[Archived] The Daily Mail - Cancer in print,

[BiggusLaddus]

And the great purges never happened, the sailors from Krondstadt were never used as stormtroopers and sent in to forcibly break up any protests, the sailors themselves were not murdered by the red army when then decided that Stalin had betrayed the revolution, no one was sent to their deaths building the trans siberian express.

Uncle Joe was an all round decent bloke and anyone who says otherwise is just an imperialist propagandist.

*edit to correct myself.

Kronstadt was before Stalin so I supposei can't blame him for that one. And that's the wrong railway as well.

[somersetrover]

Stalinism was Stalins interpretation of Marxism, which we all know was a total disaster.

I repeat that Marxism is not stalinism.

Maybe not in your Trotskyite mind its not. But in my view Stalin merely applied the principles of Marx and Lenin.

Also how was it a total disaster due to his industrialisation of the country it had an annual growth rate of 13.9%, something that these capitalist countries could only dream of due to the financial mess that the banks have put them in. Everyone had free education and healthcare, they also were all employed earning a good wage. He also built a country had no industry until 1917 into a world super power by 1945, that defeated the Nazi's. Also do not forget that if it was not for Joseph Stalin industrialisation, then the Nazi’s would have won the war.

Uncle Joe was an all round decent bloke and anyone who says otherwise is just an imperialist propagandist.

Uncle Joe the name that Winston Churchill and the British people called Stalin by as not only did they respect him but they liked him. Sadly though history has been revised to paint him as some sort of mad man.

[Audax]

Let's not forget, the Soviet Union lost so many soldiers. Sad for any soldier to die in war.

Soviet Union, 9-14 million military deaths, 12-17 million civilian deaths.

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

Or whatever source one uses, hard to say they won a war when it was so costly to them. I think they say the Soviet Union's defence and attack was run poorly under Stalin.

[Steve Moss]

Or whatever source one uses, hard to say they won a war when it was so costly to them. I think they say the Soviet Union's defence and attack was run poorly under Stalin.

Perhaps the poor Soviet performance had something to do with Stalin purging the officer corps between 1937-39:

"The purge of the Red Army and Military Maritime Fleet removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to five-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),^[28] 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars"

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

Stalin was a monster.

[thenodrog]

He fought for his country - apart from keeping toilet manufacturers in business what have you ever done ?

Unless you made something of yourself rather than provide sycophantic scribblings to the press then I've likely paid more tax into the nations coffers and filtered more wealth into the economy than you by some distance.

btw.... Most males did of a certain age. The relevent term back then was 'conscription'.

[thenodrog]

Marxism is not stalinism.

Close enough for most and for Somerset Rover in particular.

[thenodrog]

Out of interest if you "can't be arsed with all this guff" how is it you feel sufficiently informed to comment in such a manner on a man you probably didn't now existed till this week? Myself I've no knowledge of RM but I can see the Daily Mail has behaved in an appalling manner. We don't need a character assassination of his father to help us judge his son.

Albeit Wiki but the relevent bit is in quotation marks.

To his dismay, the teenage Milliband came across antisemitism in London. In a diary entry made shortly after he arrived in Britain, he wrote that "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular. They didn't like the French before the defeat … Since the defeat, they have the greatest contempt for the French Army ... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation".^[7]

Now....... Given that he arrived here in 1940 after running away from the German Army and had the hand of friendship offered by the citizens of this country how come given that he disliked Brtain and the British people so much that he remained in this country once we'd been good enough to make his homeland safe? Why didn't he @#/? off home or better still to some country behind the socialist dreamland the Iron Curtain?

[thenodrog]

According to Louis P. Lochner, Tycoons and Tyrant: German Industry from Hitler to Adenauer (1954) Rothermere provided funds to Hitler via Ernst Hanfstaengel.

Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Evening News and The Daily Mail. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right. When Hitler became Chancellor on 30th January 1933, Rothermere produced a series of articles acclaiming the new regime. The most famous of these was on the 10th July when he told readers that he "confidently expected" great things of the Nazi regime. He also criticised other newspapers for "its obsession with Nazi violence and racialism", and assured his readers that any such deeds would be "submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing on Germany."

Rothermere now began a campaign in favour of the Nazi Party. The Daily Mail criticized "the old women of both sexes" who filled British newspapers with rabid reports of Nazi "excesses." Instead, the newspaper claimed, Hitler had saved Germany from "Israelites of international attachments" and the "minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany."

I think we need to imagine the mood of the nations of Western Europe who saw the spread of communism and Stalin as by far the biggest threat to our nations security and perceived the Germans to be the natural buffer against them The lesser of two evils I guess. Must say despite Somerset Rover's adulation for Uncle Joe history records very little difference in the evils perpetrated and atrocities committed between Hitler and stalin.

[DE.]

Albeit Wiki but the relevent bit is in quotation marks.

