babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » babble book lounge   » History of the Gulag: From Collectivization To the Great Terror

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: History of the Gulag: From Collectivization To the Great Terror
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 January 2007 06:24 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Deserter's Tale by Joshua Key is featured in this weeks edition of The Hill Times Books:Upcomming Releases section.

[Edited title to the thread to reflect the book we're ACTUALLY talking about.]

[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 06:36 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am still working on the History of the Gulag: From Collectivization To the Great Terror by Oleg V. Khlevniuk.

quote:
The human cost of the Gulag, the Soviet labor camp system in which millions of people were imprisoned between 1920 and 1956, was staggering. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others after him have written movingly about the Gulag, yet never has there been a thorough historical study of this unique and tragic episode in Soviet history. This groundbreaking book presents the first comprehensive, historically accurate account of the camp system. Russian historian Oleg Khlevniuk has mined the contents of extensive archives, including long-suppressed state and Communist Party documents, to uncover the secrets of the Gulag and how it became a central component of Soviet ideology and social policy.

Powell books.com


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2007 08:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That book looks interesting, though I think there have been other attempts at the history of the Gulag.

I see he has records of the number of dead:

quote:
He describes a secret report written after Stalin died which revealed that in 1937-38, two of the most savage years of the terror, 1,575,259 people were arrested; of that number 681,692 were executed.

Interestingly, he apparently argues that the Gulag was specifically Stalinist. At least, that's what I glean from this review, which emphasizes Stalin's role, and doesn't mention Lenin at all.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/9525.html

If that were true, then the Soviet project would not be irretrievably contaminated by repression, and a kernel of revolutionary purity could be pointed to as the real, or the valid, revolution.

It certainly is contrary to what Solzhenitsyn wrote, as he argued that a system of slave-labour and murder camps were an integral part of the Soviet system, from start to finish.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 08:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, well considering that this project was bought and paid for by Zbignew Brezinski, I am sure that is the overall intent.

As for the record of dead, as he acounts for it, he is very careful to dilineate the difference between the dead that can be accounted for by reviewing the archived Soviet Material, while at the same noting the areas where there was room for likely and substantial distoritions.

You type better and with more authority when you put you hatchet, or whatever it is that you are holding in your hand, down.

For instance did you ever read anything of what I ever wrote on this site about Lenins notions about Democratic Centralism as the essential element contributing to the rise of Stalanism, on this web site?

No? I didn't think so.

My critique was detailed and lengthy, and I am not going to repeat it here, now, for you as I have made it numerously on this site, and you are obviously not really interested in doing much more than outing "Bolshies" of your own imaginings, because I had the temerity to defend communists and call Louise Arbour a ninny.

And this, when I had thought that job of a civil rights lawyer was defending people from unfair persecution and defamation, not pursuing spurious accusations against them based on little to no information.

Thanks.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2007 08:49 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am mystified by that post! You recommended a book, and I said it looked interesting.

I didn't accuse you of anything at all.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No? Oh! Good.

Then we agree, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party, right?

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2007 08:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm kind of mystified too, Cueball. I know you and jeff have a "past" on babble, but he didn't do anything in this thread. What gives?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 09:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see what the problem is.

I simply referred him to my past postings on the nature of Democratic Centralism, and Leninism. He was the one who raised the issue of Leninism and its relationship to Stalanism in the first place, after all, so I thought those might be instructive.

But, I then suggested that the reason that he hadn't read them already was perhaps because he is far more interested in "outing reds," than actually reading what people say, especially if they happen to do things like challenge the NATO narrative on the Bosnian war and the activties of the ICTY. I referred to, as you put it, "the past."

It all seems fair and reasonable to me.

I also, in passing, complimented him on having put his hatchet down, or whatever else it was he was holding, and that he was typing better and with more authority now that he had.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 09:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I really hope someone other than me is laughing right now, because I am busting my gut.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2007 09:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You guys make me crazy. Okay, have fun.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2007 09:23 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Honestly, I don't know what he's talking about.

He said he was reading a book, and I said it looked interesting.

Apparently, this makes Cuebby laugh maniacally.

