotten or it will be repeated again. To try even define Stalin with human words is impossible. Evil is the only one I will muster.

[capricorn]

It can never be forgotten or it will be repeated again.

By all evidence, Putin wants it to be forgotten especially in Russia. Critics say it's an ill conceived attempt at raising pride within the country. That's why Putin and his government ignore the yearly ceremonies marking these infamous crimes during the Soviet era.

The ceremony at the Church of New Martyrs and Confessors is one of a series of events planned throughout this year to mark the 70th anniversary of the Great Purge of 1937, when millions were labeled "enemies of the state" and executed without trial or sent to labor camps.

There were no representatives of the government, which has shown little interest in the anniversary of the Great Purge. This is in keeping with efforts by President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, to restore Russians' pride in their Soviet-era history by softening the public perception of Stalin's rule.

"We have been ordered to be proud of our past," said Yan Rachinsky from Memorial, a non-governmental group dedicated to investigating Stalin's repression.

Then he makes excuses with gets a dig in against the US:

Putin said in June that although the 1937 purge was one of the most notorious episodes of the Stalin era, no one should try to make Russia feel guilty about it because "in other countries even worse things happened."

The Russian president, speaking to a gathering of history teachers, suggested the United States' use of atomic weapons against Japan at the end of World War II was among those things.

And in another attempt to minimize these crimes:

Russia has never sought to bring to justice KGB officials implicated in human rights abuses committed during the Communist era.

http://www.mnweekly.ru/politics/20070809/55266263.html

It's so true that ignoring history increases the chances it will be repeated.

[Higgly]

That is not an answer to my question. Perhaps there is no real answer. Whether the Vietnam conflict constituted a civil war (and I tend to believe it falls outside of the definition - I guess I disagree with McNamare - but then he foguht the whole thing badly as well so what the heck) is not really relevant to any judgments we are discussing here. Why then is that "fact" constantly trotted out?

You can disagree with McNamara as you may please, but I take his word over yours in the matter, and over that of any other member of this board.

[Higgly]

Now this - this is thread hijacking writ large. Let's look back a few pages - hmmm...

Ooops, I guess I wasn't the only one to spot this little tidbit of hypocrisy.

I am not the one who keeps leading the discussion off-track. If you or anybody else wants to do so, then, as the thread starter, I am going to exercise the right to respond. If you don't like it, then tough.

[Sulaco]

You can disagree with McNamara as you may please, but I take his word over yours in the matter, and over that of any other member of this board.

I wonder if that has always been your principled position or if this is a recent coneversion to the Word of McNamara.

[Higgly]

I wonder if that has always been your principled position or if this is a recent coneversion to the Word of McNamara.

You're joking, right?

Here we have the opinion of a collection of anonymous mooks against that of a guy who actually sat down at the cabinet table, was party to the discussions of the President's inner circle, was consulted for his opinion, had all of the input of the US intelligence services at the highest possible security level, went to the peace conferences, listened to the principle negotiators, has had decades to reflect and talk to his contacts...

And you want to argue with him?

Edited November 28, 2007 by Higgly

[xul]

find one communist nation that didn't have a reign of terror.

Sometimes we should conprehencd these phenomena from a historic view point. George Washington got hundreds of Africian slaves in his home, but we can hardly condemn he was a brute barbarian because nearly every rich white guys got slaves in their home then.

The "genocide" after communists ruled China in 1950s were more like the revenge in my country's history rather than its communism property. Both my grandfather (my mother's father) and my wife's grandfather were officials of fomer Guomintang government. Her grandfather was executed in 1950s but my grandfather was survived and even got a job in new government. What is the different between them?

Because my grandfather worked in a former government department in charge of administration water and electricity something so he had not opportunity to involve any business of surpressing communists. But my wife's grandfather was the head of a county, he had to do someting to support his government to suppress communist. Former government was not mercy to treat those communists and most western and China human rights activists always fogret our country only kissed off our emperor less than 30 years then, and they also easily forget the guillotines in Europe then white guys kissed off their kings.

I think communism is wrong because it is based on hatred. It is not the hatred of foreigner like racism and Nazism, but it is a "selfhatred" in a nation by inciting the poor people to hate the rich people. This is another part of why there were a lot of persecution happened in communism country. If a person who was tought to believe his good live was stolen by another guy and he made him lived in beggary and nasty, what would he react to this one whom he believed hurt him so lot?

Edited November 28, 2007 by xul

[Higgly]

Sometimes we should conprehencd these phenomena from a historic view point. George Washington got hundreds of Africian slaves in his home, but we can hardly condemn he was a brute barbarian because nearly every rich white guys got slaves in their home then.

The "genocide" after communists ruled China in 1950s were more like the revenge in my country's history rather than its communism property. Both my grandfather (my mother's father) and my wife's grandfather were officials of fomer Guomintang government. Her grandfather was executed in 1950s but my grandfather was survived and even got a job in new government. What is the different between them?

Because my grandfather worked in a former government department in charge of administration water and electricity something so he had not opportunity to involve any business of surpressing communists. But my wife's grandfather was the head of a county, he had to do someting to support his government to suppress communist. Former government was not mercy to treat those communists and most western and China human rights activists always fogret our country only kissed off our emperor less than 30 years then, and they also easily forget the guillotines in Europe then white guys kissed off their kings.

I think communism is wrong because it is based on hatred. It is not the hatred of foreigner like racism and Nazism, but it is a "selfhatred" in a nation by inciting the poor people to hate the rich people. This is another part of why there were a lot of persecution happened in communism country. If a person who was tought to believe his good live was stolen by another guy and he made him lived in beggary and nasty, what would he react to this one whom he believed hurt him so lot?

I once had a job where I was supervised by a woman who had escaped when the Guomintang were being driven out. She and her family were considered part of the Guomintang, although she was an academic. In Canada, she was a valuable part of the scientific plumbing. A brilliant scientist who had to settle for less than what she might have been.

This is exactly the kind of thing she used to say.

[Rue]

If it hasn't become apparent already, my number one pet peeve about this board is the number of posters that are compelled to toss out silly allegations about what "the left" thinks, feels or does without any qualification or quantification. For Christ's sake, people, if you're going to make stupid generalizations, at least put a little effort into supporting it. Make up an anecdote if you have to, just do something.

Black Dog in direct response to you (given what you told me in another post) and Higgly may I say this from the heart despite our past debates;

1-I really am saddened when people talk of such horrors by comparing them to others as if it is a pissing match to see which one was worse;

2-each genocide is unique and to truly honour and respect its victims should in my opinion not be used generically or in comparison to any other;

3-as a Jew who had relatives die in the Ukraine yes I have bad memories of certain things in Kiev with Nazi collaborators but categorically refuse to let that colour this event that is just wrong;

4-the forced starvation of you say 13 million (I have read as high as 20 million) is a horror and genocide that no words can capture;

5-to me it is inexcusable Stephen Harper did not speak frankly about it and refer to it for what it was a deliberately planned genocide and I think that must have hurt many Ukrainians deeply but it should be something we all should disagree with;

6-for me individually, I must remember it the same way I do the holocaust or the massacres in Kampuchea, Sudan, the forced famines in Iran, the Armenian genocide and so many others-if we do not remember it, it will happen again;

To understand the depth of how depraved Stalin was I am afraid also defies human words. To understand just how many he killed, tortured, tormented and the institutions he created and used to administer his hell must be studied so that we can prevent it from happening again.

I will not forget Bdog. The thing that causes me to debate you and Higgly forcefully at times is precisely why I stand by Higgly's comments and yours.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Rue

[Wilber]

Some would argue that the US has had several reigns of terror - they just do it to someone else. For example, Iran under the Shah.

That is highly debatable but the difference is that the US government has never relied on a secret police or a reign of terror to keep itself in power nor would the people let it.

As I recall, those boat people were being referred to as economic refugees when they tried to apply for refugee status here and in Australia.

You would be wrong, many were considered political refugees as well. Not all were fleeing either. Over 700,000 were ethnic Chinese expelled from Vietnam. Thousands of boat people were taken in by Canada in 1979 and 1980. Hundreds of thousands of others were put into so called re education camps in Vietnam, Cultural Revolution style.

Or the burning of Atlanta.

In a civil war you have two sides fighting for control of one country. They fight until one side defeats the other.

True, but once the US civil war ended the killing stopped. Not true after most communist takeovers.

[xul]

That is highly debatable but the difference is that the US government has never relied on a secret police or a reign of terror to keep itself in power nor would the people let it.

Perhaps, but people would also remember J. Edgar Hoover, who had kept the job of FBI chief for 48 years when he died in his occupation, more longer than his KGB opponents. It is very weird to an official in a democracy country.

I am not saying FBI was as the same as KGB. But if KGB wanted to uncrown their general secretary, they might just arrest him and throw him into prison. And FBI had the ability to crumple government by sent some dirt material of politicians from their secret archives to public media.

[xul]

I think that what kind of system or policy of a nation or a region for their own business was decided by a person or a group of people who lived far from them is wrong. Just imagine, if there was a person who lived in Havaii, and all traffic sign in his town was set by police in Washington by map, how would he expect that these facilities could convenience him?

So America and Canada's system is good. States or provinces have their own legislature to modify their local laws.

I think what Mao did in Tabet was wrong. Slavery is bad in modern moral criterian. But even if Mao tried to use democracy not communism replacing slavery just as Mr.Bush did in Iraq(if he did do these just as he said for democracy not for oil ), I also think he was wrong. If the people here had no will to pursue those "advanced system", who would have the right to enforce them?