Sunday, March 30, 2014

Putin Wants to Relive Stalin's Genocide of Ukraine of the 1930's or Ten Reasons Why Vladimir Putin is Crazy (Insane)!

                     Earlier this week Vladimir Putin and President Obama talked to one another over the phone. Their foreign ministers also met in person. The only problem is that Russia wants to take back territory that was never truly theirs to take or give away in the first place.
                      Let us go back in time to 1922 when Lenin took over Russia by revolution. The Soviet Union had its roots in the Russian Revolution of 1917, which deposed the imperial autocracy. The majority faction of the Social Democratic Labour Party, led by Vladimir Lenin, (after whom Vladimir Putin was named, thus his insanity began at an early age), then led a second revolution which overthrew the provisional government and established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, beginning a civil war between pro-revolution Reds and counter-revolution Whites. The Red Army entered several territories of the former Russian Empire and organized workers and peasants into soviets under Communist leadership. In 1922, the Communists were victorious, forming the Soviet Union with the unification of the Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian republics. Following Lenin's death in 1924, a troika collective leadership and a brief power struggle, Joseph Stalin came to power in the mid-1920s. Stalin committed the state ideology to Marxism–Leninism and initiated a centrally planned economy. As a result, the country underwent a period of rapid industrialisation and collectivisation which laid the basis for its later war effort and dominance after World War II.[4] In the wake of the spread of fascism through Europe, Stalin repressed both Communist Party members and elements of the population by creating an atmosphere of political paranoia and establishing a system of correctional labour camps (

                 Does any of this sound familiar with what has happened to Russia under Vladimir Putin? Hello? When protestors that are protesting the sentences of protestors are themselves arrested by the Moscow police, can you get more paranoid that that. Oh, my God, the protestors are protesting the sentences of their fellow prorestors! The sky is falling!
                 When you lock up the political head of the opposition party because he says he has proof that you rigged the last presidential election and then declared yourself "KING FOR LIFE-VLADIMIR PUTIN- THE CRAZY MAN!", who is going to take your country seriously?
 Is Vladimir Putin insane? In my book he is. 

Here's proof:

1. He says that even though former President Yanukovych abdicated the office, that he was "forced from office" by the United States. What actually happened was that he betrayed his own citizens and rather than be imprisoned for treason, he left the country.

2. Putin says that he was trying to protect Russians citizens in Crimea when he illegally invaded Crimea. The truth is that the only Russian citizens on the entire peninsula were those in the Black Sea Fleet, who live in an enclosed city "guarded by pixie dust."

3. He says that Ukraine should be split up into sections and that each section should be able to decide whether or not to join Russia by force- again. (Some choice)!

4. If Putin really wanted Ukrainians to have a voice as to whether or not their section of the country joined the Communist - not free enterprise- Russia- he should not have rigged the election in Crimea.

5. Putin said that, "Those men without insignias were not Russian soldiers." They illegally invaded Crimea at night, took over the lives of 2-3 million people, and he was not lying? Come on! Tell the truth Crazy Man!

6. He said that the 50,000 troops on Crimea's borders were on battle exercises! Did anyone really believe that?  Another Crazy man lie!

7.Vladimir Putin wants to rebuild the Confederation of Republics (they were never independent states under the CIS) that rose up out of two genocidal  maniacs minds (Lenin and Stalin) and replay history until it comes out with Russia as the winner.

Take a note here CIA: Bullets cost only 4 cents each. How much is Vladimir Putin's life worth? How much will a war with Russia cost? Weigh the options closely. The lives of about 2-3 million people in Crimea and 42 million people in Ukraine hang in the balance.

8. Putin fantacizes about being Lenin and Stalin. He thinks that Communism- forced labor by the government- is the best way to run a country. He thinks that murdering free speech (those that oppose him) makes him a man. A crazy person believes their own lies.

9. Putin himself has never done an honest days work since he joined the Communist party.

10. What really needs to happen is for all of the present Russian states/provinces/ territories to secede from Russia all at the same time and put an end to this crazy man's fantasy of being a self-appointed KING FOR LIFE!

