a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[butchersapron]

looks like I said it first though

No, i had pointed this out to you on three occasions prior to you even suggesting that you understood this, let alone the importance of it. All to no response.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I waste no time on you. You take not a second to swat away.

 

[butchersapron]

Given i was talking to and about L&L what are you laughing at? And if you really think it takes much longer than that to deal with your loonery, then i think you have a higher opinion of your tripe than anyone else here.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Given i was talking to and about L&L what are you laughing at? And if you really think it takes much longer than that to deal with your loonery, then i think you have a higher opinion of your tripe than anyone else here.

what?

 

[TremulousTetra]

If you've nothing to say how about just leaving the thread alone?

you're a fucking Moderator now?
your control freakery, knows no bounds.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, i had pointed this out to you on three occasions prior to you even suggesting that you understood this, let alone the importance of it. All to no response.

the amazing mind reading butchers.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I got it precisely from you you clown. I asked you to clarify exactly what it was that you had said was a reasonable account (which, of course, you had said without reading it). The quote (No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies).) is from the characterisation i asked you if you agree with and to which you answered "Yes a perfectly reasonable analysis.". Now i asked you this because you said it once already on the first page and i wanted to give you the opportunity to think about what you were actually describing as a reasonable overview. You weren't expected to agree with but to come back with something along the lines of no, i didn't mean that. But you didn't - you said that yes, it was reasonable and then went on to try and defend (in the most crude terms) leaving out the holocaust in an article on the second world war. Stop wasting my time.

what?

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, i had pointed this out to you on three occasions prior to you even suggesting that you understood this, let alone the importance of it. All to no response.

you had pointed this out on three occasions before post 63?

 

[butchersapron]

you had pointed this out on three occasions before post 63

A post in which it doesn't appear. Well done. Did you just pick a number at random?

 

[TremulousTetra]

A post in which it doesn't appear. Well done. Did you just pick a number at random?

answer the question butchers, stop time wasting!

 

[TremulousTetra]

You finally got to the post that i made on page 3 of a 7 page thread that you've been posting pointless replies to posts from after my one? How did you manage that then?

And even better, i outline a brief idea of how international events impacted on the nazi-regimes economic plans and opened the door to the holocaust (something your economistic posts said was impossible, didn't happen, couldn't happen - of course, you ignore my substantive point about it happening, don't challenge it, don't address it - i expected nothing more) and your response is to just dismiss it because it solely concerns domestic events. Now, apart from this crude separation into non-impacting domestic and international issues that you reduce this issue down to (one that mirrors your equally crude non-interacting economic and all others factors) it's the opposite of what i actually said. Time-waster.

you cannot be feigning this stupidity. We are discussing why Neil did A specific, singular, 1500 word analysis, and whether it is mandatory to shoehorn into this imperialist analysis of the Second World War, the Holocaust.

You know, you can go on and on and on round the houses, but at the end of the day I do not think the article Neil wrote is invalid. I think it is A reasonable analysis, for some reason concentrating on one specific perspective. Perhaps his next article will cover the Holocaust.

now I doubt you will deal with the points I've made above, that absolutely decimate your argument, so I will end by saying, I know you know what everybody in the world is thinking, better than they do, so there is no reason for me to say out loud what I am thinking, except it is amazing piece of wit n repartee that starts in F and ends in F.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That book sounds fascinating Butchers, I'll have to get it.

It's well worth it. Quite in-depth, too, but a fascinating read.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sorry frog, no disrespect, but you are wrong, in my opinion.

I can't remember the exact quote, or find it easily on Google, but there was some kind of Commissioner, British representative in the Middle East at the time who clearly articulated what the aim of Israel was, when he said Israel will be our own little Ulster.

Sir Herbert Samuel (later Viscount Samuel).
What you fail to mention is that Samuel was a militant Zionist whose appointment as Commissioner to the Mandate was hotly disputed, and that what he said was a statement of his aims and those of his party, not of "the empire" or even of the majority of the British establishment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right. Had time to go back and read this article. Neil makes the point that for Britain the war was about defending Empire, and its economic interest of the Empire, and underlined the point by pointing out that Britain had more troops subjugating India, than fighting the Japanese, and you don't think this is relevant to his point?

just from first reading it is blatantly obvious to me that this is an article written from the SINGULAR perspective of "International Affairs". And in that respect it is A perfectly reasonable analysis.

PS. just got your response and the Maitland link butchers.

"Nationalist protest, India, 1942 - where the British had more troops deployed than were fighting the Japanese

This made the war harder, longer, and bloodier than was necessary. In 1942, the British had more troops policing India than fighting the Japanese. Nationalist demonstrations were brutally suppressed with shootings, floggings, and gang-rapes of protestors, and 30,000 oppositionists were incarcerated."

