Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok I'll keep this short, Crimea was part of Russia for nearly 200 tears, long before the Soviets and the formation of the USSR, during the time if the USSR the Soviets redrew effectively the borders of Ukraine to then include Crimea, as all was part of the USSR it at that time meant nothing in reality besides a political gesture in reality.

Once the USSR broke up however you're then left with the situation if the redrwawn border of Ukraine containing a part of Russia, and strategically a vitally important one for russian defense and naval operations, then NATO makes moves to incorporate Ukraine into its fold - despite signed agreements they would never seek to include former USSR countries in it, agreements made in the breaking up of the USSR, ones they had already breached in the Baltic states without the Russians redoinding to that provocation. Crimea was the west pushing one step too far and was predictable what would happen.

Do I excuse the action - maybe, maybe not, but what I do is understand why it happened.

As for the two situations involving the UK, the chemical attack has already had major doubt cast on it by an American mediaboutket which is actually pro trump and by a report from Fisk

Yes I'm aware of the history of Crimea - I'm saying that Ukraine's decision to join would have been a matter for them and NATO wasn't forcing them to, whereas Russia forcibly violated the sovereignty of a recognised nation in 2014. They are not comparable; one thing isn't provocation for the other.

To say you 'maybe' excuse the annexation of sovereign territory by Russia is horrifying to me - but then you also probably think the chemical weapon attack in Syria didn't happen and the Skripals had a bad stomach flu or something too. If you're in the Corbyn/Milne bracket of Stalinist political views then so be it, but I really, really don't understand how entrenched the views of some can be into fitting events to slot in to their preconceived stance.
 
Yes I'm aware of the history of Crimea - I'm saying that Ukraine's decision to join would have been a matter for them and NATO wasn't forcing them to, whereas Russia forcibly violated the sovereignty of a recognised nation in 2014. They are not comparable; one thing isn't provocation for the other.

To say you 'maybe' excuse the annexation of sovereign territory by Russia is horrifying to me - but then you also probably think the chemical weapon attack in Syria didn't happen and the Skripals had a bad stomach flu or something too. If you're in the Corbyn/Milne bracket of Stalinist political views then so be it, but I really, really don't understand how entrenched the views of some can be into fitting events to slot in to their preconceived stance.

Mate you compared Corbyn to Stallin just now, take a reality check on having s entrenched and frankly that statement is absurd if you have even the vaguest idea about Stallin.

As for the skirpal case, I see DEFRA have now announced it wasn't a newly rendered method by Russia ofoa watered down form in oaste - which the nedua and givernment anniunced they had informstion dhoeing the Russians had worked in thst delivery system, and thst was applued to a door handle, but was actusllyain liwuid form and highly concentrated.

Seems like the story changes every week, or maybe they haven't got the faintest idea how, why it who did it, I have a kid mate, when his story of what happened changes every five minutes, you can bet as nothing it's because he's lying. Same here, the government's been exposed as lying at least once, been exposed as announcing conclusions about what happened which they've later changed - kinda another lie really isn't it?

Chemical attack in Syria, why do you think it did happen mate, several respected journalists have already reported from ''ground zero' that everything they have seen, heard, witnessed and including talking to random people has shown not a single shred of anyone reporting chemicals where used, under the complete opposite has been said, including by eye witnesses who said categorically that a false alarm was raised by the shire helmets who then filmed them doing the protocol they have to do in such instances.

The Ukraine decision not being forced us utterly irrelevant, as NATzo where the ones who signed the agreement to never include those former USSR countries mate, saying 'but they asked us, how could we say no', is laughsble as a reason to break agreements made.

The equivalent would be Texas leaving the US then allowing Russian military and nuclear weapons to be placed inside it. Nah don't think any in the west would tolerate that would they?
 
Yes I'm aware of the history of Crimea - I'm saying that Ukraine's decision to join would have been a matter for them and NATO wasn't forcing them to, whereas Russia forcibly violated the sovereignty of a recognised nation in 2014. They are not comparable; one thing isn't provocation for the other.