The Truth About Joseph Stalin and the Murder of Millions of Ukrainians 1920 to present day

 Ilya Volokh of Stanford University says it best in the blog The Volokh Conspiracy,
"Back in 2008, I blogged about the debate over the question of whether the Soviet terror famine of the early 1930s (in which some 6 to 10 million people died) was a case of genocide or mass murder (see here and here). Many Ukrainians and some Western scholars argue that this was a case of genocide because Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin specifically targeted Ukrainian peasants for extermination. By contrast, the Russian government claims that Stalin was an equal opportunity mass murderer. The distinction matters because international law defines mass murder as genocide only if it was the result of an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.” It also matters because of the ongoing debate over whether communist mass murders deserve as much opprobrium as those of the Nazis.
Naimark concludes that both the terror famine and various other Stalinist atrocities qualify as genocide. His book is the most thorough and compelling study of the subject so far. In the end, however, I am not so much persuaded that Stalin committed genocide as reaffirmed in my view that the genocide-mass murder distinction isn’t a morally meaningful one. Moreover, Naimark overstates Stalin’s personal role in the mass murders committed by his regime and understates the impact of the communist system.
I. Was it Genocide and Should it Matter if it Was?
There is no doubt that at least some of Stalin’s crimes were genocides. The deportation and partial extermination of ethnic groups such as the Crimean Tatars surely qualifies. These indisputably genocidal crimes, however, accounted for only a small fraction of Stalin’s victims. Naimark’s main objective is to prove that Stalin’s much greater mass murders – the terror famine, the killing of millions in Gulag slave labor camps, and the “Great Terror” of 1937-38 – should also be considered genocidal.
Here, Naimark runs into the problem that most of the people killed in these mass murders were targeted not on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, but because of economic class or political background – or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As he points out, the Soviet Union and its allies successfully worked to exclude “political” murder from the international law definition of genocide; they did so to insulate their own crimes from potential condemnation. This is one of the most blatant examples of the extent to which international human rights law has been perverted by the influence of nondemocratic and totalitarian governments . In effect, Naimark argues that the international law definition of genocide should be read to cover precisely the kinds of crimes that it was deliberately crafted to exclude. In legal terms, the text, original meaning, and legislative history of the international law definition are all against Naimark.
In the case of the early 1930s terror famine, Naimark also argues that Stalin intended to target the Ukrainians as an ethnic group. If so, then this counts as genocide even under the traditional view of international law. Naimark notes that the impact of the famine was greater in Ukraine than in most other parts of the USSR, and that the region was treated with special harshness. On the other hand, it is also true that the main goal of the famine was to exterminate the independent peasantry regardless of ethnicity and carry out the forced collectivization of agriculture. Ukraine may have been targeted as much because it was the USSR’s most important agricultural region as because it was populated by Ukrainians. Moreover Ukraine had large minority populations, including millions of ethnic Russians (my own grandmother, was one of the many non-Ukrainians living in the region during the famine). Many of these people also died in the famine. Stalin’s motives were probably mixed. His main goal was to crush the peasants and collectivize agriculture. But he was also happy to deal a preemptive blow to Ukrainian nationalist aspirations (which he feared because they were the USSR’s largest minority group).
Ultimately, the distinction between genocide and “mere” mass murder should not matter. For reasons I explained here and here, it doesn’t make any difference whether the Soviet regime killed millions of innocent people because they were “kulaks” and “class enemies,” because they were Ukrainian, or for some combination of both reasons. In all three scenarios, innocent people were slaughtered for no good reason, in most cases on the basis of immutable characteristics that they could not change (“kulak” status was determined primarily by family background)."

             My thoughts on that are:

  Now, the real issue is that Putin wants to relive the genocide of Ukrainian Crimean Tartars whose relatives were forced into Western Russia after Stalin had tried to exterminate them by starvation in the 1930's. Putin sees himself as a fixer of Stalin's mistakes. Ukraine did not want to join the USSR in the 1920's and it does not want to be part of Russia now. Putin's gambit is this- If you will not do what I want, I will throw a temper tantrum, put all of you in death camps (gulags) and kill you one by one.
                We stand at a threshold in history where the number of dictatorial tyrants number less than ten. That number is shrinking more every year. Ukraine decided that it did not want to rejoin its former conquering country- Russia and as a response, Crimea was taken by force- a replay of the 1930's Crimean invasion by the USSR. Stalin was not a great man. History counts him as one of the greatest mass murderers in history. Between Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, Stalin clearly murdered more people out of his paranoia than the other two megalomaniacs.

