What is the worst atrocity your country has perpetrated?

[Drifterman]

OK, I have noticed a lot of people competing to show that their country is more righteous than all the others.

In the spirit of openess and honesty, let's have a competition of another kind.

So, my question is "What is the worst atrocity your country or country of current residence has perpetrated in the last 200 years?"

I am restricting the question to the last 200 years because this is the period during which the nation state became fashionable.

I am interested in the country of residence, because I hope that it will give a wider variety of countries than if we narrowed it down to country of origin (this being a predominantly english speaking forum).

I will get the ball rolling with 2 of my own:

1) Taiwan - In 1947 the KMT regime murdered thousands of people as a response to riots that began on the 28th of February. Those killed were predominantly students and professionals.

2) UK - On April 13th 1919 in Amritsar, India British troops commanded by General Reginald Dyer opened fire on a peaceful crowd of unarmed Indians , leaving more than 300 dead and 1200 wounded.

I hope this stimulates some discussion!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Drifterman
1) Taiwan - In 1947 the KMT regime murdered thousands of people as a response to riots that began on the 28th of February. Those killed were predominantly students and professionals.

2) UK - On April 13th 1919 in Amritsar, India British troopscommanded by General Reginald Dyer opened fire on a peaceful crowd of unarmed Indians , leaving dead and 1200 wounded.


Are you in Taiwan or the UK?

[Mike B.]

This thread was kind of done about the country's worst shame...

[BillyTK]

One True Voice and Guy Ritchie.

[Drifterman]

I am currently in Taiwan.

An interesting place, with an interesting place in the world.

This thread was kind of done about the country's worst shame...

This is why I included country of current residence - to get a wider variety than the other thread.

[Monketey Ghost]

President Clinton not being truthful about a blowjob.


and, dropping the only atomic bombs on living targets in history, I suppose.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Drifterman
OK, I have noticed a lot of people competing to show that their country is more righteous than all the others.

In the spirit of openess and honesty, let's have a competition of another kind.

So, my question is "What is the worst atrocity your country or country of current residence has perpetrated in the last 200 years?"

I am restricting the question to the last 200 years because this is the period during which the nation state became fashionable.

I am interested in the country of residence, because I hope that it will give a wider variety of countries than if we narrowed it down to country of origin (this being a predominantly english speaking forum).

I will get the ball rolling with 2 of my own:

1) Taiwan - In 1947 the KMT regime murdered thousands of people as a response to riots that began on the 28th of February. Those killed were predominantly students and professionals.

2) UK - On April 13th 1919 in Amritsar, India British troops commanded by General Reginald Dyer opened fire on a peaceful crowd of unarmed Indians , leaving more than 300 dead and 1200 wounded.

I hope this stimulates some discussion!

Your rules are a bit arbitrary. You forgive all nations which have limited internet access. Under-represented nations would include, but not be limited to: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatamala,.....

You forgive over 1,800 years (since the birth of Jebus that is) of attrocities while focusing on the last 200 years... Which of course means that while nearly 100% of US history is disected by the vastly over-represented US nations like those mentioned above are examined by no one,...and even if they are only a tiny percentage of their history is within bounds.

Hardly seems fair. Does it? ;rolleyes:

[Q-Source]

The worst atrocity committed in my country was by ex-President Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana. In 1853, the b**tard sold half Mexican territory to the United States including that area known as the Gadsden Purchase. :mad:

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Your rules are a bit arbitrary. You forgive all nations which have limited internet access. Under-represented nations would include, but not be limited to: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatamala,.....

You forgive over 1,800 years (since the birth of Jebus that is) of attrocities while focusing on the last 200 years... Which of course means that while nearly 100% of US history is disected by the vastly over-represented US nations like those mentioned above are examined by no one,...and even if they are only a tiny percentage of their history is within bounds.

Hardly seems fair. Does it? ;rolleyes:

Repeat after me Rik -

"This"

"Is"

"Not"

"About"

"Me"

(or America) Get it?

[Yahweh]

The worst thing America has done... how hard could that be... I would say the worst thing we have done was enslave black people. It doesnt get much worse than slavery.

[Drifterman]

Rikzilla originally posted:
Your rules are a bit arbitrary. You forgive all nations which have limited internet access. Under-represented nations would include, but not be limited to: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatamala,.....

Arbitrary is Agreed.

Nonetheless, most of these places did not exist as nation states until rather recently - within the last 200 years. I chose the 200 year limit because I was interested in the atrocities of industrialised nations, particularly the European empires. Before this (admittedly arbitrary) boundary, it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate between the historical and the legendary.
Limited internet access is an unavoidable bias, due to the nature of this medium.

You forgive over 1,800 years (since the birth of Jebus that is) of attrocities... Who said anything about forgiveness? I am not in a position to forgive anything unless it has been done to me personally, and I have fortunately never been the victim of an atrocity.