I wish him a nice day.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2007 09:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, well this is probably a good example of why dragging fights from one thread into another is a bad idea. I think you're being rather disingenuous, Cueball, but whatever - let's leave it behind and continue the discussion from here if we can.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 09:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"maniacly?"

Ok.

As for the book, so far Khlevniuk, has not said anything that I would call a critical theoretical analysis of the relationship between Stalin's practice and Lenin's thought. He seems mostly interested in building up a picture of the events themselves, their purpose and how they were organized, not abstractions about theory and practice.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 09:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay, well this is probably a good example of why dragging fights from one thread into another is a bad idea. I think you're being rather disingenuous, Cueball, but whatever - let's leave it behind and continue the discussion from here if we can.

Disingenuous? I was flat out lying.

Be that as it may, I detected a tenor to Jeff's "innocent" questions, which had the ugly tinge of some of what has gone before, so I decided to protest my innocence as well. I thought rather that he was dragging in the past, as it were.

Perhaps I was wrong, but another example of Jeff mounting "innocent" questions of this type was he asking me, "what the Communist Party line was," on the recent bombing of Somalia was in the thread on that subject, as if I would know.

So, no I don't think Jeff's questions are always as innocent as they seem.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2007 09:36 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is an unexplained contradiction in the analysis offered by both the old Cold War anticommunists and the reconstructed Stalinists. On the one hand, they ascribe to Marxism a rigid determinism, which, they claim, is the theoretical source of the attempt of the Bolsheviks to impose an unworkable antimarket utopia upon Russian society. But then, these bitter opponents of "determinism" resort to the most extreme determinism in their interpretation of post-1917 Soviet history, which they explain as the inexorable outcome of the unfolding of Bolshevik ideology. Every episode of Soviet history, we are told, arose inevitably out of the October Revolution. After depositing Lenin at the Finland Station in April 1917, the train of history, commandeered by ruthless Marxists, moved along a single track that led to the debacle of 1991, with preprogrammed stops at the Lubyanka and the Gulag Archipelago.
WSWS

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 09:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the one hand, they ascribe to Marxism a rigid determinism, which, they claim, is the theoretical source of the attempt of the Bolsheviks to impose an unworkable antimarket utopia upon Russian society. But then, these bitter opponents of "determinism" resort to the most extreme determinism in their interpretation of post-1917 Soviet history, which they explain as the inexorable outcome of the unfolding of Bolshevik ideology.

Generally a good point, and clever too, in terms of some critiques, but a straw man in my case.

This because I would argue that a proper Marxist critique based in a dialectical materialist analysis would include "outcomes of the unfolding of Bolshevik ideology," as an expression of social relations defined by the material conditions.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2007 10:20 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is an unexplained contradiction in the analysis offered by both the old Cold War anticommunists and the reconstructed Stalinists. On the one hand, they ascribe to Marxism a rigid determinism, which, they claim, is the theoretical source of the attempt of the Bolsheviks to impose an unworkable antimarket utopia upon Russian society. But then, these bitter opponents of "determinism" resort to the most extreme determinism in their interpretation of post-1917 Soviet history, which they explain as the inexorable outcome of the unfolding of Bolshevik ideology.

Doesn't everyone believe that actions have partially predictable consequences? If you create a rigid, top-down party, won't you end up with excesses committed by the Leader whose orders cannot be opposed?

Maybe it isn't "inexorable", but it's pretty damn likely to occur. It is not necessary to "resort to the most extreme determinism" to think that bad decisions will have serious negative consequences in the long run.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 January 2007 02:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Doesn't everyone believe that actions have partially predictable consequences? If you create a rigid, top-down party, won't you end up with excesses committed by the Leader whose orders cannot be opposed?.


I suppose the same was said of Hitler and his entourage. We know about the corporate feeding frenzy in Berlin during the buildup of the Nazi war machine. But the first German-inspired coup plot against the fuhrer before the outbreak of war is not well known, and the plotters made their pleas for assistance as far away as the embassy in London leading up to war. Hitler's security was always assured of by a well-trained and loyal Praetorian guard, the SS. Surely Stalin delegated routine sentencing and murder to a top-down hierarchy of loyal executioners?.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2007 03:59 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Surely Stalin delegated routine sentencing and murder to a top-down hierarchy of loyal executioners?.

