O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[keldsyke]

You're wrong, but that's ok.

More fact based stuff there, just out of interest what do you think to the Grimsby match being postponed?

[SinceSept1959]

Strange comments about Shamima being a victim of online manipulative forces. Perhaps if the messages being conveyed by those particular
" manipulative forces " were scrutinised as thoroughly as other forums then maybe she wouldn't have been drawn in to that scenario ?

Also interesting , is the opinion that those in favour of greater safeguarding and protection for women and children, should be viewed as " right wing bandwagon opportunists " rather than decent, righteous and right minded people !

Of course ,the left wingers never resort to such measures, despite many being ageist, boomer loathing, anti democratic, individuals blaming Economic mismanagement of the economy,waste and national debt ,squarely on pensioners and their WFA for example.

It seems the art of debate is extinct.
Youngsters rarely engage in conversation preferring to sit immersed in online content and University cultures "cancel" students and individuals with any thoughts that are alternative to narratives and popular agendas.
In effect, the lack of reasoning and tolerance has been suppressed by design, with far reaching tentacles enacted by politicised legal executives.

[OchPie]

More fact based stuff there, just out of interest what do you think to the Grimsby match being postponed?

I've been pretty active on the Postponement thread. To summarise, good effort by their groundskeepers, terrible comms and management by Grimsby but you wonder what pressure Sky were putting on. And I don't think it was Keir Starmer's fault.

Explain how this money has been allocated, who to and how used?

Some money went to SYL's "documentary" which got him locked up, from Infowars of all places ("they're turning the frogs gay!"). Money goes into supporting the "protests" the far right go on as well as maintaining their online platforms.

Interesting to see the Treasury blocking fundraising and use of financial services by Blood and Honour, a group set up because the National Front weren't racist enough.

[BigFatPie]

Strange comments about Shamima being a victim of online manipulative forces. Perhaps if the messages being conveyed by those particular
" manipulative forces " were scrutinised as thoroughly as other forums then maybe she wouldn't have been drawn in to that scenario ?

Also interesting , is the opinion that those in favour of greater safeguarding and protection for women and children, should be viewed as " right wing bandwagon opportunists " rather than decent, righteous and right minded people !

Of course ,the left wingers never resort to such measures, despite many being ageist, boomer loathing, anti democratic, individuals blaming Economic mismanagement of the economy,waste and national debt ,squarely on pensioners and their WFA for example.

It seems the art of debate is extinct.
Youngsters rarely engage in conversation preferring to sit immersed in online content and University cultures "cancel" students and individuals with any thoughts that are alternative to narratives and popular agendas.
In effect, the lack of reasoning and tolerance has been suppressed by design, with far reaching tentacles enacted by politicised legal executives.

Parklife!

[SinceSept1959]

Typical dismissive arrogant comment.
Unless of course you're referring to the Manchester based music festival ?
I suppose you don't have any pictures in your house only wall to wall mirrors so that you can admire yourself ? 🤣🤣

[Lullapie]

Stephen Kotkin is tremendously informative on Russia. Decades of research in the Russian archives translating and analysing documents and he explains it all in such an accessible way. A lot of his talks are available on YouTube and I enjoy them hugely.

Just want to pick your brains on a couple of things though. I thought the mod to late twenties were the only time in Stalin's reign that there was anything approaching a 'liberal' policy, and early thirties onwards was the beginning of enforcement of collectivised agriculture and therefore severe repression and famine. I may be wrong but would be interested to know.

Second question is does 'Waiting for Hitler' get into Stalin's view of Nazism and fascism? I have a feeling I've read or heard (possibly from Kotkin) that according to record of Soviet government meetings Stalin didn't care too much about the rise of Hitler or Mussolini, he was happy to trade with both of them and he was perfectly happy for them to flourish as he thought they would accelerate the fall of capitalism, which was his main goal. Of course that changed when Hitler broke the pact and attacked him, but until self-defence became an issue he was far from an anti-fascist. Don't know how long ago you read these or if you still look at them but can your confirm or deny this?

By the way, if you're interested in the history of the Russian security apparatus I can recommend The Mitrokhin Archive. It's a bit of a slog at times but also very informative.

Great post Drillerpie.

Autocracies are necessary in certain countries at certain times and however the rose tinted idealists try and paint it, autocracies aren?t always a bad thing.

In the aftermath of the First World War the world was a mess and that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. They both could initially be construed as popular leaders.

I totally agree that Stalin didn?t want to go to war with Hitler or Mussolini but was forced into a conflict that could only weaken him. Ironically in the end, it left Stalin in a stronger position on the international front.

[Old_pie]

Great post Drillerpie.

Autocracies are necessary in certain countries at certain times and however the rose tinted idealists try and paint it, autocracies aren?t always a bad thing.

In the aftermath of the First World War the world was a mess and that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. They both could initially be construed as popular leaders.

