Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>=3DiNEIprfXXqU
>>
>>>>>Oh, not at all. Mr. Goldberg is welcome to babble all he wishes=
>.
>>>>>Helps to prove the point that he's talking nonsense.
>>
>>>>>Mind you, we're not all that thrilled with corporate control over the=
>
>>>>>media. Because we believe in free speech.
>>
>>>>>I can see why fascists like yourself have to try to confuse the
>>>>>meaning of the word, by the way. That's pretty obvious.
>>
>>>> "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>>>> system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfa=
>ir
>>>> salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according t=
>o
>>>> wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and =
>we
>>>> are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
>>
>>>> John Toland, qouting a speech by Adolf Hitler , in his 1976 biograp=
>hy
>>>> "Adolf Hitler" (pg. 306)
>>
>>> Curious, that Hitler killed so many socialists and communists, and was
>>> ultimately beaten by them.
>>
>> No, Naziism was beaten not by socialists or communists, but by the
>> Russian
>> people,
>
>Yes, organised by the Soviet Union....
More like disorganised by the Soviet Union. The Red Army was
mauled by communist purges long before it met the Nazis. Eight
top commanders and fifty percent of all army officers were purged.
The poor Russian people had to fight not only the Nazis but also the
communists.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/rubstov/rubstov.htm
'In the early hours of 22 June 1941, the Soviet Air Force was totally
caught by surprise by the Luftwaffe attack against their airbase
system.
During the first hours, around 1,200 Russian aircraft were destroyed,
more than 800 of them on the ground, according to Soviet figures.'
They seem to have lacked necessary logistics.
'maintenance and readiness standards were very poor; ammunition and
radios were in short supply, and many units lacked the trucks needed
for resupply beyond their basic fuel and ammunition loads.'
It is a good job the British decided the save the USSR from their
former allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_151_Wing_based_at_Murmansk
>>the British armed forces
>
>The majority of whom voted for a Labour government in 1945...
Young people make mistakes due to their lack of experience and it is
wrong
to hold that immaturity against them.
>>and the US armed forces. Socialists
>> and
>> communists chose to back Hitler and oppose Western efforts to fight
>> Naziism
>> when they had the freedom to chose.
>
>The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis prior to 1938.
The Soviet Union began to woo the Nazis as early as 1935 with Soviet
trade representative David Kandelaki negotiating on Stalin's behalf.
Molotov stressed the need for good relations with Nazi Germany in a
speech in 1936.
> After Munich, they
>did a deal with them in 1939 to buy time and improve their strategic
>position.
When the Wehrmacht rolled into Russia, the Soviet frontier guards
made frantic telephone calls to Moscow asking "What shall we do?"
If that was preparation, what would they done if they'd been taken
by surprise?
> Much good it did their reputation.
I think their reputation was sullied more by what they did afterwards.
The mass rapes in Vienna and their mass murders in Poland, for
example.
Through a Glass, Rosily - George Orwell.
The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent
provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides
calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges
of what one might call a routine nature, also carried
the very serious implication that he ought to have kept
silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth.
He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the
question involved is so important that it is worth
discussing it at greater length.
[Tribune, 23 November 1945: When Tribune's
Viennacorrespondent had reported the appalling
conditions in the city and, quite truthfully,
described the monstrous behaviour of some of
the Russian occupying troops, several readers
protested against what they called "this
slander" on the Red army.]
> Of course, after 1941 they were Hitler's bitterest opponents.
After being scorned by their former best friends, I can imagine they
were upset, but the desperate valour of the Poles who flew in the
Battle of Britain seems more bitter, and more heroic, than
Russians forced into combat by communist guns at their backs.
> I'm not sure who these pro
>Hitler 'socialists' were, though....
Read on...
>>Later, when their policies
>> brought the
>> world to the brink, acting out of selfish self-preservation, they
>> chose to
>> let others fight for them, and force others to fight for them.
>
>You mean when the Red Army tore the guts out of the Weremacht at Kursk
>in 1943?
Yes, that's a good example. The policies of the communists, the
Nazi-Soviet Pact, brought Russia to the brink of ruin, and the
efforts of their victims - the Russian people - saved them from
their own folly.
>> Let's have a look at some examples:
>>
>> (i) Liberal opinion opposes standing up to Naziism.
>>
>> Archibald Sinclair
>
>Leader of the British Liberal Party.
and opponent of rearmament
>>delivered
>> a long speech in parliament on "the question of private profits being
>> made
>> out of the means of death" and expressed astonishment at Churchill's
>> "dangerous argument" that vast sums should be spent on the RAF "in
>> view of
>> the financial conditions of this country and the intolerable burdens
>> of
>> our national debt and taxation."
>
>And when did he make this speech? Long before the war, I should think.
Unfortunately it takes a while to prepare for a war.
>> (ii) socialist opinion tries to ensure Britain is defenceless before
>> Nazi aggression
>>
>> In 1935, the White Paper issued by HMG
>> on 4th March announced plans to expedite air force increases and
>> proposed
>> a major additional defense application. Churchill was elated, Hitler
>> was
>> furious, the Labour MPs, led by Atlee, moved to censure, but were
>> roundly
>> defeated, and an air estimates debate scheduled for Tuesday 19th
>> March.
>> Page 134, "Shoals", "The Last Lion: Alone" William Manchester.
>
>This was during Lansbury's perid of leadership, I think, when the
>Labour party deferred to his (sincere) pacifism.
So why does it say "led by Attlee"? But yes - Lansbury, the socialist
whose response to Naziism was:
"I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm
the Air Force."
> Of course, Atlee and
>the Labour Party soon realised what a threat Hitler was, and reversed
>these policies.
Sadly this is wishful thinking.
Paul Kennedy states that Labour was
"was neither as forthright nor as consistent in its criticism [of
appeasement] it later liked to think."
Ken Morgan states that the Brit left "was pacifist-inclined, with few
exceptions."
In this period Labour always voted against the Service Estimates of
the government.
> The Labour Party sided with Churchill in attacking
>Chamberlain's appeasement policy.
Not when it mattered.
Attlee dumped Churchill and sided with Chamberlain at Munich.
Violet Bonham Carter "suggested that during the afternoon a
few of use should draft a telegram to the Prime Minister
adjuring him to make no further concessions at the expense
of the Czechs and warning him that of he did so he would have
to fight the Commons on his return". The wire was to have
been signed by, among others, Churchill .. Attlee, Archie
Sinclair, Eden, Liddel Hart, Lloyd George, and Lord Lloyd.
It was drafted - eliminating the threat and at 7:00 PM
they again met at the Savoy. Winston then called for
signatures, and Sinclair, Lloyd, and Cecil came quickly
forward."
Attlee refused to sign the telegram, declaring that he
would need the approval of his party. This suggests, then,
that Labour's condemnation of Appeasement could not be
taken for granted. Lacking the broad base necessary,
the telegram wasn't sent. Nicolson wrote "As far as
one can see, Hitler gets everything he wants".
VBC continues: "Winston remained, sitting in his chair immobile,
like a man of stone. I saw the tears in his eyes. At last
Churchill spoke - "What are they made of?" He was referring to
the Appeasers, including Attlee.
"The day is not far off when it won't be signatures we have
to give but lives - the lives of milions. Can we survive?
Do we deserve to do so when there's no courage anywhere?"
page 350, WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL THE LAST LION: ALONE
>> In this debate, Churchill attacked the govt, calling for RAF expansion
>> to be
>> doubled. "Atlee's Labourites were furious", writes Manchester. In
>> March,
>> Hitler himself had told Sir John Simon and Anthony Eden that the
>> Luftwaffe
>> had gained parity. But german intelligence had overestimated the
>> number of
>> aircraft we had by more than 200%%. They were far ahead of us, yet
>> this same
>> Atlee was "furious" at efforts to rearm. [Page 136, ibid]
>
>But he did not retain that view.....
True, one can't even commend his consistency.
>> William Manchester writes: "Even as Labour and Liberal pacifists were
>>
>> fuming that Baldwin, prodded by the warmonger Churchill, was
>> returning
>> England to its militant imperial past, genuine militarism was forming
>> in
>> ranks on a riverbank 375 miles to the East." Germany was marching
>> into
>> the Rhineland. Here we have evidence of Labourite sabotage of our
>> rearmament effort, made at the same time as the invasion of the
>> Rhineland. AFTER this, Lloyd-George stated that the invasion was
>> made
>> after provocation of the Narzis (presumably we hadn't disarmed fast
>> enough)
>> and socialist peer Lord Snowden said the Nazis were "only going into
>> their
>> back yard."
>
>And that was how it appeared to many of the National Government
>(Conservative) Cabinet Ministers too....
May I trouble you for a reference?
>> (iii) socialist and liberal opinion, thwarted in their efforts to
>> prevent Britain
>> from re-arming, tries to prevent HMG raising an army to fight Naziism.
>>
>> Churchill records that: "In the debate the Opposition failed in their
>> duty. Both Labour and Liberal parties shrank from facing the ancient
>> and deep rooted prejudice which has always existed in England against
>> compulsory military service, and their leaders found reasons for
>> opposing this step.
>> Both these men were distressed at the course they felt bound on party
>> grounds to take. But they both took it, and adduced a wealth of
>> reasons.
>> The division was on party lines, and the Conservative Party carried
>> their policy by 380 to 143 votes. In my speech I tried my best to
>> persuade the Opposition to support this indispensible measure; but
>> my efforts were in vain."
>
>This was nothing to do with Hitler.
Churchill states that they "adduced a wealth of reasons".
> It was partly due to opposition
>from the Trade Unions.
Funny, I thought you held up Greenwood as a fighting socialist.
> (How could they be sure that the so-called
>'militiamen' would have a job to come back to after basic training?)
An amazingly short-sighted and selfish attitude, if true.
I wish I was middle class!
>> All that waffle means Liberal and Labour MPs voted *against*
>> conscription on the eve of the war.
>
>For the above reasons.
That's far worse than being a pacifist! I had no idea they were so
corrupt and selfish.
>
>But even Churchil (in views expressed in a radio broadcast) understood
>why they did it......
How did he know of the secret protocol to divide Eastern Europe?
>> (iv) Communists help the Nazis subdue Poland
>>
>> ARMAGEDDON by Clive Ponting, ISBN 0-679-43602-2, page 225:
>>
>> "The country that suffered the most under occupation was Poland.
>> After
>> it was partitioned in September 1939, there is no doubt that
>> conditions
>> in the Soviet area were far worse than in the west under German rule.
>> By 1941 the Soviets had killed about four times as many Poles as the
>> Germans (about 480,00 compared with 120,000) and this from a
>> population
>> about half the size of that controlled by Germany. Three separate
>> Soviet mass deportations removed over 1 million Poles, mainly from
>> the
>> intellectual and political elite, and overall about 10%% of all adult
>> males in the Soviet controlled territories were imprisoned and
>> tortured.
>> At Boryslaw people were killed by having their mouths sewn together
>> by
>> barbed wire, or their eyes gouged out, or by being pushed into
>> boiling
>> water."
>>
>> "When the Germans invaded in June 1941 all prisoners were either
>> killed
>> or deported by the Soviets; at Lvov prison 12,400 were killed out of
>> a
>> total of 13,000 inmates."
>
>Two points. The result of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was not a
>foregone conclusion. Stalin still wasn't sure that he had backed the
>right horse, and told the Poles that a request for military assistance
>would be well received. None came.
Well, this doesn't look much like help does it?
ARMAGEDDON by Clive Ponting, ISBN 0-679-43602-2, page 225:
"The country that suffered the most under occupation was Poland.
After
it was partitioned in September 1939, there is no doubt that
conditions
in the Soviet area were far worse than in the west under German rule.
By 1941 the Soviets had killed about four times as many Poles as the
Germans (about 480,00 compared with 120,000) and this from a
population
about half the size of that controlled by Germany. Three separate
Soviet mass deportations removed over 1 million Poles, mainly from
the
intellectual and political elite, and overall about 10%% of all adult
males in the Soviet controlled territories were imprisoned and
tortured.
At Boryslaw people were killed by having their mouths sewn together
by
barbed wire, or their eyes gouged out, or by being pushed into
boiling
water."
"When the Germans invaded in June 1941 all prisoners were either
killed
or deported by the Soviets; at Lvov prison 12,400 were killed out of
a
total of 13,000 inmates."
Stalin also jacked the Poles when they fought the Nazis in the warsaw
rubble.
>: The Nazis invaded on 1 September,
>1939, and the Soviets intervened on 17 September, when the political
>entity had more or less ceased to exist.
Not really. The Polish government fled to the UK.
> I would question the
>stastistics quoted in this passage, as Poles were in a minority in the
>areas occupied by the Soviets.
Questions are always good. Even when they are intended to obscure,
they illuminate something else.
>> (v) Communists help U-Boats sink British shipping
>
>Er....
>
>there wasn't any British shipping in the Baltic.
The U-Boats operated in the Atlantic. The Communists tried to help
the National Socialists strangle Britain.
Churchill regarded the U-Boats as the greatest threat Britain faced.
The USSR was behind this greatest threat.
Many British and Empire seamen
died in the freezing waters of the Atlantic.
>> "Germam naval forces were able to use Murmansk
>> as a base. In return, the Soviets received metal
>> and electrical products, together with military
>> equipment"
>> page 37, ARMAGEDDON by Clive Ponting, ISBN 0-679-43602-2
>> "During April his deliveries of raw materials to Germany reached
>> their
>> highest since the signing of the Nazi-Soviet in August 1939: 208,000
>> tons of grain, 90,000 tons of fuel oil, 8,300 tons of cotton, 6,340
>> tons of copper, tin, nickel, and other metals, and 4,000 tons of
>> rubber."
>> The Second World War, John Keegan, ISBN 0-14-011341-X
>>
>> (vi) Communists help sabotage Western resistance to Naziism
>>
>> "During the 1939 to 1941 period, attacks on the British were
>> encouraged,
>
>What attacks?
On the radio.
>> but
>> no mention even of the word 'fascism' was allowed."
>>
>> The Great Terror A Reassessment, Robert Conquest ISBN 0-19-507132-8,
>> page 453.
Conquest goes on to recount an amusing tale of a Russian being
prosecuted for using the word 'fascist' after Barbarossa
because of the ideologically corrupt Soviet judiciary; another
example of communists aiding the Nazis by attacking the people -
Russians - who were soon to play an important role in the defeat
of the Nazis.
>> =3D=3D
>> Fighter: A Pictorial History of International Fighter Aircraft
>> by Bill Gunston
>>
>> page 30:
>>
>> "Communists tried to make sure that each fighter coming off the
>> assembly line lacked a propellor, or some other vital part. Thus,
>> the Armee de l'Air was seriously weakened in its desperate fight in
>> spring 1940. Moreover, its fighters were in most respects
>> inferior..."
>
>There is some debate amongst French historians as to how effective
>this sabotage was.....
A missing propeller seems like a serious deficiency.
>> (vii) Socialists support HMG's appeasement of Naziism
>>
>> Violet Bonham Carter "suggested that during the afternoon a
>> few of use should draft a telegram to the Prime Minister
>> adjuring him to make no further concessions at the expense
>> of the Czechs and warning him that of he did so he would have
>> to fight the Commons on his return". The wire was to have
>> been signed by, among others, Churchill .. Attlee, Archie
>> Sinclair, Eden, Liddel Hart, Lloyd George, and Lord Lloyd.
>> It was drafted - eliminating the threat and at 7:00 PM
>> they again met at the Savoy. Winston then called for
>> signatures, and Sinclair, Lloyd, and Cecil came quickly
>> forward."
>>
>> Attlee refused to sign the telegram, declaring that he
>> would need the approval of his party.
>
>And your point is?
My point is, ultimately, that the left are no more justified
in claiming to have defeated Hitler than the Tories, not as much,
in fact, since their policies encouraged Hitler rather
than opposed him. At least the Tories finally pulled their socks
up and requested a few biplanes to fight the Me 109s.
>>This suggests, then,
>> that Labour's condemnation of Appeasement could not be
>> taken for granted. Lacking the broad base necessary,
>> the telegram wasn't sent. Nicolson wrote "As far as
>> one can see, Hitler gets everything he wants".
>>
>> VBC continues: "Winston remained, sitting in his chair immobile,
>> like a man of stone. I saw the tears in his eyes. At last
>> Churchill spoke - "What are they made of?" He was referring to
>> the Appeasers, including Attlee.
>> "The day is not far off when it won't be signatures we have
>> to give but lives - the lives of milions. Can we survive?
>> Do we deserve to do so when there's no courage anywhere?"
>>
>> page 350, WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL THE LAST LION: ALONE
>
>Why are you concentrating on the period before Munich?
I mentioned the conscription debate didn't I?
>What about Arthur Greenwood's speech on 2 September, 1939? "Speak for
>England, Arthur!"
The day before the war started :-) well, better late than never eh?
>This isn't a good biography of Churchill, by the way. Martin Gilbert's
>is far better.
Really? What does Gilbert says about the incident?
>Sorry, Max, but your historical knowledge leaves a great deal to be
>disired....
Maybe what is being desired cannot be supplied by anyone honest.
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Maxwell Muir.
>>> Also, curious that the Church
>>
>> Funny that they did so when he put so many of thems in jail...
>>
>> "By the end of 1933 Schirach had co-ordinated most youth movements
>> and steadily encroached on the few nonconformists such as Catholic
>> organisations"
>>
>> NAZI GERMANY A New History Klaus P. Fischer.
>>
>> "Cardinal Faulhaber arranged for a personal interview with Hitler
>> on November 9, 1936." ... "When the two men came to the topic of
>> the racial Laws of 1935 and the sterilization of those who suffered
>> from genetic diseases--two issues that had given rise to funda-
>> mental differences on both sides--the fuhrer became angry and told
>> the cardinal that he would not tolerate church interference in
>> such matters."
>>
>> "official harrassment against Catholics continued unabated."
>>
>> "HUndreds of monks and nuns were pilloried in the press and, in
>> the process and then arraigned in the courts on trumped-up
>> charges ranging from financial malfeasance to sexual aberrations".
>>
>> "Joseph Goebbels, himself a former Catholic, orchestrated a smear
>> campaign and, in the process, highlighted sensational charges of
>> clerical immorality."
>>
>> "Hundreds of nuns and priests were convicted and sent to
>> concentration camps".
>>
>> page 363, ibid.
>>
>>> and the rich supported Hitler,
>>
>> They did later, but the early character of the Nazi party was working
>> class, and aimed at the working men and middle classes; that's why it
>> is full of socialist rhetoric.
>>
>>> while the
>>> unions and socialists opposed him.
>>
>> British socialists helped Naziism by backing Tory appeasement of
>> Hitler, opposing British efforts to re-arm, opposing conscription,
>> etc etc.
>>
>>> By the way, Hitler's campaigns in the Jewish Ghettos promised them
>>> "equal rights". Hitler was a politician, remember.- Hide quoted text =
>-
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Sure, the world's greatest liar, but people seem to find him
>> wholesome enough today. A comment from Hitler proclaiming his
>> Christianity is readily accepted isn't it? or Hitler
>> claiming he got the idea for the Nazi camps from indian
>> reservations in the US... no-one has any difficulty believing
>> that sort of thing do they.
>>
>> Max
>
