|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 20, 2006 22:40:51 GMT -5
I suppose then that Duke believes there was an international Jewish-Bolshevist conspiracy...
However, it is interesting that most of European Jewry lived in Poland, and that Poland was fanatically nationalistic and anti-communist, and even became a militarized regime under Pilsudski.
During 1919-1921, Poland fought 6 concurrent wars on its borders, the most important being with Soviet Russia, which it won.
If Poland had lost the conflict, the Red Army was to sweep into Germany (which was in chaos, and favourable to Communism), which Lenin had always wanted to be a Communist state. Next, the sickle and hammer would be flying over Paris.
This period (during which the Russian Civil War was in progress as well) was witness to the greatest Soviet aggression and expansion, and the greatest vulnerability of the western democracies (e.g. France and Britain), which also had significant socialist movements.
THEREFORE...
If the Jews really wanted a Red Europe, they would have been wiser to sabotage the Polish war effort, far easier than 'attacking' ol' Hitler.
I wrote my term paper on the Russo-Polish War, so don't come up with any bullsh*t sources.
Your narrow (and poorly referenced) point of view is:
Anti-Semitic Pro-Hitler Pro-National Socialist
I have no love for Jewish whining about the Holocaust, more than 60 years later, but your arguments are propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 20, 2006 23:45:35 GMT -5
I suppose then that Duke believes there was an international Jewish-Bolshevist conspiracy... However, it is interesting that most of European Jewry lived in Poland, and that Poland was fanatically nationalistic and anti-communist, and even became a militarized regime under Pilsudski. During 1919-1921, Poland fought 6 concurrent wars on its borders, the most important being with Soviet Russia, which it won. If Poland had lost the conflict, the Red Army was to sweep into Germany (which was in chaos, and favourable to Communism), which Lenin had always wanted to be a Communist state. Next, the sickle and hammer would be flying over Paris. This period (during which the Russian Civil War was in progress as well) was witness to the greatest Soviet aggression and expansion, and the greatest vulnerability of the western democracies (e.g. France and Britain), which also had significant socialist movements. THEREFORE... If the Jews really wanted a Red Europe, they would have been wiser to sabotage the Polish war effort, far easier than 'attacking' ol' Hitler. I wrote my term paper on the Russo-Polish War, so don't come up with any bullsh*t sources. Your narrow (and poorly referenced) point of view is: Anti-Semitic Pro-Hitler Pro-National Socialist I have no love for Jewish whining about the Holocaust, more than 60 years later, but your arguments are propaganda. Your vast and all encompasing knowedgle of the subject is apparent. Remaining, your obedient servant,
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 0:14:51 GMT -5
1930 Reichstag A very handome bunch of fellows.... point? Did they have a majority at the time? did they have a majority afterwards? How much conservative support did he have? How many seats did he have before he became Chancellor? Where the German people up in arms when he wasn't made Chancellor by the Reichstag when he rolled the dice? Yes, I'm a rational and informed individual. We've gone over this. It's pointless. Basically, any media outlet that states what happens is considered "Jewish propaganda." Why point out facts when you can easily dismiss them as "propaganda" without consideration. That's how you play the game. This belief that the Jews grand desire to destroy Germany is rather comical since Germany had one of the most liberal attitudes towards Jews at the turn of the century and up until Hitler came to power. You do realize how one becomes the chancellor of Germany, correct? By the way, who are these Germans? Was a poll conducted at the time? where did you get your quote? It was in July of 1938. It was expected that Hitler would be a good lad and not cause problems outside of his country. Your "point" is not relevant because you assume that they knew Hitler wouldn't keep his word. Unless you think such a removal of people would have stop Hitler from going to war with its neighbors, which would be a difficult assertion to defend. Jews are a small portion of the population. Without foot soldiers the Spartacists have no way to combat the freikorps. The fact is it had to be a signifcant number of Germans to be able to put up a fight. You keep trying to put Jews in one camp and Germans in another and history doesn't show that to be true. Yes, there were many German Communists. errr.... citizens of every country involved in the war were disillusioned. It's interesting how you state that in England they were near collapse because a significant portion of the population wanted peace but yet in Germany they weren't tired of the war at all!!! Englishmen wanting the war to end is credible but yet Germans wanting an end to it all is not so credible. Did I say that people who use violence for a political objective shouldn't be arrested? I don't believe so. I have in the past. This is just another reminder. Rather pointless. I rely on respected scholars and you rely on.. well... just about any chap who suits your fancy. You may have read it but you didn't understand it. German disdain for Jews isn't new. Disdain for Jews in every country they've been in isn't new. Middle men minorities appear to be leaches but provide an important service. Take a look at the stereotypical Jewish moneylender. They lend out money with interest.. sometimes high interest rates to make up for loses if a particular group or during a bad time period calls for it... eventually you have to pay them back.... sometimes you can and sometimes you can't... if you can then you're pissed because you have to pay so much back... but without the interest moneylending isn't profitable... if money lending isn't profitable then there are no moneylenders.. no money lenders means there's no cash floating around for someone to borrow when needed... so they're screwed. Now, like I said before no one likes paying back the money with the interest. Yet, it needs to be done but most people don't understand the necessity of moneylending so they react negatively towards them by describing them as greedy bastards and the fact that during the time that Jews cornered the market on money lending (considering the church's laws against usury) most people worked in grueling manual labor so its not surprising for the ignorant to see these moneylending Jews as parasites since they don't work by sweating and breaking their backs. These bad feelings are carried down through the generations and are reinforced. For example, Jews in some European countries were used as tax collectors by the state. Jews also tended to be better educated than the gentile masses. They were often given positions in the state, for example, in Spain and Poland, which caused a great deal of resentment. People generally don't like someone considered "an other" (someone outside the group) to have a position of authority over them. The skills Jews were able to develop as a result of being thrown into the world of finance and their above average IQ created by artificial selection put them in a better position than members of their host nations. So when opportunities open up Jews could be found in important positions. For most this is some sign of a conspiracy. But when you take into account the skills acquired and high intelligence this shouldn't be surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 21, 2006 1:11:33 GMT -5
Marxism was pretty much a Jewish phenomenon because hey: It was invented by a Jew: Karl Marx.
Most of its earliest and most radical exponents were Jews. And, after the Bolshevik revolution, most of its leaders were Jews.
Gentiles were never a massive part of Bolshevism. Never. Not even as "foot-soldiers".
The Bolsheviks didn't take over Russia due to numerical superiority. In fact, they didn't really take over Russia: The democratic Kerensky Government toppled the Czar, not the Bolsheviks.
The real history of the situation--much suppressed until recently--was this: Kerensky took over Russia and wanted to institute a democratic government. Britain wanted to use the situation to her best advantage, and so destabilized the weak Kerensky government with a view to putting in her own puppet-regime. The BBC recently had a documentary about how--during WWI--the Brits secretly sent British and American troops into Russia.
This was disastrous. Because Kerensky was toppled, and the Bolsheviks used it to their best advantage. With Kerensky gone, they pointed to the foreign troops and rallied the Russians behind them to expel "the foreign invaders". After the Brits and Americans left, the Bolsheviks were left in power.
So the Bolsheviks never had the numbers or power to take over Russia on their own. They won by default.
One historian remarked that all the Bolsheviks had to do to seize control of the government was to take over five or six administrative buildings.
(It was only after this--and elminating their enemies--that they cowed the public into becoming party-members and "foot-soldiers". Before seizing control, they didn't have the numbers to do anything. They were a pathetic cabal, a disorganized bunch of hooligans, radicals and antisocial types.)
They had the British to thank for their success, the British who got greedy and wanted to set up their own puppet regime, the British who destabilized Kerensky--and left the Russian people to deal with the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 10:37:42 GMT -5
Communism ideas existed before Marx. He just "validated" it. He didin't invent it.
It was the workers in the cities that gave the Bolsheviks their numbers. Would you say they were mostly Jewish? I believe not. They shifted from Kerensky to the Bolsheviks.
I don't recall anyone making that claim but it was the Bolsheviks that won over the workers because they gave the impression of being more active. This is what led to Kerensky's downfall. They never had a majority of the population on their side considering the peasants were wary of the Bolsheviks but all you need is a significant segment of the population to be on your side to make a move.
This is not new information. They were following Marx's line that capitalism had to take root first before Communism could ever evolve. The Bolsheviks wanted to skip that part.
American and British soldiers were in Siberia to support the White Russians. This is not new information and it wasn't a secret at all. My first awarness of American involvement came from Sargent Rock comic book, which were re produce issues from the 50s. If the American military experience was portrayed in a 1950s comic book then you can consider it to be no secret. If you're not interested in old comic books then there's an interesting book about America's "small" wars (ex: American troops in Haiti and Dominican Rep., undeclared naval war with France in the 1790s, etc.) written in the 1950 (or maybe it was the early 60s) I don't own the book, and I don't recall the specific title, but next time I'm in the library I'll look for it if you like.
American and British military support had no effect on the outcome. In fact, it was a disaster. Nothing was accomplished. I don't see how it brought down Kerensky considering he was already out of power by the time American and British troops were fighting the reds.
You ignore urban support. A group can't over run a nation without having support from at least one important segment of the population that can provide muscle.
Once again. That's meaningless without numbers to back them up.
So they had significant numbers after they were able to take control of the nation? that makes no sense. How would they be able to fight an effective war against the Whites without support from labor?
I agree they were mostly incompetents but they were better able to play their cards than any other group. A pair of 2s is a crappy hand but it beats nothing.
I addressed this point of yours already
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 21, 2006 11:52:37 GMT -5
You're making a massive mistake if you think that Bolshevism was some populist, grassroots phenomenon. It wasn't.
"The people" never rose up.
You're totally buying their propaganda.
Bolsheviks never had massive numbers. Never.
"The workers" never organized behind them.
You're totally just buying their lies.
H.G. Wells, in his outline of history, talked about how history was really just the actions of small and aggressive minorities seizing control because they were better-organized than "the people".
That's how it always was: The French Revolution, The Bolshevik takeover of Russia, the Nazi take-over of the Weimar Republic.
These groups NEVER had a plurality, and it was never a "grassroots" uprising.
Even the American revolution was the action of a small and well-organized minority. One historian noted that 2/3rds of the American colonists wanted to stay with the British. And that other 1/3rd? --They weren't some organized group: They wanted independence, but not all under the same group or form of government. So basically "America" was created by a small cabal of rich men who manipulated events and used their power to cause a revolt.
It was like the French Revolution, and Robespierre: A small cabal riding the wave of general discontent and co-opting it. They didn't "create" it, and "the people" weren't necessarily behind them, per se.
They manipulated events. Scammed.
That's why the West was terrified of Bolshevism--because they succeeded with incredibly small numbers. McCarthy used to warn in the 1950s that America had more registered Communists than Russia did at the time of the revolution. He wasn't exaggerating.
So your portrayal of the Bolsheviks as some grassroots movement with millions of Gentile factory-workers is grossly inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 12:19:06 GMT -5
Never said it was.
Never said they did. The workers, for the most part, just shifted allegiance.
No, because I'm not stating that the majority favored Bolsheviks, which I get into further down.
I never said they did. They had a significant number of people on their side, which were workers and more important than peasants with regards to ability. Honestly, do you think one day Lenin popped up and said you're all Bolsheviks and everyone just went along with it? How can you force those who are unwilling to go along with it without muscle? To have muscle you have to havea portion of the population on your side.
I already told you. They jumped ship when they though Kerensky and his crew were weak. Things were bad all over and the Bolsheviks promised action.
H.G. Wells was an anti- semite. You should have referenced someone else. Also, he isn't a historian. He's a successful author. His opinion on literature may have some value. His opinion on history doesn't.
In all of those there was significant support for the take over. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag but they did have significant number of people in the population who supported them.
No one has said they did.
1/3rd of the population isn't a majority but it's significant number of people. If it had been 10% would there have been a revolt?
Read my post again. I can't see how you think I even implied they were a grass roots movement. I stated that labor was fed up with Kerensky and looked for someone who promised action. So they, for teh most part, shifted their loyalty. How is what I stated considered to be an implication that I beleived the Bolsheviks had a grass roots movement? Bolsheviks weren't much but they were able to play their cards right when the opportunity arose.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 21, 2006 13:27:21 GMT -5
At the time, in 1932, they held around 250 seats of a total of 600, they were far and away the largest party in the Reichstags.
Hindenburg didn't like Hitler, nor did many others that took it upon themselves to urge Hindenburg to stay on as captain, as he was the only other politician capable of winning. This however wouldn't have lasted long, the NS party grew larger and more influential with every run off thanks to communist chaos and starving people in the streets. To say that his chancellorship was some type of a dastardly coup imposed by the manipulative Hitler, because of a senile easily manipulated man, is wrong. With their headway its easy to see that they were going to take power in Germany, even if it meant on more term of Hindenburg. From 1930 to 1933 the progress made by them was unmatched by any party in any democratic republic ever. And is credence enough to their legitimacy as a political party. Moreso than the likes of the murderous Bolsheviks.
And yes there were conservatives that I am sure were all to willing to submit themselves to Versailles and continue paying off their "guilt" while people where starving and dying, all because they were weak cynical and afraid of change, not because they were "rational". They'd keep Hitler out of office even if it meant a pan-European Bolshevik state. Which lends itself to "rational" thinking, I suppose. Either way, they were the minority.
No, you've gone over it with yourself. You have never even taken a single word of mine into consideration, you're a person whose not the least interested in actually hearing me, or anyone, out on anything. All you do is post messages proclaiming how you've "gone over it", after having linked your enlightenment, in the form of someone elses article. As if you think of yourself as teacher and the person your talking to as pupil. When in fact, all that is taking place is you convincing yourself that you're teaching me, or anyone something. Since it's obviously in your interest to portray yourself and myself in that light. You have an ax to grind and it is like your personal resent against, poorly concealed.
If someone came to me in the street pointing their fingers in my face accusing me of garbage, they aren't going to get my respect, and have me consider at length what they're saying, they're going to get a fist in the face. Likewise, someone doing the same here isn't going to get me to consider any of their pompous "schooling" that's saturated in personal attacks and judgments.
I never said the "jews", I said Marxist jews. But of course, in your mind, you have had a belief from the get go that you know exactly what my "agenda" is . And I am sure I have a set belief on your "agenda" too, the only difference is I don't try to shove it down your throat, which you seem unable to refrain from doing to me. But why is it, why is it that you are so interested in what I think? I am not the least bit interested in what you think when you come round pointing your finger, so why you me?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 21, 2006 13:50:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 21, 2006 13:53:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 21, 2006 14:06:12 GMT -5
Anodyne, Read Career of a Revolutionist by Stepniak. He was a Russian [Gentile] revolutionary in the 1890s. He was the real thing.
He had to flee to England after stabbing the Commissioner of Police in the chest in broad daylight in Moscow.
You say that the Bolsheviks had a plurality among revolutionaries: Again--inaccurate.
You said something to the effect of: "What? Lenin just came in and had an instant following?"
The answer to that is: Yes--pretty much.
Lenin was in exile in Western Europe. He was sent back into Russia secretly as a sort of germ bacillus by the Germans to destabilize Russia during the war. So yes: He did show up, with an "instant following" because he was an agent of foreign powers, with help and strings being pulled for him. Likeiwse a lot of aid came from British secret service, and--later--Western financiers.
Lenin had a lot of foreign backing, a lot of people pulling strings. He wasn't some "grassroots leader" who built a mass following through sweat and hard work.
He cheated.
As to the warring factions in Russia, the Bolsheviks were one of many. Their chief rivals were the Mensheviks. And there were dozens of others, of all socialist and "worker-party" stripes.
The Bolsheviks didn't "win" support, they went in like gangsters and murdered enemies and then, with the left-over members, extorted compliance. You became part of THEIR party or you were "an enemy of the state" and exiled or liquidated.
So no: The Bolsheviks weren't a plurality and weren't "backed by the people". If you want an equivalent, they were like the Iraqi puppet regime in place now, sending out death squads to murder rivals--and all backed by Western Powers.
Lenin wasn't George Washington, he was more like corrupt exile Ahmed Chalabi.
P.S.--You're one of Dodona's most literate posters. It pains me to see how dismissive you are of H.G. Wells, how little you know about him or his massive influence. Wells was not an antisemite. In fact, many of his friends were Jews--as was his lover in the 1930s [who turned out to be a Bolshevik spy]. But enough of that---! As for history, H.G. Wells's Outline of History was the first work of its kind, and was an instant best-seller. In fact, it was a best-seller for most of the 1920s and '30s. You claim that Wells wasn't a historian--but he produced a work so respected that it was even used as a textbook in unviverities. It was scrupulously researched and its information vetted by Oxford professors. Sorry, but writing history books does make you a historian. So what if his degree was in biology? --He was an expansive intellect, who was extremely well-read in many different fields. You would deny that he was a historian just because he didn't have a degree in history? --By that bigoted and narrow view, Herodotus [the father of History] wasn't a "historian," or Thucydides or Xenophon, or Livy. Yet you would call some graduate of a junior college with a history degree a "historian". Sorry, but that bigoted nonsense doesn't wash. Go and read Outline of History and then you can come back and tell me how Wells was not a historian--Wells, whose work was far more scrupulously researched and vetted than the work of Herodotus.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 21, 2006 14:22:05 GMT -5
Majority? no. You do recall what you were attempting to argue correct. How many of the seats were conservative? Ah, making you think!
errr..... they actually lost seats since 1930. Not exactly a sign of becoming more popular but of becoming less popular.
It was a coup. He had no majority in the Reichstag. He jumped up and down demanding the Chancellorship. He got it and no one denies that Hindenburg didn't have all his marbles or that his son was affiliated with the Nazis.
What headway? Like I said. They lost seats. There is no way we can assume how things would have gone if Hindenburg didn't hand over the Chancellorship. What we can talk about is what happened.
errrrr.... take another look.
Never said that they weren't a legitimate party. Thank the conservatives for for aligning themselves with Hitler's party in 1929. You do recall that, correct? This alliance made the Nazis "respectable."
Wow... you would have made a great PR man for Hitler. Lets get you in a time machine. You're making assumptons on how conservatives felt. I don't deal with assumptions. Keep them to yourself. The conservative party weren't fans of the treaty.
errrrr..... like I said before, and not just in this thread, the conservatives threw their weight behind Hitler in 1929. This is well known. Amazing.
I have taken it into consideration. Everything you type I address. I'm not at fault if you're wrong. If you want me to tell you thaty ou're correct just to make you feel better about yourself then you're talking to the wrong man. I'm not a cheerleader for the ignorant.
Oh, right... sources don't matter. I forgot who I'm speaking to. You use articles to present a point but if I do it then it's somehow unoriginal thinking on my part. Sorry but I base my views on facts. Go back to your intellectual hacks. I rely with men of respect.
errr.... you're incorrect on so many points. If that hurts your self esteem then I suggest you spend more time reading serious works.