...while focusing on the last 200 years... Which of course means that while nearly 100% of US history is disected by the vastly over-represented US nations like those mentioned above are examined by no one,...and even if they are only a tiny percentage of their history is within bounds.

Hardly seems fair. Does it?

Piffle.

The 200 year limit totally encompasses the entire existence of modern nation states such Germany, China, India, or the USSR.

The fragility of your personal ego does neither your countrymen nor your nation any credit. Assuming that this post is a veiled attack on the USA is pitiful :mad: Why are you so irritated - do you feel that the USA needs some special treatment because it is picked on? Do you want a note from your Mommy? How on Earth can you complain of unfair treatment? What possible US president can be likened to Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Hong Xiquan, Pol Pot? Not Truman - A respondent to my initial post has mentioned the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is my personal belief that these had the effect of preventing hugely greater bloodshed. I originally mentioned the Amritsar massacre, I am now reminded of the Dresden firebombing, which killed more people than the A-Bomb at Hiroshima, and was intended as a true weapon of terror.

It it because of the predominantly American nature of this forum that I introduced the country of residence factor. Clearly a non-native person living in a country feels that that country has something to offer them that outweighs any distaste for that country's history. I'd hoped it would be interesting.

[Drifterman]

To clarify:

I'd hoped that Americans overseas would contribute concerning their current place of residence.

Anti-American rants are boring, as are people crying because of anti-American rants.

[MRC_Hans]

Unfortunately a few (and happily only a few) of the US citicens here are extremely tender-skinned. I can only wonder why.

My own country (both of origin and residence) is Denmark. A small constitutional monarchy near the extreme north of Europe.

No doubt our worst atrocity within that time-limit (and probably ever) was our part in the slave-trade, and in maintaining slavery in the West Indies, part of which was Danish till early in the 20th century.

We also colonized Greenland, but while we did not treat them overly well, I do not think any of it amounts to atrocities.

About the time-scale: I think it is a very reasonable one. Standards change, and what was considered an atrocity in the 20th century was normal procedure 500 years earlier. If we took all history, we'd be comparing apples and oranges.

Hans

"What is the worst atrocity your country or country of current residence has perpetrated in the last 200 years?"

The whole atom bomb thingy was bad.

Tuskeegee was bad.

The whole 'they have weapons of mass destruction, but we don't have any evidence' is bad.

-Who

[jimlintott]

Jewish refugees turned away
June 7 1939
Ottawa bows to the anti-Semitism and turns away Jewish refugees on board the liner St. Louis fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

This wasn't very nice of us.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]Unfortunately a few (and happily only a few) of the US citicens here are extremely tender-skinned. I can only wonder why.



Translation...shut up with your facts and answer the question as defined by our devious little minds.

When did you stop beating your wife Hans! Don't complain it's unfair, answer the question!!

Why are you so tender skinned?

...and they said the Spanish Inquisition was dead!
:rolleyes: (Oh wait! Sorry for my mention of it since it's over 200 years ago, and I'm not from Spain...my bad!)

The subject of this thread is terminally stupid and unfair. I was merely pointing that out. It seemed to me from the beginning that you are constructing a vehicle for anti-American sentiment.. as if any vehicle were really needed around here. Or perhaps it's a beard to make Drifterman appear objective??

-z

[Drifterman]

Pay attention rikzilla:
Anti-American rants are boring, as are people crying because of anti-American rants. What part of this is escaping your comprehension?

The thread topic has been posted. Either ignore it, or post constructively instead of seeing it as a threat to your self image.

I carefully constructed the topic to avoid ridiculous whinging about anti-Americanism.

In the first 50% of the period covered by this topic the dominant hegemonic world power was Great Britain, whose atrocities I am more than happy to discuss. The next 20% deals with a period where the Great Powers were engaged in a suicidal bloodbath. The remaining period is dominated by the struggle between two superpowers, one of whom murdered more than 20 million of its own citizens, and one of whom did not. Is any one country getting special treatment here?

Only a dedicated navel-gazer would assume that the scope of this topic is crafted in order to pillory the USA.

[Drifterman]

Or perhaps it's a beard to make Drifterman appear objective??

In fact I sometimes do have a beard, and many people do say it looks objectionable. :p

[Doubt]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Translation...shut up with your facts and answer the question as defined by our devious little minds.

When did you stop beating your wife Hans! Don't complain it's unfair, answer the question!!

Why are you so tender skinned?


I think you are wrong Riz. If the intent were only to compare countries, you would have had a case. But that does not appear to be the intent. Plenty of European countries have large selections of horrible actions in the past two hundred years from which to choose. Many of those actions are still having repercussions today. I just don’t see the problem. I would cite examples, but this is not supposed to be about attacking other countries.

