patrick.net

There is a huge difference between exercising the right to bear arms vs. random violence against innocent 3rd party property owners in the neighborhood. The latter would only lead to even less opportunities in the neighborhood.

You are very wrong on peaceful demonstration not producing results. The civil rights movement in the 60 ' s was by and large a peaceful movement. The opposition's use of violence initially severely hurt their cause.

BTW, Georgi Zhukov the mass murderer during the suppresson of Tambov Uprising should know what kind of result violent uprising against a militarized regime leads to: giving excuse to use chemical warfare and extermination against civilians.

CL says

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence?

My GOP friends are the FIRST to protest the inadequacy of nonviolent means
when it comes to affairs international.

"I guess the UN will send another strongly worded letter!"
"Sanctions? When has that EVER worked!!!"

My GOP friends like to bring up Boston Tea Party and similar references
to violent overthrow when it comes to US Gubmint "oppression" they fear.

"We came unarmed. THIS time!"

My GOP friends suddenly turn Gandhi when it comes to brown people rioting.

The message seems quite clear.

As Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means. In any political movement, there are always fringe elements hell bent on violence thinking that would bring expedient solution.

The key to what results from a political movement is often how quickly the winning side can sideline the violent elements afterwards and bring forth a peaceful society after the dust settles. Those who choose to be at the violent fringe of a political movement usually end up either getting killed during the "struggles" or sidelined after success or plunge the society into prolonged internecine mutual slaughter if they become the leading element of a winning political movement.

Preventing the violent fringe from becoming the leadership of a political movement is one of the major reasons for those in power not to take too violent a stand against occasional civil discontent. Chronic civil discontent needs economic solutions that incentivize people to productive lives.

Reality says

Chronic civil discontent needs economic solutions that incentivize people to productive lives.

Not that they have tried everything else, they might give this a try?

Reality says

BTW, Georgi Zhukov the mass murderer during the suppresson of Tambov Uprising should know what kind of result violent uprising against a militarized regime leads to: giving excuse to use chemical warfare and extermination against civilians.

I'll keep in mind that crushing peasant revolts makes you a Mass Murderer like King Richard II and most of the Monarchs of Europe 1000-1850 AD, along with George Washington who also crushed a peasant revolt, the Whiskey Rebellion, as well as President Jackson and Davy Crockett's Indian Removal Act that launched the Trail of Tears.

As for chemical warfare, the Saudis used that the last time they interfered again Yemeni "Peasants". Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds with material and research provided to him by the UK, Germany, France, AND the USA in the 80s. At the time (mid-late 80s when he was our best friend), we didn't complain about him or go to the UN asking for a condemnation against him. Hell, we also let Saddam's Air Force fire an Exocet Missile against the USS Stark without punishment or Retribution.

Not many people were killed during the Shay ' s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. Besides, the brief fighting was already done by the time George Washington got involved. Btw, Washington's position on the rebellion was wrong, because he was misinformed by his friends with close ties to the banksters.

Sadam Hussein was obviously a mass murderer. Just because the US supplied weapons to Stalin during WWII to fight Nazis did not make Stalin less of a mass murderer. Likewise, Sadam having dealings with the west doesn't make him less of a mass murderer.

Zhukov had personal front - line involvement in the "liquidation" of peasants trying to defend their own harvest against Red mobs trying to confiscate the food. The suppression of Tambov Uprising involved in the use of poison gas for several months, and resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The high death toll made those involved in the killing mass murderers.

Reality says

Not many people were killed during the Shay ' s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. Besides, the brief fighting was already done by the time George Washington got involved.

The Whiskey Rebellion simmered in 1791, and really took off in 1794. Washington was President 1789-1797: It happened in his second term. He rode in at the head of army over 10,000 strong, personally.

Reality says

Zhukov had personal front - line involvement in the "liquidation" of peasants trying to defend their own harvest against Red mobs trying to confiscate the food. The suppression of Tambov Uprising involved in the use of poison gas for several months, and resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The high death toll made those involved in the killing mass murderers.

