aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Absolutes Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of The Java EE 7 Tutorial Volume 1 or Volume 2 this week in the Java EE forum
or jQuery UI in Action in the JavaScript forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

Absolutes

Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In 1991 when Gorbachev appeared to be losing power he banned demonstrations and renewed censorship of the print and television media.

YANAEV WARNS LEADERS OF "DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA." Vice-president Yanaev met March 27 with the chairman of the Moscow City Executive Committee, Yurii Luzhkov, and the two co-chairmen of "Democratic Russia," Arkadii Murashov and Yurii Afanas'ev. The meeting was also attended by USSR Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Pugo and KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov (TASS, March 27). Pugo and Kryuchkov informed the leaders of Democratic Russia that prime minister Valentin Pavlov has banned the holding of all rallies in Moscow until April 15 (this period also encompasses the planned April 2 food price rises). Afanas'ev and Murashov replied that Pavlov does not have the right to ban demonstrations in Moscow; they also pointed out that Article 50 of the USSR Constitution guarantees citizens the right to take part in demonstrations.
LEADERS OF "DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA" ON SOVIET TV. Since the end of last year, the leaders of "Democratic Russia" have been virtually banned from the airwaves. On March 27, however, Arkadii Murashov appeared on Soviet television's main newscast, "Vremya." He reaffirmed DR's intention to go ahead with the rally on March 28, and called on participants to avoid violence even if confronted by the police. "Vremya" was followed by a one-hour round-table discussion between two leaders of the RSFSR Communist Party, Ivan Antonovich and Aleksandr Mal'tsev, and two leaders of Democratic Russia, Yurii Afanas'ev and Stepan Sulakshin. Later that night, the "TSN" newscast interviewed several RSFSR deputies, among them chairman of the Democratic Party of Russia, Nikolai Travkin.
RSFSR SUPSOV PRESIDIUM: RALLY BAN "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." "Vremya" March 27 reported a statement in which the presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet presidium asserted that prime minister Pavlov's ban on demonstrations in Moscow contradicts Articles 48 and 72 of the USSR Constitution, the RSFSR Constitution, and the RSFSR's declaration of sovereignty. The presidium requested their all-Union counterparts to refer the action of the executive to the USSR Supreme Soviet.
http://www.friends-partners.org/friends/news/omri/1991/03/910328.html(opt,mozilla,unix,english,,new)


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Ok Map, I gotta call you on the constant Chomsky quotes. Chomsky probably isn't the best guy to be quoting if you are looking to reach an understanding with your opponents.

Who was talking about understanding? My goal is to de-propagandize them and to show the true face of communism and capitalism.
Seriously, what is wrong with Chomsky?
By that point, there wasn't much the Soviet military could have done to prevent it.
Here is a good article "New Evidence on the "Soviet Factor" in the Peaceful Revolutions of 1989" by Vladislav M. Zubok in "Cold War International History Project Bulletin" published by The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
(So it's not Chomsky and not some activist site )
It has some interesting info...
"At certain points, for instance in the early 1970s, Soviet political ties to France and West Germany became more important and perhaps warmer on a personal level than relations with some members of the Warsaw Pact. Soviet diplomats as a professional corps, and various Moscowbased academic “think-tanks,” became to a considerable extent a “pro-d�tente lobby.” They even attempted, whenever possible, to encourage the leadership to reform relationships inside the Warsaw Pact, holding NATO as an example."
"In an interesting episode, soon after Gorbachev came to power, a hard-line senior official of the CC International Department, Oleg Rakhmanin, decided that it was time “to discipline the socialist camp.” According to the recollections of one of his colleagues, everybody in the Department had long known that the bloc had become a mess: “K�d�r was doing whatever he wanted, Honecker was hiding some things from us, making deals with West Germany, trading with them, accepting loans, letting people travel, nobody knew what he was doing; the Poles flirted with the Americans and planned to purchase Boeings instead of our airplanes.”
"Yakovlev, and Gorbachev himself, were very much inclined to heed this advice. One reason for the policy of non-interference was best put by Fedor Burlatsky: “We have given our allies so much bad advice in the past that we now hesitate to give them good advice.” The guilty conscience of 1956 and particularly of the suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968 weighed on the Gorbachevites as part of their generational experience. Gorbachev did not suffer from the trauma of 1968 as some of his intellectual advisers did. But his own experience as a member of the “Suslov commission” on Poland in 1980-81 made him very sympathetic to anti-interventionist voices around him."
Speaking about Poland 1980-81:
The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980/81 and the End of the Cold War by Vojtech Mastny Working Paper No. 23 (pdf)
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

YANAEV WARNS LEADERS OF "DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA." Vice-president Yanaev met March 27 with the chairman of the Moscow City Executive Committee, Yurii Luzhkov, and the two co-chairmen of "Democratic Russia," Arkadii Murashov and Yurii Afanas'ev. The meeting was also attended by USSR Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Pugo and KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov (TASS, March 27). Pugo and Kryuchkov informed the leaders of Democratic Russia that prime minister Valentin Pavlov has banned the holding of all rallies in Moscow until April 15 (this period also encompasses the planned April 2 food price rises). Afanas'ev and Murashov replied that Pavlov does not have the right to ban demonstrations in Moscow; they also pointed out that Article 50 of the USSR Constitution guarantees citizens the right to take part in demonstrations.
LEADERS OF "DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA" ON SOVIET TV. Since the end of last year, the leaders of "Democratic Russia" have been virtually banned from the airwaves. On March 27, however, Arkadii Murashov appeared on Soviet television's main newscast, "Vremya." He reaffirmed DR's intention to go ahead with the rally on March 28, and called on participants to avoid violence even if confronted by the police. "Vremya" was followed by a one-hour round-table discussion between two leaders of the RSFSR Communist Party, Ivan Antonovich and Aleksandr Mal'tsev, and two leaders of Democratic Russia, Yurii Afanas'ev and Stepan Sulakshin. Later that night, the "TSN" newscast interviewed several RSFSR deputies, among them chairman of the Democratic Party of Russia, Nikolai Travkin.
RSFSR SUPSOV PRESIDIUM: RALLY BAN "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." "Vremya" March 27 reported a statement in which the presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet presidium asserted that prime minister Pavlov's ban on demonstrations in Moscow contradicts Articles 48 and 72 of the USSR Constitution, the RSFSR Constitution, and the RSFSR's declaration of sovereignty. The presidium requested their all-Union counterparts to refer the action of the executive to the USSR Supreme Soviet.
http://www.friends-partners.org/friends/news/omri/1991/03/910328.html(opt,mozilla,unix,english,,new)

A more readable link is at http://www.russianet.ru/~oldrn/history/coup.html
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Seriously, what is wrong with Chomsky?

Basically he is a rabid communist who practices hate-mongering against the US. Do a search and see who most of the people enamoured with Chomsky are. For one, most of them are not American. In fact, i think we could say a good portion of them is anti-American, without too much debate. A good portion are of the communist or anarchist variety as well. This guy is a joke.
One gentleman summed it up nicely.

Despite the painful level of folly among the anti-capitalist anarchists, they can invoke apparently significant intellectual support. Seminal linguistics pioneer Noam Chomsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has for years spent much of his energy on a lunatic fringe political crusade against capitalism and the United States. Chomsky considers himself an "anarcho-socialist," regards people like Lenin as "right wing," and supports free speech to the extent of travelling to France, where it is illegal to deny the existence of the Holocaust, to defend the questionable people who were doing just that. Chomsky, to be sure, should be particuarly sensitive about such an issue, since he was one of the people who at the time indignantly denied that a holocaust was going on in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Nevertheless, Chomsky's views are otherwise in general little more than a depressingly familiar repeat, root and branch, of Soviet propaganda points. Thus, the United States is wealthy and successful only because it "exploits" other countries and its own poor. In this the United States is merely the logically and causal successor of Nazi Germany, whence it derived an irrational and vicious hatred of the Soviet Union. Chomsky, consequently, is one of the people who tend to regard the repressive totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, or other Communist countries, as merely the excusable response to American opposition. Their hearts were in the right place, and if they did bad things, it is our fault -- and they certainty didn't have corporations. Chomsky can only honor any such regime that refused to participate in the Western economic system, with the United States at its rotten core. Indeed, he thinks that U.S. policy is to destroy even economically insigificant countries (using unspeakable levels of torture and terror, his view of the U.S. role in El Salvador and Nicaragua) just so that the possibility of their setting an alternative "good example" is erased. Unfortunately, when such countries, like the Soviet Union itself, Vietnam, and Cuba, actually do break free of American control and the Western economic system, it is nevertheless still our fault that they do not subsequently prosper economically. How they can continue to fail although free is mysterious, although perhaps, if Chomsky is an anarchist, he assumes that they maintain a repressive state apparatus only to protect themselves from us, and that otherwise the state would "whither away" in true Marxist fashion, allowing a prosperity that the state as such precludes.
However much Chomsky's worldview seems like a Twilight Zone of counterfactuals and dishonest, unfalsifiable ideology, his influence is nevertheless great in a generation whose own political and economic education is a mush of incoherent welfare statism -- the true fascism whose affinities are, indeed, more with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union itself than with laissez-faire capitalism or American Constitutional government. But since Chomsky presumably doesn't like any of those things, there is literally no precedent for the kind of regime he would prefer and no evidence for the practicality, or even coherence, of whatever economic and political system he envisions. The idea of giving power to anyone of the sort is terrifying. When I find self-identified anarchists complaining that it is an outrage that conservatives are able to be heard on talk radio, I have no doubt that the excuses for Communist regimes that someone like Chomsky offers can very easily become excuses for their own violent repression of dissent should they ever have the chance to do so. As in the Soviet Union itself, free speech and such can be allowed after class enemies are eliminated and the state does whither away. Thus, until the whole world is assimilated to their system, they don't have to apologize for any acts of violence or oppression. By resisting, we are to blame.

See also:
- Armchair anti-American warrior aims, shoots duds
- Noam Chomsky�s Jihad Against America
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
A more readable link is at http://www.russianet.ru/~oldrn/history/coup.html

"More readable"??? I guess, this is where Thomas get his "Gorbachev immediately banned the demonstration" ideas. If Gorbachev did, please point me to documented words of him. So far, we know that prime minister Valentin Pavlov did it. Valentin Pavlov was if not a direct political opponent of Gorbachev, then far to the "right" from him and far more "communistic". he even participated in 1991 anti-Gorbachev coup! (see Herb's link and search for "Pavlov") Why to confuse the two? Not everybody supported Gorbachev and he had to maneuver. Many criticized him that time for slow temp of reforms, but l guess, he did what was possible without risking being arrested by his buddies, as it happened in 1991. If he was arrested earlier, nobody knows how history would turn. There is no other person who did more for destruction of communism than Gorbachev, and considering how relatively peacefully it happened, it was an amazing achievement. I cannot understand why you refuse to give him any credit! By the way, on all communist sites his texts are in "enemies" sections.
Your more "readable" documents are more readable only because they reinforce your preconceptions. If you mean unreadable font, I copied the text for your consumption.
[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The Berlin Wall came down in 1989; the forces of change had already been unleashed before 1990, and I would not say the future of the Communist Party was "well" at all at that point. They saw the handwriting on the wall, it was over, they knew it, and everyone else knew it.
I want to bang my head against the Berlin Wall ! But damn anti-Communists destroyed it. "The forces of change had already been unleashed" - who on the earth unleashed them? Did they unleash themselves? Did the Berlin Wall came down on her own decision? Who allowed it to be destroyed? Did Gulag destroy itself? Did "Archipelag Gulag" publish itself? According to your logic it was so :roll: Your friend Thomas P. a few post later claimed that Gorbachev "renewed censorship of the print and television media" in 1991, so what do you think would prevent him from banning "Archipelag Gulag"? I'll answer: absolutely nothing. And it wasn't only "Archipelag Gulag", it was a continuous flow of anti-communistic literature that was published while Communist Party was watching. I'll tell you even more: communists initiated it themselves. There simply was no other power in the country which could turn press 180�.
They saw the handwriting on the wall, it was over, they knew it, and everyone else knew it.
So what, the handwriting on the wall scared them?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The communists tried to regain power through the military and the people of Russia stood against them.
Tom, there was only one party in the USSR - the Communist Party. It included very different people with different views. All more or less serious political and economical figures were communists. You think they all were thinking alike? How is it possible? You think, communists aren't humans?
Part of the communists "tried to regain power" and another part of communists as well as the non-party people of Russia stood against them. There was no sharp distinction between "communists" and "people of Russia" - they all were people of Russia.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
You have completely missed the point.
I do not think so.
"During the long Cold War years, the Soviet veto and the hostility of many Third World nations made the United Nations an object of scorn to many American politicians and citizens."
This is absolutely true. What part of the above quote do you think is untrue?

Let's see... the long Cold War years are 44-46, various sources give 1945-1989 or 1945-91 dates.
1945 - 1970: 25 years
1970 - 1989-91: 19-21 years
So almost half of the term American politicians and citizens had been scorning at themselves?
"With the end of the cold war and the onset of the Gulf crisis, the United States can now test the validity of the Wilsonian concept of collective security -- a test which an automatic Soviet veto in the Security Council has precluded for the past forty years."
Again this is a true statement. It does not claim that the Soviets vetoed many resolutions. It simply states that the Soviets automatically vetoed resolutions dealing with collective security. Do you think this statement is untrue?

1. You said "The USSR, for example, use the veto 81 times between early 1946 and late 1955, often to prevent new countries which they considered to be "in the other camp" from becoming members of the UN" - how does it relate to "the Wilsonian concept of collective security"? Where can I read the history of vetoes? I tried to find some statistics but
2. By now we know that almost half of these years it was actually the USA that vetoed the Security Council resolutions. So both countries are guilty? Why blame only the Soviets? This is what Chomsky refers to as "myth".
An by the way, I still do not know how many vetoes the US issued before 1970.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I wish there were a more of a first person account I could find of these events...
I can give you a personal account. I cannot guarntee accuracy, since it was more than 10 years ago, and I can certainly get facts wrong. But this is how I remember it.
August 19 was Monday, I woke up about 7.00 and was still half-asleep while the radio translated news (my father already left to work and my mother was up). I did not listed too carefully, but after some time I got a strange feeling that something is wrong. Usually news went by short blocks and they were read by two announcers - always a male and female changing each other. This time one voice stayed for too long. So I started to listen and quickly realized something happened. I jumped out of my bed and went to the kitchen where the radio was. I heard only the end of the information, my mother said: Gorbachev resigned from the post of Leader of Communist Party. I automatically corrected that he resigned from the post of the President, and this moment realized that he did not. Some other people said he did, "because of health-related problems". What "health-related problems"? He was healthy like a bull. There was no other information, but it was pretty clear what happened.
I had a badge on my T-shirt, a Russian Flag, that time it was a symbol of democracy because Russian Supreme Council was more "progressive" than Federal government. I got a thought if I should take it out and decided it's not a time to take it out. Not yet. Not that I was too heroic person, just thought KGB has a lot more guys to deal with before they will have time to notice my affront. I went to my work wondering if people on the streets selling anti-Soviet books are gone. (they used folding beds to put books on, and sold them right on the streets.) All sellers were on their places, and I did not notice anything unusual in general. I did wonder, though, if these were last days we can read free press and if all we will have to read in the future wil be Communistic Congress protocols, as it used to be.
People on work were all out of their normal state, but nobody knew what is going on. They told me to take out my badge "just in case", but I was young and stubborn, and there was no real danger in air yet, so what the heck.
I came home and watched TV, but they either repeated the same text or shown Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" ballet. Why did they choose this ballet??? Why did they repeat it all the time? Since then the melody of "Swan Lake" was associated with the coup of 1991.
[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
"Russian President Boris Yeltsin speaking from the tank" - they showed it in 22.00 news program. I can be wrong about time and even day, maybe it was Tuesday, but I think, it was Monday. Later there was investigation how this happened, because Yeltsin's words weren't expected to ever appear on federal TV, of course. One reporter put his tape in "propaganda machine" and bosses pretended they had no clue he will be broadcasted, I do not know what really happened. But later it was said to be a major point, because it let everybody know that the putsch guys did not control the situation, so they weren't that much dangerous, really.
The next two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, I do not remember distinctly. At some point our boss returned from Volga's islands where he spent vacation fishing. I think, we went to the headquarters of "democrats" in my city, which happened to be the Institute of Statistics and Accounting Automations, by coincidence, a lot of best programmers worked there. Their director, Valery Davydov, was one of most prominent anti-communist leaders and my co-workers and I were "civil observers" during elections he participated in, but that's another story. I think, we asked what to do, and they said just print latest information and put it in places people can read it. So we did, I think, it was already Wednesday, when we got this... where did we get this "latest information"? I do not remember. But anyway, we printed
enough papers on LG printer and went to the downtown to put it on the walls... The problem was, there wasn't any place anywhere we tried to glue our papers, too many heroic people already put their papers there... This was frustrating! Finally, our Chief Programmer started to give our papers to people on the tram, but they did not want to take, either they were scared, or not too much "progressive", I do not know. But our mission failed, I must admit.
There were no demonstrations in my city, but I saw people in front of the Government Building. Somebody was smart enough to tape-record BBS or "The Voice of America", and people were listening. I did not, because I spent the whole night listening to the all these "voices", Soviets stopped to jam them some time ago. But to tape-record them -- this was smart and this never occured to me.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
And in case you wonder what happened to Valery Davydov, he is dead. Just died some years ago - this happens, you know. There were rumors that he was poisoned by mafia, but who can prove it?
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