Question is... did I fail as a teacher or did you fail as a student. In this case I'm off the hook.
What ax to grind excatly? You're wrong on many points and I address them. I do that to everyone I think is incorrect. Except those people have enough self esteem not to be hurt by it. Seems like you're the only one who has feelings crushed.
I didn't realize I was looking for respect from you. Thanks for telling me. With regards to "going to get a fist to the face" that's ok... I can take a verbal "punch" that's not based on anything. My punches are faster and harder since I have facts and a rational mind on my side.
Sometimes truth comes in harsh doses.
ummmm...... I'm calling your bullshit. You might as well go back and delete all your threads. You have a history of lumping Jews all together.
LOL! What agenda do I have? Please, do tell!
Who is the one who creates anti- Jewish threads? I don't flood this forum with articles pushing one belief.
Dude, I attack bullshit. I don't care what you think. I care what you post. If it's bullshit then I'll call it. You just happen to bullshit more than the average person on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 21, 2006 17:09:20 GMT -5
They had the biggest political party in the Reichstag. End of story. Saying that it wasn't a "Majority" is of no value in proposing it was a "coup". Minority governments are commonplace in democratic nations. It's no different trying to argue that the current prime minister of Canada is illegitimate because he has a minority government and was appointed by a predecessor.
The conservatives party was a scisimed faction of the peoples party because of it's leader, Hugenberg, was, from their point of view, to nationalistic and radical. And it was Hugenberg and the Peoples party that made a coalition with NS's, among various other nationalist parties. The merger with Papen and other conservative came as a result of Hindenburg creating a majority government under Hitler, in 33. Not them throwing their support behind him.
What day of the week is it?
Before you were going on about how Germans are "guilty" because of the deeds of the Nazi regime, because as you said they voted him into power and stood idly by instead of opposing him. Now you're portraying Hitlers rise to power as nothing less than a total coup, a coup that the people weren't in support of. So they bore responsibility, even when they were the victims of a coup and tyranny? Bah! You're such a joke. Go shill to someone that takes you seriously. I see nothing but bullshit come from you, and for that reason I don't engage it. Yet you can't not respond to my supposed "BS". It's only because it's not, you're just a resentful pig headed fool that would slap your own mother had she said something that injured your delusional sensibilities.
I make it perfectly clear who I have a problem with, wether it's communists, or fifth columns or Zionists. As of yet I have not lumped all Jews together. It's just people with garbage anti-semitic imagery in their brains hear the Sentence "Bolshevism was Jewish" and automatically translate it as "All Jews are proponents of the Bolshevik conspiracy". The only thing that is sad is people like you being incapable of separating objectionable Jews, to unobjectionable Jews. Typical, and pathetic.
1928 - 12 seats 1930 - 107 seats 1932 - 230 seats
Nobody is buying your facade, no matter how arrogant you act. I can't imagine a scenario where anyone would be hurt by your posts. For it would require actual refuting by way of insight, not fabrications, attacks and arrogance. Anyways, your "schooling" is, has been, and will continue to be for the birds.
It's self-evident
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 21, 2006 17:59:01 GMT -5
I'm planning to start few threads on the Finnish contribution to the Russian Revolution as well as the American Communist party. It's about the time to expose this forgotten but important page in the World History.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 21, 2006 18:14:45 GMT -5
Ilmatar, Wasn't Finland part of the Russian Empire at the time of the Russian Revolution?
I read that Lenin gave Finland its freedom, knowing that the Soviet Union wouldn't be able to keep it (geopolitically). After that, the Finns cherished warm feelings for Lenin and had statues commemorating him.
Critics have wondered why the Soviets didn't repeat this strategy after they took over the Eastern Bloc after World War II. Instead, they bled themselves white sending in tanks to stamp down on rebellions in Czeckoslovakia, Hungary, etc.
If they had acted more generously, those nations would have shared Finland's friendliness for the Soviets.
|
|