Stalin's Contributions

And in order to not seem that I have something personal against the United States (nothing), the Commies will not stay out.

A list with some activities from the Stasi:

• Stasi experts helped to build the secret police of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia.[30][31]
• Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba was particularly interested in receiving training from Stasi. Stasi instructors worked in Cuba and Cuban communists received training in East Germany.[32] The Stasi chief Markus Wolf described how he set up the Cuban system on the pattern of the East German system.[33]
• Stasi experts helped in initial training and indoctrination of Egyptian State Security organizations under the Nasser regime from 1957-58 onwards. This was discontinued in 1969.
• The Stasi's experts worked with building secret police systems in the People's Republic of Angola, the People's Republic of Mozambique, and the People's Republic of Yemen (South Yemen).[31]
• Stasi organized and extensively trained Syrian intelligence services under the Assad regime and Baath Party from 1966 onwards and especially from 1973.[34]
• Stasi experts helped to set up Idi Amin's secret police.[31][35]
• Stasi experts helped Kwame Nkrumah to build his secret police. When Ghanaians overthrew the regime, Stasi Major Jurgen Rogalla was imprisoned.[31][36]
• The Stasi sent agents to the West as sleeper agents. For instance, sleeper agent Günter Guillaume became a senior aide to social democratic chancellor Willy Brandt, and reported about his politics and private life.[37]
• The Stasi operated at least one brothel. Agents were used against both men and women working in Western governments. "Entrapment" was used against married men and homosexuals.[38]
• Martin Schlaff – According to the German parliament's investigations, the Austrian billionaire's Stasi codename was "Landgraf" and registration number "3886-86". He made money by supplying embargoed goods to East Germany.[39]
• Sokratis Kokkalis – Stasi documents suggest that the Greek businessman was a Stasi agent, whose operations included delivering Western technological secrets and bribing Greek officials to buy outdated East German telecom equipment.[40]
• Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Group)—A terrorist organization which killed dozens of West Germans and others.
• The Stasi ordered a campaign in which cemeteries and other Jewish sites in West Germany were smeared with swastikas and other Nazi symbols. Funds were channelled to a small West German group for it to defend Adolf Eichmann.[41]
• The Stasi channelled large amounts of money to Neo-Nazi groups in West, with the purpose of discrediting the West.[42]
• The Stasi worked in a campaign to create extensive material and propaganda against Israel.[41]
• Murder of Benno Ohnesorg – A Stasi agent carried out the murder, which stirred a whole movement of left-wing protest and violence. The Economist describes it as "the gunshot that hoaxed a generation".[43][44]
• Operation Infektion—The Stasi helped the KGB to spread HIV/AIDS disinformation that the United States had created the disease. Millions of people around the world still believe in these claims.[45][46]
• Sandoz chemical spill—The KGB reportedly ordered the Stasi to sabotage the chemical factory to distract attention from the Chernobyl disaster six months earlier in Ukraine.[47][48][49]
• Investigators have found evidence of a death squad that carried out a number of assassinations (including assassination of Swedish journalist Cats Falck) on orders from the East German government from 1976 to 1987. Attempts to prosecute members failed.[50][51][52]
• The Stasi attempted to assassinate Wolfgang Welsch, a famous critic of the regime. Stasi collaborator Peter Haack (Stasi codename "Alfons") befriended Welsch and then fed him hamburgers poisoned with thallium. It took weeks for doctors to find out why Welsch had suddenly lost his hair.[53]
• Documents in the Stasi archives state that the KGB ordered Bulgarian agents to assassinate Pope John Paul II, who was known for his criticism of human rights in the communist block, and the Stasi was asked to help with covering up traces.[54]
• A special unit of the Stasi assisted Romanian intelligence in kidnapping Romanian dissident Oliviu Beldeanu from West Germany.[55]
• In 1975, Stasi recorded a conversation between senior West German CDU politicians Helmut Kohl and Kurt Biedenkopf. It was then "leaked" to the Stern magazine as a transcript recorded by American intelligence. The magazine then claimed that Americans were wiretapping West Germans and the public believed the story
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

 

That may be one. I'd have to take a close look at the conventions to be sure though. It was also one where the conventions were clearly outmoded and note that the Axis were not charged with criminal acts for it either.