To say you 'maybe' excuse the annexation of sovereign territory by Russia is horrifying to me - but then you also probably think the chemical weapon attack in Syria didn't happen and the Skripals had a bad stomach flu or something too. If you're in the Corbyn/Milne bracket of Stalinist political views then so be it, but I really, really don't understand how entrenched the views of some can be into fitting events to slot in to their preconceived stance.

As for gircrbly violated the sovereigty of another nation, yup they did, as has the us on innumerable occasions, as has the UK also.
 
Mate you compared Corbyn to Stallin just now, take a reality check on having s entrenched and frankly that statement is absurd if you have even the vaguest idea about Stallin.

As for the skirpal case, I see DEFRA have now announced it wasn't a newly rendered method by Russia ofoa watered down form in oaste - which the nedua and givernment anniunced they had informstion dhoeing the Russians had worked in thst delivery system, and thst was applued to a door handle, but was actusllyain liwuid form and highly concentrated.

Seems like the story changes every week, or maybe they haven't got the faintest idea how, why it who did it, I have a kid mate, when his story of what happened changes every five minutes, you can bet as nothing it's because he's lying. Same here, the government's been exposed as lying at least once, been exposed as announcing conclusions about what happened which they've later changed - kinda another lie really isn't it?

Chemical attack in Syria, why do you think it did happen mate, several respected journalists have already reported from ''ground zero' that everything they have seen, heard, witnessed and including talking to random people has shown not a single shred of anyone reporting chemicals where used, under the complete opposite has been said, including by eye witnesses who said categorically that a false alarm was raised by the shire helmets who then filmed them doing the protocol they have to do in such instances.

The Ukraine decision not being forced us utterly irrelevant, as NATzo where the ones who signed the agreement to never include those former USSR countries mate, saying 'but they asked us, how could we say no', is laughsble as a reason to break agreements made.

The equivalent would be Texas leaving the US then allowing Russian military and nuclear weapons to be placed inside it. Nah don't think any in the west would tolerate that would they?

No, I said Stalinist. I didn't compare him to Stalin, I said he belonged to that certain political ideology. He and specifically his closest advisor Seumas Milne are pretty much Stalinist poster children.

I'd reply to the rest but I'm fairly sure your keyboard died, so I wouldn't want to misinterpret what you've said.
 
Ok I'll keep this short, Crimea was part of Russia for nearly 200 tears, long before the Soviets and the formation of the USSR, during the time if the USSR the Soviets redrew effectively the borders of Ukraine to then include Crimea, as all was part of the USSR it at that time meant nothing in reality besides a political gesture in reality.

Once the USSR broke up however you're then left with the situation if the redrwawn border of Ukraine containing a part of Russia, and strategically a vitally important one for russian defense and naval operations, then NATO makes moves to incorporate Ukraine into its fold - despite signed agreements they would never seek to include former USSR countries in it, agreements made in the breaking up of the USSR, ones they had already breached in the Baltic states without the Russians redoinding to that provocation. Crimea was the west pushing one step too far and was predictable what would happen.

Do I excuse the action - maybe, maybe not, but what I do is understand why it happened.

As for the two situations involving the UK, the chemical attack has already had major doubt cast on it by an American mediaboutket which is actually pro trump and by a report from Fisk

Personally I have no problem with Russia taking over the Crimea and I said so at the time. Crimea was always part of Russia and is its main naval base. There was no way it would ever let it become part of the EU and then NATO. So no real issue from me. It’s incursion into Eastern Ukraine however is a totally different matter.....

Your continued excuses for Russia in respect of Chemical attacks in the U.K. do you no favour.......
 
Nice piece in the Economist this week - https://www.economist.com/news/brit...use-force-threatens-make-world-more-dangerous

GEORGE ORWELL wrote, a little wickedly, in “The Road to Wigan Pier” that the British left acts as an irresistible magnet to cranks of every variety: fruit-juice drinkers, nudists, sandal-wearers, sex-maniacs, “nature cure” quacks, and, a particular peeve of his, pacifists. On the whole the Labour Party has done an admirable job of keeping its crank-wing under control when it comes to serious issues like national security. Ernest Bevin was one of the architects of NATO. Nye Bevan slammed supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament with a rhetorical flourish about sending a foreign secretary “naked into the conference chamber”. Tony Blair’s failure, if anything, was to go too far in the use of force.