A good review of the Khlevniuk book which includes information on this question can be found here:

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=306101138032746

According to the review, Khlevniuk's review of the archives leads him to believe that

"repression and terror were always initiated and supervised from Moscow, and Stalin's role was active and decisive."


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 January 2007 04:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a bit lightweight but adequate. It seems to focus on Stalin. Even the Nazis had help.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 05:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

A good review of the Khlevniuk book which includes information on this question can be found here:

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=306101138032746According to the review, Khlevniuk's review of the archives leads him to believe that

"repression and terror were always initiated and supervised from Moscow, and Stalin's role was active and decisive."


I think it is a good review of the book, however, having read most of it now, I would hardly single out the phrase you have as exemplary of the boook, because it gives a false impression of what the book and, incidentally, the review of the book are about.

Instead I would focus on the real issue the book discusses which is the actual mechanism and purposes of the Gulag, so this paragraph, more accurately summarizes the content of the book, though it too is conjectural.

quote:
Khlevniuk notes that the number of dead in the GULAG "should be augmented," (p. 321) but
does not venture an overall estimate. But looking at the statistical shadows in his discussion would give as probable numbers: 1 million who died in detention, 1.3 million who died as exiles, and 735,000 executions. He puts the victims of the terror-famine at a conservative 6-7 million. If one adds the likely dead among the "third-category" Kulaks and freed invalids dying after their release because of their time in the GULAG, this would support R.W. Davies’ estimate that the new NKVD data shows 10-11 million deaths caused by the Soviet state in the 1930s.[5]

Note that Khlevniuk does not venture an overall estimate. And is he not right to do so, since no one will ever truly be able to make a comprehensive and final estimate. Rather he has concerned himself with something that no one has done before or was able to do before, which is review the actual archival material available.

This will no doubt be of use to many people regardless of there theoretical stand. For no matter what their are plenty of grounds for dispute given that there is a natural a common arguement about wherein the total number of people killed in famine of 1931-32 truly count among the intentional victims of Stalanist Russia, and how that intentionality or lack of it accords in terms of asssesing responsibility.

That question will always be argued, and Khlevniuk rightly avoids it, in my view, as this has been hashed over again and again infinitely, and making determinations of this sort, not his ojective. Instead Khlevniuk tries as much as possible to make an objective schollarly assessment of the "facts" including what remains of the official record, which he treats with much circumspection.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 January 2007 06:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
"repression and terror were always initiated and supervised from Moscow, and Stalin's role was active and decisive."

They weren't as efficient as Eichmann and the Einsatsgruppen over a shorter period, but Kaganovitch and Yagoda administered and delegated the mass murder of several million Russians, well over ten million I believe.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 06:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually in some ways they were more efficient, as it is fairly clear that punishment and repression was not the sole goal of the Gulag, and that turning the camps and colonies into productive economic enterprises was possibly the major objective of the Gulag, not extermination.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 January 2007 06:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh ya, I was referring to the repression and terror in general delegated by the top-down hierarchy under Stalin which Jeff mentioned. I think Stalin wasn't the only Stalinist within the hierarchy, like there was an administration that existed under Hitler, is all I was saying.

Life was difficult in the gulags. Pay and bonuses for production were meagre. Food was rationed but far moreso I think after 1941. They were short of food all over Russia during the 1930's by what I've been told by two Jewish people, older friends of my parents. Many Jews actually credited Stalin for their survival because they were in Siberia at the time. Some professionals, like doctors, even volunteered to go. And many volunteered for the Russian front during the war.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 07:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Oh ya, I was referring to the repression and terror in general delegated by the top-down hierarchy under Stalin which Jeff mentioned. I think Stalin wasn't the only Stalinist within the hierarchy, like there was an administration that existed under Hitler, is all I was saying.

