de Valera and the Nazis?

[Trotsky91]

I have always heard about Eamon de Valera "flirting" with Nazism during his presidency, is this true or made up?

[RisenBelfast]

Made up. Next.

[Seán1798]

I have always heard about Eamon de Valera "flirting" with Nazism during his presidency, is this true or made up?

Google Charles Bewley Nazi.

[Eilish]

Made up. Next.

The question deserves an answer... a real answer...

[Eilish]

I have always heard about Eamon de Valera "flirting" with Nazism during his presidency, is this true or made up?

http://www.atireland.ie/inclusive/assets/pdf/ireland_in_ww2_6hats.pdf

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

[mickyk200]

Ireland was a neutral country during WW2. Germany was an enemy of Britain. De Valera and Hitler shared a common enemy, however to say he "flirted" with fascists would be an exaggeration.

I think as far as it got was Dev sending condolences to the German people following Hitler's death, but this can be viewed as nothing more than good diplomatic practice.

[FreeSouthCarolina]

You know I wouldnt say he ever adopted Nazi philosophy on race or otherwise. After all he ran a Republican government. But if talking with Adolf Hitler from time to time or sending condolences to the German people is considered bad, then Churchill and Roosevelt did the same thing with Stalin, something far worse in my opinion.

[Seán1798]

After all he ran a Republican government.

LOL he ran a Catholic crypto-fascist government and swore loyalty to the King of Ireland.

[OCoinnigh]

LOL he ran a Catholic crypto-fascist government and swore loyalty to the King of Ireland.

I know we ended up with a Republic. What we've done wrong since then is our fault.

[Emiliano Zapata]

You know I wouldnt say he ever adopted Nazi philosophy on race or otherwise. After all he ran a Republican government. But if talking with Adolf Hitler from time to time or sending condolences to the German people is considered bad, then Churchill and Roosevelt did the same thing with Stalin, something far worse in my opinion.

Stalin is far worse than hitler? That's a pretty ridiculous statement.

[Hessian Peel]

You know I wouldnt say he ever adopted Nazi philosophy on race or otherwise. After all he ran a Republican government. But if talking with Adolf Hitler from time to time or sending condolences to the German people is considered bad, then Churchill and Roosevelt did the same thing with Stalin, something far worse in my opinion.

And what do you base your opinion on exactly, since it isn't the truth?

Stalin shaking hands with imperialist pigs like Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman would concern me more than a fascist liking another fascist. I suppose it was a necessary compromise though given the extremity of the situation.

[no one]

Stalin is far worse than hitler? That's a pretty ridiculous statement.

lol shes/hes obviously american... give them a break theyve had decades and decades of anti-commie brainwashing. most of them really believe that "reds eat their own babies"

[duffers]

20 million dead.

Hitler killed 6.

[sublime]

20 million dead.

Hitler killed 6.
Wrong and wrong.

[Hessian Peel]

20 million dead.

Hitler killed 6.

No, no. Stalin killed 750 billion. Get it right.

[Emiliano Zapata]

No, no. Stalin killed 750 billion. Get it right.

He could only dream of doing those kinda numbers. :)

[duffers]

Sublime, what history books do you read from that state Hitler didn't kill 6 million jews, and Stalin didn't kill 20 million people?

Books written by a Stalinist holocaust denier perhaps?

[Emiliano Zapata]

Sublime, what history books do you read from that state Hitler didn't kill 6 million jews, and Stalin didn't kill 20 million people?

Books written by a Stalinist holocaust denier perhaps?

Stalin was a great man who did not kill anybody. The Great Purges, Gulags, etc are all filthy lies.

[duffers]

My sarcasm sense is tingling!

[Hessian Peel]

Stalin was a great man who did not kill anybody. The Great Purges, Gulags, etc are all filthy lies.

There was only one "gulag" and it was an open forced-labour camp.

If by purges you're referring to the defeat of the fascist conspiracy within the Red Army and the subversion of other elements - where's the problem?

[Hessian Peel]

Sublime, what history books do you read from that state Hitler didn't kill 6 million jews

Why do you only mention the number of Jews killed by the Nazis?

and Stalin didn't kill 20 million people?

Where's the evidence to support this claim?

Books written by a Stalinist holocaust denier perhaps?

There's no such thing.

[Emiliano Zapata]

There was only one "gulag" and it was an open forced-labour camp.

If by purges you're referring to the defeat of the fascist conspiracy within the Red Army and the subversion of other elements - where's the problem?

The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals. What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.

