This does not mean Satanizing Stalin or the USSR. But we should accept
that on the POLITICAL side, the war was waged as a war of revenge
against the German people not as a war of liberation from Fascism AND
capitalism.
Everything you say is accepted except the point above.
I want to see
Thank you!
A rough translation of the content:
This is a description of what leadership of the Red Army did against rapes.
It says that the leadership first tried to stop the rape of German women.
But with little success. Then since early autumn 1945 the punishment could
take an arrest of
But if the Soviet Union had NOT waged the war as a National,
Patriotic, war, every unit to the last soldier would have known that
their duty once they crossed the border was to GAIN THE GERMAN PEOPLE,
AND ITS WORKING CLASS, for socialism. Massive rape and loot, on our
side, the side of
Well, I never thought I'd say this, making a political justification
for mass rape is probably preferable to defending it by pretending it
never happened.
All of this came from the politics, from how the Soviets chose to
regard the Germans...as nationally subhuman and beast..
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009
Nestor wrote:
Had the war been waged as a war for
the extension of socialism,
officers on the field, and every soldier
to the last, would have had strict
political orders to repress rapists
on the spot. Shootings included, if
necessary. It is politics that leads
war, not the other way
Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
Dogan Gocmen escribió:
To claim that there was a mass rape of women of all age would require to
show evidence and further qualification. Was is it for example an
intentional act or a spontaneous act. That there were rapes of German women
is known and people from east
At 14:13 05/08/09 EDT, WL2 wrote:
The Soviet armed forces should have not looted Germany? Why not?
Well lots of reasons why not. But more importantly, this was a discussion
about mass RAPE, which you address in terms of LOOTING = stealing PROPERTY.
Did I get that right??
Your old Indian story
Me:
Alright, expropriate what? This was a discussion about rape of women.
Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to expropriate?
Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes
property?
- Jeff
Your direct response (below) totally misses my point, and
The Battle of El Alamein was a side show
But important for Churchill and the reason he joined the war on the side of
progress, to save the British Empire
After all the Germans had colonies in Africa that had been lost after WW1
Chamberlain was an appeaser and the British ruling class was
Paddy Apling escribió:
Because of his first paragraphs, I will excuse Nestor for the last paragraph
quoted above, because he has no experience of war
Well, not of inter-imperialist war. That´s true.
I know Paddy has that experience, so that I will refrain from any answer.
But please
Nestor Gorojovsky wrote:
Paddy Apling escribió:
Because of his first paragraphs, I will excuse Nestor for the last paragraph
quoted above, because he has no experience of war
Well, not of inter-imperialist war. That´s true.
I know Paddy has that experience, so that I will refrain from
11 matches
Mail list logo