Yes.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 January 2007 07:29 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if the Holodomor is in serious dispute in terms of its intentionality anymore, is it Cueball? Or am I missing something?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 07:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure there are questions about intentionality. The questions are numerous. Certainly the CPSU intentionally persued an economic policy which resulted in massive dislocation of existing economic structures, and catapulted the Ukraine into a terrible famine, but it is not at all clear that the intention of the CPSU was to cause a famine though their actions, though their mismanagment; the excessive use of force; the forced migrations; the prosecution of persons who resisted collectivization all contributed to the overall catastrophe, but the question remains "was the program intended as a mode of extermination?"

Lets not forget that the obstensible purpose of the anti-kulak campaign was to "destroy the Kulaks, as a class."

This doesn't necessarily mean the extermination of them as people, though it is clear that CPSU had no compunction in physically elminating dissenting person, or putting them in circumstance (mass deportation to the east) where they were vulnerable (quite precicatbly) to the extremely adverse conditions of the Soviet hinterland.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 15 January 2007 07:56 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, but when they spoke of eliminating the Kulaks "as a class" they were referring to their status as land-owners - a definition that included nearly every non-urban family in Ukraine, by dint of historical patterns of land ownership.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 January 2007 07:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, based on the records the CPSU did make distinctions between peasants who worked their own land and those that owned property upon which others worked. Kulaks were of the latter group, the former classified as peasant, as were those who worked on Kulak farms.

The definition of Kulaks isn't even a communist creation, it exists in pre-soviet times under the Czars.

This exists seperately from the effort of the CPSU to collectivize everyone, including any peasants, whereas Kulaks were afforded a special status which was less beneficial to their prospects, and often resulted in internal deportation, as opposed to local collectivization.

[ 15 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2007 04:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just curious - is The Deserter's Tale about communist gulags and such? If not, then this has been the most successful thread hijacking in recent memory.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 16 January 2007 04:43 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd say. And I was really interested in hearing more about The Deserter's Tale.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2007 04:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, well, I changed the thread title since the discussion is well underway about Cueball's book, and I started a new thread in this forum about The Deserter's Tale which will hopefully stay on topic.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 January 2007 05:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Just curious - is The Deserter's Tale about communist gulags and such? If not, then this has been the most successful thread hijacking in recent memory.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 January 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This doesn't necessarily mean the extermination of them as people, though it is clear that CPSU had no compunction in physically elminating dissenting person, or putting them in circumstance (mass deportation to the east) where they were vulnerable (quite precicatbly) to the extremely adverse conditions of the Soviet hinterland.

There were a number of people sent/encouraged to live in the far East. I believe there was a part of Russia allocated for a Zionist Jewish state, if I'm not mistaken.

And after the 20 some odd nation invasion from 1918 - 1922, there were always fears of another invasion from the East. A significant American contingent lead by a famous American general and Japanese force made its way into the heart of Russia along railway tracks from the East. They disappeared and were never heard from again. British, Canadian, German and French invaded from the west and South. White Russians rode into villages slaughtering willy nilly. Ukrainians, Czechs, and Poles made it as far as Moscow but surrendered or turned back. Millions of Russians were homeless, wandering the countryside starving and freezing to death.

[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 January 2007 02:05 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:



Oh again, ruined keyboard!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 January 2007 02:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
A significant American contingent lead by a famous American general and Japanese force made its way into the heart of Russia along railway tracks from the East. They disappeared and were never heard from again.


do you have a book referencing this?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 January 2007 02:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:


do you have a book referencing this?


I don't. It was a history channel documentary. The general in question was, I think, made famous during the Spanish-American war. I'm not sure how many men there were, but they were never heard from again. I have one or two history books printed in the U.S., but none mention this for some reason or other. My grandfather was asked to go to Russia sometime after 1918. He refused. I think the documentary was telling it from European and perhaps Russian points of view.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 January 2007 02:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay thanks fidel, I do not get History Channel, but when I go the Library tomorrow to get the History of the Gulag Book, and some others mspector has noted, I will look for reference material on it. My Aunt whose parents were from Moldova mentioned something years ago now about this to me, and I had forgotten it until you mentioned it.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 January 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel is referring to General William S. Graves who headed up the American Expeditionary Force Siberia. This was a 7500 troop US force deployed to Vladivostok and westward between 1918 and 1920. They lost about 150 troops in total and had withdraw from the theatre by April 1920


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2007 03:12 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
do you have a book referencing this?

If you are asking about a book which discusses the American invasion of Communist Russia just after Lenin took power, the easiest book to obtain is The Decision to Intervene, by George F. Kennan.

quote:
In 1918 the U.S. government decided to involve itself with the Russian Revolution by sending troops to Siberia. This book re-creates that unhappily memorable storythe arrival of British marines at Murmansk, the diplomatic maneuvering, the growing Russian hostility, the uprising of Czechoslovak troops in central Siberia which threatened to overturn the Bolsheviks, the acquisitive ambitions of the Japanese in Manchuria, and finally the decision by President Wilson to intervene with American troops. Of this period Kennan writes, "Never, surely, in the history of American diplomacy, has so much been paid for so little."

http://www.amazon.ca/Decision-Intervene-George-Kennan/dp/0393302172

As well, there was an American expeditionary force which entered Russia near Murmansk around 1918.

wikipedia


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 January 2007 03:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks Jeff, my list grows for the library.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2007 04:01 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The exam will be on Friday.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 January 2007 04:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm jotting that down. Wicked, thanks guys.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 January 2007 06:09 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're welcome
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 16 January 2007 10:38 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you are asking about a book which discusses the American invasion of Communist Russia just after Lenin took power, the easiest book to obtain is The Decision to Intervene, by George F. Kennan.

Thanks for the info, Jeff. I'll try to read it. I assume its the same Kennan who was the mastermind of the postwar anti-Soviet "containment" policy.

BTW,the Entente(Allied) invasions of 1918-20 really did reinforce siege mentality of the new Soviet Russia. In much of Russian sources, Entente is labelled "intervents". Japanese were the worst of the invaders, since they helped themselves to Russian land and resources.


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 January 2007 10:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, well as it was Russian land and resources why was it necessary to move 170,000 Koreans to the Uzbek SSR?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 January 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe there was also a Spanish contingent in Russia not mentioned in those Wiki links by what I can tell. Not F. Franco, and I can't remember how many troops. Bad memory lately. ETA: And a few German mercenaries for good measure. Man, the capitalist west was very concerned for democracy in Russia(and China in WWII) back then, weren't they. It's a heartwarming tale.

[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 17 January 2007 01:17 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dont know why they were deported, you should study Stalin's paranoid mind for that purpose...

Why did you bring this up,Cueball? This happened right before WWII.I was talking about the Japanese invasion of Soviet Russia and its alliance with the White Guard. For example Far East Communist commander Sergey Lazo was executed by the Japanese and Whites when he was tossed into a chimney in 1920.

Anyway, I searched for the Russian-Koreans and found an entire article. Well,since youre in a prickly mood, here's the quote you seek:

quote:
Between 1937 and 1939, Stalin deported over 172,000 Koreans to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, on the official premise that the Koreans might act as spies for Japan. Many community leaders were purged and executed, and it would be over a decade and a half before Koryo-saram would be again permitted to travel outside of Central Asia. Up until the era of glasnost, it was not permitted to speak openly of the deportations.

Russian-Koreans(wikipedia)

Still, Russians supported korean independence movement. Looks like some Koreans also fought for the Red cause in the Far East:

quote:
Korean nationalists and communists escaped to Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Manchuria. With the October Revolution and the rise of communism in East Asia, Siberia was home to Soviet Koreans that organised in armies like the Righteous Army to oppose Japanese forces. [2] In 1919, the March First Movement for Korean independence was supported by Korean leaders who gathered in Vladivostok's Sinhanchon neighborhood. This neighborhood became a center for nationalist activities, including arms supply; the Japanese attacked it on April 4, 1920, leaving hundreds dead.

No need to simplify history, Cueball. many were deported by Stalin. But surely, North American democracies would never arrest Asian minorities.
Oh wait


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 January 2007 01:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not talking about the actual arrest and deportation.

I am talking about the existance of a substantial Korean minority in the regions disputed by Japan. Later deported. The fatc that they were deported proves that they were there.

Therefore, I simply don't understand how the "land and resources" taken by the Japanese belonged to Russia, as you stated, since the Koreans and other Asians groups were evidently there long before the Czar came and claimed it as Russian.

I used the evidence of the deportation to show the prexistance of a local minority, that should by my standards have had the primary claim to the land whatever the Japanese and the Russians thought.

BTW, Lazo wasn't tossed into a chimney but fried in the furnace of a train engine.

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 January 2007 06:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Russians would like to cede valuable real estate to the Japanese, who obviously are in real need of living space. But it would come with a caveat: U.S. military occupation. Once the Yanks gain ground anywhere in the world, especially through a colony, they tend to setup military bases and just never leave.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 18 January 2007 03:47 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Youre probably right, Fidel. Currently, US has 50000 troops in Japan, still 60 years after the war. BTW, I didnt find any info on whether or not the Yanks have nukes in Japan.

quote:
I used the evidence of the deportation to show the prexistance of a local minority, that should by my standards have had the primary claim to the land whatever the Japanese and the Russians thought.

BTW, Lazo wasn't tossed into a chimney but fried in the furnace of a train engine.



Whatever you say, Cueball. I was addressing the issue of Allied intervention inside Russia. If you look into the article I posted, you'll notice that Korean labourers came into Russian Far East after it became Russian land. To clarify, it would be the local Siberian tribes and maybe the Chinese who could hold claim to the land.

As for Lazo, I knew that already, I was just simplifying. See the dangers of simplification?

He was a hero in Moldavia since he was born there.
BTW, Cueball I would talk more about this stuff, but I gathered from other thread taht your PM box is always full.


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 18 January 2007 03:49 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
BTW, I didnt find any info on whether or not the Yanks have nukes in Japan.

Technically? No. However....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwo_Jima#U.S._nuclear_arms_base


quote:
"It is true that Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were under U.S. occupation, that the bombs stored on the mainland lacked their plutonium and/ or uranium cores, and that the nuclear-armed ships were a legal inch away from Japanese soil. All in all, this elaborate strategem maintained the technicality that the United States had no nuclear weapons 'in Japan.'"

From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 01:05 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:

Whatever you say, Cueball. I was addressing the issue of Allied intervention inside Russia. If you look into the article I posted, you'll notice that Korean labourers came into Russian Far East after it became Russian land. To clarify, it would be the local Siberian tribes and maybe the Chinese who could hold claim to the land.

BTW, Cueball I would talk more about this stuff, but I gathered from other thread taht your PM box is always full.


I was really only using the Koreans as an example, I even said other Asian minorities to be more inclusive. The main thrust of the point is really that the idea that the Eastern USSR was, or even now, is integral to traditional Russian or Slavic territory is very dubious.

So when we talk about the Russians being in a purely defensive posture vis the multiple post-revolution invasions, we are being a little to tidy with our analysis, I think. I think much of the post Rovlutionary re-assertion of Czarist imperial borders was really just Soviet reassertion of Russian imperailism.

The war beteween Japan and Russia, post-revolutionary or otherwise at the begining of the 20th century arguably has more of the flavour of the powerful divying up the spoils, rather than one side or the other justly defending their traditional territories from outside agression.

Though I agree the Russians really were in the defensive posture vis the Japanese themselves, all the way through to Khalin Gol.

PS PM me if you like, if it doesn't work, leave a note elsewhere on the board. It is not always full but often is.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 January 2007 09:57 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So when we talk about the Russians being in a purely defensive posture vis the multiple post-revolution invasions, we are being a little to tidy with our analysis, I think. I think much of the post Rovlutionary re-assertion of Czarist imperial borders was really just Soviet reassertion of Russian imperailism.


I like the phrase "we are being a bit too tidy with our analysis".

If the USSR was not in a purely defensive posture when Allied Forces entered space occupied by Russian imperialism, it suggests some kind of right to the land that the Siberian tribes were being deprived of. Perhaps they did not wish to be part of the USSR?

Now, apply that analysis to Serbia/Kosovo. Try not to be too tidy in the analysis.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 10:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have. Its laughable.

If any one has a tidy analysis of the Balkans it is you, actually. Firstly because, at the point at which the Balkan states begin to evolve clear nationalist movements at the begining of the 19th century, all are more or less are starting at ground zero.

Trying to paint Serbia as a Balkan hyper-power asserting its inexonerable will over the rest of the Balkans is patently absurd, for a number or reasons. Among which is the fact that Yugolzvia comes into existance at the will of the Paris Peace conference and is an act of your cherished "international community." It is also not simply and imposition, but something supported by numerous factions within each community. And in fact up until Radic's assassination by Serb ultra-nationalist was supported by the Croat nationalists of the Hrvatska Peasant Party, and whose main point of contention was not Croatias inclusion in a greater Slavic republic but his opposition to it being a consitutional monarchy led by a Serbian King (Karadjordevic.)

If anything the suprior power in pre-WW1 Balkans is actually Bulgaria, and this is the reason that every single one of its neighbours went to war with it in 1912, breaking up the anti-Ottoman alliance.

Further, the second rendition of Yugolsavia, that of Tito in the post-WW2 era, came into existance as an affirmation of the Federalist position pf Radic supported by most Croat nationalists. It is not a mere political anomaly that Tito was a Croat. So post WW2 Yugoslavia is really the reacreation of the previous country ammended to be a Federalist state along the lines of that propsed by Croats under the Yugoslavian constitutional monarchy, and also comes about as a result of the throwing off of the German war occupation, not as an act of agressive military campaigns of Serbs against Bosniaks, Croats and Montenegrans.

So, in fact, while Soviet dominance in Siberia and the Caucuses comes as a reassertion Czarist right of conquest, the borders of Yugoslavia were mainly created as political solutions resulting from the need to create national structures to replace those of the imperial powers which previously ruled the region -- Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans.

In fact the only military, campaigns conducted by Serbs (other than those of the early 90's) in contested regions happened during the war against the Ottomans in 1912 in the region in Macedonia where the allies Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all cooperated in divying up the Ottoman territories of Macedonia, and also of course against Bulgaria, after the collapse of the anti-Ottoman alliance, in order to redistribute the spoils of the anti-Ottoman campaign.

There was no campaign against the Croats or Bosniaks or Slovenes, as these territories were all included in Yugoslavia as part of the poltical solution devised by the League of Nations.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 January 2007 10:33 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The argument for intervention in Kosovo is based on the idea that Kosovars wished to be free of Serbian domination.

But you say that, by definition, Serbia couldn't be an imperialist power in the Balkans.

Oh, ok then. I'll let the Kosovars know.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 January 2007 10:39 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So when we talk about the Russians being in a purely defensive posture vis the multiple post-revolution invasions, we are being a little to tidy with our analysis, I think. I think much of the post Rovlutionary re-assertion of Czarist imperial borders was really just Soviet reassertion of Russian imperailism

Well we can be sure imperialism didn't die with the Tsars considering the 20 some odd countries armies and mercenaries representing every interest from British royalty to the Tsar's former personal guards to Cossacks & White Russians to Japanese imperialism to pox Americana to Kaiser Wilhelm and mercenaries, who continued to dream of world domination after defeat in 1918 and marauding willy nilly through Russia at the time. There was nothing tidy about it.

Imagine mercenaries and imperialist armies from over 20 nations intervening in the American civil war to prop up the Confederacy.

And the west thought they were going to hack off pieces of China for themselves with backing Chiang Kai Shek who fled to Formosa with the bank of China and imperial treasures after murdering 10 million Maoists and Chinese in general.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The argument for intervention in Kosovo is based on the idea that Kosovars wished to be free of Serbian domination.

But you say that, by definition, Serbia couldn't be an imperialist power in the Balkans.

Oh, ok then. I'll let the Kosovars know.


Self-serving rhetoric is not a replacement for knowledge founded in studying the history.

There is of course anomalies to the historical tendencies I outlined, and I don't really object to your characterization of the situation of the Albanians in Kosovo, as you would know if you had any clue about the history I am discussing because I explicitly outlined the single sailent example of Serbian conquest by force, which was during the anti-Ottoman campaign in which Kosovo became part of Serbia, prior to Serbia becoming part of Yugoslavia.

Yet I am trying to paint a picture of the main themes of Yugoslav history, in comparison to the main themes in Soviet history, which you asked me to do. You are merely trumpeting your ideological horn, which is why you missed the fact that my outline accounted for the content of your missive.

Of course the situation of the Alabanian peoples was substantially different than that of the slavic people, living in Yugoslavia. It wasn't called Yugoslavia, for nothing

In general, the fact is that Yugoslavia came together as a poltical solution, to account for the retraction of two empires, the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians. In general, especially when speaking of the Caucuses and the east, the fact is that the USSR came together as the reassertion of the right of imperial conquests of the Czar.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 January 2007 11:04 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Imagine mercenaries and imperialist armies from over 20 nations intervening in the American civil war to prop up the Confederacy.

Yes, or imagine someone preventing Russia from asserting domination over Latvia!

Obviously, "propping up" Latvia would be wrong, since Russia could easily dominate the Latvians!

But of course, this example isn't analogous to Cuebby's discussion of Siberia, because that is in the EAST of Russia, where Latvia is in the WEST!

Back to manicheanism for you guys, I guess.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 11:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My guess is that you clearly lost your arguement with me, or more likely simply failed to understand it and decided to take a pot shot at me by aasociating me with Fidel.

Par for the course.

Again, I specifically outlined that the Southern portions of Yugoslavia came into Serbian possession by conquest during the war with the Ottomans -- this includes Kosovo. Notice I did not include Albanians in the list, when I said:

quote:
comes about as a result of the throwing off of the German war occupation, not as an act of agressive military campaigns of Serbs against Bosniaks, Croats and Montenegrans.

But you simply don't know enough about the history to devine the meaning of these nuances so you have to content yourself with tidying up all the inconvenient truths, as irrelevant, even to the point of ignoring the fact that I had already made the point you thought you were very clever in making.

Your analysis is about as tidy as anything I ever see from the Milosovic fans, just with different heros.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 January 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

In general, especially when speaking of the Caucuses and the east, the fact is that the USSR came together as the reassertion of the right of imperial conquests of the Czar.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


The USSR came together after the Red Army and Russian people liberated Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Kracow and began laying railway track to Berlin every inch of the way. Remember that FDR gave American companies liscence to do business in Germany during Hitler's military buildup while simultaneously cutting off aid to Jewish refugees and then later, refused Stalin's calls for a second front against the Nazis. So the Czar was way out of the picture well before that time.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 11:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, railroads were, and still are, pretty essential to military logistics.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 January 2007 11:27 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe Hitler idealized the return to a Kaiser-led Germany himself. And he mentioned something about expanding into Russia to create living space.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 January 2007 11:39 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My guess is that you clearly lost your arguement with me, or more likely simply failed to understand it and decided to take a pot shot at me by aasociating me with Fidel.

No, no.

I thought you might see that you were being inconsistent.

But you didn't.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 11:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought you might have at least recongized that I discussed the Serbiab conquest of Kosovo in the 1912 war, and that your bringing up the situation of the Kosovars was merely a repetition of what I said, but said tendentiously and with a dint of sacntimonious sarcasm.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 11:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In other words you asked me to trace the broad themes (what else is an analysis but an assesment of the broad themes?) of the creation of the Soviet Union and the creations of Yugoslavia. You then tried to upset my analysis by refering to the specific anomaly of the Serbian aquisition of Kosovo by force, not realizing of course that I had already acounted for that specfic anomaly.

Why is this? Probably because you just don't know the history, and that when one is talking about the 1912 Serbian Campaign in Macedonia, one is also talking about what later became the province of Kosovo.

In other words, you don't know enough about this to even know that you lost the arguement.

LOL

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465

posted 19 January 2007 01:38 PM      Profile for Southlander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
People please try and keep your sentences a bit smaller and simpler! I am new to all this info and I'm having trouble with the comprehension. thanks. Otherwise how can I hope to pass the test on Friday?

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Southlander ]

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Southlander ]


From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 January 2007 08:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry.

[ 19 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca