In Defense of WWII: Part 3 of 5

[PkayerZxz2]

Germany was going to invade Russia, this was inevitable, and a necessary strategic move.

[qwertypoiu4321]

8:48- There would not have been a Berlin wall if it were not for the British-US invasion of Germany.

[qwertypoiu4321]

4:25- Churchill started getting funded by a Zionist pressure group The Focus in 1936, and then after this in 1936 started saying he would not breath the same air as someone with a lower death toll than Mussolini or Stalin. Hitler's death toll in 1939-9 was less than 200, Stalin's death toll in 1939-9 was 10,000,000. Churchill was just a warmonger.

5:10- Churchill wanted to keep German's under foreign rule. That is not anti-appeasement, that is anti-self-determination.

[qwertypoiu4321]

2:13- Hansen is such a fool. Hitler invaded Russia because he had to militarily stop Britain's potential allies, and since the US was not possible he decided Russia. If Britain would have stayed out of Germany's affairs in the east there would not have been a conflict with Britain and France, and Germany may have eventually went to war against Russia.

[Chinomareno]

@qwertypoiu4321

You are a moron, seriously read about the subject instead of spewing lies from some bullshit conspiracy site. First, Britain's involvement came after the invasion of Poland after the concession of Austria. Poland was also partly absorbed by Russian forces by a prior agreement. Germany was at the time closer to Russia than Britain, the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarian Empires were gone. That and Churchill attacked the Bolsheviks in 1918 trying to stamp out the revolution.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@Chinomareno Britain/France gave a war guarantee to keep Germans under Polish rule. After Britain/France did this Poland refused to negotiate German-Danzig with Germany, which forced Germany into an alliance with their enemy Russia to take Danzig back.

Germany was never going to go west, never mind take over the earth, that is child-history.

[Chinomareno]

@qwertypoiu4321

Germany broke the non-aggression treaty it signed with Russia in a bid to remove Russia as a permanent threat. Russia had a endless reserves of man power and an impressive scientific muscle that had visibly laid dormant, the Germans knew their technological, industrial and military doctrinal edge would not last much longer if they allowed the country to industrialize. In the end they failed and were predictably crushed by waves of advanced weapons and manpower.

[no6alias]

Does it strike anyone as unfair that

Buchanan and Ferguson are not at the table? Nor is anyone present to defend

the opposing viewpoint..

[DrCruel]

We didn't help Saddam into power - the Soviets did, and maintained his regime with funds and arms for over a decade, as they did with other Ba'ath socialist regimes in the region (such as under the Assads in Syria). We did not give him WMDs, did not aid his regime against Iran, and spent the 1980s trying to stop the Iran-Iraq war.

Some ISO fellow even tried to convince me that Saddam git his weapons from the US - despite loads of Warsaw Pact gear in his arsenal.

I still remember 1991.

[DrCruel]

There's no question that Stalin was a murderous psychopath, but it is high hypocrisy for Trotsky, of all people, to call him out on it. And you allude to the real crime of Stalin in the eyes of his Marxist colleagues - not in the brutal repression of the general public and the mass exterminations of entirel classes of people (a moral good to Bolsheviks) but rather that he applied these same methods to fellow Marxists, even those high in the Party heirarchy.

This the oligarchs could not abide

[TBlake34]

If that's all they have against Stalin, then they're morons. You are, of course, comedically summarizing a wide range of thought, but subtlety obviously isn't your strength. If you look at contemporary Marxist philosophy in the West it is virtually 100% critical of the attrocities, civil liberty infringement, and humanitarian disaster that has been indicitive of nearly all actually communist governments. They also criticize attrocities commited by democracies.

[DrCruel]

I have become familiar with Marxist "philosophy" over a thirty year span. One thing that stands out quite dramatically (Orwell aludes to this) is the utter malleability of this secular religion - that is, that Marxists can claim diametrically opposite conclusions at different times without acknowledging being wrong in either case. Thus how Saddam's Ba'athist regime can be an egalitarian and popular regime in 1991 and a CIA-planted dictatorship in 2005.

[DrCruel]

Similarly, Noam Chomsky could defend and even laud the Khmer Rouge in 1975, denying the wealth of info regarding their crimes, and later condemn them in 1978 and on (after teh Vietnamese communists declared war on them).

I've been honest and truthful about the record of Marxism and Marxist leaders from the Russian Revolution to the present day. Nothing I've said is controversial, and all of it is supported by the historical record. Having you call it otherwise changes nothing.

[DrCruel]

(Incidentally, according to "contemporary" Marxist philosophy, the argument is that former communist societies were never actually "Marxist" - they were in fact "state capitalist" governments, and that no "true" Marxist society has ever existed in history.

This from the exact same people who used to champion the Soviet Union after 1989.

My agenda is the truth. If that inconveniences you, that's not my problem.)

[TBlake34]

Sure, SOME people who self-identify as Marxists hold that position. As I said earlier, Marx never described what the government would look like after the inevitable revolts, so people can theorize at liberty about what a "real" Marxist government would be.

I would like you to offer an example of an individual who holds the two views you claim are held by all "contemporary" Marxists.

You do not understand arguments and you show no desire to actually read what people write.

[DrCruel]

Tony Cliff? Noam Chomsky (who has ostentaciously gone "anarchist" of late)? Practically any speaker at an ISO-run "International ANSWER" astroturf protest event?

I "understand arguments", have provided evidence and have been very patient with you, and have done my best not to imitate your method of "argument by insult". I have responded to your comments, but you have decided to ignore what I've said and simply continue your stream of invective.

It has thus far done you no good.

[TBlake34]

He neither defended nor lauded the Khmer Rouge, I notice you haven't bothered to offer even a rudimentary quote to justify that nonsense.

The only position he took was that the West exaggerated attrocities commited by the Khmer Rouge for propaganda purposes. He did not say the attrocities never occured, he was, as I QUOTED earlier, against them from the beginning, and he criticized Western powers for initially propping them up.

But why look at his actual writings, so easy to make stuff up.

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: He said there were no attrocities. Most of the left was utterly blind to the nature of the Khmer Rouge, as they were to the attrocities of Mao, who was Pol Pots inspiration. Why do leftist cling to their Peter Pan pretense of nonresponsibility for all the suffering they have brought to this world?

[TBlake34]

Sigh...

First of all, even if Chomsky did say those things I don't understand how that amounts to bringing suffering into the world. Pol Pot would have done as he did whether or not Noam Chomsky ever existed.

But, of course, that's a misrepresentation of his actual statements, so you fail twice.

Why do rightists continue to exist in a Peter Pan fantasy world devoid of facts and history?

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: I have read the statements of Numbskull Chumpsky. He never met a foreign dictator he didn't like, so long as they were hostile to the U.S. & a stooge of either the Soviets or Mao's China. You don't see how being an apologist for murderous psychopath is morally iffy? Pol Pot worshipped the hallucination of Mao's Utopia, just like so many of Chumpsky's academic fan club. Chumpsky only makes these statements to be a hero to his ilk academia.

[TBlake34]

Alright, no reason to keep talking to you.

Find me a quote or shut up.

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: I am not going to waste my time wading through the verbal dreck of Chumpsky. I don't commit a man like that's words to memory. His remarks on Pol Pot are common knowledge, he was an apologist for Pol Pot & denied the magnitude of the massacre. This is common knowledge, as are the apologiae of Goebbels for Hitler. I hard have to dig up quotes of Goebbels to prove it. If you think that the consensu on Chumpsky is wrong. Show us quotes & where they are distorted. Find ME a quote!

[TBlake34]

Yep, I'm not surprised. If you scroll down in this retarded thread, you'll find a place where I already quoted Chomsky, but here you go, idiot:

"I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia."

Not hard to do when you're not making shit up.

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: No wonder you're a leftist. you are thicker then mollases in January. No, you idiot. I don't want to here his self justifying obfuscations of his remarks years after the fact. I am talking about what Chumpsky said about Pol Pot at the time Pol Pot was in power! I want his contemporaneous quotes.

As for your disgusting equivocating bit of self righteous nonsense. This is basically David Irving's position on the Holocaust. Pol Pot's crimes are NOT exaggerated!

[TBlake34]

Good lord you are stupid. It'd be impressive if it wasn't so depressingly common.

I could point out that you're the one making the claim, so you need to provide the quotes. I cannot prove with a quote that Chomsky DIDN'T say something. But, of course, that would require you to actually read and analyze the work instead of falling back on outdated bullshit and overwrought criticism that has Fred Barnes as its primary source (Look up the New Republic article).

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: You are the one who is the Chumpsky worshipper. I hate the man & have read enough of his dreck to know what I say is true. He said that the evacuation of Phenom Pehn probably SAVED lives! His writing are stinking cesspool. You want me to believe one of his particularly rank turds is actually white rather then brown. I am confident it is brown also. If you wish to prove it white & smells like a rose, fish it out for me & prove it.

[TBlake34]

Alright, this is a waste of time.

[VictorLepanto]

@TBlake34: Obviously, you are conceeding that there is no way to defend Chumpsky's odious remarks. It is an old game, you are caught saying something disgusting & when called on it, plead out of context. Saying that Pol Pot's deporting the whole nation to centration camps saved lives worse the David Irving's negationism. Some people like Chumpsky feel a pathological need to destroy anything that is close to them. Chumpsky hate America & Israel b/c he is a Jew & an American.

[TBlake34]

This is pointless because there's no subtlety in your thick skull. Obviously Chomsky's legacy is marred if not completely obscured by his bizarre work concerning Cambodia.

Where you go askew and into loon territory is when 1) You use that to attack the "left." Note that the best early information about Pol Pot (that Chomsky wrongly criticized) was produced by Marxists IN Cambodia.

And 2) when you say stupid shit like: "He never met a foreign dictator he didn't like..."

Silliness.

[AngrySkeptic]

Chomsky has defended the current North Korean government as "pragmatic".

That's all that really needs to be said.

[TBlake34]

Once again, I'd love to read a quote.

I've sort of fallen for the bait in this discussion, and find myself defending Chomsky. If we were talking about his revolutionary philosophy of language work, I wouldn't have a problem, but obviously his political writing career is full of over-simplifications and obfuscations.

Then there are those sorts of claims, Chomsky in Znet: "North Korea is one of the most horrible countries in the world, nothing good to say about it."

Show me your source.

[MrSalamander7]

@AngrySkeptic When did he say that?

[TBlake34]

Sure, that's a completely valid criticism of SOME Marxist theorists. The way Marxism was instantiated in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China it really was more like a dogmatic religion.

But this is true of all governments.

We helped Saddam achieve power in Iraq to use him against Iran in the 80's. We gave him WMD, satelite intelligence, and turned a blind eye as he massacred Iraqi citizens.

We never took responsibility for that and then executed him for crimes we supported.

[DorianGrayism]

He is intellectually dishonest. There is plenty of evidence linking Saddam to the US.

The CDC, a government department, trained an Iraqi Scientist for 3 months before they sent him back to Iraq with Anthrax and other biological weapons.

Western companies also helped to build the chemical plants for weapons production.

If they wanted to, the US could have organised an International Blockade as they had done with Nicargaea.

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: You are utterly ignorant & embarrassing in childish fantastic history. Saddam was a stooge of the Soviets in the Middle East. His Ba'athist Party had been collaborationist w/ the Nazis in WWII. The Iraqi military was totally based on Soviet models. We had nothing to do w/ this man being in power.

As for Nicaragua, do you even know what the word blockade means?

[DorianGrayism]

Where did I say that he wasn't supported by the Soviets as well?

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: He was a client of the Soviets. He was a tool in the great struggle of the Cold War. The Soviets sponsored the coup of the Ba'athist against the old royalist gov't left behind by the British. The Ba'athist military, bureacratic structure, & most especially intelligence/internal security apparatus were all organised & supported materially & financially by the Soviets. Don't waste my time w/ your weaselly morally equivocating BS of "as well." You are one w/ a pathological hatred.

[DorianGrayism]

@ Vic

Yes, but where did I say that the Soviets didn't support Iraq and that only the West did?

I am not sure where I wrote it. Can you point it out for me?

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: & yet you obtusely repeat the same moral eqivocating nonsense. You must be a Ph.D, in some humanities or Poli-Sci department somewhere. It takes alot of educating to make a mind so impervious to reality. The West & certainly not the U.S. didn't support Iraq in any meaningful way. We trade w/ all manner of nations, this is not support. Your idiotic propagandist's nonquestion is like old lawyer's canard, "Are you still beating your wife." We had nothing to do w/ Ba'athist Iraq.

[DorianGrayism]

@Vic

but I have never said that the Soviets didn't help Iraq. So I am not sure why you bothered to write about it.

I have already written about how the US trained an Iraqi scientist and gave him biological strains. That isn't trade.

I have already written how Western Companies largely built the Chemical Weapons capability of Iraq.

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: Perhaps in your delusional world it might seem otherwise, but the CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL is not part of the Dept of Defense or State. It is for DISEASE CONTROL, which means they train doctors to control diseases. They train doctors from all over the world to deal w/ all manner of diseases. They shouldn't have trained an Iraqi doctor, but I doubt if spend much time thinking about national security.

As for your weird affection for weasel vagueries like the West or largely...

[DorianGrayism]

@ Vic. The CDC trained the doctor before sending him strains of viruses that don't even exist in Iraq.

Anthrax and boutilium toxin were also sent to Iraq despite the fact that Saddam had already extensively used chemical WMDs.

These were sent to the Iraqi Energy Atomic Commission which has no medical remit.

These were sent with the approval of the Dept of Commerce.

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: I at a loss as to what you think this is all supposed to prove. If you are saying this was dumb thing to do, who would dispute you?

You do understand that Chemicals are not organisms? Bacteria are living things, mustard gas isn't?

Once again, patiently, like explaining to a slow child, neither the CDC nor the DoC are Defense or State. They are bureaucrats in a small agency & a low priority bureaucracy. National defense concerns aren't things they likely understand.

[DorianGrayism]

@ Vic

I never said that Chemicals were organisms.

Actually, what the DoC did was illegal since two of the viruses sent were on the Commodity Control List.

This was going on for several years so to claim that the Department of Defense or State did not know is not feasible.

Particularly since hundreds of strains of bacteria/fungi/ viruses were sent to Iraq.

[VictorLepanto]

@DorianGrayism: Wow! A bunch of bureaucrats screwed up & failed to follow the rules they are charged w/ enforcing! Wow, oh wow! Who ever heard of such a thing happening? & they did it chronically over several years? Anyone wonder why most Americans don't trust bureaucrats to run their health care?

"Not feasible?" Why pray tell? Maybe b/c our bloated, corrupt, incompetant gov't couldn't possibly have one part of its buraucracy not know what another is doing? Compelling argument there bub.

[DorianGrayism]

@ Vic

There is nothing to indicate that it was a mistake.

In a letter from the director of the CDC to Senator Don Reigle, he states that viruses and etc were given despite the knowledge they were on the Commodity Control List.

Anyway, ignoring that, one could also look at the financial help given to Iraq by the State Department extending their credit at the Export-Import Bank. This is despite concern at the EIB that Iraq could not pay back the loans (which they couldn't as was seen in 1990)

[DorianGrayism]

@ Vic

"As for your weird affection for weasel vagueries like the West or largely"

Well, I am just copying out of a US information memorandum written by Johnathon Howe in 1983 whilst he was a director in State Department.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons.......Iraq acquired a CW production capability from Western Firms"

[DrCruel]

Trotsky admits to using the Cheka during the worst of their atrocities. Your response is that he was "justified" by conditions. Trotsky invades Poland - you claim the Poles started it. Trotsky plots world revolution - you claim this makes him like the American Founding Fathers, who never plotted world revolution.

I've used Trotsky's own texts to back up my claims. You simply ignore the evidence, or say I haven't offered any.

What exactly is your problem?

[TBlake34]

I never said they were justified, I explained his reasoning, that you totally perverted. You refer to texts, but time and time again you have either intentionally misrepresented the contents or have been incapable of following the arguments contained therein.

Trotsky led the Red army into UKRAINE, where Poland had invaded in 1919. Poland was forced back to its capital before a treaty was signed. You consistently act like it was an attack out of the blue, just pathetic.

[DrCruel]

Marxism has within it an intrinsic problem - that, as capitalist financing and free market mechanisms are crucial for modern economies to exist, let alone flourish, that the Marxist economy is always in crisis. Without wages and consumer goods to reward workers, tehy must find alternate means to insure compliance.

The solution stumbled on was mass terror. Stalin certainly was skilled at applying this "reform", but Trotsky certainl was no stranger to the idea - nor was Lenin, who initiated it.

[DrCruel]

The misnomer that Marxists like to peddle is that Stalin was an outlier as a Marxist - that somehow he orchestrated all these mass killings all by himself. In fact he was more pragmatic that many of his Bolshevik contemporaries, who were just as murderous but not nearly as skilled at either administering the Bolshevik bureaucracy or solving the contradictions of Marxist thought.

To be blunt, if Trotsky had won his fight with Stalin, he would likely have invaded Europe in around 1937 or so.

[TBlake34]

I hesitate to ask simply because I fear having to read through the delusional, paranoid texts that spawned your claim, but where on Earth do you get the evidence for that claim?

[DrCruel]

I'd suggest any standard history textbooks that touch on Leftist movements - from the French Revolution to the rise of Castro and Chavez. In regards the disparity between market and non-market economies, I'd suggest a perusal of the CIA World Factbook - in particular, look at the figures for national per capita GDP.

Trotsky's opposition to "communism in one country" is well known. I'd suggest looking into his writings. "History of the Russian Revolution" is handy.

Anything else?

[TBlake34]

That's vague, at best, no one questions that Trotsky was a leftist or communist.

You made a rather strong claim about his "bloodthirsty" nature. When making such a strong claim one should offer pursuasive and specific evidence.

Referring to the totality of his writings is hardly support of your claim. I could say, "George W. Bush fed on the livers of young children. Read the World Almanac and anything written by a hawk in the last 500 years." That doesn't really help.

[DrCruel]

Might I refer more specifically to Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed" then, where he goes on about "world revolution", considers the Nazis and the Western demcracies as equivalent targets, and criticizes Stalin for being against the idea? Or perhaps his "Terrorism or Communism", where he proposes the compulsory "militarization of labor"?

Exactly how much detail are you looking for?

[TBlake34]

The world revolution argued for proletariate revolts, not invasions, so I'm not sure how that helps your case.

And Russia didn't "target" Nazi Germany, they were attacked. Trotsky wrote quite a bit about how the Nazis rose to power by defeating the German working class. He saw this as a failure of his international communist goals--which, again, were about uniting workers rather than military invasion.

Not that Trotsky was right, but I still don't see the "bloodthirsty" you mention.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky led the Red Army during their first attempt at the invasion of Europe, in 1920. It was supposed to be co-ordinated with a Spartakist revolution in Germany and an uprising in Poland. Instead the German and Polish workers rose up - against the communists, and against the Russian invaders. In Poland, the result was called the "Miracle of the Vistula". In Germany, it marked the rise of the Freikorps.

Trotsky wanted another go, and clamored for it until his death. He was a warmonger.

[TBlake34]

That situation was much more complicated than you portrayed.

The 1920 conflict was between 4 states-Soviet Russia, Soviet Ukraine, the Second Polish Republic, and Ukranian People's Republic.

Poland actually tried to seize more territory as it had recently regained statehood after WWI. They attempted to move into Ukraine and Belarus.

And yes,

[TBlake34]

Didn't finish that, sorry.

Poland ended up taking some portion of Western Ukraine in 1919, having been victorious in a border war.

In 1920, the Soviets drove Poland west to Warsaw. Western powers became involved at that point and a treaty was negotiated.

Again, I don't get your point. After WWI there were endless such disputes. I don't see how fighting a border war is equivalent to Stalin slaughtering millions of his own people.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky's intent was to conquer Europe, "liquidate" the capitalists (as had been done through mass killings in Russia by the Cheka) and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" - with Trotsky in charge. Germany was the key target. He was stopped in both Poland and Germany.

Poland, by contrast, was fighting for independance (as they had for over 200 years). Trotsky was keen to deny it to them, much as had been done to the Bolshevik's betrayed Ukranian allies.

[DrCruel]

By comparison, Stalin was much more pragmatic - and much more moderate. The mass killings that Stalin engaged in during his tenure were merely a continuation of policies first initiated by Lenin and Trotsky. But where Trotsky wanted to conquer and despoil Europe through war and massacres, Stalin was more prudent - he argued that consolidating Marxist control in Russia was more important, and expected the capitalists to eventually "fall upon each other" (according to Marxist theory).

[TBlake34]

Once again, point me to any actual source of information that substantiates your claims about Trotsky.

Simply saying the same thing over and over does not make it true.

[TBlake34]

Ah yes, more bald claims with no support.

You can keep repeating this stuff, but as with the War in 1920, you're vastly oversimplifying the conflicts and radically exagerrating claims without any actual reference.

I could say "James K. Polk was more bloodthirsty than Hitler. He wanted to comit genocide against Mexico but was stopped after taking Texas and California."

I believe Colbert would call that "troothiness"-some fact mixed with goofy fantasy.

[TBlake34]

Trotsky opposed Stalin completely, as well as the process of Communist oppression, "It is not a question of substituting one ruling clique for another, but of changing the very methods of administering the economy and guiding the culture of the country. Bureaucratic autocracy must give place to Soviet democracy. A restoration of the right of criticism, and a genuine freedom of elections, are necessary conditions for the further development of the country."

[DrCruel]

Except that Trotsky helped initiate the reign of the Cheka. In fact Trotsky was upset with Stalin for turning the state apparatus against Party members - he was entirely fine with going after average citizens.

And yes, Polk was a particularly nasty character. So was Andrew Jackson. But neither helped form a mass-murdering state police goon squad or conspired to conquer Europe, so that leaves Trotsky as a front runner for the "bloodthirsty prick" award in that pack.

[TBlake34]

This is just wholesale sophistry-a biased and thoughtless account of history.

Trotsky fought with Lenin, who established the Cheka, in a revolution against a brutal monarchy. Regardless of what you think about Lenin and his followers, their revolution did not occur in a vaccuum.

The failure of the Soviets to establish basic rights for workers as well as the violent repression is what caused Trotsky to speak out. He was forced to flee because of that.

[DrCruel]

I don't see how putting down a "brutal monarchy" by conquering Poland and Germany makes much of any sense. And I know as well that the Nazis were quite miffed (rightly) at the Versailles Treaty, but that hardly justified the extermination of their politicfal enemies in death camps.

As for the Bolshevik despots, they didn't "fail" to liberate the workers - they enslaved them because it was in their interests to do so. And Trotsky ran because he lost in a power play against Stalin.

[TBlake34]

Look, all you do is take arguments and twist them completely out of context. Obviously factions within the USSR were intent on expanding their terratorial controllings. But you're explanation of the conflict with Poland was inadequate and wrong.

My argument against you is simply based on your bizarre urge to heep Trotsky in with Stalin and the more brutal elements of the USSR. I've given you quotes and historical examples that show the opposite. You jsut repeat the same incorrect claims.

[DrCruel]

You seem to be trying to make the impression that the Bolsheviks were in some way concerned with the welfare of working people. If they had been, they would not have murdered all the entrepreneurs, or their anarchist and Social Revolutionary allies, or the Ukranian farmers, or anyone else that migh contend with them for power.

What they cared about was being in charge, and getting rich thereby. Not a "failure" - jus the calculated and deliberate enslavement of a nation for almost a century.

[TBlake34]

Yes, and Trotsky opposed that activity so he was moved around inside the party and ultimately forced to flee.

Once again, what you're completely failing at is showing that the brutality, repression, and aggression were supported by Trotsky. His writing expresses the exact opposite view and his actions within the party contradict that approach.

You can describe all 50,000,000 deaths at the hands of Stalin one by one, but that doesn't implicate Trotsky.

[DrCruel]

Sorry, but I rather depended on you knowing a bit of Bolshevik history. Stalin had nothing to do with the extermination of the Social Revolutionaries and Makhno's Ukranian anarchists. He used Lenin and Trotsky's secret police machine, surely, but only after that machine had worked up a substantial butcher's bill. Much of that was due to Trotsky's prompting and direction.

I'm not "incorrect" about any of this. Trotsky's role in forming and helping run the Cheka is well documented.

[TBlake34]

Well-documented, but you can't actually point or quote any of that information...interesting.

Trotsky ran afoul of Lenin VERY early on in the process. Basically what you're doing is using the fact that Trotsky participated and helped lead a very bloody revolution against a very oppressive government to then attach all the brutality of Lenin and Stalin to him. It's sloppy and silly. Trotsky opposed the harsh treatment of workers from the beginning and was punished for it.

[DrCruel]

You mean Trotsky's culpability in the formation of the Cheka? Read up on the Cheka - the wiki entry notes it. Or his leadership during the invasion of Poland? Any history of the Russian attack of 1920 will note it.

And now you're trying to claim that Lenin and Trotsky weren't on the same page - when Lenin is naming Trotsky to lead Russia on his deathbed, no less.

What exactly are you criticizing me for? The truth?

[TBlake34]

Alright, this is worthless, you're just talking in circles.

You began by making absurd claims about Trotsky being just as bad or bloodthirsty as Stalin. This is stupid, and you've offered nothing to support it.

ONce again, you are horrifically mischaracterizing the conflict with Poland in 1920. In 1919 POLAND invaded Ukraine, the war of 1920 pushed Poland back. I don't care who the "good guys" were, it was a border dispute.

Comparing that to Stalin is just stupid.

[TBlake34]

And as I mentioned a while ago, Lenin removed Trotsky from a position overseeing workers and industrialization and put him in charge of trains BECAUSE he disagreed with Lenin's treatment of those workers.

Lenin and Trotsky shared a great many views, but they weren't the same person. Trotsky was focused on worker rights, revolting against power structures, and spreading that message which he viewed as democratic.

Obviously it didn't work out, but Stalin is whole different beast.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky is defending the Cheka in a letter to Victor Serge in 1938, two years before his death. This does not sound like the sort of person that disagrees with how his friend and colleague is using his personal goon squad.

Lenin and Trotsky did disagree on some things, but persecuting and exploiting the Russian people wasn't one of them. Trotsky also disagreed with Stalin about what to do with Europe - Stalin wanted to strengthen Russia first, while Trotsky was in favor of invading Europe.

[DrCruel]

It was mainly this latter "disagreement" - Trotsky's advocacy of the military invasion and "liberation" of Europe and the extermination of the capitalists, and Stalin's more moderate attitude, that eventually leads to Trotsky's ouster. His fellow Bolsheviks are too afraid to confront the Europeans in the late 1930s. Indeed - it's Trotsky's overwhelming support amongst the militaristic Red Army leadership that moves Stalin to order a purge after his ouster.

None of this is at all controversial

[TBlake34]

Then offer some sourcing for it. I'm guessing it's just as out of context and hysterically interpreted as the rest of your nonsense.

Before WWII Trotsky was upset with Lenin and Stalin for placating Hitler and the facists in Europe. He thought making treaties with Hitler was a terrible idea.

Once again, this doesn't commit me to a position of claiming that Trotsky was a saint, but he wasn't advocating European invasion just to kill France.

Your arguments are so comically simple.

[DrCruel]

Your arguments are chronologically challenged.

Trotsky was ousted in the late 1920s. Well before, he was criticized, even by other Bolsheviks, for his brutal behavior (albeit to fellow Bolsheviks; brutalizing non-Party members was not a problem for them). His advocacy of a Europe-wide (and worldwide) "liberation" by force was a consistent theme for him throughout.

And Trotsky didn't want to kill "France". He wanted to kill "capitalists".

[TBlake34]

Riiiiight, because one must still be in Russia as a member of the ruling party in order to criticize their actions. Trotsky was one of the most outspoken advocates of military action against Hitler in the 30's.

And once more you've glossed over an issue we discussed quite a while ago. Trotsky advocated the uprising, violent if necessary, or workers throughout the world. He also thought it was the duty of the Revolution to help those workers.

Notice that's what WE say about democracy...

[DrCruel]

Trotsky was advocating an attack on Germany before the rise of Hitler - not in th ename of democracy, but in spreading Bolshevism by force. He actually led an attempt in 1920 that stalled in Europe.

As for your own curious defense of Tratsky's Cheka advocacy, by your own logic it would be entirely reasonable for the Western democracies to round up and work to death or shoot any Marxist they can get their hands on, all in the name of "public security and stability".

"Gloss over" is it.

[TBlake34]

He was advocating worker revolts and wanted to squash out facism. Of course, Russia didn't launch any such aggressive wars for Communism in that period. Your example of Poland was foolish, as was discussed.

But Trotsky's "defense" of the Cheka was not a defense of their activities, it was a defense of the ESTABLISHMENT of the Cheka. He argues that even in retrospect it made sense given the civil war. He does not defend the brutal actions and criticizes Stalin for using it as such.

[DrCruel]

I don't see how he can be credited with wanting to stomp out fascism before it existed. The Weimar Republic certainly wasn't fascist, but he wanted to "stomp it out" just the same. Nor does this explain why the Bolshevik's domestic Leftist allies needed to be exterminated during Trtosky's tenure rather than be allowed a part in the new regime.

Trotsky doesn't criticize his own brutal use of the Cheka or the Red Army itself. His main complaint seems to be that someone else was using his tools.

[TBlake34]

Look, you're just confusing several arguments.

Trotsky wanted to avoid treaties with Hitler and preemptively engage the fascist states. That's one point.

The other has to do with your repeated and still unsubstantiated claim about Trotsky's international ambitions. As I have said about 40 times now, he wanted workers around the world to revolt and he thought it was Russia's duty to help spread communism.

Certainly not a platform I agree with, but also not bloodthirsty Stalin.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky's advocacy of worldwide socialist conquest is intrinsic to his interpretation of "permanent revolution". This was in direct contradiction to the more pragmatic "socialism in one country" advocated by his opponents.

It was the Red Army's defeat in 1920 that would put a stop to such thinking amongst the Bolsheviks, at least temporarily - for everyone else but Trotsky.

I'm not "confusing" anything.

[TBlake34]

Yes, you really are. You're using a childish interpretation of Trotsky's claims, adding a biased, poor reading of history, and concluding extremely strong points from very little information.

ANd that war ended about like the Korean War ended: Poland pushed all the way to Kiev, then Russia pushed them back to Warsaw, then they ended the conflict.

But again, show me the evidence that Trotsky wanted to keep invading European countries after that. Give me a quote or some sort of evidence.

[DrCruel]

If you want evidence of Trotsky's thinking in this regard, you need look no further than his book, "The Revolution Betrayed", where he is practically apologetic about having to sign peace treaties with "borgeois counteragents" and "brigands". When he rail against the Nazis, he makes no distinction between them and the liberal democracies.

Trotsky was in the same way as monomaniacally against these "capitalists" as Hitler was against the Jews - and for similar reasons.

[TBlake34]

This is such a lame tactic. Instead of quoting a section or pointing out a chapter, you simply make a broad claim about an entire book. So do i have to read the whole thing right now to see if you're correct?

And once more you've engaged in hystrionic hyperbole. I could equally say, "Bush and Cheney railed against Islamo-fascism as monomaniacally as Hitler railed against the Jews."

It's so over the top it has no meaning.

[DrCruel]

I could also claim that Hitler wasn't really a bad guy, that you'd be forcing me to read through Mein Kampf to see proof of his aggressive intentions on Europe, that Hitler was "forced" through conditions outside of his control to imprison, torture and kill political enemies and potential enemies, and so on.

Look up "The Revolution Betrayed" - it's posted online. Read his stuff on "military communism". Go to his bit on "world revolution" in Chapter 8. Pretty hard for an honest person to miss,

[DrCruel]

"The task of the European proletariat is not the perpetuation of boundaries but, on the contrary, their revolutionary abolition, not the status quo, but a socialist United States of Europe!" - L. Trotsky

"On the historic order of the day stands not the peaceful socialist development of one country, but a long series of world disturbances: wars and revolutions." -L. Trotsky

Stop declaring me as "stupid" or "confused" and go read the source materials.

[DrCruel]

"There are incomparably more reformers in the world than revolutionists, more accommodationists than irreconciables. Only in exceptional historic periods, when the masses come into movement, do the revolutionists emerge from their isolation, and the reformers become more like fish out of water." - L. Trotsky

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." - A. Hitler

Both fanatic socialist nuts.

[TBlake34]

Another example of your limited thinking.

The Nazi's were not socialist, you may be shocked to learn. They were facist.

But you only think at that depth: is says SOCIALIST in the name, therefore it must be socialist.

Thus, the People's REPUBLIC of China CAN'T be a communist nation, it's a republic, filled with republicans.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

JEFFERSON IS LIKE HITLER!!!!!!

Dur, dur, dur.

[DrCruel]

The Nazis were as "socialist" as any Marxist state, and were quite similar in political form, function and policies to the Russian Bolshevik state apparatus. They were certainly as "socialist" as the People's Republic of China is now.

And Jefferson was something of an erratic character. This was, after all, a slave-holder talking about the sanctity of liberty. But again, this does not mitigate at all the historically supported, bloodthirsty nature of Trotsky.

[TBlake34]

Once again, you offer a superficial, idiotic understanding of history.

Because you are vapid you define "socialism" as "stuff I don't like." Therefore Nazi's are socialist. Socialism and communism involve workers controlling the means of production. The Nazi party started out sort of like that, but when Hitler became chancelor in '33, it became a facist dictatorship. The communist party was outlawed by the Enabling act.

And Jefferson shows the stupidity of taking quotes out of context.

[TBlake34]

Again, this is just stupid

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Bush wants to spread his idea of freedom throughout the world with force. Trotsky wanted the "masses" of the world to revolt.

All you're doing is making silly, childish comparisons of superficial statements.

[TBlake34]

Sigh...did you actually read the chapter you referenced?

He's arguing for worker REVOLTS around the world and is upset that the Soviet Union signed treaties with borgoise governments.

Chapter 8: "The Soviet bureaucracy we must do it this justice has acquired a vast experience in directing popular masses, in lulling them to sleep, dividing and weakening them, or deceiving them outright for the purpose of unlimited domination over them."

World revolution was not world war.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky wanted to use the Red Army to back these "revolts" throughout the world - whether or not they were or would ever occur. In the same sense, Hitler was trying to "free" the world from "Jewish influence" - the difference being that with Bolsheviks the word "Jewish" was replaced with "capitalist".

Other than the quibble of whether people ought to be enslaved and executed based on race or class, there's little to distinguish between the two. Indeed, Trotsky was the innovator in barbarity.

[TBlake34]

Yes, JUST like we declared a duty to use our army to spread democracy.

What you're doing is an exercise in childish sophistry. If you generalize anyone's statements enough and divorce them from reality, you will arrive at a position where every leader that has advocated the use of force is HITLER LIKE!

You keep saying that and yet Trotsky writes time and time again about how Stalin's brutality destroyed any chance at serious international worker revolution.

[DrCruel]

Trotsky offered his Petrograd goon squad as the nucleus for Lenin's Cheka. He used it to murder thousands of helpless civilians. Trotsky held the families of leaders as hostages, and killed them if he deemed these leaders had betrayed him. Trotsky led the invasion of Poland and endlessly championed a permanent, violent, world revolution. He was an extremist nut even by Bolshevik standards.

And Trotsky berates Stalin for using the methods he helped pioneer. Which makes him a hypocrite too.

[DrCruel]

Churchill advocated violence, but he wasn't a homicidal maniac. Franklin Roosevelt ordered a violent response to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but never held the families of US officers as hostages.

Most of the real pricks of the 20th century were socialists. Hitler was simply copying the brutish tactics of people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. Secret state police, death camps, and many of the worst crimes of the Nazis were started by the Bolsheviks, mainly under Lenin and Stalin.

[DrCruel]

This isn't some invocation of "Godwin's Law'. The Bolshevik atrocities eventually inspired teh Nazi atrocities. The Russian Civil War was so awful precisely because teh Bolsheviks made it so. The "conditions' they were "forced" to respond to were mainly of their own deliberate making.

The two most responsible for these horrors were Lenin and Trotsky. Stalin only expands on what Lenin and Trotsky started in the 1920s.

Trying to paint Trotsky as some sort of "reluctant killer" is outrageous

[TBlake34]

Look, at this point its just redundant to point out how pathetic your grasp of history is.

The Russian Civil War was a mess because of brutality on both sides. The Bolsheviks were fighting against countrymen that were receiving a great deal of material support from Western powers. Churchill announced that the Bolsheviks must be "strangled in their craddle." (HE'S AS BAD AS HITLER!!!!!!)

Isolating one side in that madness as brutal is silly. Just like WWI, it was bloody chaos.

[DrCruel]

The Bolsheviks were by far the instigators in virtually all of the violence west of Siberia. Kolchak's pro-monarchist cretins were admittedly vile, but Deniken was the original leader of the Whites and he wasn't anything like the Bolsheviks. And if you're trying to blame the violence on the British and American contingents ensconced in Murmansk, you're being a ridiculous arse.

Try this stuff on someone who doesn't know about the Russian Civil War. Not on me.

[TBlake34]

I wouldn't call your biased, superficial knowledge of a few key terms that you consistently misapply "knowledge."

That was such a scattered bunch of nonsense I can't even imagine what point you thought you were making.

As of 1919, the loose confederation of groups known as the "White Army" had pushed the Bolsheviks back from the South, East, and NW. After that, the Reds pretty much dominated the conflict, I assume this is what you meant by "instigation."

Blame is irrelevant.

[DrCruel]

The Bolsheviks were "pushed back from the west" because of their failed invasion of Poland. They were pushed back from the south because they had felt their Ukranian anarchist allies had outlived their usefulness, and had tried to disposed of them (they would solidify their south by "making up" with Makhno, then turn on him again once the danger had passed).

The Bolsheviks were generally unpopular from October 1917, when they overthrew the elected government of Kerensky.

[DrCruel]

When the Bolsheviks were weak, they were conciliatory to the Russian people - but still brutalized people they expected might not support them - merchants, ethnic minorities, monarchists but also democrats. After solidifying their power they brutalized the Russian people themselves.

Throughout, Trotsky was an active participant. He admitted to his actions in his numerous writings, equivocating but never apologizing for his actions.

[DrCruel]

Blame is entirely relevant. The Bolsheviks deserve the bulk of it, and Trotsky is certainly no exception. Indeed, during the worst actions of the Russian Civil War and the period prior to Lenin's death, Trotsky was responsible for much of it.

As for rambling, quasi-factual diatribes, I assume you're commenting on the wrtings of Trotsky I've quoted for you.

You can either deny Trotsky's atrocities on the basis of ignorance or deliberate deception. Which is it?

[TBlake34]

Now you're just randomly moving from issue to issue. No one was uniquely to "blame" for the violence of the Russian Civil War. If the Bolsheviks had adopted a peaceful revolution, they would have been decimated by their opponents. Hell, they never would have gotten past the brutal Tsars.

That doesn't excuse the violence on either side, but you're pretending like the Bolsheviks were these stunningly brutal people in an otherwise peaceful world.

You haven't quoted anything useful.

[TBlake34]

Now you're moving closer to something resembling actual discussion. Yes, Trotsky was an eager participant in the revolution and the civil war. He helped create institutions that became awesomely destructive. That is why his ideology is a failure, despite his professed desire for social justice.

But what he "admits" to in his writing is using violence out of necessity, which is true. The Bolsheviks could not have existed without significant violence.

Stalin took it to an unprecedented level

[DrCruel]

Stalin both expanded and limited that repression, and likewise only did so as a natural development of Marxist-Leninist theories. Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin were self-serving and indeed hypocritical, as he literally laid the groudwork and justification for what Stalin would later do.

And the Bolsheviks murdering their allies and terrorizing the public was not "necessary", no more so than it was for the Nazis. It was simply a self-serving means to absolute power.

[TBlake34]

Now you're closer to a position I can agree with.

Yes, Lenin and Trotsky laid the groundwork for Stalin, they gave him the insitutions and theories for brutal domination just as the Tsars and Eastern Church bequeathed a population used to totalitarian rule.

And I don't really know whether the social repression was "necessary" for Bolshevik rule. It was an effective means of consolidating rule, I doubt they would have won with more democratic measures--which is why its an awful system.

[DrCruel]

Lenin and Trotsky's atrocities were only "necessary" in the sense that violence is "necessary" to force a people to acquiesce to robbery and enslavement. In this same way violence was "necessary" to impose slavery on Africans.

Stalin, by contrast, was more of a refiner than an innovator. He simply extrapolated on the system of cruelty laid down by his predecessors. Many of the Germans that studied the Bolshevik system simply copied this methodology when devising their own variant.

[TBlake34]

Stalin was an insanely paranoid monster who decided that everyone in his country able to think was a threat to his power, including the people who initially conceived of the revolution.

But even before his death, Lenin was already critical of Stalin's harsh techniques--as in the invasion of Georgia. He gave unprecedented power to the police and espionage network, which ultimately killed Trotsky in Mexico, began the purges, and established the personality cult in Russia.

[DrCruel]

Stalin was no more "insanely paranoid" than Lenin or Trotsky. He was, however, more practical and pragmatic. The mechanisms designed by Lenin and enforced by Trotsky and Lenin's other acolytes during the Russian Revolution were effective but clumsy. Stalin merely reformed and expanded on these systems of state terror and oppression.

[DrCruel]

Stalin's state apparatus was indeed so effective that many others decided to copy them. George Bernard Shaw lauded his acumen. James Duranty and Beatrice Webb did for Stalin what Noam Chomsky would do for the Khmer Rouge. And people like Hitler copied him and other Marxists when designing his own radical ideology - even as he set it as opposed to the other competing radical factions (similarly, Trotsky would claim his virtually identical ideology as diametrically opposed to Stalinism).

[TBlake34]

Haha, what Noam Chomsky did for the Khmer Rouge? Your agenda becomes more clear.

Chomsky: "we continually criticize the Khmer Rouge after the Vietnamese invasion. After the Vietnamese invasion, which finally threw them out thankfully, the US and Britain immediately turned to support Pol Pot. Well, we criticized that, too, we said, no, you shouldn't be supporting this monster."

All he ever said about Pol Pot was that the west used him for propaganda purposes. Is that support?

[DrCruel]

I would suggest you read Sophal Ear's research on teh subject. Better yet, read Noam Chomsky's "Distortions at Fourth Hand".

[TBlake34]

I just disagree with that. For one Lenin allowed privatization when the economy became desperate, Stalin opposed that. Second, Stalin was the one who instigated the purges of his own party. Most of what Lenin and Trotsky were involved in was fighting external threats to the Bolsheviks. And these really were existential threats. Stalin preemptively murdered everyone who voiced an opinion in Russia.

Lenin and Trotsky publicly disagreed, they never murdered one another for it, Stalin did.

[TBlake34]

Ok, that's almost true. But what's your point? By 1919 their opposition had made serious military advancements. Then they pushed back.

You're pretending like the Bolsheviks invented violence in the region, which is shockingly naive or just deceitful.

And why would the Nazis need to look to the Bolsheviks? Violent repression of Jews had been taking place in Germany for a thousand years, led by the Catholic Church, an organization that celebrated Hitler's birthday as a holliday.

[DrCruel]

The application of the scientific method to both repression and the justifications for it was a Bolshevik innovation. They became a spur and a model for radical groups throughout Europe. Trotsky's "permanent revolution" adage was made manifest by agents of sedition (and later, their competitors) in a worldwide orgy of violence that would eventually culminate in WW II.

What the Nazis drew from the Bolsheviks was not anti-Semitism, but the methods by which repression could be efficiently run.

[TBlake34]

Once again, why would the Nazis need to examine the Bolsheviks when their church had been repressing groups for about 1500 years?

When Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church it quickly devolved into a sort of social revolution. Roving bands of Lutherans attacked Catholics, Jews, Gypsies, and intellectuals. They advanced their agenda by intimidating, beating, and killing their opposition, just as the church had done for a thousand years before.

The Bolsheviks really weren't that new.

[DrCruel]

Now you're echoing James Burnham, who likened the system of Bolshevism to that of the medieval Catholics (although in this case the Eastern Orthodox church would be a more apt model). What the Bolsheviks added, however, were more scientific forms of oppression - a system of centrally run death camps, a better secret police apparatus, and so on.

The problem with Marxism was its antipathy towards commerce. The various fascist movements were designed to cope with and overcome this problem.

[TBlake34]

That was certainly one of the problems with the Russian instantiation of Marxism. For his part Marx, said nothing about what governance was supposed to look like after the worker revolution, one of the major faults with Marx's work.

But Lenin, understanding how pathetic the Russian economy was, instigated the "New Economic Policy" that allowed for privatization of certain sectors of the economy. Trotsky wanted to internationalize that policy-open up trade, Stalin didn't-we know who won.

[TBlake34]

I assume you just spew this pablum to try and upset me, if you actually think it represents some historical assessment, you're deeply troubled.

Right, following WWI Hitler needed the Bolsheviks as a model for violent brutality. Hilarious.

And remember, Trotsky ran afoul of Lenin and was removed to a lower position because he opposed the brutal militirazion of labor.

Trotsky: not a great guy, but not Stalin.

[DrCruel]

Not only the NSDAP, but practically every radical Leftist outfit in every country in Europe - and quite a few elsewhere (like China and Vietnam). A few (like the Italian fascists) arose from the failed anarchist movement, but most of the others to some extent or another emulated the Bolsheviks.

As for Trotsky "running afoul of Lenin", he was Lenin's choice for successor. Hardly an indictment.

I assume you make this stuff up to piss me off.

[TBlake34]

Sigh...

This is a perfect representation of why you are worthless as a thinker. Trotsky ran afoul of Lenin concerning militarization of labor in Ukraine. He was removed from that position and put in charge of trains.

That happened, no two ways about it.

It turns out that didn't destroy their relationship and Lenin preferred Trotsky to Stalin.

You have this infantile black and white mind: either they're 100% in agreement or they're enemies.

Grow up.

[DrCruel]

And Heinrich Himmler and Herman Goring didn't particularly like each other, and differed on how to dispose of the Jews. Reinhard Heydrich had his own ideas. From time to time, they ran afoul of Hitler himself. There were many deep ideological divisions amongst the Nazis, even as they robbed and butchered their way through Europe.

Which of these fellows wasn't "really" a Nazi because of it?

Save your condescension for those less knowledgeable than yourself.

[TBlake34]

You just can't stay away from Nazi analogies, can you?

In both cases you evaluate the individuals based on their own behavior and own ideas. Though they disagreed with Hitler, Himmler ran the concentration camps and Heydrich used the SS to falsely accuse German citizens and shuffle them off to concentration camps--quite similar to Stalin's purges.

So they, like Trotsky, have their own crimes to pay for. It's just that Trotsky's crimes pale in comparison to those of Stalin. Different cases.

[DrCruel]

Given that the theme of this discourse was how Bolshevik policies would be copied by the Nazis, and that Trotsky and Lenin were no less evil than Stalin and Hitler - yes, it would seem that "Nazi analogies" would be necessary.

You claimed that Trotsky could not possibly be responsible for what happened under Lenin's term, as Lenin and Trotsky were "at odds". I have used an example where other socialists were "at odds" and still managed to commit atrocities.

I think my point has been made.

[DrCruel]

Might I add, that for the Poles the invasion of their country was a very serious matter. Thus why they banded together to force the Red Army (led by Trotsky) out fo their country. Trotsky thereafter advocated for a rerun of that invasion - an act which Stalin would, with his German socialist allies, eventually succeed in carrying out.

[DrCruel]

The main differences between Stalin and Trotsky were more based on competance than brutality. Trotsky was something of a flamboyant nut. Stalin was much more of a pragmatist. Like all Bolsheviks, both behaved like unscrupulous butchers when the option presented itself.

[TBlake34]

You can keep saying that, but until you offer something resembling substantiation you're just repeating the same old tripe.

[DrCruel]

Poland no more instigated a war with Russia in 1919 than they did against Germany in 1939. It was Trotsky that would ceaselessly advocate for the conquest of Europe, not Stalin.

I've given you historical facts, his own letters, and have had you acknowledge some of my claims you initially denied in Trotsky's defense.

What exactly have you provided by way of retort, other than simply claiming I'm incorrect, foolish or stupid?

[TBlake34]

You are just wrong. There's no other way to say it. You've so completely mischaracterized that conflict and Trotsky's role in it that you don't even deserve to have an opinion.

In 1919 Poland and Ukraine had a border dispute because the line was ill-defined after WWI. In 1920, Russia, led by LENIN, not Trotsky, invaded in order to reestablish control of land seceded in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

These types of wars were happening ALL OVER Europe at that time. WWI created chaos.

[DrCruel]

In 1920 Poland was in the way of a Bolshevik invasion of Germany, to aid the Spartakist uprising. And it was TROTSKY and not LENIN who led the Red Army into Poland, with the idea of enlisting Polish workers in their force on their way to Berlin.

I'm not confused, I'm not childish and I'm not wrong. What I've said follows the contemporary historical scholarship, although admittedly not pro-Trotskyite "reimaginings" of history. So if you're a pro-Trotskyite Left fascist I suppose you'd be upset

[TBlake34]

Look, you can keep saying that, but it won't change what happened in that war. It was a war that involved 4 countries-Soviet Russia, Soviet Ukraine, the Second Polish Republic, and the Ukranian Peoples Republic. All 4 wanted to secure borders and gain more land.

Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was the Communist theorist who wanted to move into Germany and England after sacking Poland, but it was more propaganda than an actual plan.

And leading an army is not the same as making the decision.

[TBlake34]

What do you mean "add?" This is one of two points you've made. Both silly, both absurdly incorrect in so far as history goes, and yet you just say it over and over.

Once again, in 1919 POLAND attacked several countries, including Ukraine, to establish their own borders. Russia invaded Poland in 1920. That's not to say that one side was right and the other wrong, but it was more complicated than pure expansionism at that time. Stalin was pure expansion and domination.

[TBlake34]

Once again, you insanely blow things out of proportion.

Trotsky's "defense" of the Cheka is in response to Serge's assertion that the establishment of the Cheka was the beginning of the perversion of the Bolsheviks. I agree with that.

But Trotsky's defense (which should sound familiar) was simply that in the midst of civil war, they couldn't hold normal trials. In that same letter Trotsky condemns the behavior of the Cheka.

You somehow think all of these things happened in a vaccuum.

[DrCruel]

The Bolsheviks creatted teh conditions by which they would subsequently use as an excuse to first conquer Russia, then exterminate their rivals (and allies), then engage in terrorism and mass killings to consolidate control.

Stalin made similar arguments for his own brutalities. So apparently Trotsky and Stalin weren't "entirely different" after all. And it is nice to know that, after mocking me for having "no evidence", you seem to have been aware of the evidence all along.

[TBlake34]

That's such a silly argument. Obama, like Bush before him, is CURRENTLY making that argument with respect to detainees in the War on Terror.

We can't give them open, free trials because of practical reasons, ergo they're kept indefinately or given secret trials.

OH NO OBAMA AND BUSH ARE JUST AS BAD AS STALIN.

See, it's dumb and infantile.

And that's not to say our treatment of detainees is anywhere near as horrible as what the Cheka did, it's the argument that's at issue.

[DrCruel]

It was Trotsky's murderous gang in Petrograd that would be used to form the core of the Cheka, which he helped manage for a time during its early years. Trotsky himself admits to the role. He was also the one to implement the idea of threatening to kill family members to keep soldiers in the Red Army loyal, and followed through if Red Army soldiers went AWOL or deserted.

I feel like I'm talking to a Holocaust denier.

[TBlake34]

First of all, you still haven't even bothered to support any of this.

And second, you've based this entire argument on biased, childish understandings of history. The Russian Revolution was a bloody, awful event. Lenin, Trotsky, and the other leaders, regardless of what you think of them, were battling horrifically brutal oppressors. Yes, it was violent. But it was a revolution. That's not to say it was "good" but it was vastly different from what Stalin did.

[DrCruel]

"Trotsky was more bloodthirsty than Stalin? How so?"

The main conflict between Trotsky and Stalin in the 1930s was whether the Bolsheviks would try to initiate another invasion of Europe, as they had in 1920-21. Trotsky was eager to do so - like many radical Marxists, he considered allowing capitalists to operate at any level to be immoral, and was keen to depose the lot theough military force. Stalin was much more of a moderate in this regard.

[DrCruel]

Mass killings of humans are bad. It doesn't matter if the people being killed are Caucasian, Negro or Mongoloid. I don't think it necessary to be of the Jewish faith, or Semitic ancestry, to appreciate that.

But it's a toss-up as to whether it would have been better for the world if Hitler or Stalin had won. Certainly it was lucky that Trotsky never rose to power, as he was more bloodthirsty than Stalin. But Stalin killed more Soviet citizens before the war than Hitler would kill during it.

[TheRingil]

Trotsky was more bloodthirsty than Stalin? How so? To be honest, my only representation of Trotsky is in George Orwell's Animal Farm and in there, he seemed like an idealistic leader with a bright vision for his people. Stalin, on the other hand, was depicted as a megalomaniacal lunatic.

Can you fill in the gaps? Perhaps there's something Orwell missed?

[stufort]

nigga.jimbob. u r everything i hate. u r on here but have a name niggajimbob. sez it all. u KNOW NOTHING EXCEPT what youv'e heard from whichever group u belong to. i know because i was in the english national front for years when i was young. when i grew up and realised my own mind, i knew that i had been manipulated. i am still and will always will be right wing but please think for yourself and do not be indoctrinated or you might as well be a suicide bomber cos thats how it all starts mate

[davidatheist]

stufort you describe yourself as right wing. However you state that you wish the Nazis had won WW2. I think this would class you as a fascist of the most disgusting kind, rather than just right wing. Dont misrepresent your self.

[stufort]

all that jewish shit is wrong mate . i wish the germans had won. but for different reasons to you. the jews do not run everything as you suggest or even STATE. you are full of politicle ideology n cant see the wood for the trees.

[NiggaJimBob]

Everything in the West goes through a Jewish filter. You DO NOT see White men ever expressing opinions in their own self-interest. It is always done with the thought in their head, "IS THIS GOOD FOR JEWS? WOULD THE JEWS APPROVE?"

Hitchens is a Jew.

[NiggaJimBob]

Hitchens is a Jew.

Understand? Britain is dominated by men of Jewish descent, especially the Rothschilds.

[DimitrisKs]

And they take everything at face value

[DimitrisKs]

dont they know that germany declared war on the usa cause donitz and raeder pleaded hitler to do so since the us was already at war with ger sinking subs on sight, occupying iceland greenland,and trying to get into the war, they are fiiled of mistaken info these 2

[NiggaJimBob]

The U.S. and Britain are and were the warmongers. They wanted war - Hitler DID NOT want war with the West.

[drdirs]

Hitler just wanted to conquer the world, and the Allies just wanted him not to. Both sides would have preferred to achieve their goals without resorting to war, but sadly there's rarely a peaceful solution when a twisted megalomaniac amasses too much power.

Meanwhile, you should do the world a favour and stop breathing.

[finchy633]

he just seems to be so in awe of hitchens and hanson (nothing wrong with that) that he comes across as too apologetic. it kind of reminds me of a child when he gets to that age where he starts saying 'why' all the time, and is in awe and wonder at everything his parents say.but its not a big problem, just an impression i get.

[finchy633]

the presenter seems such an apologist for everything, its quite cringe-worthy

[AngrySkeptic]

Go ahead and elaborate. Who and what specifically do you find "cringe-worthy"?

[drdirs]

He's playing Devil's Advocate by presenting the revisionist arguments that Hanson and Hitchens then tear down. Wouldn't be much of a discussion if nobody took on the role of the revisionist, seeing as how Buchanan isn't there to defend his own ideas.

[Danni4815162342]

Agree with drdirs earlyer comment, no fair debate here, its a book review, where the critics always have the last word.