Bedford Forrest* seized and burned food, so did Sherman, and for that matter it was common practice in just about every campaign of the US Civil War on both sides. Those who resisted often were shot.

Why would a Russian Civil War be any different?

* He also shot POWs as well as civilians suspected of Union sympathies.

Reality says

Sadam Hussein was obviously a mass murderer. Just because the US supplied weapons to Stalin during WWII to fight Nazis did not make Stalin less of a mass murderer. Likewise, Sadam having dealings with the west doesn't make him less of a mass murderer.

We did not complain he used chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish towns full of civilians, though we knew about it within hours of the latter happening.

Because he was on Our Team(tm) which makes it okay, and not on Their Team(tm) which makes it bad.

During the entire Whiskey Rebellion, only 4 people died, and under circumstances of rebels besieging tax collector's and US Marshall ' s homes/posts; i.e. can be argued as self defense. How is that remotely comparable to the Soviet Red bandits "scorched earth" mass murdering approach poison gas bombing of entire villages and forests leading to over 200,000 deaths?

Sherman was a mass murderer, and war criminal. Your assumption that his action should be condoned is quite wrong.

Sadam did not deserve special consideration for being against our common enemy either. He was eventually hanged, with the earlier gas attack cited as one of the charges against him.

Neither should Stalin and Zhukov be exculpatory from the mass murder on account of later fighting against our common enemy the Nazis. Nor should Tukachevski, who carried out Stalin ' s command and led Zhukov into the mass murder of Russian peasants, despite himself being liquidated by Stalin a few years later.

It is simply wrong to worship mass murder as expedient solution. Most of the Soviet officers who engaged in the Tambov mass murder had their come-uppance shortly thereafter. It doesn't pay to engage in the pay of a mass murdering "leader."

Reality says

During the entire Whiskey Rebellion, only 4 people died, and under circumstances of rebels besieging tax collector's and US Marshall ' s homes/posts; i.e. can be argued as self defense. How is that remotely comparable to the Soviet Red bandits "scorched earth" mass murdering approach poison gas bombing of entire villages and forests leading to over 200,000 deaths?

So about the same number of deaths as the minimum number of civilian deaths caused by the US Occupation of the Philippines?

ln that land of dopy dreams, happy peaceful Philippines,
Where the bolo-man is hiking night and day;
Where Tagalos steal and lie, where Americanos die,
There you hear the soldiers sing this evening lay :

The first people to use chemical weapons - arsenic gas - in Russia were the British fighting with the Whites against the Reds in 1919. The Whites killed 100,000 Jews in Ukraine, btw. The last Pogram was carried out by Monarchists and Royals. The Spanish used Chemicals against the Rif Berbers, and Churchill advocated using Gas against "uncivilized" people at every turn - and in every military crisis up to and including WW2.

Reality says

Sherman was a mass murderer, and war criminal. Your assumption that his action should be condoned is quite wrong.

Reality says

It is simply wrong to worship mass murder as expedient solution. Most of the Soviet officers who engaged in the Tambov mass murder had their come-uppance shortly thereafter. It doesn't pay to engage in the pay of a mass murdering "leader."

Strawman - I don't advocate Mass Murder, much less worship it. I'm no Bedford Forrest. But I will point out that Our Team(tm) has done it.

I will point out when Our Team's(tm) lost causes, the Confederacy and the Whites do it, like Fort Sumter and the butchery of 100,000 Jews by the White Army.

I'm sure when we tamed the Philippenes with glass beads and chocolate chip cookies, and that no Vietnamese ever got shot for resisting being forcibly moved to a "Strategic Hamlet"*.

* when Their Team(tm) does it, we call it "Concentration Camps" or "Rural Gulags"

Not sure what your issue is. The colonial war in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War was one of the dark chapters in American history. OTOH, the voluntary US plan for a free and independent Philippines before WWII was one of the earliest voluntary granting of independence to former colonies in the 20th century.

Czarist violence against Jews was one of the reasons for its eventual downfall. OTOH, the Red Czars proved to be far worse than the Romanovs, to the Russians, Ukrainians and Jews alike in the former USSR.

Your perchance for exculpaing mass murderers on account of other mass murderers is frankly quite dissappointing. If that attitude is representative of the new generation of Russians, they may well deserve to be ruled by mass murderers for some time yet to come.

Reality says

Not sure what your issue is.

It's about making comparisons about defending Our Team while demonizing Their Team for the same shit.

I made this clear in a previous post.

Reality says

Your perchance for exculpaing mass murderers on account of other mass murderers is frankly quite dissappointing. If that attitude is representative of the new generation of Russians, they may well deserve to be ruled by mass murderers for some time yet to come.

I should also point out the Bolshevik Early Leaders all grew up in an era of massive Tsarist State Violence, which certainly colored their outlook.

Indeed, anti-Semites still republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to this day, a Tsarist State Creation. Ardent Anti-communists still apologize for Whites and commit sins of omission when it comes to Tsarist and White violence.

I appreciate your appreciation that Disgust among the Citizenry for US Imperialist policies at the turn of the Century eventually grew strong enough to reverse the Policy - I hope the same for Neolibcon Hyperinterventionism - but since you're attempting to Strawman me with support for mass murder, I noticed you mentioned Sherman but not Forrest. I await your stance on Confederate Atrocities like Fort Pillow and Sumter.

I don't have "our team" vs. "their team" bias; I don't consider what you consider "same shit" as "same shit."

1. Zhukov and Stalin were on "our team." Both were immensely beneficial to US interests. Zhukov proved to be an outstanding logistician and tactician in the war against Nazis ( and Japanese Kwangtung Army before that). Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy was highly beneficial to the US and to the people of the rest of the world outside of the USSR, compared to his archenemy Trotsky advocating worldwide revolution. However, none of that change the fact that they were all mass murderers against their fellow Russian people.

2. I'm not familiar with Bedford Forrest or Fort Pillow that you alleged. I did not address them previously because I was not familiar with them. The shelling of Fort Sumter was hardly atrocity: it was a symbolic shelling that was calculated to minimize casualty and indeed resulted in no death!

3. You citation of Whiskey Rebellion (where 4 people were killed during accidental confrontations) and Fort Sumter (where nobody was killed) as ways of exculpaing the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by some dictatorships makes me all the more reluctant to even talk about the alleged atrocities that you bring up that I'm not familiar with as the ones that I am familiar with that you mentioned are not anywhere remotely close to "same shit" as you allege.

4. Perhaps you were brought up in the former USSR brain washed by the Soviet propaganda from a young age, where a slap of the wrist on "Their team" is cited as atrocity and "same shit" as the killing of millions of people on "our team." It's not your personal fault to have been exposed and suffer from "common sense is nothing more than prejudice instilled before the age of 16."

5. It's a good idea for you to take some time re-examine some of the historical incidents from a quantitative perspective. Massive quantitative difference makes for qualitative difference. They are not the "same shit."

6. It's silly to blame Bolshevik violence entirely on Czarist despotism. While Nicholas II executed less than a couple hundred people during his multi-decade reign, the Reds executed millions! They are literally not on the same order of magnitude, or even neighboring orders of magnitude with each other.

7. Numerically, the vast majority of the victims of Bolshevik murderous rampage were actually their own former comrades. Many of them were both perpetrators and victims. The Russian experience of the early 20th century should have made it quite clear that there are few winners in a political movement where the violent wing take the leadership.

Reality says

1. Zhukov and Stalin were on "our team." Both were immensely beneficial to US interests. Zhukov proved to be an outstanding logistician and tactician in the war against Nazis ( and Japanese Kwangtung Army before that). Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy was highly beneficial to the US and to the people of the rest of the world outside of the USSR. However, none of that change the fact that they were both mass murderers against their fellow Russian people.