See also:
- Armchair anti-American warrior aims, shoots duds
- Noam Chomsky�s Jihad Against America
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


You thought it would be read. Doesn't fit into peoples love of Norm to read that he isn't what he pretends.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
2. By now we know that almost half of these years it was actually the USA that vetoed the Security Council resolutions. So both countries are guilty? Why blame only the Soviets? This is what Chomsky refers to as "myth".

No it isn't. Chomsky doesn't know what he is talking about. Is there a myth that the Soviets used their veto to prevent the UN from doing its work? No. The Soviets did, indeed, use their veto to prevent the UN from doing its work. They did it for the first 25 years of the UN's existence. How can you call this a myth???
[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Here's a quote from a PBS special on the UN:
USSR casts first Security Council veto. On Feb. 16, 1946. Soviet Ambassador Andrei Vishinsky vetoes a resolution calling for the withdrawal of British and French troops from Syria because he considers its language too weak, transforming the assumption among UN founders that Security Council veto power would be used sparingly and only for major events. The USSR went on to become the Council's lead veto-er.
[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Here's a quote from the 1954 UN yearbook (from the UN site):
After the vote, the representatives of France, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom stated that the strong support given the draft resolution had shown its inherent reasonableness. They expressed grave concern that a negative vote should again have been cast by a permanent member against a moderate resolution designed to reduce tension in the Middle East. Since the USSR representative had not voted against the 1951 resolution, it was difficult to understand why he should veto a draft resolution that recalled the earlier one. Such use of the veto might reduce the Council to impotence on the Palestine question, they stated, as USSR vetoes had reduced it to impotence on so many other questions.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
And here's two intersting links.
The first is a list of recent vetoes:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
The second is a list of vetoes by country:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
And one more...
A document explaining every veto made in the Security COuncil from 1946 to 1998:
http://files.fco.gov.uk/info/research/unscvetoes.pdf
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I came home and watched TV, but they either repeated the same text or shown Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" ballet. Why did they choose this ballet??? Why did they repeat it all the time? Since then the melody of "Swan Lake" was associated with the coup of 1991.
[ February 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I heard someone on the radio say many years ago that Swan Lake was intended as a signal to everyone. I vaguely remember it being said that Swan Lake had been used before to signal some other uprising and that the people when hearing it would know something was happening. I could not find any support for this on the internet except a reference that the Soviet media had the practice of interrupting radio/TV programs with classical music to announce important deaths/funerals or something. I had always thought that Swan Lake, which seems so peacefull to me, was the most humerously ironic way possible to announce a revolution (as opposed to something like the 1812).
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
You thought it would be read. Doesn't fit into peoples love of Norm to read that he isn't what he pretends.

I have no idea about other people, but I read both links carefully and was going to respond this evening.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I heard someone on the radio say many years ago that Swan Lake was intended as a signal to everyone. I vaguely remember it being said that Swan Lake had been used before to signal some other uprising and that the people when hearing it would know something was happening.
I cannot guarantee, but this is most likely a legend. Nobody around me read it this way, and there was no such interpretation in press later.
I could not find any support for this on the internet except a reference that the Soviet media had the practice of interrupting radio/TV programs with classical music to announce important deaths/funerals or something.
This is true. When The Most Important Guy died, they well, "interrupt" is probably too weak word here, they replaced all other programs on TV for a couple of days with classical music. One can infer from here how much Soviet people liked classical music.
As for other "signals", it can be my own imagination of course, but... TV announcers had a set of "standard" face expressions and voice intonations when they read news. Communist approved news were read with one set of expressions, and responses of American Imperialism with another. When they read them their faces were saying "what a nonsense!" Again, I can be wrong, but when I watched news 19-21 August 1991, I got an impression that TV announcers find a use for this propaganda weapon - they read "coup" decrees with the same set of intonations they used for American Imperialism. They couldn't refuse to read news, but they found a way to send familiar "what a nonsense!" message to their audience.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
A long time ago? The 1930's wasn't that long ago. But we need to only go back to the 1960's in communist China to see millions dead from starvation due to communist collectivization.
Let's deal with one country at a time! All countries have their own pace of development, why do you want to impose yours unique measures on everybody??? Many people in Africa are hungry, so what? Chinese people have far lower standards of life than you, you think your standards are "normal"? I think their are "normal". Deadlock.
1958 is an interesting year. It was when Kruschev was in power. But what happened to Kruschev?
Khrushchov was overthrown by a coup of the Central Committee in 1964 (while on holiday at the Black Sea) and Leonid Brezhnev was installed as leader. "Khrushchov was criticized for his unsuccessful role in the Cuba crisis and his failure to improve agriculture." - as your Internet said. Do you imply that dissidents were arrested by millions in "Brezhnev" time?
And what happened to the labor camps after Kruschev was forced from power?
Absolutely nothing! Because what you call "the labor camps" was what you here call "jail". You put your criminals in jail, do not you? So did the fUSSR. Not all "labor camps" were in Siberia, there were some near my city (Volga region) and not all women were forced to cut trees in Siberia :roll: more often they just made clothes (but this is not cool to mention, I guess).
A cousin of my grandfather was put in "labor camp" in Stalin times for starting a fist-fight on the street. He had absolutely nothing to do with politics! I met him in 1980-s, he looked pretty good, while both my grandfathers who never were in "labor camps" were already dead.
"slave labor camps" - all people in the USSR had to work. Only women with small children were an exception, and disabled people, of course. There was an article in criminal code that said you will be put in jail if you do not work! So why would be criminals free from this responsibility? So other people would pay for their stay in jail? This is illogical.
Perhaps 1% of all population of "Gulag" in post-Stalin times were "political".
It is estimated that 6,000,000 people died in slave labor camps in post-Stalin USSR.
Where did you get this number?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And one more...
A document explaining every veto made in the Security Council from 1946 to 1998:
http://files.fco.gov.uk/info/research/unscvetoes.pdf

This is a wonderful paper! Exactly what I was looking for. How did you find it? Now I know I can rely on you in finding good sources.
It said that the USSR was a leader in using vetoes in 1946-65. Since then the USA moved to the first position. I still do not understand what "the Soviets automatically vetoed resolutions dealing with collective security" is about.
Maybe more important, why is there such thing as "veto" at all??
"Any of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) can prevent a draft resolution being passed in the Security Council, except when the resolution is restricted to procedural matters, by casting a negative vote."
What kind of democracy is it? Dictatorships of minority? Isn't the whole sense of UN to restrict countries' egoism? Why to allow to block resolutions based on egoistical interests?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
You thought it would be read. Doesn't fit into peoples love of Norm to read that he isn't what he pretends.

What he pretends???
"Throughout his engagements Chomsky spoke highly of journalists Alex Carey, Alexander Cockburn and John Pilger, amongst others. He strongly criticised people who asked him for guidance in selecting reliable source material, saying on several occasions that, "You have to use your own critical judgement and common sense. I can't tell you and why should you listen to me anyway? I could be lying about all this! That's the wrong question to ask me."
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id589/pg3/
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
JM: Basically he is a rabid communist who practices hate-mongering against the US.
Here are some explanations of how he came where he is:
"TWENTY-YEARS AGO, Dwight Macdonald published a series of articles in Politics on the responsibility of peoples and, specifically, the responsibility of intellectuals. I read them as an undergraduate, in the years just after the war, and had occasion to read them again a few months ago. They seem to me to have lost none of their power or persuasiveness. Macdonald is concerned with the question of war guilt. He asks the question: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? And, quite properly, he turns the question back to us: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely among the most unspeakable crimes in history. To an undergraduate in 1945-46—to anyone whose political and moral consciousness had been formed by the horrors of the 1930s, by the war in Ethiopia, the Russian purge, the "China Incident," the Spanish Civil War, the Nazi atrocities, the Western reaction to these events and, in part, complicity in them—these questions had particular significance and poignancy.
With respect to the responsibility of intellectuals, there are still other, equally disturbing questions. Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then, are much deeper than what Macdonald calls the "responsibility of people," given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy."
"The Responsibility of Intellectuals"
Perhaps my deep respect for the dissidents in the Soviet Union that were bold enough to speak against their government prevents me from seeing Chomsky as a joke. Admittedly, he is in much more comfortable position to express his ideas, but this doesn't reduce my deep sympathy with his intentions.
Frankly, I ignore the conclusions he makes out of his analyses, "communist" or not, I do not care. But I love that he is searching for facts and documents his views well, whatever his views are. One can disagree with his conclusions, but for me he is a good source of rarely mentioned information and a good opportunity to look at the history from another POV, which is always useful. Basically, he is a good starting point, as it was with "UN vetoes" - I like the PDF Thomas found much more than either Chomsky's text or "Washington Post" quotes, but without Chomsky attracting my attention to this issue I would never even know about all this stuff.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
"You can also do your own research. Don't just rely on the conventional history books and political science texts -- go back to specialists' monographs and to original sources: national security memoranda and similar documents. Most good libraries have reference departments where you can find them.
It does require a bit of effort. Most of the material is junk, and you have to read a ton of stuff before you find anything good. There are guides that give you hints about where to look, and sometimes you'll find references in secondary sources that look intriguing. Often they're misinterpreted, but they suggest places to search.
It's no big mystery, and it's not intellectually difficult. It involves some work, but anybody can do it as a spare-time job. And the results of that research can change people's minds. Real research is always a collective activity, and its results can make a large contribution to changing consciousness, increasing insight and understanding, and leading to constructive action."
N.Chomsky. "What Uncle Sam Really Wants". What you can do.
I think, this is a very good advice, if you do not want to became a copy of the USSR with its population manipulated by those in power.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The first link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/shapiro/625.htm
"The secret certainly does not lie in Chomsky's riveting prose style. The book was cobbled together in mid-October from Chomsky's voluminous e-mail exchanges, primarily with foreign journalists. The repetitive format, consisting of na�ve questions followed by self-serving answers, allows Chomsky to elude any rigorous explanation of what America should do in the face of the Sept. 11 attacks."
- insults do not constitute too good an argument.
"At the beginning of 9-11, Chomsky briefly puts aside his virulent anti-Americanism to label the Sept. 11 attacks as "horrifying atrocities." But pretty soon, he declares that bin Laden's "call for the overthrow of corrupt and brutal regimes of gangsters and torturers resonates quite widely." And rather than pursuing bin Laden, Chomsky suggests that it would "make a lot more sense" to "consider realistically the background concerns and grievances, and to try to remedy them."
What is it, propaganda? This tone is exactly how communists dealt with their opponents. "Chomsky briefly puts aside his virulent anti-Americanism to label the Sept. 11 attacks as "horrifying atrocities" -- this simply means that Chomsky said that the Sept. 11 attacks is horrifying atrocity. Regarding "consider realistically the background concerns and grievances, and to try to remedy them" - what is wring with it?
"Diane Perlman, clinical psychologist and contributor to the recently released book The Psychology of Terrorism: "Focusing only on the physical elimination of terrorists and infrastructure, without penetrating the underlying psychological forces and grievances that terror groups use, actually serves to increase recruitment and motivation for further acts of terror. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare. There is no amount of domination that cannot be turned against us, as we have seen on 9/11. The concept of 'winning' does not apply here, because the experience of defeat itself is a motivation for terrorism."
http://www.accuracy.org/un2/
Regarding likening "an errant cruise missile to the worst horrors unleashed by the Chinese Communist government" - I would prefer his obviously biased position to apologetics of governments.
The second link is more substantional, I'll respond tomorrow...
[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I have no idea about other people, but I read both links carefully and was going to respond this evening.

I wasn't talking about you.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Well, since I am apparently the only Chomsky lover here, I felt it was my duty to get offended.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Maybe more important, why is there such thing as "veto" at all??

That's a good question. When then security council was designed it was decided that the permanent members must agree for any resoltuion to be passed. (The word "veto" is not actually found in the UN Charter.) According to Sir Brian Urquhart, veto was the price required to get the US and the USSR to agree to join the UN.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Well, since I am apparently the only Chomsky lover here, I felt it was my duty to get offended.

Here but not in the forum. Someone seems to like to post Chomsky stuff anonymously every once in awhile.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Chomskyites Anonymous... Hm.
The second link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4146
David Horowitz: Recall how Chomsky sets up the scenario of a Washington plot to deliberately starve 3-4 million innocent Afghan civilians.
Here are the words David Horowitz quotes
"...but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months very casually with no comment, ..."
- it is different enough from "plot to deliberately starve". Plans are being made on the assumption -- I guess the decision to bomb Afghanistan was made on assumption that there would be unavoidable casualties among civil population, but this is different enough from saying that the deliberate goal was to kill people of Afghanistan, I would think?
Of course, these were cold and calculated lies.

I do not think Chomsky deliberately lied.
That was September 16th. A month later, on October 16th -- two days before Chomsky’s speech another article appeared written by Elisabeth Busmiller and Elizabeth Becker, which began: "President Bush promoted his relief fund for Afghan children at the headquarters of the American Red Cross today…" In other words, the Bush Administration was working to prevent the starvation of Afghan civilians.
This is the only evidence that can be incriminated to Chomsky to support "cold and calculated lies" verdict. Could it be that he did not watch the whole press of the USA? After all, he said: "Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide" - he did not say "there is genocide going on! "
Then Horowitz goes on to provide further evidences how the Bush Administration was working to prevent the starvation of Afghan civilians, like
On November 16 -- almost a month after Chomsky’s MIT talk -- another article appeared on the front page of the New York Times...
-- but these facts appeared after Chomsky's speech, so they couldn't be known by him.
So what we have here, is Chomsky's concern about people of Afghanistan, concern that went too far. It's better than no concern at all.
In his MIT address, Chomsky asserted, "the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. [Chomsky did not reveal how he knew this if it was "unreported."]
He said "As far as I’m aware" - probably means he did not read such a report.
Chomsky: "That was Monday. Yesterday the major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir."
Horowitz: In fact, the story in the Boston Globe was headlined "Fighting Terror Tensions in South Asia" – a region that includes Afghanistan – and there were three full paragraphs on the pleadings of the aid groups to stop the bombing.

Here I would quote Thomas Paul "I wish I could see the actual editorial rather than just what someone wrote about the editorial. Don't you?" but since I can't read the article, I have to believe Mr. Horowitz. Perhaps Mr Chomsky sees what he wants to see.
Horowitz:The second question Chomsky discusses in connection with the September 11 attack is, "Why Was It A Historic Event?" His answer is that America, which for centuries has been attacking the world – and especially the Third World – is now itself under attack, which is something for progressives to celebrate.
Chomsky:The change was the direction in which the guns were pointed. That’s new. Radically new. So take U.S. history…. During these 200 years, we, the United States expelled or mostly exterminated the indigenous population, that’s many millions of people, conquered half of Mexico, carried out depredations all over the region, the Caribbean and Central America,… But it was always killing someone else, the fighting was somewhere else, it was others who were getting slaughtered. Not here. Not the national territory.
Horowitz:Leaving aside the malicious distortions of the American past, the Chomsky thesis comes to this: The attack on America is long overdue and is historically just.

Where did he say it is "something for progressives to celebrate"? Simply stating that this was an unprecedented event isn't justifying it?
[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
To establish his deception, Chomsky makes a tendentious mountain out of the molehill of Nicaragua’s complaint to the World Court and the Court’s adverse ruling against the United States. "The World Court accepted [Nicaragua’s] case, ruled in their favor, … condemned what they called the ‘unlawful use of force,’ which is another word for international terrorism by the United States." Well, outside the Chomsky cult, of course, unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism.
I do not see a big difference, but Ok. Otherwise Chomsky was simply quoting The World Court (The International Court of Justice) resolution.
Chomsky closes his eyes to the fact that the World Court is a creature of national governments, and consequently lacks any authority unless both parties to a dispute agree to give it authority.
"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations"
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm
Of, course "the United Nations" itself is is a creature of national governments, so what's the point? "and consequently lacks any authority" - why does the USA participates in The International Court of Justice then? Looks pretty cynical to me.
The practical issue was whether the United States would surrender its own national interest to a Court composed of members who were not only hostile to American interests, but to the rule of law itself (among the latter China, Poland and Nigeria). The United States simply refused to accept the jurisdiction of a court composed of rival national interests.
There are 15 judjes listed on the resolution:
President Nagendra Singh, India
Vice-President de Lacharri�re; France
Judges
Lachs, Poland
Ruda, Argentina
Elias, Nigeria
Oda, Japan
Ago, Italy
Sette-Camara, Brazil
Schwebel, USA
Sir Robert Jennings, United Kingdom
Mbaye, Senegal
Bedjaoui, Algeria
Ni, China
Evensen, Norway
Judge ad hoc Colliard, Nicaragua
(information about countries represented by judges from http://www.virtual-institute.de/en/wcd/wcd.cfm?judges01.cfm)
- were they all hostile to American interests? If so, maybe something is wrong with American interests?
And how did it happen that USA's own national interest were located on the territory of a sovereign state? Who moved them there?
If the United States acquiesced in World Court decisions, it would be bound by them and hence incapable of responding to hostile Soviet bloc actions.
To pay reparations to Nicaragua means to be "incapable of responding to hostile Soviet bloc actions"?
(13) By twelve votes to three,
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above;
AGAINST: Japan, the USA, United Kingdom
(14) By fourteen votes to one,
Decides that the United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956;
Against only the judge from the USA
(15) By fourteen votes to one,
Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the Parties, will be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case;
Against only the judge from the USA
In other words, in America’s war against Nicaragua – but more importantly against the Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan who have attacked us, according to Chomsky we are really Nazis: we employ Nazi methods and refer to Nazi manuals.
He said:
"After the war, the U.S. army did extensive studies of Nazi counter-terror operations in Europe."
As I understood, he wasn't talking about year 2001.
No evidence is adduced to support these claims, but no matter; in the compassion cells of the Chomsky cult, the libel itself will do
"in the compassion cells of the Chomsky cult" evidences, or what is considered evidences, are probably well-known.
http://www.namebase.org/books43.html
The Wehrmaht, whose officers Chomsky refers to, was not a Nazi Party organization -- its officers even tried to overthrow Hitler.
Did I misunderstand something?
"In 1933 the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) came to power and the infamous Third Reich was born. Two years later in 1935 the Treaty of Versailles was renounced and the Reichswehr became the Wehrmacht. The newly formed Wehrmacht would still consist of an army and a navy - the renamed Heer and Kriegsmarine, but a new airforce was born as well - the Luftwaffe.
http://www.feldgrau.com/heer.html
"its officers even tried to overthrow Hitler" - then I second Thomas Paul opinion that Israel is an Islamic country
[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Yes, I would prefer that the Chinese govt just watch the peaceful demnostrations of unarmed citizens rather than murder them.
You don't understand disgust at the murder of thousands of unarmed citizens peacefully demonstrating for democracy??? You joke about too many things.

Ok, after somebody' 6 millions dead bodies in post-Stalin Gulag I wondered what is ther about Tiananmen besides popular legends...
I made a search with "casualties statistics Tiananmen Square" and here we are.
"Reports on the number of dead were sketchy. Three Beijing hospitals reported receiving at least 68 corpses of civilians and said many others had not been picked up from the scene. Four other hospitals said they had received bodies of civilians but declined to disclose how many. Students said, however, that at least 500 people may have been killed in the crackdown.
Students and workers tried to resist the crackdown, and destroyed at least 16 trucks and 2 armored personnel carriers. Scores of students and workers ran alongside the personnel carriers, hurling concrete blocks and wooden staves into the treads until they ground to a halt. They then threw firebombs at one until it caught fire, and set the other alight after first covering it with blankets soaked in gasoline.
The drivers escaped, but were beaten by students. A young American man, who could not be immediately identified, was also beaten by the crowd after he tried to intervene and protect one of the drivers.
Clutching iron pipes and stones, groups of students periodically advanced toward the soldiers. Some threw bricks and firebombs at the lines of soldiers, apparently wounding many of them.
Many of those killed were throwing bricks at the soldiers, but others were simply watching passively or standing at barricades when soldiers fired directly at them. "
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, "Crackdown In Beijing; Troops Attack and Crush Beijing Protest," New York Times, June 4, 1989
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chincrac.htm
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The Papers have your colleague, Li Peng, reporting on the casualties to Deng Xiaoping on June 6: "The General Office of the State Council reports that as of noon today the basic statistics -- which have been double- and triple-checked with Martial Law Headquarters and the Chinese Red Cross -- are these: Five thousand PLA soldiers and officers wounded, and more than two thousand local people (counting students, city people, and rioters together) also wounded. The figures on the dead are these: twenty-three from the martial law troops, including ten from the PLA and thirteen from the People’s Armed Police. About two hundred soldiers are also missing. The dead among city people, students and rioters number about two hundred, of whom thirty six are university students. No one was killed within Tiananmen Square itself."
Alas, neither Mr. Russert or any other journalist in the major media made an attempt to correct the record. You can understand, Mr. President, that given the conventional wisdom of a mass slaughter of defenseless students, no American reporter or American politician was willing to stand up and do so, for they would immediately branded as "apologists" for the "butchers of Beijing."
Memo on the Margin. The Tiananmen Papers
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
A Chinese government account of Beijing Spring 1989
http://www.tsquare.tv/themes/truthturm.html
At this critical juncture, the martial law troops were ordered to move in by force to quell the anti-government rebellion. At 6:30 p.m., on June 3, the Beijing municipal government and the headquarters of the martial law enforcement troops issued an emergency announcement, asking all citizens to keep off the streets and stay at home. The announcement was broadcast over and over again
Over 1,280 vehicles were burned or damaged in the rebellion, including over 1,000 military trucks, more than 60 armoured cars, over 30 police cars, over 120 public buses and trolley buses and over 70 motor vehicles of other kinds. More than 6,000 martial law officers and soldiers were injured and scores of them killed.
Such heavy losses are eloquent testimony to the restraint and tolerance shown by the martial law enforcement troops. For fear of injuring civilians by accident, they would rather endure humiliation and meet their death unflinchingly, although they had weapons in their hands. It can be said that there is no other army in the world that can exercise restraint to such an extent.
The martial law troops, having suffered heavy casualties and been driven beyond forbearance, were forced to fire into the air to clear the way forward. During the counter-attack, some rioters were killed, some onlookers were hit by stray bullets and some wounded or killed by armed ruffians. According to reliable statistics, more than 3,000 civilians were wounded and over 200, including 36 college students, were killed.
At 1:30 a.m. on June 4, the Beijing municipal government and the martial law headquarters issued an emergency notice asking all students and other citizens to leave Tiananmen Square. The notice was broadcast repeatedly for well over three hours over loudspeakers. The students on Tiananmen Square, after discussion among themselves, sent representatives to the troops to express their willingness to withdraw from the square and this was approved by the troops. Then at about 5 a.m., several thousand students left the square in an orderly manner through a wide corridor in the southeastern part of the square vacated by the troops, carrying their own banners and streamers. Those who refused to leave were Forced to leave by the soldiers. By 5:30 a.m., the clearing operation of the square had been completed.
During the whole operation not a single person was killed. The allegations that "Tiananmen Square was plunged into a bloodbath" and "thousands of people were killed in the square" are sheer rumours, and the true state of affairs will eventually be clear to the public.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. Late on July 3 and early on the morning of June 4, military units were brought into Beijing. They used armed force to clear demonstrators from the streets. There are no official estimates of deaths in Beijing, but most observers believe that casualties numbered in the hundreds.
http://www.worldrover.com/history/china_history.html
The students' posters, marches and sit-ins were technically illegal and had in the past subjected participants to varying levels of punishment. All media in the sample--again showing a knowledge of Chinese Communist ways that could not have been assumed in the 1970s--noted the unexpected initial tolerance by the authorities toward the demonstrations. Kathy Wilhelm reported in her Associated Press story of April 16 that protest posters put up at Beijing University were not taken down by security officials. The next day she wrote that police at Tiananmen Square -made "no effort to interfere" with the first march. And on the eighteenth, Wilhelm concluded her lead on a demonstration outside the leadership compound, Zhongnanhai, just northwest of Tiananmen Square, by saying, "Police used no force and no arrests were reported as the demonstrators left peacefully." http://www.tsquare.tv/themes/TatTcover.html#anchor295336
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Wehrmacht

David Horowitz (not Jason) is only partly right.
Hitler was the Highest Commander of the Wehrmacht (german army). Inside the Wehrmacht the high officers came mostly from the german upper burgoisie. They had strong prussian roots. Lot of them did not share the nazi ideology. Hitler needed them because of their expertise in militaristic questions.
Prussia had some success in the phase of "Enlighted Absolutism". There was a harsh discipline with king included (King is first servant of state). Country was run efficiently, there was rule of law, little corruption. But by no means democratic.

In 1944 there was indeed an assasination attempt against Hitler from a group of high Wehrmacht officers leaded by v. Stauffenberg. It should be noted that this was a very late attempt. The prussian tradition helped very little to stop Hitler using the Wehrmacht for his plans. The Wehrmacht did not run concentration camps, but they often acted against traditions of "european war etics". Especially in the east (Serbia, Russia) they used terroristic methods against the civilian population (mass killing of whole villages as punishment for guerrilla activities).
In the processes following the war the army officers used to excuse their actions with "we only executed commands". The post war german army dissociates itself from prussian tradition of blind obedience.
[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
There have been and will remain different estimates of the number of deaths on the streets of Beijing during the hours of darkness on June 3-4. In Time for June 19, with a June 10 deadline, the death toll in the "Tiananmen massacre" was raised from a range of five hundred to two thousand six hundred, in the previous week's issue, to five thousand, without attribution. By the July 3 issue, the number of deaths was reduced to "many hundreds." Readers should have been given an explanation for this startling arithmetical adjustment.
Many observers accept the retrospective estimate by Kristof of the New York Times that the civilian death toll in Beijing on the night of June 3-4 was four hundred to eight hundred. (28) The American government "intelligence" estimate was initially three thousand--announced on background by Secretary of State James Baker in the days immediately after the event. But it was scaled back to between one thousand and fifteen hundred, a figure compiled in the fall of 1989 after an extensive secret inquiry conducted collectively by a group of military attach�s from various Western nations stationed in Beijing.
http://www.tsquare.tv/themes/TatTcover.html#anchor295336
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Jason is only partly right.

Aaaaahhhhhh....
It wasn't Jason, it was David Horowitz!
But if you want Jason to be responsible for everything what happens in MD, that's Ok
I heard about anti-Hitler coup, but to say "its officers even tried to overthrow Hitler" Wasn't the Wehrmaht Hitler's war machine?
Axel, thanks for the information. I thought about asking you to put some light here, but was too shy
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Map,
If you question Hitler's propensity for evil check these out:
Night of the Long Knives
Long Knives
The SA got him where his was, this guy was pure evil...


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Absolutes