[duffers]

One would make it alright? Nevermind the fact there was actually 476 camps.

Everyone knows that's not the case, he would imprison dissenters, people who made jokes about the government, being missing from work, how can you justify that? Without a trial nonetheless.

Where did I get my facts from? Widely published sources. Do you wish to have the actual source? Does it matter? You'll only say it's a lie, regardless. Similar to that of a holocaust denier; the facts are right there for ya, but you grab the wool. Why?

Why do I mention only the jews? Because it's a recognisable fact, and they suffered the worst death toll. Does it truly matter how big or small the difference is? To be even mentioned in the same breath as Hitler has to be bad enough in the first place, surely?

Let me guess, Lenin was the dog's bollocks also, yeah? Red Terror never occurred either, fascist lies, right? Even pretending that these people represents our left is injustice.

[sublime]

The thing is, you have no real proof that all who were purged were actually opprtunists or simply political rivals. What guides this 'justification' is an unshakeable faith you have in the dear leader who was responsible for purges.
During the Moscow trails it was admitted there was a Trotskyite terrorist center within the party and army - who were also working with Berlin! Thankfully they were crushed, otherwise we'd all be singing 'Deustchland Uber Alles'.

[sublime]

Sublime, what history books do you read from that state Hitler didn't kill 6 million jews, and Stalin didn't kill 20 million people?

Books written by a Stalinist holocaust denier perhaps?That's not the issue. The issue is that even western academics don't pursue this myth anymore. It's cold war propaganda, pure fantasy. The origins of these lies go back to the 1930s when the Hearst Corporation printed stories about all these dead people. These have now been proved false.

It is an outright lie that Stalin killed 20 million people. Over 24 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of the Nazi-Fascist beast alone, in addition to 6 million Jews and others in the Holocaust. The 'murders' that were said to be 'committed' by Stalin were exaggerated or invented to provide a justification for the Germans to 'liberate' Ukraine. Hearst was openly working with Hitler.

If you're interested;
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

[mickyk200]

These have now been proved false.
When?

It is an outright lie that Stalin killed 20 million people. Over 24 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of the Nazi-Fascist beast alone, in addition to 6 million Jews and others in the Holocaust. The 'murders' that were said to be 'committed' by Stalin were exaggerated or invented to provide a justification for the Germans to 'liberate' Ukraine. Hearst was openly working with Hitler.
Now, this is not completely dissimilar to the argument neo-Nazi holocaust deniers make. No offense intended mo chara.

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union
By Mario Sousa
Member of the
Communist Party Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries
Sweden
Says it all really ,doesn't it...

[sublime]

When?
http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm There.

Now, this is not completely dissimilar to the argument neo-Nazi holocaust deniers make. No offense intended mo chara.This is a case of some sort of guilt by association. If you're genuinely interested read the article and it'll open your eyes on a few things, not least that Stalin is probably the most lied about person in the west.The USSR fought against Fascism and both myself and Hessian are active Socialists and anti-Fascists.

Says it all really ,doesn't it...
Yes. Written by a bus driver from Sweden, not an academic.

[Vox Illuminati]

I think we would all do well to focus on the great lies of today rather than obsess over the lies of the past. The past is useful to know but it is in the present that the differance is made.

[sublime]

The work considered to be the most authoritative in the west on the Ukranian famine is by MI5 and later CIA agent Robert Conquest. The main sources for Conquest's work 'The Harvest of Sorrow' are the Ukranian SS who turned on their heels and fled at the advent of the Red Army, later they turned up in Canada - a sort of Latin America for Ukranian fascists. In any case, Conquest was hired during Reagan's election campaign during the course of which the figures of the alleged dead in Ukranian rose once more - all this, without access to the archives of the USSR.

[mickyk200]

http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm There.
If this book is of such historical importance and does prove that the massacre in the Ukraine was a myth then why is it so rare?
I dare say I can find a publication "disproving" the holocaust.

This is a case of some sort of guilt by association.
Not at all, simply saying that both Stalin fans and Neos share one serious undoing because of history and both of you attempt to explain your way out of it.

that Stalin is probably the most lied about person in the west.
Neos would say the same thing about Hitler. If there was a historian disproving the massacre and not someone of a socialist/communist bias then perhaps I would be inclined to believe it.

Yes. Written by a bus driver from Sweden, not an academic.
It was written my a Marxist, tis could be nothing more than propaganda.

[sublime]

then why is it so rare?
Because unlike Robert Conquest, the CIA doesn't fund operations that will run counter to what they've already established. Read the thing before attacking it and comparing me to a Nazi.

Not at all, simply saying that both Stalin fans and Neos share one serious undoing because of history and both of you attempt to explain your way out of it.
Out of what? The archives, academics and the Russian people all know the truth.

If there was a historian disproving the massacre and not someone of a socialist/communist bias then perhaps I would be inclined to believe it.Read the link I sent you to. Also, check out Sheila Fitzpatrick and J Arch Getty - two bourgeois academics that have access to the archives. Conquest, et al. never had access to the archives.

It was written my a Marxist, tis could be nothing more than propaganda.
You haven't bothered to read it. How can it be 'propaganda' if you're attacking the source and not the content. That, my friend, is propaganda.

[mickyk200]

Because unlike Robert Conquest, the CIA doesn't fund operations that will run counter to what they've already established. Read the thing before attacking it and comparing me to a Nazi.
I honestly cannot be bothered as it is not a subject of great interest to me.
PS. we can compare opposites in every circumstance.


The archives, academics and the Russian people all know the truth.
Do they...

You haven't bothered to read it. How can it be 'propaganda' if you're attacking the source and not the content. That, my friend, is propaganda.
Perhaps it is propaganda but surely the source affects the content....

[Hessian Peel]

One would make it alright? Nevermind the fact there was actually 476 camps.

I was merely pointing out the fact that there was only one "gulag". Is a country not allowed to have prisons now? This place is coming down with utopian tendencies. :icon_laugh:

Everyone knows that's not the case, he would imprison dissenters, people who made jokes about the government, being missing from work, how can you justify that? Without a trial nonetheless.

I don't see how everybody knows this since it isn't true. Are you seriously claiming that joking about a particular subject was outlawed in the USSR? Really think about what you're saying here.

Where did I get my facts from? Widely published sources. Do you wish to have the actual source? Does it matter? You'll only say it's a lie, regardless. Similar to that of a holocaust denier; the facts are right there for ya, but you grab the wool. Why?

Don't compare me to a Nazi apologist.

Why do I mention only the jews? Because it's a recognisable fact, and they suffered the worst death toll.

Where did you hear/read that? I think you'll find that far more non-Jewish USSR citizens and other Eastern Europeans were killed. Don't forget all the other communists from Germany and Austria, people with special needs and physical disabilities, LGBTQ people, Freemasons and many, many more. And you think Stalin is comparable to the monsters behind the worst crimes in human history?

Let me guess, Lenin was the dog's bollocks also, yeah?

The IRSP (or so it's been alleged) is a Marxist-Leninist party. :icon_lol:

Red Terror never occurred either, fascist lies, right? Even pretending that these people represents our left is injustice.

What the f*ck was "your left" doing when the USSR destroyed the Nazi behemoth?

[Emiliano Zapata]

Prisons were more diseased, overcrowded and full of informers than in Tsarist times.

Trials took place in minutes, and many top-level political meetings took place at which only those listening knew that those speaking were already destined for execution. Wives of convicted ‘terrorists’ were automatically shot, too. :(

"Nikolai Bukharin and Alexei Rykov, who had supported Stalin in his struggles against the Left Opposition, were arrested in the middle of a central committee meeting and put on trial with 19 others in March 1938 (3). To the familiar list of charges were added: responsibility for the famine which followed collectivisation; faulty design of power stations; poisoning pigs and horses; sabotaging butter with nails and glass; causing production delays, poor harvests and shortages of paper, eggs and sugar; raising prices and weakening the ruble; trying to kill Lenin in 1918; receiving money from the Nazis - and working for the Mensheviks, the Tsarists, the Polish secret service and British intelligence."

For Stalin, the trials were a means of shifting the blame for the unpopularity of his regime on to scapegoats. By accusing his opponents not just of dissent, but also of terror, espionage and all the ills of his economic policy, Stalin made the lie big enough to stick.:(

[Emiliano Zapata]

What the f*ck was "your left" doing when the USSR destroyed the Nazi behemoth?

Well he told me he was a trot :confused: which doesn't really make sense to me but there you go. Maybe he is just bitter because his guy lost. :icon_lol:

[sublime]

Prisons were more diseased, overcrowded and full of informers than in Tsarist times.

Trials took place in minutes, and many top-level political meetings took place at which only those listening knew that those speaking were already destined for execution. Wives of convicted ‘terrorists’ were automatically shot, too. :(



For Stalin, the trials were a means of shifting the blame for the unpopularity of his regime on to scapegoats. By accusing his opponents not just of dissent, but also of terror, espionage and all the ills of his economic policy, Stalin made the lie big enough to stick.:(
Yes, so unpopular that he was continually re-elected and today is the top of a poll as the greatest 'Russian leader' with over half a million votes. He continues to be a beacon and inspiration for Maoists in Nepal, India and elsewhere in the third world.