Agreed with Stalin, but I don't consider Zhukov a mass murderer. They used gas on the armed insurrectionists in the forests, which was explicit in the orders, which I presume he did. He was a pretty decent guy who didn't hesitate to hang rapists in his own Army - in defiance of Stalin's orders to let Soviet troops run wild. He also arrested the bastard Beria.

I don't doubt for a minute that the Secret Police may have shot uncooperative Kulaks. But I need evidence that Zhukov carried out orders to kill peasants without discrimination.

Armies attacking the populace for food is as old as man and much older than Marx, much less Lenin. Northern France was a wasteland in the 14th Century, and Germany in the 17th, because of it, but those are just two examples of many.

Reality says

2. I'm not familiar with Bedford Forrest or Fort Pillow that you alleged. I did not address them previously because I was not familiar with them. The shelling of Fort Sumter was hardly atrocity: it was a symbolic shelling that was calculated to minimize casualty and indeed resulted in no death!

Most Civil War history has been written from a Confederate Bias, I can recommend James McPherson if a Union-biased account interests you. This is why you'll seldom see mentions of Confederate Atrocities (and especially pre-War terrorism by Pro-South Bushwhackers who in one case butchered over a hundred civilians in one night) in many books-but John Brown will definitely be mentioned.

I'm not talking about the shelling at Fort Sumter - which was an act of violent insurrection - but the Concentration Camp for Union POWs called "Camp Sumter".

Reality says

3. You citation of Whiskey Rebellion (where 4 people were killed during accidental confrontations) and Fort Sumter (where nobody was killed) as ways of exculpaing the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by some dictatorships makes me all the more reluctant to even talk about the alleged atrocities that you bring up that I'm not familiar with as the ones that I am familiar with that you mentioned are not anywhere remotely close to "same shit" as you allege.

I first chose the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellion because it was the first American "Peasant Revolt" crossed my mind. But maybe it was more of a good example of protesting Regressive Taxation. Shay's particularly, since a primary cause of falling behind in tax payments was due to the Landowner and his Sons fighting in the Revolution. You, however, also stated Washington had nothing to do with the Whiskey Rebellion, when it started in his first term and became a crisis in his second term.

But I also mentioned the Philippines, which you obviously know something about because you mentioned the growing dislike of the US public for the Occupation (the Philipinnes did not obtain full independence until 1946, and only partially in the mid-30s - thanks to FDR). I also mentioned the American Civil War. And the Trail of Tears, where about a quarter to a third of the Cherokee died, pushed forward by the US Army.

4. Perhaps you were brought up in the former USSR brain washed by the Soviet propaganda from a young age, where a slap of the wrist on "Their team" is cited as atrocity and "same shit" as the killing of millions of people on "our team." It's not your personal fault to have been exposed and suffer from "common sense is nothing more than prejudice instilled before the age of 16."

Yes, those legendary US Junior and High School Textbooks, so accurate and comprehensive and created for the LCD school districts. Where apocryphal figure Betsy Ross is given more space than a Founding Father, I won't even mention the controversial stuff or the massive omissions.

5. It's a good idea for you to take some time re-examine some of the historical incidents from a quantitative perspective. Massive quantitative difference makes for qualitative difference. They are not the "same shit."

Reality says

6. It's silly to blame Bolshevik violence entirely on Czarist despotism. While Nicholas II executed less than a couple hundred people during his multi-decade reign, the Reds executed millions! They are literally not on the same order of magnitude, or even neighboring orders of magnitude with each other.

Another Strawman: I don't blame it entirely on Tsarism.

Tzar Nicolas II and his supporters were certainly responsible for far, far, far more than just the death of 200 people. The Black Hundreds, the Okhrana, the Kiev Pogram, etc. And of course on just one Bloody Sunday his Government killed or maimed about 1,000 people. His gifts keep on giving; Ford hired his Secret Policemen to write for his Dearborn Independence, and that's used today by Arabs to justify Terror...

It's also not a big leap from Okhrana to Cheka.

You'll see large scale violence against civilians not only During America's Civil War, but also the Reconstruction (and the counter-Reconstruction) by various parties. And in the English Civil War, the War of the Roses, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Civil War, etc. Nothing unique about the Russian Civil War, relative to population and modernity.

Reality says

7. Numerically, the vast majority of the victims of Bolshevik murderous rampage were actually their own former comrades. Many of them were both perpetrators and victims. The Russian experience of the early 20th century should have made it quite clear that there are few winners in a political movement where the violent wing take the leadership.

Numerically. I can think of Cromwell turning on the Levellers, for one. "Revolutions eat their own sons" goes back to at the early 1800s at least, long before the Russian Revolution.

Reality says

There is a huge difference between exercising the right to bear arms vs. random violence against innocent 3rd party property owners in the neighborhood. The latter would only lead to even less opportunities in the neighborhood.

Which property owners had violence committed against them? Or are you talking about damage to inanimate objects? It sure as fuck worked. Maryland has a police "Bill of Rights" which, among other things, severely limit the time frame in which investigations against cops can be opened:
http://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/

Furthermore, I agree with Mark Twain:

"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

But talking about Civil/Revolutionary Violence involving officially sanctioned and/or condoned executions is a far cry from a spontaneous riot set off by Police Brutality that killed no one.

The property owners weren't forcibly relocated to "Strategic Convenience Stores" elsewhere in Maryland, nor were executed for resisting movement into a Korean Grocer Concentration Camp (cigarettes sold by Guards individually, of course).

I was making the quantitative difference argument in opposite direction of Stalin. A few deaths is a tragedy, thousands of deaths is criminal mass murder. You on the other hand seemed to copy the Stalin argument that thousands of deaths is government business as usual; perhaps it is, but only in the sense that many governments in human history were little more than criminal enterprises, not as exculpatory defense of crimes committed by certain government officials.

Mark Twain made his observation before he had a chance to witness the institutionalized mass murders of the 20th century. He made the critical logical error that many 20th century revolutionaries made: the accelerated killings of a revolutionary new order is not a temporary price to pay for prolonged peace and prosperity to follow, but merely a down payment or even the first installment of prolonged period of accelerated state mass murders! The notorious Star Chamber during the Inquisition killed about 1000 people during its entire existence of 150+ years; whereas the 20th century revolutionaries fed on the illogical revolutionary zeal killed more than 1000 every day on average for the entire century, totaling up a death toll of over 100,000,000 deaths by socialist governments in one century.

Your tendency to use pre-modern atrocity in England and France as justification for 20th century war crimes is very problematic. We all have ancestors murdered someone at some point and were cannibals. That does not at all justify mass murder and cannibalism in modern society.

Zhukov did mellow considerably during the course of WWII. By the time he met up with allied commanders on the Elbe, he was quite an affable guy paying close attention to troop discipline in occupied central Europe. I will grant you that.

Reality says

Mark Twain made his observation before he had a chance to witness the institutionalized mass murders of the 20th century.

What you hear about Communism today, Conservatives and Monarchists said about the French Revolution. Like the baloney 100M deaths (which counts every death from famine, even in the wake of a war, a revolution, foreign occupation, another war*, and a civil war followed by a drought (1921), with sole responsibility to the Communists who only got full control over the country that year), 19th Century Monarchists and Religious Freaks used to claim about millions of innocents dying from the French Revolution. A charge they make today.

I believe Stalin the Georgian (Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili) was a pig, who could not rule without terror and dogma, due to his psychological make up as an abused child and ex-theology student, and that he killed millions of people.

Your tendency to use pre-modern atrocity in England and France as justification for 20th century war crimes is very problematic. We all have ancestors murdered someone at some point and were cannibals. That does not at all justify mass murder and cannibalism in modern society.

I also used the Civil War and the preceding Bleeding Kansas examples also, no?

The enemies of Modernism do not include myself. If you want to find the enemies of Modernism, search "Defeating Modernism" and see who they are.

Reality says

The notorious Star Chamber during the Inquisition

The Star Chamber was an English secular Court. The Inquisition was a religious tribunal found all over Christendom.

Reality says

about 1000 people during its entire existence of 150+ years;

The Inquisition was all over, including in the new World, before the final Office of the Inquisition will actual temporal power to enforce it's decrees was shut down in 1834. It lasted centuries, not a century and a half. King Ferdinand and Torquemada even ignored a bull from the Pope stating that all Converos (Jews and Muslims could not be prosecuted, only Heretics.) were absolved of sin, and if caught in Judaic practices, to be taught and not persecuted. They had a secret police called the Familiares who looking for Heresy; a proportion of the accused's goods were distributed between the Monarchy, the Church, and the Accuser. There was just too much money to be made from gold teeth seizing property.

The Inquisition still exists - though it was originally called the Inquisition - it just has a different name, and no power over society to ban books and command total obedience to dogma by torture, punishment, or death.

thunderlips11 says

The British Quit India not because of Ghandi - who was almost a non-entity post 1942 - but because the Indian Army and Navy went on strike and British Admins and Soldiers were getting bombed and sniped at on a daily basis. Without hundreds of thousands of willing Indian troops under full British control, it was impossible for the Raj to hold on to the subcontinent.

The problem is that Gandhi's notion was to evoke some *guilt conscientious* from the oppressing party. Sorry, but that's some religious confessional, not the day to day life in the real world. He'd confused a type of spiritual evolution of certain individuals, to that of larger organizations, which don't have such macroeconomic predilections of guilt and wisdom.

In addition, circa 1945-47, the British Empire was bankrupt. India may have been the 1st republic to gain independence, however, between '56 to '72, it was all of east & west Africa and Bahrain, who'd gained independence from the crown. In other words, the rebellion of the Royal Indian Navy, only hastened its independence by a decade or so. In the end, the British were going to leave their overseas colonies anyways.

thunderlips11 says

Yes, those legendary US Junior and High School Textbooks, so accurate and comprehensive and created for the LCD school districts. Where apocryphal figure Betsy Ross is given more space than a Founding Father, I won't even mention the controversial stuff or the massive omissions.

High school history textbooks are actually much more accurate than college history textbooks which only exist to exalt the oppressed minorities and denigrate the evil white man. I read the currently used college american history textbooks (part 1 and part 2) not that long ago, both were a total joke. So much for higher education.

Lips

Out of curiousity, what is your take on histories portrayal of Abraham Lincoln?

bob2356 says

High school history textbooks are actually much more accurate than college history textbooks which only exist to exalt the oppressed minorities and denigrate the evil white man. I read the currently used college american history textbooks (part 1 and part 2) not that long ago, both were a total joke. So much for higher education.

I feel that primary sources are the key to teaching history.

indigenous says

Out of curiousity, what is your take on histories portrayal of Abraham Lincoln?

Which kind of history? My take is that he was over his head in the first year or two, and because of that, had to turn to less than desirable authoritarian actions later. He should have stood up and managed the Army leadership more aggressively, but then again, he went in with no experience in the military, but did eventually educate himself and gain the confidence to sack the horrible McClelland, that pompous butternut.

I actually blame Buchanan for the Civil War. Both Action Jackson and Old Rough n' Ready Taylor, knew the Southern Life and knew how to handle Loud Talkin' Bullies down there: Tell them you promise to come down there and hang them with pleasure if they persist in their treason. Both Jackson and Taylor said basically the same thing and nobody doubted they would literally do it and do it well.

John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.
- Jackson

(On South Carolina secession threats): "Hang every leader...of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position." (then sent 4 ships and hundreds of muskets to the Federal Fort of Charleston) - Jackson

My only two regrets in life are that I did not hang Calhoun and shoot Clay.
- Jackson

I'll hang every secessionist there is, starting with that son-in-law (Jefferson Davis) of mine. (paraphrased from a long rant)
- Taylor

Buchanan let them whip themselves into an ardor and prepare themselves by building up militias and seizing Federal property before Lincoln arrived at the WH to take the Oath of Office. A Taylor or Jackson would have gathered a huge armed force by pure Charisma and personally led it to South Carolina to swing Calhoun, Davis, and the rest of the treacherous bastards from a tree within weeks of hearing sedition threatening an election. Jackson, not Lincoln, was the first President to insist that secession was impossible.

As for the legitimacy of secession - there is no excuse for treason, unless you win.

Lips,

With attitudes like that, you and people like you deserve to be ruled by the scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."

It was not a co-incidence that scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would rise to power in those countries steeped in worshipping "might makes right." "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute, and most great men were evil men." -- Lord Acton.

In a system that promotes concentration of power through excessive violence, at the expense of self determination by smaller geographical entities and individuals, only the scums rise to the top.

Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.

Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.

Reality says

Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence.

Here's the thing, let's say that Bose (the actual guerrilla leader) wasn't there and Gandhi had decided to stop the Quit India movement and instead, wholeheartedly supported the war effort for the British. I believe that by 1956, around the time when the British released the Suez Canal, Mountbatten would have granted India its independence without any fanfare. And then, today's India may be a lot less corrupt, as a result of a smooth, decade long transfer.

Didn't Gandhi help to enlist Indians as combatants?

What do you think of his Doctrine of the Sword? http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/D_sword.htm

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so called Zulu rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."

There's more, of course, but he doesn't seem to be a puritan on non-violence. I suppose he viewed it as a tool, and powerful where applicable, but that it does not preclude other tools of a violent nature.

CL says

Didn't Gandhi help to enlist Indians as combatants?

Not exactly, here's a descent summary of that time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

Excerpt: "The Indian National Congress, led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Maulana Azad, denounced Nazi Germany but would not fight it or anyone else until India was independent.[7] Congress launched the Quit India Movement in August 1942, refusing to cooperate in any way with the government until independence was granted. The government was ready for this move. It immediately arrested over 60,000 national and local Congress leaders, and then moved to suppress the violent reaction of Congress supporters. Key leaders were kept in prison until June 1945, although Gandhi was released in May 1944 because of his health."

The former member of the Indian Congress, who'd actually inspired a guerrilla effort against the British Empire was Bose, who had made allies with both the Nazis and the Japanese, during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose

Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.

@CL

Of course non-violence is one choice among many, just happen to be a superior choice in situations where the opponents can equally be convinced that using violence to maintain power and privilege would only lead to subpar outcome.

Choosing violence, by either party, is essentially a choice for escalation of conflict. That is usually not a good choice for either party if the end goal is a peaceful and prosperous society restored. Non-violence does not mean giving up the right of self defence.

CL says

I suppose he viewed it as a tool, and powerful where applicable, but that it does not preclude other tools of a violent nature.

Which is precisely how the Civil Rights Activists viewed non-violence - as a tool, but they all were loaded down with small arms in case of Midnight Riders and other assassins.

Rin says

Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.

Hard to say, because the British Public wanted demobilization ASAP; the British only slowly demobilized after WW2*. Also, Labor's prime urban industrial constituency did not like Colonialism, period.

The British knew in the 30s they'd have to resort to trickery to keep India, so proposed plans to give self-rule to "Princely States" that would have control over everyday matters, but all the guns and final authority would still rest in British Governors and the Central Government headed by a veto-wielding British Viceroy.

* As an aside - Britain's Babyboom was delayed about 5-10 years after the US one. And crime in Britain began collapsing in the late 90s, when their last Boomer passed 30 (1965+30). Whereas in the US, whose Babyboom was about 5-10 earlier, started dropping in the early 90s (1960+30). Also interesting: countries whose babyboom corresponded to the US also had a similar drop off in crime, even when they didn't implement more prisons, mandatory minimums, community policing, or pursued incarceration for drug possession.

Reality says

Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.

Yes, when sugar is no longer a high value commodity, Britain won't fuss much when Caribbean states want self-rule or to leave entirely. However, when they are very profitable... they'll station a huge portion of the British Navy to maintain them. When Rubber declines in value due to replacement by synthetic rubber and plastics, the Colonial power will leave Malaysia as the account books don't make the investment of foreign domination machinery worth it.

Churchill was bitterly opposed to any self-rule for India, much less Independence.

This all being said, it also helped that the Labor Party was in power.

But this doesn't explain Indochina and North Africa being held by the French and/or Spanish (Algeria/Morocco).

thunderlips11 says

Rin says

Basically, if neither Gandhi nor Bose were around, along with those who'd advocated for them, I don't believe that Mountbatten would have left in '47. Instead, it would have been a decade long handover, more likely leading to a better outcome for independent India.

Hard to say, because the British Public wanted demobilization ASAP; the British only slowly demobilized after WW2*. Also, Labor's prime urban industrial constituency did not like Colonialism, period.

The British knew in the 30s they'd have to resort to trickery to keep India, so proposed plans to give self-rule to "Princely States" that would have control over everyday matters, but all the guns and final authority would still rest in British Governors and the Central Government headed by a veto-wielding British Viceroy.

Military organizations don't like to demobilize, in general, however, the Suez Canal crisis, forced their hand in '56. Thus, I couldn't see the British staying in India past that year.

The problem with Non-Violence is it the outcome is unpredictable.

thunderlips11 says

Which kind of history?

Do you consider that to be an objective view on Lincoln?

Reality says

No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."

I didn't say they did - I said they died from a famine that FOLLOWED almost a decade on constant warfare, both internal and external, with all contestants looting and stealing to maintain themselves, as well as general chaos and disorder. Something not unheard of in history. There was also a famine 1946-1947, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Germans marching to the Don, and then burning and destroying everything during their retreat which went right over and back again across the most fertile Black Earth of Southern Russia and Ukraine SSR, or because the Russians mobilized every male and most women into the Army or Industrial production, leaving the farms denuded of workers.Reality says

Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.

Gandhi was a non-entity after the 30s. He may have had a role in changing British opinion, but the INA strike made continued control of India impossible, as they lost the unwavering support of their Sepoys, the vast bulk of their enforcers in the Raj. When asked what role Gandhi played in the decision to Quit India, Atlee said "minimal".

WHICH phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or The INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23 1946 that made the British realise that their time was up in India.

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."

www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060212/spectrum/main2.htm

It made economic sense for British to maintain a global empire in the first 3/4 of 19th century, simply because there was little challenge from anyone else. German challenge in thr late 19th century and then later American challenge made it cost ineffective to maintain an empire. The cost of building all those battleships of the late 19th and early 20th century exceeded the profit from monopolizing certain trade routes.

As for resistance from natives, the extreme end of push-overs were the Americans and Russians, whose continental empires faced largely ineffectual resistance and there were enough settlers to fill the "vacuum." Somewhat to a lesser degree, the British had the earlier and easier bites where the local resistance were minimal until they ran into the major colonial wars in India and South Africa against Dutch settlers.

The continental powers of Europe, like France and Germany, never had a good economic case for overseas colonies. Their overseas adventures were largely political reaction to British success, and were largely white elephant projects due to British already had the first - mover advsntage.

As for Churchill, he was more responsible for the destruction of British Empire than anyone else: by warring beyond means during both WWI and WWII.

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.

Likewise, the same thing happened in Communist China in the late 1950 ' s to early 1960's. Once again, it had nothing to do with war, but thorough top-down control of the population by the regime and it's pyramid of bureaucrats who did not need local support from below but only answerable to their superiors in the centralized power structure.

Bureaucrats lie. When they lied about food output in order to meet the quotas set by their superiors, the local people starved in droves. The biggest famines had nothing to do with war or disease or weather, but everything to do with abuse of power and the centralization fantasy.