Posted on 10/15/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
“In 1934 a high-ranking member of the Communist Party, Sergei Kirov, was assassinated,” Cornell historian Holly Case wrote in The Chronicle Review. “His death, likely orchestrated by Stalin himself, was used to initiate a mass persecution that would result in over a million imprisoned and hundreds of thousands killed.”
“Actually, she’s a bit off on the casualty count,” we observed. ...
“The late Alexander Yakovlev, the lifelong Soviet apparatchik who in the 1980s became the chief reformer and close aide to Mikhail Gorbachev, and who, in the post-Soviet 1990s, was tasked with the grisly assignment of trying to total the victims of Soviet repression, estimated that Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of 60 to 70 million, a stunning number two to three times higher than estimates in The Black Book of Communism,” Grove City College historian Paul Kengor has noted.
...Case wrote in a letter to us. “Many of Stalin’s victims came before that due to collectivization and dekulakization, which was likely why he initiated the Purge in the first place (to create scapegoats for those atrocities). I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your mistake and withdraw your post, otherwise I will simply conclude that you are ideologically motivated rather than interested in the truth…not unlike Stalin, in fact. “
... the UN, never a virulently anti-Soviet source, has noted that during the Ukrainian famine (1932-1933), “It was estimated that about 25,000 Ukrainians were dying every day during the Famine. ..." & from the Russian Archives themselves, by way of the Library of Congress: “...During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.”
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
No, you can’t blame foreign policy and wars on 3 year olds, 12 and 20 year olds.
I meant the 9.4 million boomers that served in the military.
The under 30 vote of 1972 while we were at war in Vietnam and the draft was going on, when they voted 52% republican and 46% democrat.
The under 30 age group was the most supportive of the Vietnam war, of all the age groups.
It is rude to pimp a blog on FR for site hits.
Some people post the remainder after 300 words in the comments section. Don’t know if there is a limit on those words.
And people give the blog pimps grief, while others give rude pimp-police grief for being rude.
That is the way it works, be rude, someone calls you out for it.
Who said I was blaming the war on the BB’s?
I didn’t have a problem with the war then or now. Parents were hard line Birchers and Arizona Republicans, it’s a foregone conclusion for us!
But far more of them then you may admit were parroting ridiculous crap about the ultimate aims of the Communists EVERYWHERE and willfully ignoring their past.
As far as the ‘72 election, I was in college in a conservative state that year and I can tell you that McGovern was a popular guy on campus. Never heard anyone admit they were for Dick.
There’s no doubt that the war had major support up until 1970, and after that...tapering off. Was it just a small, noisy minority that scared Kissinger and Nixon into negotiating a way out?
Could be. But they certainly did make a LOT of noise if so...and changed the whole country in the process.
But Kissinger and others would not have negotiated that if they thought the country was behind them. Maybe they didn’t see your poll numbers.
Blog pimps are no better than trolls.
And people who defend trolls are themselves trolls.
Sorry, you will find zero sympathy for rude blog pimps fishing for site hits.
Regardless of the people you knew, McGovern only won 46% of the under 30 vote, and the under 30s were the age group that was more supportive of the war than any other age group, including the age groups leading the nation, in fact especially the over 49 age group.
The under 30 support was always much higher than the 49 and over who were always against the war, and almost always over the 30-49, frequently it was double that of the over 49 year olds, for instance in 1971.
You might want to narrow your broad brush, and even redirect your ire at who gave the world Pol Pot.
Under 30 30-49 Over 49 May 1971 34 30 23
I also fail to see how 34% of one age cohort showing support can constitute some sort of generational majority. Between the "no support" and the "no opinion" categories, you have have a majority who cannot be seen as supporting it.
So you have about 1/3 of BB supporting the war in 1971, not a small number (0.34*77 million = 26.2 million approximately).
So while they may have more supportive then the Geezer Gang, it still wasn't anything approching a generational consensus.
But let's go back to what I said. That is that BB's in general didn't seem to be aware of - or discounted - Communist atrocities in the 1930's, and that this skewed their view of the aftermath of a Communist victory.
Perhaps there is no data on this, so you have used support for the war as token representing the opposite view: that they did understand the dreadful possibilities.
I disagree. Even among combat veterans, I was surprised by the number who either were not aware of that history, or didn't think it would actually happen. This is my own personal experience. And it is only related to support for the war - even people who did support the war in many cases told me that they didn't think the North would do that. Very few spoke of the Khmer Rouge; too obscure.
Narrow my broad brush? Perhaps.
My sister was a Goldwater Girl who went to the convention in '64 and by 1972 was wearing a McGovern button (shades of Hillary!). My cousin was on the platform with Mario Savio in '64 when Clark Kerr had all of them either thrown off or arrested. He hasn't changed. I think that the unrelenting propaganda spewed by allegedly objective sources such as the MSM (ABC/SeeBS/NBC) changed many young, impressionable minds. A solid minority never bought that - that's the 34%.
But a lot of others did, and thus we have the modern world where much damage - probably irreparable - has been done.
Was it the 30's Geezers, the old Unionistas who wore the workman's caps and slugged it out with Reuther in Detroit? Or Harry Bridges in San Pedro? They were closet Commies, no doubt about it. I think that's your point: a far larger part of the so-called "Greatest Generation" were Pink Sympathizers with Uncle Joe, and that was the root of their opposition to Vietnam.
Perhaps. Maybe a lot of them just got drafted in WWII and didn't like wars at all. Met a lot of those guys, who were other wise Conservative.
So that's it spud. I still think a lotta Baby Boomers were ignorant boobs who were historically challenged. And that vacancy in their brains persists to this day, although it's somewhat been attenuated by Ronald Reagan's successes, and the reality that came out of the wonderful "Year Zero" of Mr. Pot and his chief executioner, the infamous and suitably named "Yek".
Support for the war, May 1971 :
| Under 30 | 30-49 | Over 49 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34% | 30% | 23% |
If you took the trouble to show the May portion of that chart, why did you go to the trouble to cut off the previous polling results???
Under30—30 to 49—Over 49
January 1970.. 41—— 37—— 25
March 1970.... 48—— 41—— 26
April 1970..... 43—— 40—— 25
January 1971. 41—— 38—— 20
May 1971..... 34—— 30—— 23
You seem obsessed with the people you personally knew, who cares about your sister who attended the 1964 convention (at age 18 or younger I presume), and then became one of the 46% of the under 30 vote for McGovern, not the 54% voting against him.
As far as the under 30 support for the war and the 9.4 million veterans of the boomers, I posted. “””frequently it was double that of the over 49 year olds, for instance in 1971.””” Yet you pretended that you didn’t notice the January, 1971 numbers of 41% support for the Vietnam war from the under 30s, versus the 20% support from the over 49s, that looks like double to me.
You really need to lighten up on your agenda and pay attention to who really was losing the world to the Communists and betraying the boomer fighting men and the people of Cambodia, hint, kids of 5 years old, 15 and 20 years old didn’t run the world.
We need to excerpt Accuracy in Academia?
For the third time. I don’t defend the OP... I just have no sympathy for rude jerks, and wearing the pimp-police badge doesn’t grant an exception. Calling me names doesn’t justify anything.
“I don’t defend teh OP!”
Liar.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3079232/posts?page=20#20
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3079232/posts?page=24#24
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3079232/posts?page=30#30 outright lie
You are defending it by going after us.
And the links I posted to you do indeed state “Post the entire content” if you had actually read what they said.
Now, how about a nice steaming cup of “No Excerpting if the blog and content is yours”?
Again, those who blog pimp are no better than trolls.
And those who defend trolls are themselves trolls.
You will find NO sympathy here from any of us.
And insulting us for reminding blog pimps what the policy is will get short shrift.
Bump for an excellent article.
Ignore the buzzing anti-blogger boogers. Their only pleasure in life appears to be writing snarky trolling comments about how many words you posted from your article.
I’ll be looking at your website. :-)
LOL!
Nice post. :-)
I think their mothers have got the porn filter up on the basement machine, so that leaves them only "busting blog-pimps".
;-)
Yes - it's very annoying reading the snarks from the Usual Suspects. I like your solution.
Not sure the Usual Suspects are capable of doing a simple cut-n-paste, though. It's more fun to troll, I guess...
+1000
“defending it by going after you”
I’m sorry, please quote the policy where Darkshare is not to be criticized for acting like a jerk? I seemed to have missed that one.
I’m not after your sympathy. I’m calling you out on jerk behavior. You are the one whining to be left alone and treated with the kiddy gloves.
Feel free to fight blog pimps all you want. If you manage to do it with some class, I’ll even leave you alone. I am however tired of going to threads to read a good discussion of the topic in the title of that thread only to find your ilk have dumped all over it. The non OP people who read and reply the thread did nothing wrong, but have to endure your childish antics.
Please quote the policy that allows blogpimping!
So you are admitting to defending blogpimping, by the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.