However, a 300 year limit would have been better for capturing the actions of nation-states.

The one flaw I do see here is that nobody has a good measuring stick for comparing what is the worst atrocity. For instance, does the total number of lives wasted by a nation in one instance out weigh actions that destroyed an entire but smaller culture? Many other subjective measurements would have to be made to render a useful opinion.

[Drifterman]

Originally posted by Doubt:
The one flaw I do see here is that nobody has a good measuring stick for comparing what is the worst atrocity. For instance, does the total number of lives wasted by a nation in one instance out weigh actions that destroyed an entire but smaller culture? Many other subjective measurements would have to be made to render a useful opinion.

Ah - the point is not to reach agreement, but to discover what others regard as atrocities.

I think the subjective viewpoints are at least equally intriguing as the atrocities themselves.

And consider the limit extended to 300 years if you feel that is more useful. But maybe that will mean we are victimising the French too much! :D

[Malachi151]

Didn't we already have this topic like 2 weeks ago?

We need a message board with AI that resurrects topics of simialr type when you try to post a duplicate :D

[Frostbite]

Haven't taken history classes in 10 years but I'd say exporting some french-speaking people to Louisiana and sending french-speaking people on the front line in WW1 and WW2. :p

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Rikzilla
You forgive over 1,800 years (since the birth of Jebus that is) of attrocities while focusing on the last 200 years... Which of course means that while nearly 100% of US history is disected by the vastly over-represented US nations like those mentioned above are examined by no one,...and even if they are only a tiny percentage of their history is within bounds.

Man, that sure is some inferiority complex. I hope the chips balance on both shoulders. Let me summarise briefly then if I may. Now remember children any talk about the facts of US history are out of bounds. Do you all understand? Because talking the truth about what the USA has actually done upsets some of us with delicate dispositions and we don't want that now do we? No. Good.

As to the UK aside from cricket that might be the potato famine in Ireland.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Drifterman
Pay attention rikzilla:
What part of this is escaping your comprehension?

The thread topic has been posted. Either ignore it, or post constructively instead of seeing it as a threat to your self image.

I carefully constructed the topic to avoid ridiculous whinging about anti-Americanism.

In the first 50% of the period covered by this topic the dominant hegemonic world power was Great Britain, whose atrocities I am more than happy to discuss. The next 20% deals with a period where the Great Powers were engaged in a suicidal bloodbath. The remaining period is dominated by the struggle between two superpowers, one of whom murdered more than 20 million of its own citizens, and one of whom did not. Is any one country getting special treatment here?

Only a dedicated navel-gazer would assume that the scope of this topic is crafted in order to pillory the USA.

First of all, the number of deaths in the USSR is still up for debate, second of all the causes of the deaths is still up for debate.

Thirdly, the US is responsible for for around 10 million deaths worldwide during the Cold War in its anti-Commie policies in which anything was acceptable as long as the people dying believed in Marxism, i.e. equality and fairness.

Vietnam, Indonesia, Venesuela, Nicoragua, Korea.

Communism and the support for communism is reactionary to communist exploitation. People don't rebel for no reason. If all these countries didn't have foriegn powers dominating them there woudl have been no support for communsit leaders to throw foreign powers out in the first place.

[JAR]

The worst atrocity my country(The U.S.A.) has perpetrated is the military draft.

I also think the 'mysterious' illnesses from Agent Orange and then in Desert Storm (and now probably again in the lastest Iraq war) are candidates too.

-Who

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Jewish refugees turned away
June 7 1939
Ottawa bows to the anti-Semitism and turns away Jewish refugees on board the liner St. Louis fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

This wasn't very nice of us.

I think our treatment of the Japanese in the same time frame was worse. Unlike the American's, the Canadian government never gave them their homes etc. back.

[Luke T.]

The emotional responses to this topic are as interesting as the actual answers to the question.

I'd say right off the top, the worst atrocity commited by the U.S. would be slavery.

What determines an atrocity is pretty subjective, I guess. I'm not even sure that slavery comes out as number one if you count only deaths. Could be that the systematic decimation of Native Americans comes out on top on that measure, I don't know.

Someone mentioned the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians, mostly. That is probably number one on the Most Killed In a Short Period of Time measure. But it has a kind of ambivalence to it. No Pearl Harbor, No Hiroshima.

Slavery is unequivocal, in my opinion.

[PogoPedant]

It has been mentioned in the other thread on this already, but it's worth repeating: The systematic sterilization and lobotomy of the taters (which may be another word for gypsies. Another flaw is the lack of attention this has gotten) back in the fifties and sixties. The rest of the world seemed to have realized that eugenics might be a bad thing, what with the nazi race-theory and all that, but Norway wanted to try just a little bit more. The taters are all thieves anyway, right? :(

As for slavery and the US, forgive my ignorance, but when did this end?