I think you are generalizing far too much. This wasn't just a case of "interests of the state" it was a case where the survival of the state itself was in question, what's more the actions of the Nazis had pushed it to the point where the survival of the nation was also in question especially in the East. However it's worth noteing that the West didn't start the shooting.

Sort of the same. Communism had a pretty impressive record even then for making victims out of it's own ciitzens and that record continued after that period. Certainly the dictaters made victims of thousands or even tens of thousands although significant numbers were hardly innocents. However communist regimes made victims of millions. Furthermore it was easier to pressure or remove the right wing dictartors than it would have been to do the same to communist ones. The present state of the world makes that pretty clear.

Not sure what your point is here.

What CIA activities are you talking about? Certainly they didn't prevent Chavez from imposing his brand of it there to the detriment of just about everyone concerned.

You are allowing your biases to show again. The contries you are refering to are not "so-called democratic regimes" they are democratic regimes. Certainly there will be those that seek ways around laws to impliment policies they believe in but it is not "smartness" nor does it "always happen" nor will it "always happen". Furthermore there are indeed moral issues in this both ways. Some, IMO with a fair amount of evidence on their side, considered Communism a great evil. Thus defeating it was a "good" thing. Now many Communist may have thought the same but there was and is considerably less evidence to support thier position.

You counter your own argument here by equateing planing and doing. The US had plans for war with half a dozen or more countries in the period between WWI and WWII yet only ended up using those vs the countries that attacked and declared war on them. The fact that Northoods didn't go into action puts it in the same catagory.

Every single one? I'd like to see some support for that.

They don't necessarily take over but they are factors. The level of interest/threat can be critical here.

 

State security is an interest of the state. As for the West starting the war, it actually did by declaring war to Germany. Not that they did not have reasons to be worried of Hitler...

See? You agree with me. I'm not saying how the things should be, I'm saying how they were.

I'm "allowing"? You think you are teaching me something here? You are trying to put flowers in the democracies. And yes, "so-called democracies", it's correct. Remember that Churchill said that democracy was the worst system, apart from others tried. However in practice, there are dictatorships which can do less harm than certain democracies.

Don't be naive...

There are, of course. Democracies preferably need ephemism, not death squads in foreign affairs (but they can and resort to them depending of the situation).

It's relative to the Communism. The Communism in Yugoslavia was very different from the one in the USSR. And of course, not all democracies conduct interventions like the US. As for what considerat"evil", Communists also can say that the poverty in the world is a form of "evil". Depends of the perspective.

Northwoods is an example of why I said "the so-called democratic regimes" in the other post.

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

 

As for Chavez: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/27-02-2013/123914-cia_chavez-0/

 

You see, non-violent means were apparentely used to try remove Chavez from power. If the CIA had non-violent means to operate in the Cold War, or the military dictatorships in Latin America also had them, they would not use torture or kill people, because this always bring problems. Killing and torturing are extreme acst, and are not desirable by any government IF can be substitute by something else also also reaching the desirable objetive. Even because if they did that today, it would really not play well for the US relations in South America, as the US would be seen as a big agressor in the region (as a guy called Hitler was in 1939).

 

1929

U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds


1932

The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martínez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).
1933

Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.
1946

U.S. Army School of the Americas opens in Panama as a hemisphere-wide military academy. Its linchpin is the doctrine of National Security, by which the chief threat to a nation is internal subversion; this will be the guiding principle behind dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Central America, and elsewhere.
1960

A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.
"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup

1966

U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.
"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program

 

What I posted above is from the last link I provided. It's impressive how people can try to minimze those things. It's like try to put make up in the ugliest woman in the world and try make she win a beauty contest. And today is just a matter of visit Wikileaks, it can be constanted that the so-called democracies continue to implement abusive and/or immoral practices, or turn a blind-eye to them. Of course that some things can and do change. For example, today the Americans do not act with such a violence in Latin American as in the past, because it would not good for their image. In order to expand relations (that the US and all countries want) you need to have peace and mutual confidence.

As I already said, LWD, I'm not making criticsm here, I'm not saying the things should work, I'm saying how they work. Only naive people don't want to see this. Having said all this, popular opinion can change intervention and to a less extent black operations conducted by democracies? Depending of the case, yes.

 

Saying that APPARENTLY non violent means were used to remove Chavez, is NONSENS .

There are 2 possibilities:

1)Non violent means were used:and in this case,you have to give proofs

2)Non violent means were not used

Apparently does not exist .

 

The unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan was totally legal.

 

I never suggested that it wasn't. Indeed in most cases it is an overwhelming interest and that's the point. You implied that the level of interest wasn't important. Maybe you didn't mean to but the implication was certainlly there.

Actually no. Germany started the war by attacking Poland in the face of French and British guarantees of her territorial integrity. They also rather forced them into that position by failing to live up to previous diplomatic agreements.

To some extent possibly but your lack of balance and porportion undermines your position and raises questions of the valididty of your world view. I.e. you aren't really "saying how they were" but how you think they were.

Yes.

No. I would like to be able to and indeed had hopes when this conversation started but it's becoming clear that the best I can do is point out the falacies and errors in your world view for the edification of others.

"so-called demcoracise" is corret? How do you get that? Are you saying that we don't elect our leaders? or are you making the semantic point that by the old defintions we are talking about republics rather than democaracies. I'm not sure what you hope to prove by quoteing Churchill where he makes the point that democracies are the best form of government to date. Certainly they are not perfect but then few things devised by man are. As for your final statement I can't see how it is particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

So not ascribing to your world view is "naive"? Frankly I think mine is more accurate and even if it's not it's a nicer place to live.

The degree of evil is certainly relative to the implimentation but Communsim in all it's implimentations has been "evil". IMO poverty is not a desireable state but it is a necessary one. There need to be consequences for failure and poverty is one. Of course Communist pretty much guaranteed the poverty of the masses of whatever country they controled as well. What is "evil" is the level of limitations communist regimes placed on the rights of individuals and groups. The fact that in all such regimes "all were equal but some were more equal" is another evil they were gullty of. I.e. their whole premise for existance was a lie.

??? A plan that wasn't implemented is why you call the US a "so-called democratic regime"??? How absurd. Then you point to a new reprot about a private organization that may have ties to the CIA that tried non violent activities to oust Chavez as another?

 

Could you take your time and reword this so it is coherent?

 

Is that the one that was suppose to support your position on the US overthrowing all the demcoratic regmies of South America?
If so I'll note that the part you posted doesn't refer to any actions of the US in South America. Furthermore none of them mention the US overthrowing any democratic governments and one specifially mentions US troops being sent to stop the massacre of civilians.

 

How did this interesting thread get to South America....we'll be discussing the school of Americas next...we don't really want to do that can of worms surely.

 

IMO it started with this rather controversial post:

In his attempt to defend the indefensable we have wandered far off topic.

 

"Boys from Brazil" aren't necessarily from Brazil.

 

That's exactly what I mean.

Jenisch wants to drag us into thinking that the role of the 3rd Reich is comparable to the task of a World Policeman (US). That's absolutely wrong. The World Policeman saves us all from danger whilst the Third Reich was a murderous state with aim to exterminate. The difference is so large that it is indecent even to remotely compare the today's role of US with the role of the Nazi state. That's simply too much for my taste. This should be prevented – in very roots.

Policemen are policemen and murderers are murderers. You cannot change this difference by using appropriate phrases. If a policeman kills a murderer to protect innocent people – that's very good deed. But when a murderer crashes a plane into a skyscraper with aim to kill innocent people then that's a mass murder. Incomparable.

 

Tamino, what I said is that the Americans can and do kill innocent people, support dictatorships, turn a blind eye to certain abuses, depose governments, etc, when it's convenient and possible for them to do this (as all countries also do). It's not necessary to enter in comparisons with Nazi Germany or any other state. LWD can trow as much perfume as he wants in the excrement of democracies, but it would not work. Facts are facts.

 

Stalin was not broken hearted over dividing Poland. It suited his purposes well.

 

Deleted.