I totally agree that Stalin didn?t want to go to war with Hitler or Mussolini but was forced into a conflict that could only weaken him. Ironically in the end, it left Stalin in a stronger position on the international front.

Surely that was only with the grace of the allies? USA in particular. I thought Churchill's instinct was to push Stalin back, especially out of East Germany and of course Poland, the invasion of whom sparked off our hostilities with Germany.

[Lullapie]

Surely that was only with the grace of the allies? USA in particular. I thought Churchill's instinct was to push Stalin back, especially out of East Germany and of course Poland, the invasion of whom sparked off our hostilities with Germany.

You?re possible correct. From my understanding of post Second World War history, the rest of the world was just preoccupied with rebuilding.
Churchill was the only leader who spoke of the threat from the USSR.

In many quarters they laughed at him and some other areas would have been happy with the USSR taking over a broken Europe.

[drillerpie]

Great post Drillerpie.

Autocracies are necessary in certain countries at certain times and however the rose tinted idealists try and paint it, autocracies aren?t always a bad thing.

In the aftermath of the First World War the world was a mess and that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. They both could initially be construed as popular leaders.

I totally agree that Stalin didn?t want to go to war with Hitler or Mussolini but was forced into a conflict that could only weaken him. Ironically in the end, it left Stalin in a stronger position on the international front.

I'm happy you enjoyed my post but my point wasn't that autocracies are necessary. I think they confuse the fate of the nation with the personal interests of the leader, and generally lead to poverty and / or dying in a pointless war for large numbers of citizens.

I remember one of your recent posts was trying to rehabilitate Hitler and Emperor Hirohito to some extent, so I don't think we are in agreement here. If you look at Germany and Japan since they abandoned the idea of having a Fuhrer or an Emperor and stopped aiming for territorial expansion and subjugation of neighbouring countries (i.e. when they became democracies after WW2) it's hard to argue they haven't benefitted greatly.

My point about Stalin was that he made a deal with the devil by signing the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany, more specifically the Secret Protocol to that pact (found by the allies after taking Berlin but decried as a fake by Russia, subsequently revealed to be real after the fall of the USSR) which is where the Nazis and the Soviets secretly carved up Europe. Stalin didn't have a huge ideological problem with Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, in fact he thought they would help accelerate the self destruction of the capitalist west.

He was offered the chance to be in a coalition with the allies from the beginning of WW2 but negotiations broke down for the allied deal when he wasn't allowed permission to occupy Poland to fight the Germans. Given what he signed immediately afterwards with the Nazis, it's fairly easy to deduce his motivations for wanting to occupy Poland.

He was so confident in his deal with the Nazis that even after Hitler amassed his invasion force on the Russian border, Stalin thought it was just locker room banter from Hitler or at worst a powerplay to renegotiate the deal, which is why he didn't react until it was too late.

WW2 has been repackaged by the current regime in Russia as proof that they and only they are the real anti-fascists, ignoring the fact that they would've happily traded a totally fascist Western Europe in return for the chance to expand their territory. This also ignores the part played by the USA in terms of massive lend lease of vehicles, food and other wartime necessities. Blocking units to stopSoviet soldiers retreating, refusal to evacuate cities and general disregard for human life also played a large part.

[Lullapie]

I'm happy you enjoyed my post but my point wasn't that autocracies are necessary. I think they confuse the fate of the nation with the personal interests of the leader, and generally lead to poverty and / or dying in a pointless war for large numbers of citizens.

Oh I didn't agree with all of your post and my apologies if it appeared I was trying to say something that you wasn't. I did think it was a good post though.

In history, there are many examples of leaders that are right for the moment, but before or after have been terrible leaders. Churchill was only successful during the second world war and my opinion has always been that if he was leader in the late 1930s, then possibly Hitler would have thought twice about what he did.

However, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war and made the awful decision to attack Turkey through the Dardanelles, which led to the Gallipoli disaster. He also wasn't successful in his second term of office either.


My comment about autocracies has two angles to it:

1. Some countries can only ever function under an autocracy. When I refer to these, I mean like Russia, China and many of the middle eastern states. It's the same for many African countries. There are too many tribal differences to try and implement the western idea of democracy.

2. Some countries need an autocracy for a short period. In my opinion this is normally after some cataclysmic event. Possibly a major war that has decimated the country or after the political system has broken down. In Germany in the 1920s, both these events happened. I don't think Mussolini was necessary for Italy though, he was just mimicking the Nazis and was backed by the church to prevent the spread of Communism.


The difficult bit about the second point, is wrestling democracy back from an autocratic leader.


Democracy works in far fewer countries than we in the west would like to believe and the west's version of democracy is even less successful - just look how many forms of democracy there are. At the end of the day, all these forms of western democracy have some very un-democratic traits - so who's form of government is correct?