The reason there were more troops garrisoned in India in 1942 and 1943 is obvious to anyone who's studied that theatre of battle: The garrisons did not consist of troops sent to quell the nationalists, but of those troops who had been forced to retreat from (in very small numbers) Singapore and (in much larger numbers) Burma, plus troops massing for the coming campaign against the Japanese - a campaign the smaller number of troops still fighting the Japanese were "softening up" the Japanese for.

And yes, nationalist protest were brutally suppressed, in much the same way and in similar quantities as nationalist protests had been suppressed for the previous half-century.

Mr. Faulkener needs to brush up his history if he doesn't want to look entirely stupid and entirely partisan.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Sir Herbert Samuel (later Viscount Samuel).
What you fail to mention is that Samuel was a militant Zionist whose appointment as Commissioner to the Mandate was hotly disputed, and that what he said was a statement of his aims and those of his party, not of "the empire" or even of the majority of the British establishment.

honestly, are you being serious Panda. 1. IS IT your opinion Israel is of no purpose to the interests of American imperialism? 2. That the British establishments, particularly Churchill, main aim in the second world war was NOT to defend their interests/empire?

 

[ViolentPanda]

phew! I eventually got to this.

All this is about the internal dynamics of the German regime/power blocks etc. from an international affairs perspective what is the difference?

Quite simple. Different dynamics allow different approaches to diplomacy.

 

[butchersapron]

"Nationalist protest, India, 1942 - where the British had more troops deployed than were fighting the Japanese

This made the war harder, longer, and bloodier than was necessary. In 1942, the British had more troops policing India than fighting the Japanese. Nationalist demonstrations were brutally suppressed with shootings, floggings, and gang-rapes of protestors, and 30,000 oppositionists were incarcerated."

The reason there were more troops garrisoned in India in 1942 and 1943 is obvious to anyone who's studied that theatre of battle: The garrisons did not consist of troops sent to quell the nationalists, but of those troops who had been forced to retreat from (in very small numbers) Singapore and (in much larger numbers) Burma, plus troops massing for the coming campaign against the Japanese - a campaign the smaller number of troops still fighting the Japanese were "softening up" the Japanese for.

And yes, nationalist protest were brutally suppressed, in much the same way and in similar quantities as nationalist protests had been suppressed for the previous half-century.

Mr. Faulkener needs to brush up his history if he doesn't want to look entirely stupid and entirely partisan.

He is, amongst other things, a proper military historian. Which can only leave the above sleight of hand that you have highlighted here, to be deliberate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

honestly, are you being serious Panda. 1. IS IT your opinion Israel is of no purpose to the interests of American imperialism? 2. That the British establishments, particularly Churchill, main aim in the second world war was NOT to defend their interests/empire?

What does that have to do with what I've posted?
Nothing at all.

 

[TremulousTetra]

What does that have to do with what I've posted?
Nothing at all.

because that is the context you quoted me from. It is the general flow of the discussion, and so I just wanted your viewpoint on those questions. [I added a like to your previous comeback on NF, so I obviously value your nonpartisan import.]
ETA
also it is the central element of the article being discussed, and so were very valid question.

 

[ViolentPanda]

how many times has Panda mentioned he used to be an SWP member to me? How many times has Panda pointed out that people on here used to be members of the SWP, and so understand the SWP just as much, if not better than I do? how many times of people spoke about the SWP being a conveyor belt?

Nice one, bending the truth again. I've commented about your perspective of what the SWP say, compared to the perspective other former members have formed, your perspective generally being that you're right about anything Swappie-related, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

 

[ViolentPanda]

because that is the context you quoted me from. It is the general flow of the discussion, and so I just wanted your viewpoint on those questions. [I added a like to your previous comeback on NF, so I obviously value your nonpartisan import.]

No, my point was purely naming the anonymous "commissioner" and putting his comment about Palestine being Britain's Ulster in the east into context, the context being that he was an aggressively-Zionist cock-drip who pushed his personal agenda and that of his party rather than the agenda of the government of the day.

 

[Pickman's model]

you cannot be feigning this stupidity. We are discussing why Neil did A specific, singular, 1500 word analysis, and whether it is mandatory to shoehorn into this imperialist analysis of the Second World War, the Holocaust.

I am surprised what was first described as being an ostensibly marxist analysis has become an imperialist analysis

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nice one, bending the truth again. I've commented about your perspective of what the SWP say, compared to the perspective other former members have formed, your perspective generally being that you're right about anything Swappie-related, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Right back at you, FMPOV.

"conveyor belt"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

No, my point was purely naming the anonymous "commissioner" and putting his comment about Palestine being Britain's Ulster in the east into context, the context being that he was an aggressively-Zionist cock-drip who pushed his personal agenda and that of his party rather than the agenda of the government of the day.

okay, totally unrelated to your previous point.

Panda. 1. IS IT your opinion Israel is of no purpose to the interests of American imperialism? 2. That the British establishments, particularly Churchill, main aim in the second world war was NOT to defend their interests/empire?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/members/resistancemp3.5449/​

 

[Pickman's model]

Where did 'the british establishment' as opposed to british government outline their war aims?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Panda, was the preventing Holocaust a primary factor in the military conduct/aims of the war for Russia Britain America and Japan?

 

[butchersapron]

It's almost like he really doesn't know about 'Germany', the state that claimed didn't care about the holocaust, and it was simply 'lumbered' with it. No one could really think that though, could they?

 

[ayatollah]

precisely. Sometimes I'm not sure whether butchers is trolling, feigning stupidity, or just blinded by his own perfection to what lesser mortals are saying.

I've pondered this issue too (with genuine growing sadness ) for some time MP3, especially as some of the people who post in the same general terms as Butchers are old ex-comrades with a very creditable political past. (Butchers probably does himself - but because of our assumed names apart from "Joe" I don't know who anyone really is).

Butchers , (and violent Panda, 39th Step, Love Detective, Joe Elliot , and a few others in their loose self-supporting claque) -, are in my opinion nothing more nowadays than disruptive "pseudo radical Trolls".. having some sort of general " anti capitalist" personal ideology/ies , and often a good grasp of marxist theory, but essentially really simply deriving great satisfaction from picking constant fault with other, particularly Radical Socialist, posters, bullying them if possible (as he has just done outrageously to you on this thread MP3 - you were far too patient, you should have told him to fuck off a long time ago), and always trying to prove that they alone have the "real insight" as to what is "going on" ,as opposed to to all us clumsy schmuks, with our outdated 19th century socialist ideology.

However I have noticed that Butchers and his ilk will NEVER go into any detail as to what his/their "immensely superior" global analysis and offered "political solution" actually is... NEVER. Because he/they simply haven't got a coherent one -- or not one which they are prepared to spell out on Urban anyway. . Despite Butchers outraged claiming of no connection with the IWCA there is a very nasty sub theme running through the periodic postings of this little , perhaps loosely connected, mutual support group when issues around "multiculturalism", Muslims and supposed " grooming" predilictions, and the impact of immigration on "indigenous job opportunities, the "unstoppable rise of the Far Right, the "uselessness of the Left"... surface....because here they all tail behind the Lumpen white working class support base of the Far Right, by making very slippery, unspelled out, concessions to these Lumpen obsessions and misrepresentations.

My harsh advice to fellow radical socialists is to treat this loosely connected little coterie of obsessive posters with considerable suspicion, and not to allow them to rubbish the socialist cause with the endless posturing of being genuine anti capitalist radicals that they have chosen to present for years on Urban and other Boards. Beware them all . They are not nowadays actually allies of the radical Left in my opinion..

 

[Joe Reilly]

I've pondered this issue too (with genuine growing sadness ) for some time MP3, especially as some of the people who post in the same general terms as Butchers are old ex-comrades with a very creditable political past. (Butchers probably does himself - but because of our assumed names apart from "Joe" I don't know who anyone really is).

Butchers , (and violent Panda, 39th Step, Love Detective, Joe Elliot , and a few others in their loose self-supporting claque) -, are in my opinion nothing more nowadays than disruptive "pseudo radical Trolls".. having some sort of general " anti capitalist" personal ideology/ies , and often a good grasp of marxist theory, but essentially really simply deriving great satisfaction from picking constant fault with other, particularly Radical Socialist, posters, bullying them if possible (as he has just done outrageously to you on this thread MP3 - you were far too patient, you should have told him to fuck off a long time ago), and always trying to prove that they alone have the "real insight" as to what is "going on" ,as opposed to to all us clumsy schmuks, with our outdated 19th century socialist ideology.

However I have noticed that Butchers and his ilk will NEVER go into any detail as to what his/their "immensely superior" global analysis and offered "political solution" actually is... NEVER. Because he/they simply haven't got a coherent one -- or not one which they are prepared to spell out on Urban anyway. . Despite Butchers outraged claiming of no connection with the IWCA there is a very nasty sub theme running through the periodic postings of this little , perhaps loosely connected, mutual support group when issues around "multiculturalism", Muslims and supposed " grooming" predilictions, and the impact of immigration on "indigenous job opportunities, the "unstoppable rise of the Far Right, the "uselessness of the Left"... surface....because here they all tail behind the Lumpen white working class support base of the Far Right, by making very slippery, unspelled out, concessions to these Lumpen obsessions and misrepresentations.

My harsh advice to fellow radical socialists is to treat this loosely connected little coterie of obsessive posters with considerable suspicion, and not to allow them to rubbish the socialist cause with the endless posturing of being genuine anti capitalist radicals that they have chosen to present for years on Urban and other Boards. Beware them all . They are not nowadays actually allies of the radical Left in my opinion..

You might want to edit that last sentence before 'we' sue.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's almost like he really doesn't know about 'Germany', the state that claimed didn't care about the holocaust, and it was simply 'lumbered' with it. No one could really think that though, could they?

Awww it's lovely the way want to make a thread about Neils claim that ww2 was an "imperialist war", all about me :*, but is he right? Did some of the players, the various ruling classes, at least in part want to extend or defend their interests abroad?