There are two exceptions to this tradition. One was in 1980-83, when Michael Foot committed Labour to unilateral nuclear disarmament and shrinking the armed forces. That hardly mattered because Foot was crushed under the wheels of Margaret Thatcher’s chariot in the general election of 1983. Another was in 1932-35, when the party was led by a committed pacifist, George Lansbury. In 1933 Labour’s annual conference passed a resolution calling for “the total disarmament of all nations” and pledging never to take part in any war. The party routinely opposed rearmament. This mattered enormously. Adolf Hitler and his confrères took it as evidence that they could proceed with impunity.

Enter Jeremy Corbyn. Today’s world has more than a whiff of the 1930s about it. The old order is shaky. Strongmen are on the march. Wars on the periphery are threatening to spread. And the leader of the Labour Party is talking about peace. The big difference this time is that Mr Corbyn is much more powerful than Lansbury ever was. He has a tight grip on his party apparatus and is the most likely winner of the next general election.

Mr Corbyn says that he is not a pacifist. He is willing to sanction the use of force in certain circumstances—“under international law and as a genuine last resort”—and gives the second world war as an example of a conflict he would have been willing to support. It is true that he is not a pacifist, but not for the high-minded reasons that he gives. He has spent his life opposing the use of force by Western governments. He not only objected to the Iraq war, and acted as chairman of the Stop the War Coalition in 2011-15. He also opposed the West’s decision to strike against Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 1999. He not only spent his youth campaigning against the Vietnam war and nuclear weapons. He has also been a longtime critic of NATO.

But his conscience has been less sensitive when it comes to opposing the use of force by anti-Western regimes or by various non-state actors. He half-justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, saying that the roots of the conflict lay in “belligerence” from the West and that Vladimir Putin was “not unprovoked”. He has often found time to hold meetings with left-wing groups that have sanctioned the use of violence to achieve their aims. In 1984, a few weeks after an IRA bomb nearly killed Thatcher (and did kill five others) at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton, he invited Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA’s political wing, to Parliament for a reception. The essence of Corbynism is the rejection of one of the basic tenets of British foreign policy: that you side with the West, rather than its enemies. He is a pacifist of ideological convenience rather than principle.

Two noxious events in the past two months—a poisoning in Salisbury and a chemical attack in Syria—have given a vivid sense of what Mr Corbyn’s quasi-pacifism means in practice. He has repeatedly raised questions about the government’s (and indeed the West’s) version of events. He has called for the government to delay acting until international bodies have had their say—despite the fact that, in the case of Syria, Russia’s ability to veto any decision by the UN means that this would be like waiting for Godot.

Mr Corbyn’s prevarications are a reminder of what a risk Britain would be taking with its foreign policy if it sent Mr Corbyn to Downing Street in the next election, which is due in 2022 but could happen earlier given the government’s lack of a majority and the agonies of Brexit. A Corbyn government would weaken Britain’s relations with its allies. The United States might well refuse to share sensitive information with a leader who has built his career on anti-Americanism. It would weaken NATO, since Mr Corbyn has refused to say whether he believes in Article 5 (which states that an attack on one is an attack on all) and has opposed the use of nuclear weapons (bizarrely, he supports maintaining Britain’s nuclear submarines but not arming them). It would also embolden Mr Putin, who could assume that, through the UN, he could exercise a veto over British foreign policy—and thereby neutralise one of the world’s strongest military powers and one of the West’s most consistent champions.

Nudists in the conference chamber

The classic objection to pacifism is that it makes conflict more likely, because bullies conclude that they can act unpunished. This is even more true of Mr Corbyn’s quasi-pacifism. It insists on erecting endless obstacles to the West’s use of force, from the seemingly reasonable (such as a parliamentary debate before the use of force), to the deliberately impossible, such as international consensus. At the same time, it makes endless excuses for the use of force by the West’s enemies.

In 1935, as the strongmen flexed their muscles, the Labour Party replaced the hapless Lansbury with Major Clement Attlee, who combined a vigorous support for Britain’s entry into the second world war with unceasing work to found the post-war welfare state. Today, alas, Labour’s parliamentary party is bereft of Attlees. Meanwhile, the party in the country is dominated by sandal-wearers and nature-cure quacks, who are willing to give the slippery Mr Corbyn the benefit of the doubt in return for the vague promise of a more just society.
 
British Democracy is Dysfunctional 556
19 Apr, 2018 in Uncategorized by craig
A significant proportion of Labour MPs are actively seeking to cause their own party to do badly in forthcoming local elections, with the aim of damaging the leader of that party. To that end they have attacked Jeremy Corbyn relentlessly in a six week crescendo, in parliament and in the entirely neo-liberal owned corporate media, over the Skripal case, over Syria, and over crazy allegations of anti-semitism, again and again and again.

I recall reporting on an Uzbek Presidential election where the “opposition” candidate advised voters to vote for President Karimov. When you have senior Labour MPs including John Woodcock, Jess Phillips, John Mann, Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and Ruth Smeeth carrying on a barrage of attacks on their own leader during a campaign, and openly supporting Government positions, British democracy has become completely dysfunctional. No amount of posing with leaflets in their constituencies will disguise what they are doing, and every Labour activist and trade unionist knows it.

British democracy cannot become functional again until Labour voters have a chance to vote for candidates of their party who are not supporters of the neo-liberal establishment. This can only happen by the removal as Labour candidates of a very large number of Labour MPs.

That it is “undemocratic” for party members to select their candidates freely at each election, and it is “democratic” for MP’s to have the guaranteed candidacy for forty years irrespective of their behaviour, is a nonsensical argument, but one to which the neo-liberal media fiercely clings as axiomatic. Meanwhile in the SNP, all MPs have to put themselves forward to party members equally with other candidates for selection at every election. This seems perfectly normal. Indeed every serious democratic system elects people for a fixed term. Labour members do not elect their constituency chairman for life, so why should they elect their parliamentary candidate for life? Why do we keep having general elections rather than voters elect the MP for life?

Election of parliamentary candidates for life is in fact a perfectly ludicrous proposition, but as it is currently vital to attempts to retain undisputed neo-liberal hegemony, anybody who dissents from the idea that candidacy is for life is reviled in the corporate and state media as anti-democratic, whereas the truth is of course the precise opposite.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership was a fundamental change in the UK. Previously the choice offered to electors in England and Wales was between two parties with barely distinguishable neo-liberal domestic policies, and barely distinguishable neo-conservative foreign policies. Jeremy Corbyn then erupted onto centre stage from the deepest backbenches, and suddenly democracy appeared to offer people an actual choice. Except that at the centre of power Jeremy did not in fact command his own party, as its MPs were largely from the carefully vetted Progress camp and deeply wedded to neo-conservative foreign policy, including a deep-seated devotion to the interests of the state of Israel as defined by the Israeli settlers and nationalist wing, and almost as strongly wedded to the economic shibboleths of neo-liberalism.

These Labour MPs were, in general, prepared grudgingly to go along with a slightly more social democratic economic policy, but drew the line absolutely at abandoning the neo-conservative foreign policy of their hero Tony Blair. So pro-USA policy, support for bombings and missiles as “liberal intervention” in a Middle Eastern policy firmly aligned to the interests of Israel and against the Palestinians, and support for nuclear weapons and the promotion of arms industry interests through a new cold war against Russia, are the grounds on which they stand the most firmly against their own party leadership – and members. Over these issues, these Labour MPs will support, including with voting in parliament, the Tories any day.

I have never voted Labour. I come from a philosophical viewpoint of the liberal individualist rather than of working class solidarity. Labour support for nuclear weapons and other WMD, in the blinkered interest of the members of the General Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union, is one reason that I could not vote Labour. The other is of course that in many cases, if you vote Labour you are very likely to be sending to parliament an individual who will vote with the Tories to escalate the arms race and conduct dangerous and destructive proxy wars in the Middle East.

There is an excellent article on Another Angry Voice which lists the only 18 MPs who were brave enough to vote against Theresa May’s 2014 Immigration Act, which enshrined dogwhistle racism and the hostile environment policy.

Diane Abbott (Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru)
Mark Lazarowicz (Labour)
John Leech (Liberal Democrat)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
Fiona Mactaggart (Labour)
John McDonnell (Labour)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Dennis Skinner (Labour)
Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat)
David Ward (Liberal Democrat)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru)
Pete Wishart (SNP)

5 of the 6 SNP MPs stood against this racism (the sixth was absent) and the current leadership of the Labour Party stood alone against the Blairites and Tories in doing so. The Windrush shame should inspire Labour members to deselect every single one of the Red Tories who failed to vote against that Immigration Act. It is also a measure of the appalling shame of the Liberal Democrats, of whom only three of their sixty odd MPs opposed it, and who consigned themselves to the dustbin of history through Nick Clegg’s gross careerism and right wing principles.

There is more to say though. This vote is testament to the great deal in common which the SNP have with the current Labour leadership (who also personally consistently opposed Trident), as opposed to with the bulk of Labour MPs. Put another way, Corbyn, Abbot and McDonnell have more in common with the SNP than the Blairites. It is also a roll-call of those MPs who have most consistently stood against the appalling slow genocide of the Palestinians. It is astonishing how often that issue is a reliable touchstone of where people stand in modern British politics.

Corbyn’s supporters have slowly gained control of major institutions within the Labour Party. The essential next move is for compulsory re-selection of parliamentary candidates at every election and an organised purge of the Blairites. If the Labour Party does not take that step, I could not in conscience urge anyone to vote for it, even in England, but rather to look very carefully at the actual individual candidates standing and decide who deserves your support.
 
British Democracy is Dysfunctional 556
19 Apr, 2018 in Uncategorized by craig
A significant proportion of Labour MPs are actively seeking to cause their own party to do badly in forthcoming local elections, with the aim of damaging the leader of that party. To that end they have attacked Jeremy Corbyn relentlessly in a six week crescendo, in parliament and in the entirely neo-liberal owned corporate media, over the Skripal case, over Syria, and over crazy allegations of anti-semitism, again and again and again.

I recall reporting on an Uzbek Presidential election where the “opposition” candidate advised voters to vote for President Karimov. When you have senior Labour MPs including John Woodcock, Jess Phillips, John Mann, Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and Ruth Smeeth carrying on a barrage of attacks on their own leader during a campaign, and openly supporting Government positions, British democracy has become completely dysfunctional. No amount of posing with leaflets in their constituencies will disguise what they are doing, and every Labour activist and trade unionist knows it.

British democracy cannot become functional again until Labour voters have a chance to vote for candidates of their party who are not supporters of the neo-liberal establishment. This can only happen by the removal as Labour candidates of a very large number of Labour MPs.

That it is “undemocratic” for party members to select their candidates freely at each election, and it is “democratic” for MP’s to have the guaranteed candidacy for forty years irrespective of their behaviour, is a nonsensical argument, but one to which the neo-liberal media fiercely clings as axiomatic. Meanwhile in the SNP, all MPs have to put themselves forward to party members equally with other candidates for selection at every election. This seems perfectly normal. Indeed every serious democratic system elects people for a fixed term. Labour members do not elect their constituency chairman for life, so why should they elect their parliamentary candidate for life? Why do we keep having general elections rather than voters elect the MP for life?

Election of parliamentary candidates for life is in fact a perfectly ludicrous proposition, but as it is currently vital to attempts to retain undisputed neo-liberal hegemony, anybody who dissents from the idea that candidacy is for life is reviled in the corporate and state media as anti-democratic, whereas the truth is of course the precise opposite.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership was a fundamental change in the UK. Previously the choice offered to electors in England and Wales was between two parties with barely distinguishable neo-liberal domestic policies, and barely distinguishable neo-conservative foreign policies. Jeremy Corbyn then erupted onto centre stage from the deepest backbenches, and suddenly democracy appeared to offer people an actual choice. Except that at the centre of power Jeremy did not in fact command his own party, as its MPs were largely from the carefully vetted Progress camp and deeply wedded to neo-conservative foreign policy, including a deep-seated devotion to the interests of the state of Israel as defined by the Israeli settlers and nationalist wing, and almost as strongly wedded to the economic shibboleths of neo-liberalism.

These Labour MPs were, in general, prepared grudgingly to go along with a slightly more social democratic economic policy, but drew the line absolutely at abandoning the neo-conservative foreign policy of their hero Tony Blair. So pro-USA policy, support for bombings and missiles as “liberal intervention” in a Middle Eastern policy firmly aligned to the interests of Israel and against the Palestinians, and support for nuclear weapons and the promotion of arms industry interests through a new cold war against Russia, are the grounds on which they stand the most firmly against their own party leadership – and members. Over these issues, these Labour MPs will support, including with voting in parliament, the Tories any day.

I have never voted Labour. I come from a philosophical viewpoint of the liberal individualist rather than of working class solidarity. Labour support for nuclear weapons and other WMD, in the blinkered interest of the members of the General Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union, is one reason that I could not vote Labour. The other is of course that in many cases, if you vote Labour you are very likely to be sending to parliament an individual who will vote with the Tories to escalate the arms race and conduct dangerous and destructive proxy wars in the Middle East.

There is an excellent article on Another Angry Voice which lists the only 18 MPs who were brave enough to vote against Theresa May’s 2014 Immigration Act, which enshrined dogwhistle racism and the hostile environment policy.

Diane Abbott (Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru)
Mark Lazarowicz (Labour)
John Leech (Liberal Democrat)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
Fiona Mactaggart (Labour)
John McDonnell (Labour)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Dennis Skinner (Labour)
Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat)
David Ward (Liberal Democrat)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru)
Pete Wishart (SNP)

5 of the 6 SNP MPs stood against this racism (the sixth was absent) and the current leadership of the Labour Party stood alone against the Blairites and Tories in doing so. The Windrush shame should inspire Labour members to deselect every single one of the Red Tories who failed to vote against that Immigration Act. It is also a measure of the appalling shame of the Liberal Democrats, of whom only three of their sixty odd MPs opposed it, and who consigned themselves to the dustbin of history through Nick Clegg’s gross careerism and right wing principles.

There is more to say though. This vote is testament to the great deal in common which the SNP have with the current Labour leadership (who also personally consistently opposed Trident), as opposed to with the bulk of Labour MPs. Put another way, Corbyn, Abbot and McDonnell have more in common with the SNP than the Blairites. It is also a roll-call of those MPs who have most consistently stood against the appalling slow genocide of the Palestinians. It is astonishing how often that issue is a reliable touchstone of where people stand in modern British politics.

Corbyn’s supporters have slowly gained control of major institutions within the Labour Party. The essential next move is for compulsory re-selection of parliamentary candidates at every election and an organised purge of the Blairites. If the Labour Party does not take that step, I could not in conscience urge anyone to vote for it, even in England, but rather to look very carefully at the actual individual candidates standing and decide who deserves your support.

Dear god, where do they find these people, they can’t all be Russian bots........
 
No, but it won't stop you calling them that when you know you don't have a rational case.

Here's the thing though - Corbyn himself benefited from those very same conventions and wasn't deselected during the Blair years, despite being 10x the 'rebel' to his party than anyone is to him.

What that article is calling for is the purge of all dissenting voices so that all comrades are singing from the same hymn sheet for dear leader.

And people wonder why I label Corbyn/Momentum as 'Stalinist'...
 
Here's the thing though - Corbyn himself benefited from those very same conventions and wasn't deselected during the Blair years, despite being 10x the 'rebel' to his party than anyone is to him.

What that article is calling for is the purge of all dissenting voices so that all comrades are singing from the same hymn sheet for dear leader.

And people wonder why I label Corbyn/Momentum as 'Stalinist'...

Just hate Corbyn and vote Tory even though you claim to be a Labour supporter. You would rather have the Tories than Corbyn's, and the members Labour Party, even when the Tories constantly and viciously attack the poor, vulnerable, disabled, weak and Windrush British citizens. But 'at least they are not Corbyn'. How do you normally respond when someone who disagrees with you, 'tit'.
 

"In 1933 Labour’s annual conference passed a resolution calling for “the total disarmament of all nations” and pledging never to take part in any war. The party routinely opposed rearmament. This mattered enormously. Adolf Hitler and his confrères took it as evidence that they could proceed with impunity".

Rubbish. Hitler took 'strength' for the fact that half the establishment were Nazi supporters including the King in waiting and the Rothmere's and the British banking fraternity who bankrolled him until 1941 etc.. Sections of the ruling classes message to Hitler was he could 'proceed with impunity' including 'practicisng the Blitzkreig in Spain during the Spanish Civil War when the British establishment refused an alliance with the USSR to stop Hitler. The ruling classes 'pacifism' 'do what you want Men Fruhreh' dressed up as 'appeasement' gave Hitler all the 'evidence that they could proceed with impunity'.

"In 1984, a few weeks after an IRA bomb nearly killed Thatcher (and did kill five others) at the Conservative Party conference in Brighton, he invited Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA’s political wing, to Parliament for a reception. The essence of Corbynism is the rejection of one of the basic tenets of British foreign policy: that you side with the West, rather than its enemies. He is a pacifist of ideological convenience rather than principle".

Jesus wept. Ireland is in the West. What a numpty this Bagehot really is. Yet another anti Corbyn windbag whoever they are. Rewrite history to blame Corbyn. The establishment will stop at nothing at this moment to stop Corbyn including General's threatening a military coup if he leads the Labour Party to election success.
 

Let's blame Pacifism for the rise of Hitler. Nice piece in the Independent from 1997. So how someone can blame Corbyn's pacifism in 2018 for the rise of Hitler must have an agenda.

The Nazis' British bankers
Secret war documents may reveal that Germany had staunch allies at the Bank of England
In a vault in Basle, Switzerland, lie some of the most politically sensitive documents of the Second World War.

Historians uncovering the story of the gold trade that financed the Nazi war machine would love to have sight of them - not because they will provide further evidence of Swiss guilt in the trade but because they could expose other countries involved, including Britain.

In the saga of Nazi gold, it is always the Swiss who are to blame; the Swiss who were prepared to accept bullion looted from the victims of German oppression to the extent that the war was prolonged longer than necessary. But if the historians are right, these papers will go to the heart of the British financial establishment and raise questions about the allegiance of one of the most powerful figures of his day, former Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Montagu "Monty" Norman. Academics believe the archive will show that the Bank, led by Sir Monty, bent over backwards to help the Nazi war machine.

In an age without television and media access, Norman's was a household name. Famed for his supercilious manner, bad temper and contempt for the political leaders of his day, he was a banker's banker, whose aim was to create a network of central bankers like himself, free of the control of governments.

That, at least, is one explanation for Norman's behaviour in the years before the Second World War. There is another: that Norman was a German sympathiser, who wanted to ensure the German economy could fuel the country's war machine and that the Nazis had an outlet for their looted gold.

So concerned were the Americans about Norman that in the summer of 1942 President Roosevelt sent a report on his activities to Sir Winston Churchill. The British Prime Minister asked Anthony Eden, his Secretary for War, to look into the American concerns, in particular the allegation that Norman had met Hjalmar Schacht, a senior German official in neutral Sweden, in May 1941.

Herr Schacht was thought to be trying to broker some sort of peace deal. Norman was his chosen conduit. Papers filed in the Eden archive at Birmingham University reveal what must have been an unprecedented exchange: Churchill's right-hand man quizzing the Governor of the Bank of England about his allegiances. Norman denied seeing Herr Schacht for over a year.

For Churchill, this was not good enough. In a memo to Eden, the Prime Minister pointed out the war was now three years old, not one year. Norman's answer, thought Churchill, was inadequate. He instructed Eden to dig deeper. But at this point, the file goes dead: what further details Eden extracted from Norman are not recorded. Typically, Churchill did not want the Americans to know of his concerns. They were sent a bland reassurance that all was well with Norman.

So what was the Governor up to? Scott Newton, lecturer in modern history at Cardiff University, says there is "nothing in the file to clear Montagu Norman of the American charge". He was rightly suspected, says Newton, of being involved in "an unsavoury peace deal behind the government's back. Bearing in mind the report came from the US President, it would have relied upon good intelligence."

Norman, says Newton, "was trying to prevent the war developing to the point where the Bank of England was in danger of losing the prestige it had built up between the wars. Norman had a view that the world ought to be run by central bankers. He was not in any sense a democrat and he was worried the war would undermine the contacts he had created." Churchill, says Newton, "could not stand him; he distrusted him enormously".

The extent of the Bank of England's involvement has still not been disclosed. Documents from the period have convinced several historians that the Bank, through its redoubtable Governor, played a pivotal role. But the records which could reveal the detail remain inaccessible to historians in the Bank of International Settlements based in Basle, Switzerland.

Established after the First World War to smooth the system of compensation by Germany to the Allies for the conflict, BIS is a bank for central banks. It is more than a mere mechanism for moving money between governments, however. The meetings of its board are talking shops for the world's most powerful financial figures, a club where they can talk without interference from politicians and government officials. One of its most influential members in the years before the Second World War was Sir Montagu Norman.

On 15 March 1939, Hitler completed his rout of Czechoslovakia, making a triumphant entrance into Prague. One of his first acts was to order the directors of the Czech national bank to hand over the country's gold reserve. For Hitler, the Czech gold was a vital replenishment of rapidly dwindling reserves. An increasingly isolated Germany needed gold to barter for raw materials.

The Czech directors told the Germans it was too late; the gold had already been deposited via BIS in the Bank of England. The Germans ordered them to retrieve it. BIS did not deal in physical transfers of money or bullion - most of them took place on paper, by central banks adjusting their accounts with each other. The Czechs called BIS, which contacted London.

Norman obliged, instructing BIS to deduct the gold's value, some $40m (pounds 24m) at 1939 prices, from the Bank of England's account in Basle. The gold went back to Czechoslovakia, and to the Reichsbank in Berlin.

News of the trade did not leak out for two months. Then, in May 1939, prompted by a tip from a journalist, George Strauss, the Labour MP, asked Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, if it was true that the national treasure of Czechoslovakia was being given to Germany.

The Government, advised by Norman, said it was impossible to determine who was the real owner of gold that passed through BIS; that the Basle institution was heavily protected by international protocols; and that as a banker for central banks, its dealings had to remain confidential.

In fact, Norman knew all along who was the rightful owner of the gold. He had told a Whitehall committee on 22 March 1939 that he had received a call from the Governor of the Bank of France, on behalf of BIS, asking for the return of the gold. "We did absolutely nothing," says historian Scott Newton. "Here was Czechoslovakia that had been invaded, and here was Monty Norman approving the transfer of its gold to the Reichsbank."

Norman's agreement, says Newton, was no surprise. "Monty Norman and the leading merchant banks in the City were up to their necks in helping to prop up the German financial system. The Germans owed a lot of money to British banks."

The bankers did not want the Americans to emerge from the war with the upper hand, economically. Dr Neville Wylie, research fellow in Modern History at Cam- bridge University, says "there was a strain of German sympathy within the Bank and the City. The alternative - of dealing with the rampant capitalists across the Atlantic - did not appeal."

How far that sympathy went, beyond the Czechoslovakian deal, will only be revealed when the BIS records are finally opened".

The British establishment played its part in the rise of Hitler, as did their 'pacifism' towards the Nazi's in allowing them to test their Blitzkeig against the Spanish republic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top