Where is anarchism today? Where was Anarchism when the Red Army smashed fascism?

[sublime]

Prisons were more diseased, overcrowded and full of informers than in Tsarist times.

Trials took place in minutes, and many top-level political meetings took place at which only those listening knew that those speaking were already destined for execution. Wives of convicted ‘terrorists’ were automatically shot, too. :(



For Stalin, the trials were a means of shifting the blame for the unpopularity of his regime on to scapegoats. By accusing his opponents not just of dissent, but also of terror, espionage and all the ills of his economic policy, Stalin made the lie big enough to stick.:(Bukharin is no martyr. While he produced some good work, he admitted he was guilty at his trail - which was a fair and open trail.

[Emiliano Zapata]

Yes, so unpopular that he was continually re-elected and today is the top of a poll as the greatest 'Russian leader' with over half a million votes.

Why would anyone take these stupid polls seriously?

Only 2.8 million out of the 141 million people in Russia voted, not that the vote itself isn't meaningless. You could vote multiple times ffs.


He continues to be a beacon and inspiration for Maoists in Nepal, India and elsewhere in the third world.


An inspiration for bourgeois revolutions, wow.

These are the same Maoists that favour a capitalist economic development model.

Why did the CPN(M) overturn land-redistribution in the countryside?

Why did they settle for parliamentary democracy?

Why is land reform the major task of CPN(M)? That is petty bourgois in nature, hardly a step towards abolition of private property in the form of land ownership.

[sublime]

Can you answer the questions already posed to you already?

[Emiliano Zapata]

Can you answer the questions already posed to you already?

They were already answered in the Anarchist thread, how about you answer my questions for once.

[sublime]

Why would anyone take these stupid polls seriously?

Only 2.8 million out of the 141 million people in Russia voted, not that the vote itself isn't meaningless. You could vote multiple times ffs.
This is the man that is still held in high regard and is far from 'unpopular' where it matters. He is of course unpopular in the west because of the joint Trotskyist/Fascist/Bourgeois/Anarchist attacks on him which repeat the same mantra and are identical in content. Trotskyism and Anarchism have achieved zero. The Anarchists on this forum continually hark on about Spain, is that the most recent example of where Anarchism has done anything?

An inspiration for bourgeois revolutions, wow.

These are the same Maoists that favour a capitalist economic development model.

Why did the CPN(M) overturn land-redistribution in the countryside?

Why did they settle for parliamentary democracy?

Why is land reform the major task of CPN(M)? That is petty bourgois in nature, hardly a step towards abolition of private property in the form of land ownership.
Dissolving the state and living happily ever after is something that exists only in the works of Anarchism. The goal of the serious left is to consolidate their forces, drive out the bourgeoisie and to continue with New Democratic Revolution and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Results don't come over-night, revolution is a process that takes years and continues even under socialism.

[sublime]

They were already answered in the Anarchist thread, how about you answer my questions for once.Nice dodge.

http://webhollis.com/albums/Funny-Forum/TheAnswerIsNo.jpg

[mickyk200]

Nice dodge.

http://webhollis.com/albums/Funny-Forum/TheAnswerIsNo.jpg
LMFAO!
someone give that man a sticker!

[MickCollins4ever]

The goal of the serious left is to consolidate their forces, drive out the bourgeoisie and to continue with New Democratic Revolution and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Results don't come over-night, revolution is a process that takes years and continues even under socialism.

I'm confused. I'm not all that acquainted with politics but how can there it be a "Democratic" Revolution and a "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat? Aren't the two terms contradictory?? :hmmm:

[Hessian Peel]

I'm confused. I'm not all that acquainted with politics but how can there it be a "Democratic" Revolution and a "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat? Aren't the two terms contradictory?? :hmmm:

It simply means that the workers, or proletariat, will be in control. They will need a dictatorship to crush the former ruling classes. This doesn't mean there won't be "democracy" in the bourgeois understanding of the term (elected representatives in a parliament etc.).

Unfortunately in the USSR, China, Albania, the DPRK (pre-Juche) and Cuba the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" became the "Dictatorship of the Party". It was the same in most of the Eastern Bloc and African "social-democracies". One of the major flaws with these various attempts at social revolution, in my book.