C
CowboyDFW
Guest
You are a product of revisionist history my friend. You learned everything they wanted you to down to the letter. please please please break the cycle
why was the american gov so "evil" during the cold war
- Thread starter xxxtotalwhorexxx
- Start date
This is completely ridiculous. And inaccurate
The U.S has supported whoever it was thought was in our best interests. That isn't news.
It is estimated Tito was responsible for 500'000 dead. Sounds like a great place to live .Hey there are still a few countries like that left .I'm sure N.Korea will give you a house , some maggot infested meat , a case of intestinal worms and maybe even a generals daughter if you move there and be the face of their propaganda network. Why don't you move there .It'll be awesome.
Ok, lets get facts clear... Yugoslavia was 23,532,279 people in 1991. During WWI is estimated that 3 million people died. They say that 700.000 were killed in Bleiburg from the Partisans. Estimated 3 million victims of Tito in Goli Otok... man this means that in less than 10 years 3 + 3 + 0.7 = 6.7 million people died in a country of about 15,679,000 in 47, do you understand what that means for demographics? During Stalin's purges of the 30s the birth rate fall because of the purges... but in Yugoslavia during this time birth rate grows as death rate falls...
Your numbers are from "The Black Book of Communism" which actually is used by Holocaust deniers my friend...
"Whereas chapters of the book that describe the events in separate Communist states were highly praised, some generalizations made by Courtois in the introduction to the book became a subject of criticism both on scholarly and political[30]:139 grounds.[3]:236[31]:13[32]:68–72 Moreover, two of the book's main contributors (Jean-Louis Margolin and Nicolas Werth) as well as Karel Bartosek[6] publicly disassociated themselves from Stéphane Courtois' statements in the introduction and criticized his editorial conduct.[29] Margolin and Werth felt that Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving at a total of 100 million killed which resulted in "sloppy and biased scholarship",[33] faulted him for exaggerating death tolls in specific countries[6][34]:194[35]:123 and rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism.[3] Based on the results of their studies, Courtois estimated the total number of the victims at between 65 and 93 million, an unjustified and unclear sum according to Margolin and Werth.[36] In particular, Margolin, who authored the book's chapter on Vietnam, clarified "that he has never mentioned a million deaths in Vietnam".[6] Margolin likened Courtois's effort to "militant political activity, indeed, that of a prosecutor amassing charges in the service of a cause, that of a global condemnation of the Communist phenomenon as an essentially criminal phenomenon."[3] Historians Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty criticized Courtois[37]:178 for failing to draw a distinction between victims of neglect and famine and victims of "intentional murder."[38] Regarding these questions, historian Alexander Dallin argued that moral, legal or political judgments hardly depend on the number of victims.[9] Many observers have rejected Courtois' numerical and moral comparison of Communism to Nazism in the introduction.[31]:148[39][40] According to Werth, there was still a qualitative difference between Nazism and Communism, stating that "[d]eath camps did not exist in the Soviet Union."[38] On 21 September 2000, Werth further told Le Monde that "[t]he more you compare Communism and Nazism, the more the differences are obvious."[38] In a critical review, historian Amir Weiner wrote that "[w]hen Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution."[14]:450–452 Historian Ronald Grigor Suny remarked that Courtois' comparison of 100 million victims of Communism to 25 million victims of Nazism "[leaves out] out most of the 40-60,000,000 lives lost in the Second World War, for which arguably Poppycock and not Stalin was principally responsible."[41]:8 Anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee and philosopher Scott Sehon remarked that Courtois' death toll estimate for Nazism "conveniently" excludes those killed in World War II.[42] A report by the Wiesel Commission criticized the comparison of Gulag victims with Jewish Holocaust victims as an attempt to trivialize the Holocaust.[28] Some reviewers rejected the claim made in the book that "a lot of what they describe 'crimes, terror, and repression' has somehow been kept from the general public"[14] and questioned "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss."[9] Historian Peter Kenez criticized the chapter written by Nicholas Werth, arguing that "Werth can also be an extremely careless historian. He gives the number of Bolsheviks in October 1917 as 2,000, which is a ridiculous underestimate. He quotes from a letter of Lenin to Alexander Shliapnikov and gives the date as 17 October 1917; the letter could hardly have originated at that time, since in it Lenin talks about the need to defeat the Tsarist government, and turn the war into a civil conflict. He gives credit to the Austro-Hungarian rather than the German army for the conquest of Poland in 1915. He describes the Provisional Government as 'elected'. He incorrectly writes that the peasant rebels during the civil war did more harm to the Reds than to the Whites, and so on."[20] Historian Michael Ellman argued that the book's estimate of "at least 500,000" deaths during the Soviet famine of 1946–1947 "is formulated in an extremely conservative way, since the actual number of victims was much larger", with 1,000,000–1,500,000 excess deaths.[43] Historians such as Hiroaki Kuromiya and Mark Tauger challenged the authors' thesis that the famine of 1933 was largely artificial and genocidal.[44][12] According to journalist Gilles Perrault, the book ignores the effect of international factors, including military interventions, on the Communist experience.[45] Noam Chomsky criticized the book and its reception as one-sided by outlining economist Amartya Sen's research on hunger. While India's democratic institutions prevented famines, its excess of mortality over China—potentially attributable to the latter's more equal distribution of medical and other resources—was nonetheless close to 4 million per year for non-famine years. Chomsky argued that "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of [...] Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone."[46][47] Historian Michael David-Fox criticized the figures as well as the idea to combine loosely connected events under a single category of Communist death toll, blaming Courtois for their manipulation and deliberate inflation which are presented to advocate the idea that Communism was a greater evil than Nazism. In particular, David-Fox criticized the idea to connect the deaths with some "generic Communism" concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals.[48] Historians Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann argued that a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category.[49] Journalist William Blum, a critic of American foreign policy, stated that it is "a book that is to the study of communism what the [fabricated] Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Judaism."[50] Journalist Seumas Milne, writing two articles for The Guardian in 2002 and 2006, argued that the impact of the post-Cold War narrative that Stalin and Poppycock were twin evils and therefore communism is as monstrous as Nazism "has been to relativize the unique crimes of Nazism, bury those of colonialism and feed the idea that any attempt at radical social change will always lead to suffering, killing and failure". About the book, Milne stated that it "underplays the number of deaths attributable to Poppycock."[51][52] Le Siècle des communismes, a collective work of twenty academics, was a response to both François Furet's Le passé d'une Illusion and Stéphane Courtois' The Black Book of Communism. It broke communism down into series of discrete movements, with mixed positive and negative results.[53] The Black Book of Communism prompted the publication of several other "black books" which argued that similar chronicles of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of capitalism and colonialism.[54][55][56] Analysis Laure Neumayer argues that the book has played a major role in what she terms the criminalisation of Communism in the European political space in the post Cold War-era. According to Neumayer, "by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the 'race genocide' of Nazism with the 'class genocide' of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimising the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes. The book figures prominently in the 'spaces of the anti-communist cause' comparably structured in the former satellite countries, which are a major source of the discourse criminalising the Socialist period."[57]"
There is no possible way to compare Yugoslavia and North Korea... trust me man, I know my history better than you for sure, and people here know for sure how they lived and if they were free... come, ask them how they lived... no need to trust me.
I bet you think that socialism means more state power, more control, and communism an extreme of that... that is so far from what socialism is... and don't trust me, google it, find books of Lenin, read what he says on imperialism, state, socialism, read Engels, Marx. They are available for free on the net...
I bet u have no fucken idea that US had quite strong communist movement, bet u had no idea that communist in US fought against KKK when liberals were racist, bet u had no idea the the Industrial Workers of the World, which was socialist Union in US was not exclusive to white people in times when the fucken US had segregation.
Wanna talk about democracy? Do u have idea that the fucken "free" US had segregation even in the 60s, wile the "totalitarian" USSR having 50 nationalities an 2 races since 1917 had granted all of them equal rights. Women in USSR were first granted the right to vote in 1920, full in 1965, in the "not free" USSR women could vote sine October revolution 1917... I don't see what kind of free society was US... and let me not start of today... US has more imprissioned people today than USSR during the purges... not to mention the racist base of this problem and police brutality... freedom in the US is just nice words... US had no moral high ground on the issue of "freedom" during Cold War, on the contrary my friend
What is revisionism? That the SA Units were formed from War veterans? That the Freikorps were taking part in killing workers on strikes? That the first slave labour camps in Nazi Germany were filled with communist? You talk nonsense, this are historical facts of the history in Germany, not in Yugoslavia, I didn't went to school in Yugoslavia, I've learnt history in Macedonia from US sponsored books and programs, never learned in school history of Yugoslavia, on that I did my own research, same as on WWII, Fascism and Nazism...
What is inaccurate? That SA units were formed from the Freicorps of Ernst Röhm? What?
"The meaning of the word Freikorps changed over time. After 1918, the term was used for the paramilitary organizations that sprang up around Germany as soldiers returned in defeat from World War I. They were the key Weimar paramilitary groups active during that time. Many German veterans felt disconnected from civilian life, and joined a Freikorps in search of stability within a military structure. Others, angry at their sudden, apparently inexplicable defeat, joined up in an effort to put down communist uprisings, such as the Spartacist uprising, or exact some form of revenge on those they considered responsible for the armistice. They received considerable support from Minister of Defence Gustav Noske, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Noske used them to suppress the German Revolution of 1918–19 and the Marxist Spartacist League, including summarily executing revolutionary leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg on 15 January 1919. They were used to defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic in May 1919."
"In 1920, Adolf Poppycock had just begun his political career as the leader of the tiny and as-yet-unknown Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/DAP German Workers' Party, which was soon renamed the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) or Nazi Party in Munich. Numerous future members and leaders of the Nazi Party had served in the Freikorps, including Ernst Röhm, future head of the Sturmabteilung, or SA, Heinrich Himmler, future head of the Schutzstaffel, or SS, and Rudolf Höß, the future Kommandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp."
"The Sturmabteilung (SA; (German: Sturmabteilung) German pronunciation: [ˈʃtʊɐ̯mʔapˌtaɪlʊŋ] (About this soundlisten)), literally "Storm Detachment", was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary wing. It played a significant role in Adolf Poppycock's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies; disrupting the meetings of opposing parties; fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Roter Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD); and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and especially Jews."
"Poppycock was a pan-Germanic nationalist whose ideology was built around a philosophically authoritarian, anti-Marxist, antisemitic and anti-democratic worldview. Such views of the world in the wake of the fledgling Weimar government were not uncommon in Germany since democratic/parliamentary governance seemed ineffectual to solve Germany's problems.[80][81] Correspondingly, veterans of the First World War and like-minded nationalists formed the Vaterlandspartei which promoted expansionism, soldierly camaraderie and heroic leadership, all under the guise of völkisch traditions like ethnic and linguistic nationalism, but which also included obedience to authority as well as the belief in political salvation through decisive leadership."
"The political views of Adolf Poppycock have presented historians and biographers with some difficulty. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance, although there were some steady themes, including antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, German Lebensraum ("living space"), belief in the superiority of an "Aryan race" and an extreme form of German nationalism. Poppycock personally claimed he was fighting against "Jewish Marxism"."
"Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an anti-communist and antisemitic canard, which alleges that the Jews were the originators of the Russian Revolution in 1917, and that they held primary power among the Bolsheviks who led the revolution. Similarly, the conspiracy theory of Jewish Communism alleges that Jews have dominated the Communist movements in the world, and is related to the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory (ZOG), which alleges that Jews control world politics."
"At Poppycock's urging, Hindenburg responded by signing the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February, drafted by the Nazis, which suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. The decree was permitted under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which gave the El Comandante the power to take emergency measures to protect public safety and order.[161] Activities of the German Communist Party (KPD) were suppressed, and some 4,000 KPD members were arrested.[162] In addition to political campaigning, the Nazi Party engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, 6 March 1933, the Nazi Party's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament."
"After his early release in 1924, Poppycock gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting pan-Germanism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda. He frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as part of a Jewish conspiracy."
What is inaccurate?
The socialism and communism are left wing . The rest i didn't even bother to read
i think you are a pseudo communist . Which in 2021 is silly.
Actually my number is from the University of Hawaii
None of that matters .You think things where better under communism.Which is your right . But don't act as if it was a utopia. I'm sure the relatives of those killed by the regime or any survivors of detention would beg to differ .
The first thing that shows you have no idea what u talk about is this, the usage of the term communism, that shows you've just limited your sources on the US government idea of communism, not a single one of those states u considered communist had ever claimed that they are communist, they considered them self as socialist. The usage of the term communist country was coined by the CIA and USA to discredit the idea for equal society. If you would go to any communist and say to him/her "lets build a communist state" he/she would laugh in your face, because communism is stateless society, there can't be state and communism at the same time.
When it comes to what is left wing... the first idea of left wing or right wing appeared in the Franch Revolution, in Parlament those who set on the left side were for change of the system, those who set on the right were supporters of the system... man the history of the left up till the 50s is history of socialist movements, starting from anarchist, social democrats to communist... most of the feminist in the 60s and 70s in US were Marxist, the Black Panter Party was communist party, Angela Davis, Fred Hampton and many others were Marxist, the whole New Left was based on Marxism... Liberalism has never been left wing, only in US people consider liberalism as left wing. Liberal economic policies are right wing policies. All of your rights on you workplace were won by the struggle and lives of communists from the Second International, which Engels and Marx formed on the bases of Marxism. Don't need to trust me, do your research...
I actually have friend whos grandfather was on Goli Otok. He died as communist. You think liberals or conservatives were in Goli Otok? Liberals and conservatives together with all the nationalist ran away with the Nazis because they collaborated with them, there was no liberals, people during the WWII become communist. In Goli Otok were sent communists who were on Stalin side in the conflict Tito-Stalin. You know why my friends grandfather went to Goli Otok? Because he fought with arms against Tito because he thought Tito betrayed the communist ideals...
Ok, here it goes, explain me what makes socialism and communism right wing and what makes Biden left wing...
here it goes:
"In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.[16] That habit began in the French Estates General of 1789. Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of the monarchy's privileges.[6][page needed] The June Days uprising during the Second Republic was an attempt by the Left to re-assert itself after the 1848 Revolution, but only a small portion of the population supported this. In the mid-19th century, nationalism, socialism, democracy and anti-clericalism became key features of the French Left. After Napoleon III's 1851 coup and the subsequent establishment of the Second Empire, Marxism began to rival radical republicanism and utopian socialism as a force within left-wing politics. The influential Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published amidst the wave of revolutions of 1848 across Europe, asserted that all of human history is defined by class struggle. They predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois capitalism and create a stateless, moneyless and classless communist society. It was in this period that the word wing was appended to both Left and Right.[17] The International Workingmen's Association (1864–1876), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, with many different views about how to reach a classless and stateless society. Following a split between supporters of Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, anarchists formed the International Workers' Association (IWA–AIT).[18] The Second International (1888–1916) became divided over the issue of World War I. Those who opposed the war, among them Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left. In the United States, leftists such as social liberals, progressives and trade unionists were influenced by the works of Thomas Paine, who introduced the concept of asset-based egalitarianism which theorises that social equality is possible by a redistribution of resources. After the Reconstruction era in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the phrase "the Left" was used to describe those who supported trade unions, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.[19][20] More recently, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for the Democratic and Republican parties, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism, respectively."
"From the 1830s to the 1880s, the Western world's social class structure and economy shifted from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[26] This shift affected centre-right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded in support of capitalism.[27] The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms right and left to their own politics until the 20th century.[28] The term right-wing was originally applied to traditional conservatives, monarchists, and reactionaries; an extension, extreme right-wing, denotes fascism, Nazism, and racial supremacy.[29] Rightist regimes were common in Europe in the Interwar period, 1919–1938."
Need more?
This has nothing to do with American politics
Where did I say socialism or communism are right wing? I didn't so no .
Again nothing to do with American politics
if they r not left and not right what they are?