To his dismay, the teenage Milliband came across antisemitism in London. In a diary entry made shortly after he arrived in Britain, he wrote that "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular. They didn't like the French before the defeat … Since the defeat, they have the greatest contempt for the French Army ... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation".^[7]

Now....... Given that he arrived here in 1940 after running away from the German Army and had the hand of friendship offered by the citizens of this country how come given that he disliked Brtain and the British people so much that he remained in this country once we'd been good enough to make his homeland safe? Why didn't he Kean off home or better still to some country behind the socialist dreamland the Iron Curtain?

Are you saying opinions cannot change from teenage years onwards?

[jim mk2]

Albeit Wiki but the relevent bit is in quotation marks.

To his dismay, the teenage Milliband came across antisemitism in London. In a diary entry made shortly after he arrived in Britain, he wrote that "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular. They didn't like the French before the defeat … Since the defeat, they have the greatest contempt for the French Army ... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation".^[7]

Now....... Given that he arrived here in 1940 after running away from the German Army and had the hand of friendship offered by the citizens of this country how come given that he disliked Brtain and the British people so much that he remained in this country once we'd been good enough to make his homeland safe? Why didn't he Kean off home or better still to some country behind the socialist dreamland the Iron Curtain?

If you had bothered to read the piece you would realise he loved Britain and the British except for a small-minded minority of which you are a perfect example.

Unless you made something of yourself rather than provide sycophantic scribblings to the press then I've likely paid more tax into the nations coffers and filtered more wealth into the economy than you by some distance.

btw.... Most males did of a certain age. The relevent term back then was 'conscription'.

Like a phoenix rising up to feed the animals, Gordon tries to mould em in his own image.

[Guest Norbert]

I'd have thought Milliband Snr. would have appreciated and maybe even loved Britain considering who he was running away from. I would like a country that allowed me to avoid Auschwitz and being turned into a pillow and a lamp. Anti Semitism and jingoistic slogans would annoy me, but I'd know that the former is not a deep, serious hatred that extends beyond an insult and not being allowed to join a golf club, and the latter happens everywhere, whether it is the Polish and Russians or whatever.

At least that is how I'd guess how Milliband Snr. felt after he reflected on events in his life and history in general. That's how I'd view things anyway.

I'll be honest, and say I've not followed every detail of this unfolding story about the father of David and Ed Milliband, but it seems that the Daily Mail has set out to do a hatchet job on him, and Ed Milliband by association. Add to that, the alleged gatecrashing of an uncle's funeral by the Sunday Mail for comments, and you can see how the news media are just as vile as they have always been. And it is funny how a paper that screams that so many people should be sacked, be they the head of the BBC or a union leader should be so staunchly and aggresively backing their editor despite the fuss he has created over these articles.

[Amo]

The famine of 1933 was caused by a combination of poor climatic conditions and sabotage on the part of the Kulaks in the face of the collectivisation of agriculture. Of course it was a travesty that these people died but Stalin and the Soviet Government were not responsible for it that was the Kulaks. It is imperialist propaganda that says Stalin deliberately caused this and the numbers that died are also hugely exaggerated.

Nikita Khrushchev was the man behind the holodomor but Stalin gave it his consent nonetheless.

As for these “Gulags” I will assume that you mean the Labour Camps where the serious and dangerous criminals were sent. Deaths in the labour camps were at their peak in 1934 where 5.2% of the prison population died due to the general shortage of resources in society as a whole, in particular the medicines necessary to fight epidemics. This problem was not only in the labour camps is happened throughout society, as well as in the great majority of countries of the world. Once antibiotics had been discovered and after the Second World War, the situation changed dramatically. In fact, the worst years were the war years when the Nazi’s imposed very harsh living conditions on all Soviet citizens. During those 4 years, more than half a million people died in the labour camps which 6was half the total number dying throughout the Stalin years. Also do not forget that in the same period, 26 million people died among those who were free to defeat fascism. In 1950, when conditions in the Soviet Union had improved and antibiotics had been introduced, the number of people dying while in prison fell to 0.3%. But again numbers that died are hugely exaggerated through imperialist propaganda.

There were a host of different 'criminals' sent to work/die at the gulags. There were murderers/rapists etc. and political prisoners who opposed the Soviets, but there was also many innocents who were sent for all kinds of ridiculous misdemeanors from turning up late to work, to making jokes about the government, to stealing potatoes for their starving family.

[Audax]

Back to the main subject, here's a decent article on the Daily Mail situation, sums it up.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/04/uks_powerful_daily_mail_faces_a_political_storm/

Looks like this may have been a fight the DM should not have picked.

[Dreyski]

The famine of 1933 was caused by a combination of poor climatic conditions and sabotage on the part of the Kulaks in the face of the collectivisation of agriculture. Of course it was a travesty that these people died but Stalin and the Soviet Government were not responsible for it that was the Kulaks. It is imperialist propaganda that says Stalin deliberately caused this and the numbers that died are also hugely exaggerated. As for these “Gulags” I will assume that you mean the Labour Camps where the serious and dangerous criminals were sent. Deaths in the labour camps were at their peak in 1934 where 5.2% of the prison population died due to the general shortage of resources in society as a whole, in particular the medicines necessary to fight epidemics. This problem was not only in the labour camps is happened throughout society, as well as in the great majority of countries of the world. Once antibiotics had been discovered and after the Second World War, the situation changed dramatically. In fact, the worst years were the war years when the Nazi’s imposed very harsh living conditions on all Soviet citizens. During those 4 years, more than half a million people died in the labour camps which 6was half the total number dying throughout the Stalin years. Also do not forget that in the same period, 26 million people died among those who were free to defeat fascism. In 1950, when conditions in the Soviet Union had improved and antibiotics had been introduced, the number of people dying while in prison fell to 0.3%. But again numbers that died are hugely exaggerated through imperialist propaganda.

I don't normally post, but this is an issue that's close to me and this post reeks of kean.

Kulaks were responsible for the Holodomor, LMAO. The fact is that grain collection was halted in 1933, but requisitioning had been taking place up to four years earlier, and in 1929, Stalin ordered "The liquidation of the Kulaks as a class", meaning that anyone who resisted collectivisation would be arrested and deported to Siberia or central Asia. 20% of those would die during the journey.

The Bosheviks had hated peasants and non-Russian nationalities since the civil war (as the groups they had most problem subduing in the civil war). As a result, collectivisation was enforced most harshly in Ukraine (other regions suffered greatly as well, but Ukraine grew more wheat, so its quotas were proportionally higher)

Gulags/Labour camps may well have had 'serious and dangerous criminals' in them, but during Stalin's reign it was more likely that there were political prisoners, kulaks, or just people who had been informed on by neighbours and colleagues desperate to avoid the finger of suspicion pointing at them. As time went on, these would have been joined by P.O.W.s who had escaped, or army personnel unlucky enough to be accused (familiar with Solzhenitsyn?). I doubt that the camp guards seriously cared about keeping people alive, many would have resented their posting, and all labour camps had quotas to keep, lest the NKVD punisg guards and prisoners alike.

As to how this portrays Stalin as a leader, it could be argued that he found the USSR with sickles and ploughs, and left it with the atomic bomb. Who can say whether that was worth 20-60 million lives? (depending on who you talk to) I know I can't, and I doubt very much that you can either.

EDIT: OT - The Daily Mail is a vile rag, whoever called it 'the worst of British values posing as the best' was spot on. Though as someone else said, it can be funny to read some of the story comments on the website. Good for angrying up the blood.

[Guest Norbert]

Just for the record, I may have moderately left wing views, but no-one can say Stalin or Mao Zedong was 'better' than Hitler or Mussolini.They were all mass murdering nutjobs who gladly killed millions. Animal Farm is one of the best books about Stalin ever written.

[adopted scouser]

Do people still buy newspapers? Anyone who pays for the news in this day and age is beyond mental.

If there were no newspapers and someone went on Dragons Den and pitched the idea they'd be rightly laughed out of the place.

Silly comment. Thousands of people still pick up a daily paper, including the many in Kendal's Asda on Saturday morning leaving with armfuls of dailys.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just for the record, I may have moderately left wing views, but no-one can say Stalin or Mao Zedong was 'better' than Hitler or Mussolini.They were all mass murdering nutjobs who gladly killed millions. Animal Farm is one of the best books about Stalin ever written.

Animal Farm is Kean.

[jim mk2]

Silly comment. Thousands of people still pick up a daily paper, including the many in Kendal's Asda on Saturday morning leaving with armfuls of dailys.

The death of newspapers has been greatly exaggerated. There's still nothing better than to relax with the Guardian over a good morning cuppa.

[adopted scouser]

The death of newspapers has been greatly exaggerated. There's still nothing better than to relax with the Guardian over a good morning cuppa.

Agreed. The thought of offering my Dad a Kindle instead of the Daily Telegraph is unthinkable. Add to that the number of drivers picking up their papers at the petrol station in the morning where I fill up, the argument fails.

[DE.]

Well, printed newspaper sales have fallen fairly significantly over the past decade so the argument that newspapers are in decline as a printed medium is perfectly reasonable. To say that the printed press is on its deathbed, however, is at this point wrong. There will always be a place for a printed paper, but I expect volumes to significantly shrink again over the next decade. By 2020 the news will most likely be almost totally digital.

[thenodrog]

Animal Farm is Kean.

I guess you must be a pig then?

[T4E]

Silly comment. Thousands of people still pick up a daily paper, including the many in Kendal's Asda on Saturday morning leaving with armfuls of dailys.

Obviously - if they didn't they wouldn't still exist. It's a generational thing, I don't know anyone under 30 that buys a newspaper. Their time is thankfully running out.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Obviously - if they didn't they wouldn't still exist. It's a generational thing, I don't know anyone under 30 that buys a newspaper. Their time is thankfully running out.

Mm, that explains a few things.

[adopted scouser]

Their time is thankfully running out.

Blood hell you're obsessed ! Papers aren't going anywhere

[T4E]

I've made two posts on the matter :-/