             However, according to
Joseph Stalin was the most heinous murderer in the history of mankind. Russia, under his rule is only second to China's death toll in killing its own people and the people of the USSR including the people of Ukraine, who were never Russia to begin with, contrary to the brainwashing of Russian schools.

This is the man that Russian President (dictator) Vladimir Putin wants to remedy the alleged mistakes of by taking Ukraine by force if necessary.

Let us compare Hitler to Joseph Stalin:

3. The Holocaust (1939-1945)

No genocide is as well-known, or as carefully documented, as the efforts of  the Nazis to exterminate not only the Jews from continental Europe, but millions of others it deemed “undesirable.” By the time Hitler shot himself in his Berlin bunker in April of 1945, some eleven million people—over half of them Jews—had died, either through mass extermination, deportation, or starvation and overwork in his prison camps. This was all part of a brutal policy that much of the world either refused to believe was happening, or chose to ignore until the first camps were liberated by the Allies in the spring of 1945.
What’s especially interesting in this case is that, unlike Russia and China, Germany had no history of such cruelty beforehand (at least on such a large scale), and was even considered to have been one of the most educated and cultured societies in the world at the time it fell under Hitler’s spell. This should serve as a warning that no country is immune from becoming a killing field under the right circumstances and with the right leader, as millions of Germans had to learn the hard way in World War

2. The Stalinist Era in the USSR (1929-1953)

While most people imagine Adolf Hitler to have been the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century (the aforementioned Mao Zedong not withstanding), the prize actually goes to Joseph Stalin, the man who turned his entire nation into one massive prison camp and extermination center. How many died under his direct instructions, or merely as a result of his failed agricultural policies, will never be known with certainty, but some estimates put it as high as twenty million. The Soviet elimination of a social class, the Kulaks, and the subsequent killer famine among all Ukrainian peasants, killed at least two million alone, while Stalin’s notorious 1937 Order No. 00447, that called for the mass execution and exile of “socially harmful elements” as “enemies of the people”, decimated the military and intelligentsia of Russia, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, and millions more languishing in Stalin’s massive gulag.
Had he not had the good manners to die in 1953 before he could institute another purge of Jews and other “enemies of the State,” the numbers of death would have swelled even more. Curiously—and despite all of this—the man was much admired by people who lived outside of Russia during this time, and the always-smiling and benevolent-looking “Uncle Joe” even made it onto the cover of Time magazine no fewer than eleven times.

1. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in China (1949-1976)

While it’s almost impossible to determine precisely how many people died at the hands of the Communists when they came to power in 1949 and in the decades that followed, estimates range anywhere from 45 to 70 million people, depending on whom you ask. While some of these occurred when Communist forces finally vanquished the Nationalist Army of Chang Kai-Shek, most of them took place later and came largely in two main waves; the first was during the “Great Leap Forward”, when China’s leader Mao Zedong’s attempt at agricultural modernization and social engineering led to mass starvation between 1958 and 1961, and the death of many former land owners. While not a specific effort to eradicate a population, what made it genocidal in nature was the fact that Mao continued his policies long after they were obviously proven to be disastrous, thereby dooming millions of peasants to starvation.
The second great genocide was a result of what was called the “Cultural Revolution” of 1966 to 1976—a bloody purge of “anti-government elements” that left millions dead or languishing in prison camps throughout China. It was only upon the death of Mao that the worst of the killings ended, though the brutal crushing of the Tienanmen Square protesters in 1989 demonstrated that Beijing’s violent tendencies did not entirely die with the man.

Fascists sought to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promoted the mass mobilization of the national community[5][6] and were characterized by having a vanguard party that initiated a revolutionary political movement aiming to reorganize the nation along principles according to fascist ideology.[7] Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[5][8][9][10] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]
Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed indisputable power. Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races.[12] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[13]
Following World War II, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The terms neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements.

No comments: