Can someone explain this to me

[213374U]

You still haven't offered up any evidence of this other than simply instructing him to "go see for himself." That's not how you win an argument.

Yes, and I'm still not going to do it. I have no interest in holding your (or his) hand through this, and the sole suggestion of "winning" an argument on the internet is enough to make me want to log off right now. If you want to see how things are the way I'm saying, go look up the throw-weights for US and Soviet MIRVed ICBMs during the 70's, and how this relates to first-strike decisiveness. If not... that's your problem. I have no special desire to save you the time.

 

Oh, and by the way, he hasn't provided any evidence for his arguments either. The "dead hand" system was intended to preserve retaliation potential for the Soviet Union in the event of suffering a first strike -- but this doesn't necessarily mean their strategy was defensive in nature, merely that it was a contingency they had accounted for. But somehow, you never demand that he supports his arguments adequately. That's not how you maintain a fa

Edited April 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Where you say "have strong nukes", I say keep a nuclear arsenal that places an emphasis on the offense.

 

You still haven't offered up any evidence of this other than simply instructing him to "go see for himself." That's not how you win an argument.

 

You may not have noticed Oblarg, but the people's commissar over there categorically denies there was a deliberate famine in the Ukraine, or that the KGB systematically and brutally murdered millions to keep the revolution pure. Both points are widely accepted to the point where references are unnecessary. Pick up almost any history book ad they will say that. That doesn't necessarily make it correct, but it does mean the burden of proof is on HIM, not us.

 

More to the point, it's irrelevant what the history is, because ultimately any amount of history won't change his deep desire to see bloody revolution enacted (with himself leading a choice squad of executioners).

[I want teh kotor 3]

LoF, have you ever heard of the Tzar Bomb? Its very existence nullifies your argument...

Hmm, no, having strong nuclear weapons doesn't actually nullify my argument at all.

 

A 50 megaton bomb is NOT a defensive weapon. At all.

 

Also, the dead hand is really not a good example that the Soviets were a good, peaceful people...

[lord of flies]

Pick up almost any history book ad they will say that.

Hmm, no, I checked out my copy of Kenez's A History of the Soviet Union from Beginning to End (not a socialist writer, btw), and he says:

While there is nothing in the record of this government that allows us to dismiss the charge [of the Holodomor being an intentional genocide] out of hand, it is possible that the government decided to restrict the famine to certain areas in order to help conceal it, and that therefore policies were not directed against the Ukrainians as such.

Deal with it.

[Monte Carlo]

Oh, whoops, look! We've just gone and committed a genocide by accident.

 

Cause and effect. Nazi-sympathisers and holocaust deniers demand the detailed documentation that proves Hitler ordered the Final Solution, allegedly because outside of the minutes of the Wansee Conference the evidence is largely cause and effect. Hitler was, via a sheer himalaya of evidence, responsible. Yet the deniers still want to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Is this sounding familiar?

[Walsingham]

It's not as if it's the only example of communism leading to mass murder, by virtue of cultural purification, class purges, an economic mismanagement to the point of insanity. China's cultural revolution, Cambodia's killing fields, not to mention the grassroots efforts of a hundred insurgencies over the last century. All for no ****ing reason besides fuelling the fantasies of the romantic, and the ambitions of sick minds. Communism - even your evasive and mendacious definition of communism* - all rest on the extreme rendition of personal economic freedom to a state apparatus. Deprived of that freedom the individual is placed on an slope towards state despotism in an environment of Inquisition, and revolutionary violence. Mass murder under such condition is not accidental or even personal, it is utterly inevitable.

 

Combine that with your repeated assertions that you care nothing for anyone who does not support your view, and your attitude begins to look more sinisterly ambitious than compassionate.