Oh, one more thing about Norway. One of our greatest naval heroes made his fortune carrying slaves between Africa and the Americas. Yay...

[Mike B.]

Guatamala 1953 :(

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


First of all, the number of deaths in the USSR is still up for debate, second of all the causes of the deaths is still up for debate.

Thirdly, the US is responsible for for around 10 million deaths worldwide during the Cold War in its anti-Commie policies in which anything was acceptable as long as the people dying believed in Marxism, i.e. equality and fairness.

Vietnam, Indonesia, Venesuela, Nicoragua, Korea.

Communism and the support for communism is reactionary to communist exploitation. People don't rebel for no reason. If all these countries didn't have foriegn powers dominating them there woudl have been no support for communsit leaders to throw foreign powers out in the first place.

What is a reasonable estimate for deaths in the USSR?

Could you back up the 10,000,000 figure?

I am guessing you are counting all the North Koreans and Red China troops that died attacking the ROK. Interesting you lay them at the feet of the US.

BTW,
Is "equality and fairness" what motivated Kim Il Sung?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
It has been mentioned in the other thread on this already, but it's worth repeating: The systematic sterilization and lobotomy of the taters (which may be another word for gypsies. Another flaw is the lack of attention this has gotten) back in the fifties and sixties. The rest of the world seemed to have realized that eugenics might be a bad thing, what with the nazi race-theory and all that, but Norway wanted to try just a little bit more. The taters are all thieves anyway, right? :(

As for slavery and the US, forgive my ignorance, but when did this end?

Oh, one more thing about Norway. One of our greatest naval heroes made his fortune carrying slaves between Africa and the Americas. Yay...

Officially ended in 1863, about 20 years after the publication of the Communist Manifeso.

[Malachi151]

You got about 2 million in Vietnam War, 2 million in Indonesia overthrow, which was put together by the US , about 4 million in the Korean War, probably a million altogether in South America between the 1950s and 1980s, maybe more, and you got hundreds of thousands at least in the Middle East during that same time. So, around 10 million. Americans didn't pull all lthe triggers, sometimes we just paid other people to do it, as in Indonesia, South America, and the Middle East.

No, many "communist" leaders were not good people, but the US also attacked many communist civilians who were good people.

[Beleth]

Wal-Mart.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by rikzilla
...and they said the Spanish Inquisition was dead!
:rolleyes: (Oh wait! Sorry for my mention of it since it's over 200 years ago, and I'm not from Spain...my bad!)

Not to delve too far into the past here, but if we actually put the Spanish Inquisition in to perspective with the killings going on in that day, it was pretty minor. In fact (no source given, sorry), Great Britain killed more during that time period than did the Spanish Inquisition.

[corplinx]

US:

The unlawful conquest of the Confederacy. gettysburg, shiloh, the list goes on and on. I am going to take heat for saying this because nowadays we rationalize that civil war because it sped up the abolition of slavery. However, this was as unjust a war as I have ever seen. For some however, machiavelli's "the prince" must be their guiding light.

[Drifterman]

corplinx originally posted I am going to take heat for saying this because nowadays we rationalize that civil war because it sped up the abolition of slavery.

Well, the abolition of slavery was a beneficial side-effect of the US Civil war. I agree that it was not a central war aim, it merely served to differentiate the two sides. The Union's purpose was to preserve the territorial integrity of its continental empire.

Unfortunately, slavery was replaced by a form of serfdom, which was left to fester for a century.

As a side-effect, the abolition of slavery was rather similar to the recent removal of Saddam Hussein's regime resulting from the recent Gulf skirmish.

Erm, how was Gettysburg the fault of the Union? Didn't it take place on Union soil, in defence?

[Drifterman]

Malachi151 originally posted Communism and the support for communism is reactionary to communist exploitation. People don't rebel for no reason. If all these countries didn't have foriegn powers dominating them there woudl have been no support for communsit leaders to throw foreign powers out in the first place.

I am presuming you mean Communism and the support for communism are reactions to capitalist/imperialist exploitation.

An interesting assertion, but difficult to find supporting evidence for because no-one has ever tried to put Communism into practice. The closest thing I have seen to Communism is when I happen to catch Star Trek on the TV.

As for foreign powers, they are a contributing factor, but one that stirs up Nationalism, not Communism. Communism (read as Maoism) in China only gained ground because of the ridiculous KMT oppression of peasants under Jiang Jieshi - an internal dispute.

Communism wasn't cause of the X million deaths under Stalin - Totalitarianism was. The former was an ideological figleaf for the former. Marxism gave way to Leninism because Lenin wished to jump from Feudalism to Communism without the intervening period of Capitalism. Leninism's cell structure was well suited to the the paranoid virus of Stalinism. However, we must at least be grateful to Stalin for one thing - at least he nicely did away with Trotsky.

[BobK]

Seems to be a redundant and not very useful thread.

The total extermination of the Passenger Pigeon population of the world.:)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

USA: Kenny G

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Translation...shut up with your facts and answer the question as defined by our devious little minds.

Your facts are very welcome. When will you start?

When did you stop beating your wife Hans! Don't complain it's unfair, answer the question!!

I never stopped beating my wife.

Why are you so tender skinned?

Too much sun.

...and they said the Spanish Inquisition was dead!
:rolleyes: (Oh wait! Sorry for my mention of it since it's over 200 years ago, and I'm not from Spain...my bad!)

Ahh, you're getting the hang of it after all.

The subject of this thread is terminally stupid and unfair. I was merely pointing that out.

And I merely disagree.

It seemed to me from the beginning that you are constructing a vehicle for anti-American sentiment.. as if any vehicle were really needed around here. Or perhaps it's a beard to make Drifterman appear objective??

As you say, no need for such a construct. But I dont see any here.

-z

Hans

[blackpriester]

I live in America half of my time.
One of the worst American atrocities was the WHOLE McCarthy era, with its abolition of Church/State-Borders, "witch-hunts" for communists etc. But then again, under GWB, we have a similar situation with the Patriot Act...

I was born in Germany and live there the other half of my time.
As for atrocities in the recent 200 years, go figure.

- m.

[Giz]

Originally posted by corplinx
US:

The unlawful conquest of the Confederacy. gettysburg, shiloh, the list goes on and on. I am going to take heat for saying this because nowadays we rationalize that civil war because it sped up the abolition of slavery. However, this was as unjust a war as I have ever seen.

Are you defending the confederacy's leaving the Union based on the principle of self-determination? Isn't that flawed when only the 50% of the population who were white got to vote?! Bet the slaves might have decided to go with uncle Abe if they were given the chance...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Drifterman


I am presuming you mean Communism and the support for communism are reactions to capitalist/imperialist exploitation.

An interesting assertion, but difficult to find supporting evidence for because no-one has ever tried to put Communism into practice. The closest thing I have seen to Communism is when I happen to catch Star Trek on the TV.

As for foreign powers, they are a contributing factor, but one that stirs up Nationalism, not Communism. Communism (read as Maoism) in China only gained ground because of the ridiculous KMT oppression of peasants under Jiang Jieshi - an internal dispute.

Communism wasn't cause of the X million deaths under Stalin - Totalitarianism was. The former was an ideological figleaf for the former. Marxism gave way to Leninism because Lenin wished to jump from Feudalism to Communism without the intervening period of Capitalism. Leninism's cell structure was well suited to the the paranoid virus of Stalinism. However, we must at least be grateful to Stalin for one thing - at least he nicely did away with Trotsky.

Yeah, that was what I meant.

#1 The development of communist theory was reactionary to problems in society that were percieved to be created by capitalism.

#2 Support for communist ideology among millions of people around the world grew in the 20th century because of conditions people perceived to be caused by capitalist exploitation.

#3 During a revolutionary time of rapid social change some leaders came to power on the back of large communist movements supported by milions fo people within their population. Those leaders may or may not have actually been interested in communism, but the people to supported them and helped bring them to power were, primarlity, concerned with improving their own lives in the face of capitlaist exploitation.

As for foreign powers, they are a contributing factor, but one that stirs up Nationalism, not Communism. Communism (read as Maoism) in China only gained ground because of the ridiculous KMT oppression of peasants under Jiang Jieshi - an internal dispute.

Yes and no. Communism, is like religious fundamentalism in this regard in that extremist leaders often gain support in oppressive conditions as being the ones strong enough to overcome the oppressions. The communists were saying many things that "the masses" agreed with, and communist leaders often supported throwing foreign interests out of the country, which is what these people wanted. h eother leaders in the countries often were in bed with the foreign exploiters. Communism as it developed in the 20th century was virtually opposite to Marx's explanation of communism or predictions of how it would spread.

According to Marxist theory Communism should start in the most advanced industrial countries, such as western Europe and America. When the Bolshevisk started in feudal Russia, they set a very bad example and started a bad tried of under developed countries trying to go communist, when the entire system says that the worst thing to try and do. Their actions were reactionary based on people wanted to try anything to get rid of exploitation by foreign powers.

Communist theory would never have even devleoped in the first place though if not for flaws in capitalsim. Communism was not a solutin in search of a problem, but perhaps an inappropriate solution to a problem. Either way, the problems were real, and some continue to exist.

Communism wasn't cause of the X million deaths under Stalin - Totalitarianism was. The former was an ideological figleaf for the former. Marxism gave way to Leninism because Lenin wished to jump from Feudalism to Communism without the intervening period of Capitalism. Leninism's cell structure was well suited to the the paranoid virus of Stalinism. However, we must at least be grateful to Stalin for one thing - at least he nicely did away with Trotsky.

Agreed, except for the bit on Trotsky :) What do you hve against Trotsky? Too militant?

I do think that you can blame the deaths of the Vietnamese and Indonesians on US reaction to Communism though.

[PogoPedant]

Malachi : Thanks! I'm a little less uninformed now. :)

Giz : Does form of rulership determine whether a nation deserves sovereignty, or am I misunderstanding something?

[Giz]

Originally posted by PogoPedant

Giz : Does form of rulership determine whether a nation deserves sovereignty, or am I misunderstanding something?

Ah, but if you are going to claim that it's unjustified for the North to invade the South then that presumably stems from a belief in the right to self determination.

I.e. people have a right to decide who governs them.

The South, by arbitrarily denying that right to half of it's population, spectacularly lost that moral highground.

[PogoPedant]

Giz,
When you say 'half the population', are you referring to women not gettign a vote, or blacks not getting a vote? Not that it really matters, though, both groups should have had the right. However, if I understand correct, you're (unintentionally, I assume) arguing that any nation, or wannabe sovereign nation that does not conform to todays standards of democracy is in fact not entitled to their national freedom. I.e. the US had no right to win the War of Independence, as the US did not allow women to vote at the time. Do you see the problem?
The confederacy may have been a collection of jerks, rednecks, and racists, but they had as much right to independence as, say, Canada. At least their right to independence is not lessened by their imperfect (hate that word, couldn't find a better) democracy.

I think you can substitute black for woman in the above bit without loosing any meaning.

[Giz]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Giz,
When you say 'half the population', are you referring to women not gettign a vote, or blacks not getting a vote? Not that it really matters, though, both groups should have had the right. However, if I understand correct, you're (unintentionally, I assume) arguing that any nation, or wannabe sovereign nation that does not conform to todays standards of democracy is in fact not entitled to their national freedom. I.e. the US had no right to win the War of Independence, as the US did not allow women to vote at the time. Do you see the problem?
The confederacy may have been a collection of jerks, rednecks, and racists, but they had as much right to independence as, say, Canada. At least their right to independence is not lessened by their imperfect (hate that word, couldn't find a better) democracy.

I think you can substitute black for woman in the above bit without loosing any meaning.

It was "black" actually that I was referring to. The South's population in 1861 was approx 9 million, of which over 4 million were black slaves.

And it surely is relevant when the major inflamatory issue was slavery that the side which said that they would exercise their right to govern themselves would have the hypocrisy to deny the right of the slaves to govern themselves?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by corplinx
US:

The unlawful conquest of the Confederacy. gettysburg, shiloh, the list goes on and on. I am going to take heat for saying this because nowadays we rationalize that civil war because it sped up the abolition of slavery. However, this was as unjust a war as I have ever seen. For some however, machiavelli's "the prince" must be their guiding light.

I find this most fascinating. And coincidental. I have been deeply involved with this very topic over on Stormfront, which is a White Nationalist site, the past few weeks. The fellow I have been speaking with calls himself TrueReb. :D

TrueReb says he is not a White Nationalist, but he burns with a fiery resentment about the Civil War and the compulsion of the Confederacy back into the Union. But he also feels that whites should be able to establish their own community and be allowed to exclude non-whites from it, too.

corplinx, I am more convinced than ever, due to my discussion with TrueReb, and the subsequent studying of the matter because of that discussion, that the Civil War was just. It was not machiavellian. Far from it.

The Civil War was inevitable. It would have either been fought on a national scale, or state by state, but inevitable regardless. It was the one and only way that slavery was ever going to be purged from our nation. I am as firm in my belief of that as I am that John Edward is a fraud.

Perhaps a separate topic about this is in order.

[Drifterman]

Malachi151 originally posted
Agreed, except for the bit on Trotsky :) What do you hve against Trotsky? Too militant?

I do think that you can blame the deaths of the Vietnamese and Indonesians on US reaction to Communism though.

My beef with Trotsky is his avowed aim to bring Marxism-Leninism to the entire world through the means of violent revolution. Stalin was his superior in this matter (and this is the only matter on which I will currently accept Stalinism as being a good thing), because Stalin asserted that Communism could be built within a single state.

Trotsky's policies would have vindicated the Domino Theorists, and I find that notion to be distasteful.

The Stalinist USSR was by no means the malevolent expansionist power portrayed by the western media, however vile it was to its own people. The Warsaw Pact set of client states were a direct response to the encirclement of the Soviet Union by client states of the USA. There was a very real fear in Moscow that this encirclement would bring about the end of the Communist Party's control of the USSR, so buffer states were needed. This fear turns out to have been well founded, so we can understand the actions of the Politburo, whilst also agreeing that the ultimate demise of the Stalinist state was a good thing.

No Marxist (and I don't count myself amongst their number) has any credibility if they claim that the Stalinist state was anything less than an atrocity. Marx would not have recognized it as being anything close to his (vaguely outlined) Communism. In fact it was an even more authoritarian form of feudalism that that which Marxism-Leninism strove to replace.

The deaths of the Indonesians can be chalked up to the US cold war policy of maintaining client states in Asia. Nonetheless I believe that political and financial support for a vicious man like Suharto is less abhorrent than covert support of an oppressive military, and covert military support is less abhorrent than full scale military intervention, as in the case of Vietnam.

The US has guilt by association, but no (or at least very limited) culpability. Therefore I would discount this one from this particular thread.

As for Vietnam, that is an altogether more complex issue. I will attempt to address it briefly. Logically, as your .sig illustrates, the USA should have supported Ho Chi Minh as an anti-imperialist. So we need to explain how the avowedly anti-imperialist Roosevelt administration could change so rapidly into a supporter of French imperialism?

The key is China. The Sinophiles in Roosevelt/Truman's administration were discredited by their "loss" of China to Maoism (which was closer to Qin dynasty legalism than 19th C Marxism), and so their recommendations of support to Ho Chi Minh were discounted in favor of the views of the pro-French Europhiles. This forced Ho Chi Minh to to call on Stalin for aid. Again, this is a case of nationalist sentiment being forced into a pact with Stalinism due to clumsy US policy, not a natural desire or affinity of the Vietnamese people for Communism. Anti-Imperialist nationalism is very different from Communism, but both can serve to politicise a people.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Giz
Are you defending the confederacy's leaving the Union based on the principle of self-determination? Isn't that flawed when only the 50% of the population who were white got to vote?! Bet the slaves might have decided to go with uncle Abe if they were given the chance...

Why? Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until 1863.

[Boombastick]

1st, I don't think this thread is anti-US....I think it could be broadened to worst atrocities period. The French certainly committed some terrible atrocities in Algeria and before the US in Vietnam. And let's not forget Vichy France. The Belgians did a pretty good job in the Congo. The Italians gassed the Ethopians. The Swedes and Swiss helped out the Nazis. There's no angels. The point is not to erase history just because it is uncomplimentary to your side. The US did some great things this century...apart from all of the inventions--like the car, the plane, the computer, etc., we also kicked the Nazis' asses. On the other hand, we really screwed up Latin America, especially Guatemala and Chile, and Vietnam was a shameful, shameful thing. Iraq will be worse than Vietnam if we keep losing the peace like we are. Peace out.

[Drifterman]

Boombastick originally posted:
The US did some great things this century...apart from all of the inventions--like the car, the plane, the computer, etc., we also kicked the Nazis' asses.

I agree with the sentiment, but not the details!

Karl Benz is usually credited with the invention of the automobile as we know it.

AFAIK - the 1st computer was the Bletchley Park Colossus used by the UK to decode intercepted enigma communiqués. It was programmable, but not general purpose. Alan Turing was amongst those who used it.

Finally, Nazi ass-kicking was a collective effort. I'm sure Malachi151 would not hesitate to point out the not inconsiderable contribution made by the 20 million Soviet troops who died engaging Hitler's forces.

[Boombastick]

hmmm...well, i didn't know that about Benz.....that's kind of interesting....I usually think of the first computer being ENIAC, but i'm open to new info.....and the point about the Russians is certainly true...i just wanted to say something in favor of the US vis a vis world events!

[Drifterman]

Boombastick originally posted:
i just wanted to say something in favor of the US vis a vis world events!

Fair enough - the US has done some extremely laudable things, far more than the Soviets ever did. I contend that the 3 most important documents of all time are US in origin.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Why? Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until 1863.

True, emancipation was only official policy from 1863.

However:

1 Core Republican support was Abolitionist. This was well known. Democrats painted Lincoln as a radical abolitionist even before he made it offical policy.

2 Pre-war N/S tensions were largely due to the slavery/emancipation issue

3 The South's perception was that Northern victory would lead to emancipation and thereby the destruction of the Sothern way of life.

4 That the South claimed to be fighting for "states rights" - the key right being the right to own slaves.

(The reason 4 had become explosive by mid 19th century was down to demographics. Both immigration and the creation of new states had swung the balance of power to the Northern Free States - which already had a majority in congress and looked increasingly likely to attain a majority in the senate in the near future as well - the South became convinced that once free states predominated in both houses then those meddling yankee abolitionists wouldn't be stopped from emancipating left and right and 24/7.

