Communism and National Socialism

Lenin's experience in Siberia was not typical! the gulags may have been expanded by the Commies but sending people to 'count trees' in Siberia was a feature of the Tsarist regime.

However, yes, you are correct, things were (at long last) beginning to look up. After the first revolution, they were looking an awful lot better...
But that is another story.

 

"Absolute hell on earth" is a little bit of an overstatement here. Consider for example that the Russian farmers had been the physical property of their landlords for centuries. They were bound to the place they were born and could be sold by the landlord, traded, moved and married at will. He had no personal freedom whatsoever. Obviously any change in the political system would be percieved as much, much better than the past one even if that new system was as murderous as Stalin's. Also note that it wasn't all Stalin from the start...

Another thing is the fact that the new regime made peace and thus ended the horrible bloodbaths of WW1, which had been going pretty badly for Russia.

 

Although making peace was simply their way of gaining initial popular support. "Peace, Land, Bread" was Lenin's main slogan.

 

But the Russian farmers had been granted their land right before WW1-and the reforms event went beyond that there was an agricultural Bank which was ready to make financial loans , and agencies to help hem adopt new techniques.. And hell on earth is not an overstatement..During the famine which Stalin's;s colelctivization (which led to the ruthless exterminantion of the so called "kulaks", the "so-called" rich peasants-) reached such extremes that a great many acts acts of canibalism were reported. ..peole killing the living and seizing dead bodies to prolongu their exietence..If this is not a worthy of inclussion in a Dantesque painting of hell, what is?...
Yes, the war had been going badly for Russia-however, it can be truly said that Russia knocked Austria-Hungary out of the war, and that the effort fort knocked her out of the war as well..and the Communists, of course, did not help, demoralizing front line troops and encouragng mass desertion. The Kerensky govt ,the only democratic government Russia had ever kniwn until hat time wanted to continue with the war..and yes, there were many who were tired of the war, but also many that were willing to go on fighting. To further facilitate the collapse, the Imperial German government sent Lenin to Russia aboard that famous sealed train..

 

Maybe it will shed some light on this:

6th of August 2004

Russia Will Not File Charges Against Perpetrators of Katyn Massacre - . Russian military prosecutors will not file charges against perpetrators of the Katyn Massacre. Moscow argues that it cannot be qualified as genocide, that is a crime to which a statute of limitations does not apply - officials from Poland's Institute of National Remembrance were informed in talks in Moscow. Leon Kieres, the Institute's head, said after a meeting with Russia's chief military prosecutor Aleksander Savienkov that Russia admits the murder of almost 22,000 Poles on Stalin's orders. According to international and Polish law, the Katyn massacre was genocide. Poland will decide whether it will begin its own investigation.

Katyn Committee Calls Russia's View Of Katyn Massacre Cynical - The Katyn Committee has appealed for the Polish investigation of the Katyn massacre to start as soon as possible. The Committee president Stefan Melak said Russia's decision to qualify the muder as common crime was mean and cynical. "This impunity is a shame on the Russian judiciary" - said Stefan Melak, pointing out that two Russian general who were perpetrators of the crime were questioned in the 1990s only as witnesses. Russia has ratified international conventions on not applying the statute of limitations to gencide. In 1993 Russian foreign ministry officials pledged that all perpetrators of the Katyn massacre will be prosecuted. It was after this statement that Poland suspended its own investigation.

 

Busdriver, the Allies knew who the true perpetratorsof the Katyn massacre were-but in order to play the grand game, even general Sikorsky(who knew the full story!) had to go along with the pretense and state to the press:"Je ne crois pas au crime russe " ( l do not believe that it was a Russian crime") Right! and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs live in a forest near Los Angeles...Eveybody knew who the murderers were. .
:angry: :angry: :angry:

 

That is not the question. The question is, why NOW Russians don't want to persecute the guys, who were involved in this genocide. I thought I made it clear quoting the question.

 

I asked a rather more important question earlier: why was there no equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials after the fall of the USSR?.. Send me a mail in private ...
Best regards!

 

Yes, I know the question you asked, but it's just too big for me Anyway, I just wanted to show a small detail of what, in my opinion, is a bigger picture, i.e. attitude of Russian authorities towards the communist era crimes.

 

Yes, I know the question you asked, but it's just too big for me Anyway, I just wanted to show a small detail of what, in my opinion, is a bigger picture, i.e. attitude of Russian authorities towards the communist era crimes.[/quote


l think we are on the same wave length!
Best regards! :smok: :smok:

 

I doubt you will find anybody on here who was not (to a greater or lesser degree)...

 

Agreed! thus the necessity for a Nuremberg Trial here-many of the guilty, many of the murderers are still among us...some are interviewed in recent (1990s) documentaries...and express no remorse...

 

:-?

What is keeping the Russians from convicting known mass murderers. It is indeed a very interesting and quite necessary question... :-?

 

Indeed! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

This is of course true, but it's not only a russian problem.
Other nations too had some dubious affairs in WW2, and there too, it was (or still is)impossible to convict the responsibles.

For example, it took very long in France till the Vichy officials that had delivered jews to Hitler in july 1942(Papon affair) were taken to justice.

Or what about Switzerland that often returned jewish refugees to Germany (as they were "racially" persecuted and Switzerland only gives protection to "politically" persecuted.)
Later, Switzerland had no problem to welcome the money stolen from the jews, and even today refuse to return it.

And let's not forget Britain and the US who in the summer of 1945 returned 2 million soviet refugees asking for political asylum(including women and children) to Stalin.
Nearly all these people were later killed by the soviets.
When during the 1990's some of the survivors tried to go to court against a british official responsible for their deportation, british justice told them that such a trial was out of question.

Of course, soviet crimes put everything of this in the shadow, but it shouldn't be forgotten nevertheless.

 

Or the British refusing to allow Jews (mostly ex-concentration camp inmates) into Palestine, and leaving them sailing around the Med on overcrowded ships.

Frankly, it is a very long list, and I wonder if any country is without a stigma. Maybe Iceland?

 

I understand where you are coming from with this Roel and I agree, up to a point. The thing is; Communism is bad, even in theory, if you look at it objectively.
In order for Communism to work human nature must be conquered. Individuals must act, not in their own interests, but in the interest of some greater good. That is contrary to human nature.
Capitalism, on the other hand is consistent with human nature.
"Greedy" individuals are free to act in their own self interest and in the process, without any altruism needed, act in the best interest of the whole.

Anybody interested in learning more should check out: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand as a good starting point.

http://www.aynrand.org

 

It may be unnatural and therefore impossible to actually enact in any country, but it is not morally wrong to equally divide the wealth of a country according to people's needs, is it? Considering, of course, that this idea developed in a time where most of the wealth went to a small minority leaving a great majority painfully vulnerable to whatever misery might descend on them.

Since the 1800s much has changed in the direction of social security, however, and the living conditions of the labourers in many Western countries had been seriously improved by 1900. Everything indicated that while poverty can't be wiped out in a capitalist system, all people in a country would in a foreseeable future at least be able to sustain themselves with government aid. The Socialist revolution of 1917 is therefore best described as an irrational wish of a small radical minority in Russia, and only in possible in Russia because of the collective traditions established there already.

In my previous post I mentioned serfdom under the Tsars but I must correct myself, it was abolished in 1861. However, the Tsar was still an autocrat, actively surpressing whatever reeked of democracy and freedom of opinion!

PS.: if the above sounds overly Marxist-socialist it is for want of better vocabulary!

 

Morality has nothing to do with it, unless one accepts that what is "natural" i.e. in accordance with human nature ,is moral and that which is "unnatural" is immoral.
BTW there is no such thing as "equally dividing the wealth..according to people's needs"..it's a Socialist fantasy.
Human beings, with all their greed, jealousy, emotional reactions etc..must make the decisions as to what is "equal" and who is "in need"
and who must labor to provide those needy with what they desire.

 

Of course. That is, once again, why it won't work. The only reason why Marx and his followers thought it would was their conception of the course of history; when at some point there would indeed have been a capitalist "class" and a labourer "class" fighting each other, the latter would see the fair distribution of property and wealth as the natural course. However, this never happened. And thus Communism never worked and never will work.

Ta da!

However, there is such a thing as dividing wealth according to need if it involves letting the wealthy keep a good share of their wealth, but to take just enough to ensure that no one will starve even if they fall outside the "system". This is called the welfare state, and it does work.