On the release of the lockerbie bomber

Post Reply New Topic

While that is a wide ranging number, I think that even at 700 thousand that's a rather lot.

On this antiwar site, which I expect would overestimate the numbers of deaths, claims that only 16,006 American solders died in Iraq from March 19th 2003 to September 2nd 2009... which would be 2.3% of the lower number you gave.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Puts civilian deaths at roughly 100k. The Kulaks weren't military bodies so why in the world would you county military deaths from a world power who invaded what's essentially a sandlot?

Because I wasn't sure if civilian deaths were those meant as the time periods I focused on when teaching myself history were ancient through Renaissance, and modern times depress me so I didn't bother. Either way, for the Iraq body count of 100k versus the intentional deaths of these civilians at 700k, which is larger and which is intentional?

Jack straw giving the game away. ooops, not supposed to let one about BP lobbying slip methinks.

I shoulda known.

This John Pilger article is pretty much the final word IMO. The man's innocent.

Kulaks ended up in Siberia. Some of them died. I don't think that millions died in the gulag. The so-called artificial famine was not a kulak thing... it was a peasant thing. Oh, and it was not a Ukrainian thing, no matter how the Ukrainian government and its puppetmasters frame it in order to start needless conflict between brotherly countries Russia and the Ukraine.

At any rate, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvilli is still the best Georgian ruler of the last century - the ones who have run an independent Georgia have been torture-happy jokes...

kulak is russian for rich peasant, that is in comparison to the muzhiks who were the poor and landless peasants.

unless you're being ironic I'll have to disagree with you; he made a royal mess of the economy the bolsheviks had struggled to piece back together after the civil war and intervention, having made this mess and unable to improve the situation he embarked on a disastrous series of plans to revive the economy and carry forward the socialist revolution (that is as he thought it was to be done, which is on a murderously incompetent scale) by destroying the kulaks as a class (as opposed to the nazi targeting of people), he annihilated the best of the leaders of the red army (including the brilliant Tuchachevsky who was a general in the civil war, and a damn good one, at about 27) right before they got invaded by the guys he signed a peace deal with not long before. The Stalin period was one of the most brutal in history, for marxists included - in a supreme irony, having sent many innocent Bolsheviks from the rank and file as well as leadership to the gallows or gulag, Stalin had the hangman who carried this out, on his orders, tried on charges of killing thousands of innocent Bolsheviks which sort of characterises the whole Bakhtinian Carnivalesque nature of the period. That's not to mention all of those who were disappeared, executed, tortured etc etc. I've known some to defend Stalin for beating Germany but they fail to mention that when Germany invaded Stalin disappeared for about a week having said to the people around him "all that Lenin built has been lost!"; which was a belated realisation of the fact it was lost beween when the German revolution failed (depsite holding power) and when Stalin won out over Trotsky. in my opinion anyway.