patrick.net

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.

Reality says

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.

Emphasis mine - but this is not my complaint. My complaint is that including the 1921 Famine in the "100 Million" as a "Mass Murder" - conflating the aftermath of nearly a decade of internal and external warfare to the policies of a government that was in control for about a year (and didn't collectivize yet).

If the Authors of the Black Book of Communism get to blame every death by famine on Communism, regardless of the factors, then there's a great case for blaming the Irish Potato Famine on Colonialism in Ireland, since the dependence of millions of Irish on the Potato is directly linked to the Corn Laws and the Distribution of the best Land for cash crop growing by Absentee Landlords - a UK Policy, not mere accident of nature. Had these policies not existed, then the Irish wouldn't have been so dependent on the Potato.

By extension, we could also blame every death from malnutrition 1929-1932 on Hoover, since his inability to prevent this was directly related to his preference for laissez faire policies.

As well as all the famines in India that happened under the Raj - and there were many, like the Great Famine of 1876, which is attributed to the policies that encouraged cash crops over grain growing, and despite the Famine, the British "Free market" exported countless tons of grain to the UK. Can we assign those millions of death to Colonialism or Capitalism too? After all, distributing grain to those who can pay the highest price is a policy.

Reality says

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.

Yep, just like the bureaucrats at Investment Banks and Ratings Firms with MBS. Or Enron. Or Global Crossing.

Just like the Soviets had to turn to foreign grain imports, the Financial Sector had to turn to taxpayer bailouts.

thunderlips11 says

The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China...

...were the result of collectivism.

Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning. In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.

Likewise, crony banking under the central banking system is not at all free market, but the 5th plank of the 10 planks proposed by the "Communist Manifesto" itself.

Non violence is not a tool, but a choice; Government is a tool, for some people to control others, and it can be and usually is used by others against you! Think about that for a moment. Here is an interesting article on a form of government by choice as opposed to the continental mentality of pyramidal slavery system espoused by people from continental cultures:

http://www.friesian.com/thalasso.htm

Reality says

Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning.

So when the King gives a Company a charter to settle Massachusetts, that's central planning. Is it central planning when the government leases Alaska Oil Fields to Exxon?

Reality says

In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.

So 19th Century Britain was Socialist?

(BTW, I'm reading your article, disagree with some of it, like what the RN losing out to the US has to do with controlling the interior of India given the US is not competing with Britain in that space, or that control of the countless tons of Indian Cotton didn't help the British Textile Industry, but it's interesting)

Reality, would you agree with me that 1870-1913 was probably the peak of laissez-faire capitalism in the US?

Reality says

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.

Your analysis is shallow and simple minded. The communist system was certainly partly to blame but China and Russia had famines long before communist rule. More people died in China from famine in the early 1800's than 1958-62. The Russian famine of 1601-1603 killed one third of the population. Drought would have made for famines in China and Russia the 20th century even if neither country went communist. Communism certainly made it worse, but people would have died of famine anyway during those periods. To say communism caused all these deaths is absurd.

Most famines are the result of maldistribution of food. There is enough or almost enough food, but it's poorly distributed. Which isn't just a communist failing. Large amounts of food were exported from Ireland all during the potato famine. It was certainly a big factor in China 1958-62 where grain was shipped to the cities while starvation was widespread in rural areas. Russia used famine as a political tool. The biggest famine in 32-33 (there was no famine in the late 20's) was simply genocide to break Ukranian resistance. Genocide by famine is far from being exclusive to communism.

thunderlips11 says

Reality, would you agree with me that 1870-1913 was probably the peak of laissez-faire capitalism in the US?

It was the peak, but it was far, far from laissez-faire. Government and business were inextricably intertwined during the period.

Lips

Lincoln did get about 1 million Americans killed, ostensibly to abolish slavery, yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

indigenous says

Lincoln did get about 1 million Americans killed, ostensibly to abolish slavery, yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

The British didn't have a war against slavery, but they did stop the slave trade by military force, reserving unilaterally to themselves the right to search any ship suspected of dealing in slaves. I believe there was an exception for the Portuguese for a time going between West Africa and Brazil.

The other reason the British could abolish slavery is that it was primarily used in their Sugar Islands, where armed resistance to liberation by a handful White plantation owners was utterly impossible.

Contrast to the American South with a White population of millions and a large contiguous territory. Furthermore, the South was aggressively pushing for more Slave States, and angry that the North was trying to stop the extension of Slavery westwards. The population of Slaves increased dramatically from the Revolution to the Civil War. There were NO signs that the South was ratcheting down the use of slaves; all the evidence is that they wanted to extend it. They even proposed annexing Cuba and making it a state in order to expand the area where slavery was practiced in order to gain more votes to preserve and expand it.

Southerners even organized into terrorist bands called "Bushwhackers" or "Border Ruffians" who assaulted Free Farmers in Kansas, for the purpose of scaring free staters away so they could dominate the territory and create another Slave State.

Here's a terrorist named Quantrill, he killed more than almost 200 men and boys ("Anyone old enough to hold a rifle") in one night in Lawrence, Kansas, dragging them from their homes and executing them in front of their families, then burning the whole town down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Quantrill

There are neo-Confederates today who celebrate him; many of his followers emerged in the West where they became famous Outlaws, like the James Brothers.

Another one, Bloody Bill Anderson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Anderson

bob2356 says

Russia used famine as a political tool. The biggest famine in 32-33 (there was no famine in the late 20's) was simply genocide to break Ukranian resistance.

I agree with everything you wrote, but would say the Holodomor was an attempt to force peasants into cities, those who moved to cities got fed. And it was a Soviet-wide policy that effected Russians, Jews, Caucasians, Germans, and everybody else, in fact two of the worst areas were east of the Don, outside of the Ukraine's borders. Nor is there any documentation in the Soviet Archives that show targeting of Ukrainians because of ethnicity, (and Ukrainian ultranats have been pouring over them like crazy for decades now) only a desire to move stubborn Peasants to the cities. For this reason, it's Oppression, but not Genocide.

Can we consider enclosing of the commons to be a Holodomor of British peasants? "I'm raising sheep here now, piss off to the city or drop dead, you villein!"

We could also talk about scalping, for which the Colonies and Mexicans paid bounties with innocent Indians and even Mexican farmers being scalped since they were easier to catch than armed, hiding Indians.

The Indian Removal Act, but also the Canadian Indian Act, which forcibly relocated Indians, and eventually, required Passes for them to travel freely and forcibly took children from their parents, where they were sent to Religious Schools so vicious, where children were starved for weeks as a form of discipline, the death rate from malnutrition attendant sickness was very high.

In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 30% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30% to 60% of students had died, or 6–12% per annum). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis.[38] At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease.

thunderlips11 says

I agree with everything you wrote, but would say the Holodomor was an attempt to force peasants into cities, those who moved to cities got fed

Probably true, but there was most certainly some backlash at the ukraine in particular which was a sore spot for many years with peasants sabatoging the collectives. The numbers say there was probably just enough food to go around, but it was withheld in a planned manner to maximize punishment of the area's that resisted collectivization. A quotation by Viktor Kravchenko in his book I Chose Freedom: “It’s a struggle to the death. It took a famine to show who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay.” says it all. Robert Conquest in the Harvest of Sorrow makes a pretty solid case for this also. I think genocide is appropriate as a description.

There was no doubt drought was also involved, in 1932 many of the grain crops were lost to fires across the area. There would have been localized famine no matter what even if the tsar's were still in power.

bob2356 says

I think genocide is appropriate as a description.

I get your point, but democide might be a better word as many non-Ukrainians were victims, and it wasn't targeted at Ukrainians specifically.

The Ironic thing about Maiden is the pulling down of Lenin Statues, as he was the one who founded the first Ukrainian State since the coming of the Golden Horde. Stalin was much more of an anti-ethnic chauvinist, ironic because he was a Georgian.

CL says

2nd, it appeals to white liberalism in that non-violence is believed to be an effective tool when confronted by injustice or state sponsored violence.

I'm a white liberal, and I don't believe that. Would a policy of non-violence have stopped the Nazis? Why would it work on police who are essentially psychologically identical to the Gestapo? The police look at the public, especially blacks, in the exact same way the Gestapo looked at Jews, as subhuman scum that should be eliminated. Why is it OK to use whatever violence is necessary to stop murdering Nazis, but not murdering police officers? Is the life of a private U.S. citizen today worth less than the life of a Jew in the 1940s?

Now, if there is actually a way to stop the murderers without using violence, of course that is preferred. But history has shown no such alternative. The problem with the violent outrage is that it is undirected. People are smashing stores that have nothing to do with the perpetration of these crimes instead of smashing police stations and attacking the guilty. Image if every black American purchased an assault rifle, got an open carry license, and traveled armed in packs of ten with smart phone apps to call 10,000 others if approached by police. Then they videoed the cops, not interfering with actual law enforcement, but also not allowing the cops to violate a single law and placing the cops under citizen arrest if they do. I bet police would become much less violent very quickly.

Of course there's a chance the police would try to gang up against the citizens with swat teams, but with 10,000 armed citizens, they'd get slaughtered and this would never happen again. And that would be the first legitimate use of the Second Amendment in all of American history, an armed militia made up of private citizens keeping the local, state, and federal government in check. And as a white liberal, I love that idea.

But as someone familiar with our history and culture, I also know that is a pipe dream.

CL says

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence? Do you have any historical support for that belief?

https://prospect.org/article/baltimore-police-thuggery-real-violence-problem

From the article

We should treat killer-cops as thugs and criminals, too.

Exactly. And if the government is unwilling or incapable of doing that, the people should take back political and legal power from the government, by force if necessary. To say otherwise is to say the American Revolution was not justified and our government is not legitimate.

We can start by removing the policies that protect law enforcement AND judges and prosecutors from being punished for misconduct.

For example, looking somebody caught smoking weed (that's it) in solitary for 5 days with no food and water, with those responsible only being suspended for a few days and written up. They are still LEOs to this day, and the only people who paid for it were the taxpayers.

Or, a Judge arresting a potential Jurist who admits their bias prevents them from being impartial, whose religion prohibits them judging anybody, and insists they avoid even looking at sinful acts, in this case the videotaped rape of a child. Despite this aggressive violation of the Law and Tradition, she's a practicing attorney, was allowed to retire, and was neither charged with a crime nor disbarred from practicing law. And, because of this judge's omnipotent and uncontrolled violation of the law, the case had to be retried.

More at Popehat:
http://popehat.com/2015/05/06/two-stories-about-the-criminal-justice-system-and-consequences/

We've gone way off track to talking about Stalin from the idea that non-violence is overrated (and preferred by those in power as it's ignorable, especially in the days of tazers and tear gas, which allow you to remove protesters without having to beat them senseless). This is largely my fault for allowing myself to be sidetracked with the usual right wing bullshit distraction tactics. As I said before, if "Community Leaders" had written a letter to the Authorities about Gray, these cops' behaviors would be investigated, much less charged with crimes.