As a post script - the South had tried to expand, schemes to establish new slave states by annexing mexican or carribean territory but throughout the early 1800s these had been consistently put aside by the the federal govt in favour of westward expansion to the pacific)

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Giz
And it surely is relevant when the major inflamatory issue was slavery that the side which said that they would exercise their right to govern themselves would have the hypocrisy to deny the right of the slaves to govern themselves?
This is entering a piece of history I know nothing about, so I'll try and stay in the general.
Someone demands self-determination, while at the same time denying that very thing to certain parts of the population. This is bad, I agree, but isn't this scenario true for both the North and the South? The South denied the slaves their right to self-determination, and the North denied the South their right to self-determination, right?

[Rat]

Originally posted by Boombastick
hmmm...well, i didn't know that about Benz.....that's kind of interesting....I usually think of the first computer being ENIAC, but i'm open to new info.....and the point about the Russians is certainly true...i just wanted to say something in favor of the US vis a vis world events!
Americans always think it was Eniac. All the business at Bletchley Park was confidential and not general knowledge for a very long time after the war.

I don't want to sound anti-US (I'm really not), but so many Americans think that the US invented most things of the last couple of centuries. Many, they did, but many they did not. Most US inventions of the period 1850-1950 or so were more lifestyle/consumer type products. From elsewhere, off the top of my head:
Television - Baird/Scotland
Radio - Marconi/Italy
Programmable Computer - already covered
Car - Benz/Germany
Telephone - Bell/Scotland

Many times, though, it's hard to say who invented something. Individuals as well as countries.

Bell was Scottish, but completed his work in the US. The car was patented in the US as a concept before Benz, but with no working model, as US patents did not require one.

France lay claim to the plane, but most people say that, as theirs only flew a few feet off the ground, it doesn't count. It would perhaps be more correct to say that the Wrights had the first plane that worked, but it worked on established principles that others had failed to work. The same can be said for the car -- many people were working on the problem when Benz got it right, and working steam-powered cars were already in existence.

[Malachi151]

Trotsky's policies would have vindicated the Domino Theorists, and I find that notion to be distasteful.

Yes, but Trotsky's idea of communist was also much different than Stalins, so its not like the idea of spreading what we think of as Communism.

Still I agree that violent revolution of that kind would be a bad idea. I think the whole Bolshevik Revolution was a bad idea that ultimately set the whole world back a long way and we may never recover from it, not because Marxism is bad, but because I beleive that w/o teh Bolshevik Revolution Marxism would have spread more and in a more democratic way. So, IMO w/o the Bolshevik Revolution the world would be much more Marxist today, Marx would probably be a global hero.

In fact it was an even more authoritarian form of feudalism that that which Marxism-Leninism strove to replace.

Exactly, I often call it Industrial Feudalism.

The deaths of the Indonesians can be chalked up to the US cold war policy of maintaining client states in Asia. Nonetheless I believe that political and financial support for a vicious man like Suharto is less abhorrent than covert support of an oppressive military, and covert military support is less abhorrent than full scale military intervention, as in the case of Vietnam.

I disagree. I think that covert action is more abhorent than overt.

The key is China. The Sinophiles in Roosevelt/Truman's administration were discredited by their "loss" of China to Maoism (which was closer to Qin dynasty legalism than 19th C Marxism), and so their recommendations of support to Ho Chi Minh were discounted in favor of the views of the pro-French Europhiles. This forced Ho Chi Minh to to call on Stalin for aid. Again, this is a case of nationalist sentiment being forced into a pact with Stalinism due to clumsy US policy, not a natural desire or affinity of the Vietnamese people for Communism. Anti-Imperialist nationalism is very different from Communism, but both can serve to politicise a people.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_involvement_in_vietnam.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/communism_on_the_world_stage.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/understanding_the_real_factors_b.htm

In addition, as Europe gave up its official hold on its territories, these locations became "fair game" for international competition, which the US quickly took advantage of by moving in on markets that had been recently released from colonial control; Vietnam is a classic example of an American attempt to move in on a territory that was released from foreign colonial control. Indonesia and Iran are other such examples. In their attempt to keep themselves from being grabbed up by American corporate control many countries sought help from the Soviet Union, who happily provided them with weapons and other assistance. The real tragedy of the Cold War is that if the capitalist countries of the world, mainly the US, had not been so aggressive in their approach to the developing countries of the world in trying to exploit them they would never have turned to the Soviet Union for help in the first place.

Again I say that Vietnam is a perfect example because we have solid, solid, proof that the Vietnamese sought assistance from the United States in their desire to gain freedom and independence. The US denied that assistance and as a result they turned to the USSR, who did give them assistance. The US tried to puppet the Vietnamese and they didn't like it so they turned their back on the US, which resulted in war.

[peptoabysmal]

I would have to say that is was electing Gov. Gray Davis for a second term.

http://www.recallgraydavis.com/