 

 

*Where people's committees wisely and impartially dispense justice and freedom while simultaneously controlling economic, social, and moral behaviour.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Walsingham

[lord of flies]

It's not as if it's the only example of communism leading to mass murder, by virtue of cultural purification, class purges, an economic mismanagement to the point of insanity. China's cultural revolution, Cambodia's killing fields, not to mention the grassroots efforts of a hundred insurgencies over the last century. All for no ****ing reason besides fuelling the fantasies of the romantic, and the ambitions of sick minds. Communism - even your evasive and mendacious definition of communism* - all rest on the extreme rendition of personal economic freedom to a state apparatus. Deprived of that freedom the individual is placed on an slope towards state despotism in an environment of Inquisition, and revolutionary violence. Mass murder under such condition is not accidental or even personal, it is utterly inevitable.

Examples of mass murder in the Soviet Union after 1953:

 

Examples of mass murder in China after 1976:

[Gorgon]

The gulags ?

 

Maybe not mass murder, but certainly premature deaths for hundreds of thousands.

[lord of flies]

The gulags ?

 

Maybe not mass murder, but certainly premature deaths for hundreds of thousands.

The Gulags were disbanded pretty soon after 1953.

[I want teh kotor 3]

It's not as if it's the only example of communism leading to mass murder, by virtue of cultural purification, class purges, an economic mismanagement to the point of insanity. China's cultural revolution, Cambodia's killing fields, not to mention the grassroots efforts of a hundred insurgencies over the last century. All for no ****ing reason besides fuelling the fantasies of the romantic, and the ambitions of sick minds. Communism - even your evasive and mendacious definition of communism* - all rest on the extreme rendition of personal economic freedom to a state apparatus. Deprived of that freedom the individual is placed on an slope towards state despotism in an environment of Inquisition, and revolutionary violence. Mass murder under such condition is not accidental or even personal, it is utterly inevitable.

Examples of mass murder in the Soviet Union after 1953:

 

Examples of mass murder in China after 1976:

 

Oh yes, let's just conveniently ignore the time period that doesn't help your argument. Hell, by your logic (or, more precisely, lack thereof), we can forgive Nazi Germany because they didn't commit any mass murders after 1945. That's just ridiculous.

[lord of flies]

Oh yes, let's just conveniently ignore the time period that doesn't help your argument. Hell, by your logic (or, more precisely, lack thereof), we can forgive Nazi Germany because they didn't commit any mass murders after 1945. That's just ridiculous.

Except that both those dates (1917-1953; 1949-1976) cover less than one half the lifespan of the countries in question? Edited April 25, 2010 by lord of flies

[Walsingham]

Actualy, Kotor 3 I'd say (actually I did say) that his objection was logical. My assertion was that a communist state is created and maintained throguh use of mass murder.

 

Now, I'd normally like to go to town (literally) on this and get into a university library. However, since I'm effectively crippled at present that's not realistically going to happen unless I have a better reason than fielding an argument which willl be ignored. NONETHELESS, I had a think, and dug in my personal library, and believe I have a rejoinder:

 

1. You already accepted that the creation of the communist state required massive use of force and terror.

2. The Mitrokhin archive states in chapter 19 that the first public appearance of dissidents to the regime was in 1965, where they attempted to get a fair trial for Andrei Sinyavsky and Daniel. The protesters were marched off and imprisoned.

3. Communist regimes, right until their fall have relied on immense police forces and secret police forces, e.g. the Stasi.

4. You will no doubt argue that the gradual easing of police pressure, arbitrary imprisonment and torture represent a maturation of the revolutionary communist state into a functional state.

5. In fact what we find is that _without the threat of extreme violence, even these heavily policed countries came en masse to reject communism, and held what you would call a counter-revolution, and they would call a liberation.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're right, the communist countries did not have to resort to mass murder in the later stages, as their terrorized and communist bred populations became sheep by then. Plus when you can only work for the government, you soon figure out resisting the government is not a good idea. Still you had events like Tiannamin square, and a lot of this stuff was only avoided in the Soviet Union because Gorbachev turned out to be a decent person.

[Monte Carlo]

^ A decent person helped along no end by the foreign policy ballsiness of Reagan and Thatcher.

 

They might be left-wing hate figures now, but they effectively helped destroy the Soviet Union *Champagne corks all round*

 

Shame about the nuclear-armed, completely corrupt kleptocracy of Putin, but you can't have everything.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Ha, ha, LoF's sig is about the thousand year Reich.