I should have left Nazi stag party earlier that night, admits Aidan Burley MP


5:50 pm - December 18th 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Spacey

After being photographed at a stag party with a man dressed in a Nazi uniform, Conservative MP Aidan Burley has Insisted he should have left earlier because dressing up like an SS officer only starts to become offensive after 9pm.

Mr Burley has apologised for the incident, but insisted that he had “simply lost track of time”.

“When I arrived at the party I noticed that some of the guests were dressed as SS officers and toasting the ideology of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime.”

“I could have left in complete disgust straight away, but I noticed it was only 7pm, so I figured I was good to go.”

But the Conservative Party said the MP was being removed from his post and it was launching a fuller investigation “in light of information received”.

“We had hoped that the photographs of Aiden were taken before the time of night when it becomes extremely distasteful to embrace Nazism for laughs,” revealed a party spokesman.

“Unfortunately it looks like the pictures may have been taken a whole 45 minutes after it starts to become abhorrent.”

Prime Minister David Cameron has requested a fuller investigation into the matter after the new information was received.

“The Prime Minister had originally given Aiden the benefit of the doubt,” said the spokesman.

“A little bit of Third Reich tomfoolery is commonplace at these sort of events, but you have to know when to draw the line.”

“I think details of the buffet including dishes such as Chicken Swastika Masala, Egg Fried Reich and Potato Waffens has left the Prime Minister with no other option.”


This is a satirical article. Spacey writes more regularly for the spoof news site Newsthump.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Humour

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I reckon it would be a smart move for Conservative central office to start a subsidiary business hiring out costumes to Conservative MPs for fancy dress parties. That should help to boost party funds – and the party could vet the costumes to prevent future embarrassments.

I like a bit of dark humour me. But I hate reactionary tossers like this bloke’s friends who just do it be “politically incorrect”.

The only reason you would go to France, dress up like a Nazi, racially abuse a waiter, abuse other customers, (including an older Jew), shout ‘Hitler’ in public and give the Nazi salute is to start a fight.

It’s a pity the town did not have a CRS riot squad barracks – then the party could have ended with a bang.

Ooo OO MISS ! Aidan said a naughty word . Lucky nothing worse than offensive humour ever happens on stags eh ..

Child

Before Sally comes on here with her usual slanderous comments about “brownshirts”, would she please take note that this was a Schutzstaffel uniforn, and NOT a Sturmabteilung uniform.

We have nothing whatever to do with those Strasserist thugs.

SSHQ: “We have nothing whatever to do with those Strasserist thugs.”

Quite so. The most notable of the Strasserist and Sturmabteilung thugs were quickly disposed of during the so-called “Night of the Long Knives” between 30 June and 2 July 1934. “At least 85 died during the purge, although the final death toll may have been in the hundreds”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Reportedly, Stalin found the Night of Long Knives inspirational, reputedly commenting: “Hitler, what a lad! Knows how to deal with political opponents!”

7. Stephen Gardner

The Brothers and Sisters of the Manc Marquee have been running around in black polar necks blowing up Nazi’s for years. The thing we don’t understand is why the saarf never got it and keeps voting them back in.
We’re long since liberated from the jackboot of a Tory MP. It’s the Lib Collabaratuers who us up north are looking forward to delivering Nuremburg style justice to.
Before he died my great grandfarther said to my Father, Whatever you do son. Don’t vote Liberal. Come the General Election Manchester is going to make sure I’ll never have to say that to a grandchild of mine

8. So Much For Subtlety

6. Bob B

Reportedly, Stalin found the Night of Long Knives inspirational, reputedly commenting: “Hitler, what a lad! Knows how to deal with political opponents!”

Yeah. Because Stalin hadn’t murdered anyone before 1934 had he?

9. So Much For Subtlety

I think people need to keep this is perspective. This man just dressed up in a funny uniform. It is not as if he embraced Vidkun Quisling or the ideas of the British Union of Fascists is it? It is not as if the Tories have ties to the Nazis or any of their long time supporters, is it?

So how can we compare the offense of that with the offense of this:

http://www.sociology.leeds.ac.uk/bauman/conference/video/plenary1.php

To repeat once more:

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

Bauman went on to serve in the Soviet-controlled Polish First Army, working as a political education instructor and taking part in the battles of Kolberg (now Ko?obrzeg) and Berlin. In May 1945 he was awarded the Military Cross of Valour.

According to semi-official statements of a historian with the Polish Institute of National Remembrance made in the conservative magazine Ozon in May 2006, from 1945 to 1953 Bauman held a similar function in the Internal Security Corps (KBW), a military unit formed to combat Ukrainian nationalist insurgents and part of the remnants of the Polish Home Army.

Bauman, the magazine states, distinguished himself as the leader of a unit that captured a large number of underground combatants. Further, the author cites evidence that Bauman worked as an informer for the Military Intelligence from 1945 to 1948. However, the nature and extent of his collaboration remain unknown, as well as the exact circumstances under which it was terminated.[1]

In an interview in The Guardian, Bauman confirmed that he had been a committed communist during and after World War II and had never made a secret of it. He admitted, however, that joining the military intelligence service at age 19 was a mistake even though he had a “dull” desk-job and did not remember informing on anyone.[2]

Until Leftist groups like Compass admit the obvious – that people involved in Stalinist mass murder like Bauman are utterly unacceptable – the Left has no basis whatsoever for condemning anyone for anything to do with the Nazis. Not even someone like Heidegger who joined the Party – after all Bauman is socially acceptable despite doing vastly worse.

It is Political correctness gone mad! What a sad day for British Democracy that a Tory MP needs to feel ashamed just because he was photographed with a tosser wearing a NAZI uniform.

Not to normal people: At what point do you look at middle aged ‘friends’ and think that perhaps they have not developed as you might have hoped? Who wears a Nazi uniform to a trip to France?

I have to be honest, here. I know I have a bit of a reputation for having a negative opinion of the modern Conservative Party, so I will freely admit that I am not entirely objective on this matter. Having said that, I get the distinct impression what we have here is a small group of smarmy hooray Henries who went to France to act in an obnoxious manner towards foreigners. I wonder if a Nazi uniform was not a purely random choice of costume.

Look at the picture again:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/10/article-2072639-0F220C8300000578-47_634x697.jpg

Look at those eyes and the general facial expression on this guy’s face and ask yourself this:

‘Is this the image you would expect from, say a Freddie Star sketch or ‘Fawlty Towers episode?’,
come to think of it, does it look like the type of comedy of ‘Allo Allo’?

I once heard Bill Cash say on a TV show that there is no difference between a Liberal and a socialist. If that is the broad definition tories work to, then there is no difference between a tory and a fascist.

You notice I say fascist, not Nazi. Most tories deep down are of a particular flavour of fascism. They all may not want to build camps, but a merging of Military, state politicians and leaders of Industry working together for each others interests is pretty much their model.

The Bush administration was essentially fascist in that sense. People like Cheney moving from Private industry to govt where he th3n helped start wars which are contracted out in no bid contracts to his former company.

@8: “Yeah. Because Stalin hadn’t murdered anyone before 1934 had he?”

Stalin set a MO for category killing with the famines in Ukraine and Belarus in 1932/3 – the Communist Party’s policy of “eliminating the kulaks as a class” was announced in a speech made by Stalin in December 1929.

The famines killed millions in the course of collectivising agriculture in the Soviet Union but were indiscriminate in their consequences and didn’t deal with Stalin’s political opponents in the upper echelons of the Soviet Communist Party. He set up the Moscow Show Trials starting in 1936 to do that – long standing Bolsheviks confessed to conspiring with western countries to assassinate Stalin, were duly convicted and shot. By accounts, the trials and sentences were more decorously conducted than the purge during the Night of the Long Knives in Nazi Germany in 1934. By some reports, Hitler personally executed Ernst Röhm, leader of the Sturmabteilung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials

Khrushchev denounced the Show Trials at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in 1956.

it’s strange thaqt we never saw Labour MPs in their KGB uniforms…were they too shy to wear them?

and it was well-known that CND was funded by East Germany and yet monsignor Bruce Kent never wore his well-deserved uniform…why was that?

@12 Not to mention that Churchill bloke, I hear he and his nation actually teamed themselves up with the Soviets! Can you believe that spartish tosspot!

16. Chaise Guevara

@ 8 SMFS

“Yeah. Because Stalin hadn’t murdered anyone before 1934 had he?”

Fair point, for all I’ve been shouting at you elsewhere. Plenty of places use imagery from Russia’s Stalinist era. And there’s a bar up the way from me modelled around Che Guevara, who isn’t on the level of Hitler or Stalin but still was hardly Captain Wonderful.

In fact, my pseudonym is a bad joke based on Che’s name, and I only get hassle for it every six months or so, normally from people who think it means I actually look up to the man. So all this outrage at the insult this guy has apparently delivered seems somewhat opportunistic, especially given that it’s guilt by association.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ 9 Jim

“Look at those eyes and the general facial expression on this guy’s face and ask yourself this:

‘Is this the image you would expect from, say a Freddie Star sketch or ‘Fawlty Towers episode?’,
come to think of it, does it look like the type of comedy of ‘Allo Allo’?”

“Just look at his eyes” has to be a contender for the least convincing attack of all time. It’s really, really easy to read what you want to into someone’s expression. I could probably show you a picture of the world’s greatest humanitarian, tell you he was a serial killer, and you’d see the evil in his eyes immediately. And I don’t mean that you’re personally credulous: we do this automatically.

There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face, as some old-fashioned dude said once.

18. So Much For Subtlety

13. diogenes

it’s strange thaqt we never saw Labour MPs in their KGB uniforms…were they too shy to wear them?

The Communists never really produced aesthetically pleasing uniforms. Perhaps the answer is as simple as that – the Soviets did not have Hugh Boss to design their uniforms. On the other hand the Labour Party has a number of members who saw nothing wrong whatsoever with taking money from mass murderers. They took freebies to the Soviet bloc regularly. Mandelstam for instance. The Labour Party has not held anyone accountable for their pro-Soviet attitudes. So I guess they don’t need the uniform if they have the bank book.

14. diogenes

and it was well-known that CND was funded by East Germany and yet monsignor Bruce Kent never wore his well-deserved uniform…why was that?

No idea. He was a Useful Idiot? On the other hand the Green Party has no problems with their fact one of their candidates, Bea Campbell, was a regular recipient of largess from the East Germans – who provided her with free holidays.

15. Cylux

Not to mention that Churchill bloke, I hear he and his nation actually teamed themselves up with the Soviets! Can you believe that spartish tosspot!

Terrible mistake. Almost as bad as if he had allied himself with the Nazis.

16. Chaise Guevara

Plenty of places use imagery from Russia’s Stalinist era. And there’s a bar up the way from me modelled around Che Guevara, who isn’t on the level of Hitler or Stalin but still was hardly Captain Wonderful.

You see the Red Star on the odd piece of fashion. Left wing imagery is vastly more acceptable than Nazi imagery. I assume it is because to all Right Thinking people Communist mass murder is not a bad idea.

In fact, my pseudonym is a bad joke based on Che’s name, and I only get hassle for it every six months or so, normally from people who think it means I actually look up to the man. So all this outrage at the insult this guy has apparently delivered seems somewhat opportunistic, especially given that it’s guilt by association.

Well it is not much different from putting on the uniform. So I can see why people get upset. But most of the people who are upset probably do have a poster of Che somewhere.

We recently had a spat in hour local Paper when a long lived Communist and writer died . At first there were warm words but gradually and for the next month a bitter reaction began. People were quick to say that had he been a Nazi in his youth, even, then we would hardly be sending him off with a clap.Its the sanctimony of these muddle headed old bastards that infuriates you.
I don`t really understand how a revolutionary socialist and nationalist Party has any connection with the Conservative Party at all. Fascism came from indisputably left wing roots with Mussolini, a prominent socialist and the word itself was Italian dialect for Union. If you look at the Moseley Memorandum ( the ostensible reason for his leaving the Labour Party) his complaint is that Labour is insufficiently left wing . In fact some of his ideas, Nationalised Banks have resurfaced recently when, once again, the left think they know of an international conspiracy if money lenders.
Anti Semitism has long been the province of the left who support their enemies both here ( Islam) and abroad. Margaret thatcher on the other hand had eight Jews in her cabinet at one time and there continues to be a warm relationship between Conservatives and the Jewish Community, whether or not we happen to agree with this or that individual.

On the tasteless joke , well that was the point I take it .

@17 A mistake you say? I suppose you could call it that, though we’d either be speaking German or seeing a soviet dominated western Europe had he not made that choice.

21. Man on Clapham Omnibus

All a bit of a storm trooper in a teacup if you ask me.

Until Leftist groups like Compass admit the obvious – that people involved in Stalinist mass murder like Bauman are utterly unacceptable – the Left has no basis whatsoever for condemning anyone for anything to do with the Nazis. Not even someone like Heidegger who joined the Party – after all Bauman is socially acceptable despite doing vastly worse.

Read a history book you portentous right wing dick,
1. Name one compass member who has defended Stalin.
2. Most of Stalin’s victim’s were lefties (communists, socialists and social democrats)

Diogenes
It’s strange thaqt we never saw Labour MPs in their KGB uniforms…were they too shy to wear them?
Name them you coward, using your correct name.
Also that doesn’t have a Q.

Also cut the myth about the Nazis been conservatives or left wing.
They actually believed in the survival of the fittest. Read Laurence Ree’s book on their rise.
Hitler admired the British Empire, the genocide of Native Americans and industrial ruthless capitalists like Ford. The poor, ill and weak to them should be eliminated.
I have yet to meet a leftie with those views.

As for this idiot, the right wing pricks on the site are right, it was stupid stag night, wearing a stupid uniform is more bad taste than any political message.

Also right wing dicks
What about the Thatcher family and the from unpleasant regimes like the Saudis.

CG @ 17

I could probably show you a picture of the world’s greatest humanitarian, tell you he was a serial killer, and you’d see the evil in his eyes immediately. And I don’t mean that you’re personally credulous: we do this automatically.

You wouldn’t see the World’s greatest humanitarian in a Nazi uniform facing a camera while throwing a Nazi salute, would you?

“I think people need to keep this is perspective”

Probably the most sensible thing you’ve ever written.

It was his friend, not him, dressed as a nazi. Now who here can honestly say that they have always approved of the atire of their friends?

I was dressed as a pirate (yeah…original) at our works christmas do last week. Should I be fired for being offensive to people from Somalia? What if somebody thought I was Abu Hamza instead?

Fair point, for all I’ve been shouting at you elsewhere. Plenty of places use imagery from Russia’s Stalinist era. And there’s a bar up the way from me modelled around Che Guevara, who isn’t on the level of Hitler or Stalin but still was hardly Captain Wonderful.

I remember being offered a Che Guevara T-shirt at Uni, and saying that it would go perfectly with my Heinrich Himmler tie. Didn’t go down all that well.

(Note to Jim: I do not have a Heinrich Himmler tie.)

@ 11

Ahh Sally, do you think that famous Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw would agree with you? Let’s see shall we? Let’s see shall we?

cjcjc
Really chris brown nosing guido
Tim J
I remember being offered a Che Guevara T-shirt at Uni, and saying that it would go perfectly with my Heinrich Himmler tie. Didn’t go down all that well.

Your such a card. Those long winter evenings must have flown by.

29 – my such a card what?

the province of the left who support their enemies both here ( Islam) and abroad.
Who armed and trained the women, jew and homosaexual hating muslim fundamentalists in 1980’s.
Whose family was linked to many dodgy deals wirth fundamentalist muslim states.
Mrs T.
Right wing hypocrite.

smfs
Which PM sent more aid to the soviets and ignored more crimes of Uncle Joe.
Winnie.
Also he was gassing kurds way before Sadaam.

Re So Much… at 8: Stalin had not carried out a lethal purge of the Soviet Communist Party prior to 1934, that is what is meant here, not that Stalin had not had anyone killed before then. I think that Stalin recognised that as Hitler had managed to destroy a major, potentially dangerous faction within the Nazi party by conducting a lethal purge operation he too could have a go at doing it in his party.

He was particularly incensed that he could not get a majority of the party leadership to support his call for the shooting of Riutin in (I think) 1932, and was heartened by the news of Hitler’s crushing of Röhm and the SA in 1934. The assassination of Kirov in late 1934 — the jury is still out as whether Stalin arranged it or merely took advantage of Nikolayev’s action — gave Stalin the opportunity to concoct the tale of a big plot against him, and thus proceed with the show trials and purges of 1936-38.

To get back to the original posting. Perhaps ‘Nazis horrified by party member who turned up at Nuremburg rally dressed as Tory MP’ might have been more amusing. Mind you, I think Private Eye did that already.

Was it the same Nazi uniform Ed Balls wore to a party in Oxford or a different one?

Flowerteacher
It has already been mentioned by chris carter with his brown nosing link.
Keep up dullard or you will get a U

@ Angry Dad.

Now this isn’t the sort of thing that I normally do…

BUT…

I don’t know who cjcjc, or anyone else on this board is. What I do know is that he chooses to call himself cjcjc on this board, and it is FUCKING BAD MANNERS TO OUT PEOPLE BY USING THEIR REAL NAMES.

I don’t care whether I agree with a person or not, they have a right to maintain their anonimity if they so wish, and employers being the shits they are, many of us do so wish.

Hitler admired the British Empire, the genocide of Native Americans and industrial ruthless capitalists like Ford. The poor, ill and weak to them should be eliminated.
I have yet to meet a leftie with those views.

Presumably you didn’t bother to watch the famous fabian GBS’s little exposition then… and if you bothered to read more left wing stuff from the early part of the 20th C, you’ll find plenty more on the left who shared those views. Come to think of it, you’ll find plenty on the left who share them nowadays if you can be bothered to read what some great heroes of the left realy think.

Btw, just in case you’ve got some stupid idea in your bonce that I’m some kind of Tory, well, you couln’t be further from the truth.

I don’t know who cjcjc, or anyone else on this board is. What I do know is that he chooses to call himself cjcjc on this board, and it is FUCKING BAD MANNERS TO OUT PEOPLE BY USING THEIR REAL NAMES.
Who hastop play by your rules Dick

I don’t care whether I agree with a person or not, they have a right to maintain their anonimity if they so wish, and employers being the shits they are, many of us do so wish.
Ah sugar. Horrible world eh

Hitler admired the British Empire, the genocide of Native Americans and industrial ruthless capitalists like Ford. The poor, ill and weak to them should be eliminated.
I have yet to meet a leftie with those views.

Presumably you didn’t bother to watch the famous fabian GBS’s little exposition then… and if you bothered to read more left wing stuff from the early part of the 20th C, you’ll find plenty more on the left who shared those views. Come to think of it, you’ll find plenty on the left who share them nowadays if you can be bothered to read what some great heroes of the left realy think.
Name a leftist politician who wants poor, ill or the weak eliminated sugar.

Btw, just in case you’ve got some stupid idea in your bonce that I’m some kind of Tory, well, you couln’t be further from the truth.
You are right wing clown. Stop lying.
You remind me of nick cohen. Right wing Gove like creep who declares he is left of centre.
What a farce ?,
If your are a leftie, name one view that differs From the likes of Gove.
Tosser

39. David Quoosp

My father encountered a few Nazis in 1944-1945 and survived to not tell the tale, as so many never do, but he was definitely up in the scoring stakes, despite losing good friends. My life has been pretty inconsequential and uneventful by comparison, but if I’d seen that cock with his mates in Nazi get up I’d have done my level best to add a couple more to the family stats. However, I’m not quite made of the stuff he was and times are different, so I’d probably have to draw the line at shitting em up a bit… silly little Tory boys.

@28 SSHQ: “Ahh Sally, do you think that famous Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw would agree with you?”

Lloyd George went on a visit to Germany in August 1936 to meet with Herr Hitler. There is a video clip of that meeting on YouTube. On his return to Britain, Lloyd George wrote an article for the Daily Express on 17 November 1936:

“I have just returned from a visit to Germany. In so short time one can only form impressions or at least check impressions which years of distant observation through the telescope of the Press and constant inquiry from those who have seen things at a closer range had already made on one’s mind. I have now seen the famous German Leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods – and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country – there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvellous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. . .

“What Hitler said at Nuremberg is true. The Germans will resist to the death every invader at their own country, but they have no longer the desire themselves to invade any other land. . .

“The establishment of a German hegemony in Europe which was the aim and dream of the old pre-war militarism, is not even on the horizon of Nazism. …”
http://www.icons-multimedia.com/ClientsArea/HoH/LIBARC/ARCHIVE/Chapters/Stabiliz/Foreign/LloydGeo.html

The really curious aspect is that we can tell from Orwell writing in 1936 that knowledge of the concentration camps in Germany was already in the public domain in Britain.

Angry Dad.

Firstly, it’s never too clever a game to go shouting and outing because it sometimes happens that you can get outed yourself. What’s sauce for the gander as they say. Maybe you’d be happy to have the same outing games pulled on you? No, didn’t think so… sugar.

Funny you should have gone on earlier about Hitlers admiration for the British Empire, one of his favourites was of course “The Founding of the 19th Century” – Houston Stewert Chamberlain. It received rave reviews from good old GBS himself in the pages of that notorious ultra right wing journal “Fabian News”.

Also funny that you should mention Hitler’s admiration of ruthless shits like Henry Ford – Lenin too was an admirer of Ford… but then I suppose you’ll just characterise anyone you disagree with as right wing eh?

Only one view that differs from the likes of Gove? Seriously? Only ONE? Why so small a difference… is that representative of the fag papers width between yourself and the average authoritarian nut job sweetie?

So angry – with so little direction. You know sweetie pie, you read like one of those people who thinks that once the workers are in charge it’ll all be sweetness and light – dream on!

As for admirers and supporters of the Third Reich, take a bow Prescott Bush:

How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Firstly, it’s never too clever a game to go shouting and outing because it sometimes happens that you can get outed yourself. What’s sauce for the gander as they say. Maybe you’d be happy to have the same outing games pulled on you? No, didn’t think so… sugar.
Nothing like a good outing sugar plum

Funny you should have gone on earlier about Hitlers admiration for the British Empire, one of his favourites was of course “The Founding of the 19th Century” – Houston Stewert Chamberlain. It received rave reviews from good old GBS himself in the pages of that notorious ultra right wing journal “Fabian News”.
He also liked sections of the bible. Your little obsessed by GBS. Personally I have never trusted champagne socialists. Your only reference is the old bigot. Name one modern Labour politician since the war who has written that the old, poor and weak should be eliminated. Although I do remember thatcherite students like your self wearing ” fuck the poor” t shirts, blossom
Also funny that you should mention Hitler’s admiration of ruthless shits like Henry Ford – Lenin too was an admirer of Ford
So did most free market capitalists?

… but then I suppose you’ll just characterise anyone you disagree with as right wing eh?
No just deluded little right wing pricks like your self.

Only one view that differs from the likes of Gove? Seriously? Only ONE? Why so small a difference
Haven’t answered the question coward.

… is that representative of the fag papers width between yourself and the average authoritarian nut job sweetie?
I will leave you with that epitaph. Isn’t I who uses a distasteful moniker?

So angry – with so little direction. You know sweetie pie, you read like one of those people who thinks that once the workers are in charge it’ll all be sweetness and light – dream on!
No just hate the fact that creeps like you are in charge of the asylum Pet.

44. So Much For Subtlety

22. Angry dad

Read a history book you portentous right wing dick,
1. Name one compass member who has defended Stalin.
2. Most of Stalin’s victim’s were lefties (communists, socialists and social democrats)

I am impressed you get so many lies in within so few sentences. I did not accuse any member of Compass of defending Stalin – although if Bauman is a member, and I think he is, then they have at least one who defended Stalin with rifle and executioner’s pistol in his hand. Not that we have evidence he used that pistol to kill anyone. No, he claims he had a boring desk job. Like Eichmann.

And most of Stalin’s victims were peasants. Ordinary people. Not Communists. Not Socialists. Not Social Democrats. Even if you looked at formal party membership, more Monarchists were probably killed by the Communists than the latter two groups.

I have yet to meet a leftie with those views.

H. G. Wells was undoubtedly on the Left and yet he called for the lesser races of the planet to be exterminated.

24. Jim

You wouldn’t see the World’s greatest humanitarian in a Nazi uniform facing a camera while throwing a Nazi salute, would you?

No but Gandhi did write nice letters to Hitler and called him his friend. So people are a little complex. A little strange. Sensible people cut them some slack.

32. Angry dad

Which PM sent more aid to the soviets and ignored more crimes of Uncle Joe.
Winnie.

As I said, probably a mistake. Although on the plus side, before WW2 Churchill was one of the leading politicians who recognised Communism as the evil it was and called for international action to save the Russian peoples.

Also he was gassing kurds way before Sadaam.

No he did not. That is what is called a lie. A big one too.

2:50 pm, December 19, 201133. Dr Paul

I think that Stalin recognised that as Hitler had managed to destroy a major, potentially dangerous faction within the Nazi party by conducting a lethal purge operation he too could have a go at doing it in his party.

Except Stalin had been purging his party and his country for generations. As “Bloodlands” pointed out, if you just count Jewish dead, by 1939 Stalin had killed vastly more Jews than Hitler. He did not need such a lesson. And he did not copy Hitler. He staged a series of show trials. Why I don’t know but this just looks like more Communist apologetics to me – as if Hitler made him do it.

42. Bob B

As for admirers and supporters of the Third Reich, take a bow Prescott Bush:

How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

One of the most shameful moments in the Guardian’s long history of lying and propaganda for people who hate us. Prescott Bush helped a refugee from Nazi Germany who ended up in Dachau save as much of his property as possible from seizure by the Nazi regime. It did not work of course, but the Guardian spins this as an effort to help the Nazis. Morons.

Prescott Bush did not, of course, admire or support the Nazis. And Bob’s comments are, naturally, factually wrong.

@SMFS: “Prescott Bush did not, of course, admire or support the Nazis. And Bob’s comments are, naturally, factually wrong.”

That claim is just another demonstrable case of “misinformation”. I go by the evidence. Besides that link to the Guardian article @42, there are many further references on the web relating to Senator Prescott Bush’s financial suppoprt for the Nazis – this is another:

Throughout the Bush family’s decades of public life, the American press has gone out of its way to overlook one historical fact – that through Union Banking Corp. (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Adolf Hitler before and during WWII. . .
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_3-7.pdf

The entry in Wikipedia for Prescott Bush includes this passage:

“Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family. In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens’ control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.”

On YouTube, there is a video report by “an investigative journalist” on Prescott Bush’s connections with the Nazis – try Googling on: “9/11 CONSPIRACY: BUSH-NAZI CRIME FAMILY HISTORY “

46. So Much For Subtlety

45. Bob B

That claim is just another demonstrable case of “misinformation”. I go by the evidence. Besides that link to the Guardian article @42, there are many further references on the web relating to Senator Prescott Bush’s financial suppoprt for the Nazis – this is another:

Demonstrate it then Bob. Although with your views on Jews, I find it odd you would be condemning Prescott Bush if it were true.

Throughout the Bush family’s decades of public life, the American press has gone out of its way to overlook one historical fact – that through Union Banking Corp. (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Adolf Hitler before and during WWII. . .
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/54_3-7.pdf

So you have some fringe lunatic web source. Great. Fritz Thyssen? That he was an early supporter of many Right Wing parties is true. But when the Nazis came to power he changed his mind. What happened to him?

Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler’s violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935: in 1937 he sent a letter to Hitler, protesting the persecution of Christians in Germany.[3] The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime’s economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war.[4]
[edit] World War II

On 1 September 1939 World War II broke out. Thyssen sent Hermann Göring a telegram saying he was opposed to the war, shortly before leaving for Switzerland with his family. He was expelled from the Nazi Party and the Reichstag, and his company was briefly nationalised. It was returned to other members of the Thyssen family some years after the war. In 1940 Thyssen took refuge and moved to France, intending to emigrate to Argentina, but was caught by the German occupation of France while he was visiting his ill mother in Belgium. He was arrested by Vichy France and taken back to Germany, where he was confined, first in a sanatorium near Berlin, then from 1943 in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. His wife Amelie did not escape to Argentina and spent the whole war in the concentration camp with her husband. “She had spent the good times with her husband and would also join him in the difficult times.[citation needed]” In February, 1945 he was sent to Dachau concentration camp.

So Thyssen spent the war in Dachau and Bob thinks he is a Nazi.

Union Banking Corp? It was an American bank owned by a Dutch bank owned by Fritz Thyssen and his brother. Set up to transfer as many of their assets as possible out of Germany and to safety in neutral countries. This is a bad thing?

The entry in Wikipedia for Prescott Bush includes this passage:

“Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family. In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens’ control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.”

So to recap – the Americans thought it was a Nazi affiliated bank. They investigated and it wasn’t. It was owned by a German national however and as such, it was seized for the duration of the war. The German owner being in a concentration camp at the time. In other words you have no evidence at all.

On YouTube, there is a video report by “an investigative journalist” on Prescott Bush’s connections with the Nazis – try Googling on: “9/11 CONSPIRACY: BUSH-NAZI CRIME FAMILY HISTORY “

There’s a lot of crap on Youtube. What there isn’t is evidence of any of the Bushes being Nazis are friends of the Nazis.

Or doing anything other than I said – Helping refugees from the Nazis escape and hide their assets from the Germans.

am impressed you get so many lies in within so few sentences. I did not accuse any member of Compass of defending Stalin – although if Bauman is a member, and I think he is, then they have at least one who defended Stalin with rifle and executioner’s pistol in his hand. Not that we have evidence he used that pistol to kill anyone. No, he claims he had a boring desk job. Like Eichmann.
Yes you did boy

And most of Stalin’s victims were peasants. Ordinary people. Not Communists. Not Socialists. Not Social Democrats. Even if you looked at formal party membership, more Monarchists were probably killed by the Communists than the latter two groups.
SFMs
Read the accounts, most of the purges were aimed at red army (those were the ones that fought the whites dullard), supporters of trotsky (animal farm) and peasants who had supported the revolution foolishly thinking they were to have land. Where are you figures that more monarchists were killed by Stalin.
I have yet to meet a leftie with those views.

H. G. Wells was undoubtedly on the Left and yet he called for the lesser races of the planet to be exterminated.

I didn’t MEET HG wells. Dick have you. Read the comment !

As I said, probably a mistake. Although on the plus side, before WW2 Churchill was one of the leading politicians who recognised Communism as the evil it was and called for international action to save the Russian peoples.
Easy after the event.
He still did it and perhaps the same argument can be used by some of the lefties involved

Also he was gassing kurds way before Sadaam.

No he did not. That is what is called a lie. A big one too.
The most prominent original source quoted is a War Office minute of 12 May 1919, in which Winston Churchill argued

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”[1]

That is pretty unpleasant. His own words.

” Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death…for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties […..]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran…Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed…*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn’t learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan. ”
Whether it was true or false is contentious , but what cannot be doubted is that he was WILLING to do it.

Off to work now.
You can have the last words, part of your need to dominate. Hence the love for Mummy maggie and a need for a stern priest
Seems right wingers (SMFS, XXX, SSHQ, Flowerpower, cjcjc, Tim J etc) make a lot of posts. No jobs lads, skiving or are you teachers employed by the state. Have you lives ?.

50. So Much For Subtlety

47. Angry dad

Yes you did boy

Where.

Read the accounts, most of the purges were aimed at red army (those were the ones that fought the whites dullard), supporters of trotsky (animal farm) and peasants who had supported the revolution foolishly thinking they were to have land. Where are you figures that more monarchists were killed by Stalin.

The purges. A small fraction of the people Stalin killed. Most he starved to death or sent to camps during de-kulakisation. And peasants? My point no?

I didn’t MEET HG wells. Dick have you. Read the comment !

Then your comment was both asinine and irrelevant. The solution to which is to get out and meet some people. Not my problem if you don’t know anyone worth knowing.

The most prominent original source quoted is a War Office minute of 12 May 1919, in which Winston Churchill argued

For the use of gas. But he did not actually do it. See the difference?

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

That is, he is advocating the use of tear gas. Big deal. Not that he actually ordered anyone to use it.

It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”[1]

Not even lethal gases.

That is pretty unpleasant. His own words.

Not only is there nothing remotely unpleasant about it – policemen routinely use tear gas in virtually every country in the world – he is not advocating the use of lethal gas and he did not actually get around to using any. So your lie remains a lie.

48. Angry dad

This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death…for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

So even Churchill did not want to use poison gas. So you lied.

the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War.

He may have wanted to but the Cabinet would not agree. Your own sources proves you were wrong.

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s.

But not gassed. Assuming they are not just lying. Because the RAF did not gas anyone.

And the RAF soon learnt that giving people warning their villages would be bombed worked just as well. So they would drop pamphlets 24 hours before so that they would not kill anyone.

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan. ”

I doubt they were, but in any event, gas was not used. You were wrong.

Whether it was true or false is contentious , but what cannot be doubted is that he was WILLING to do it.

No it is not. It is a simple matter of fact. Gas was not dropped on Kurds. He may have argued for the use of tear gas but he did not actually use it. End of story. You were wrong.

Angry Dad @ 48:

What’s your source for that big quotation? From what I’d read previously, Churchill supported the use of *tear* gas in Mesopotamia, not poison gas.

@SMFS: “Demonstrate it then Bob. Although with your views on Jews, I find it odd you would be condemning Prescott Bush if it were true.”

The fact remains that Fritz Thyssen helped to fund the Nazis on their way to power – which is evident even from the quotes you chose to post. Another fact is that the US government seized the Union Banking Corporation in late 1942 under the trading with the enemy legislation. I’m glad to learn that Thyssen later felt contrition for what he had done in funding the Nazis on their way to power but the damage was already done by then.

As for my views on jews, I have no issues with Jews for Justice for Palestinians or with Avi Shlaim and Shlomo Ben-Ami. My issues are with Israelis, especially the Likudists and their coalition partners in government, who continue to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land, as well as the long documented history of terrorism and atrocities inflicted by Israelis – I can easily repost the list. Remember that report of the Physicians For Human Rights on how stone-throwing Palestinian youngsters in the intifada were shot in the head or thighs by IDF sharpshooters? Barak, the present Israeli defence minister was the prime minister then.

Electing retired terrorists to become prime ministers of Irsael is hardly a convincing way of demonstrating how opposed to terrorism and atrocities the Israelis are.

53. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“You see the Red Star on the odd piece of fashion. Left wing imagery is vastly more acceptable than Nazi imagery. I assume it is because to all Right Thinking people Communist mass murder is not a bad idea.”

I’m more lenient here. I think there’s two main reasons. Firstly, we seem to see the Nazis as the Official Most Evil Empire ever, not without reason, but that seems to diminish our negative reactions to things associated with other regimes, even in the case of Stalin, who was arguably even worse.

Secondly, Communism and things like it were harmed but not, in the eyes of the world, totally damned by association with the gulags. Whereas we think of fascism and Naziism as being the same thing.

“Well it is not much different from putting on the uniform. So I can see why people get upset. But most of the people who are upset probably do have a poster of Che somewhere.”

Not sure whether you mean my nom de plume or the fact that it was the guy’s mates who wore the uniform. Gonna guess the latter, correct me if I’m wrong. If so, I’d say there’s a pretty big difference between actively deciding to do something and failing to intervene/leave if someone else does that thing. Otherwise, we’d consider failure to save a life (e.g. by not donating to a charity that fed the starving) to be equivalent to murder.

54. Chaise Guevara

@ 24 Jim

“You wouldn’t see the World’s greatest humanitarian in a Nazi uniform facing a camera while throwing a Nazi salute, would you?”

Christ. I made a reasonable point; changing the subject to avoid it is silly. I’m not saying you can’t judge someone based on whether they wear a Nazi uniform, I’m saying that people who look at a photo of a “bad person” and declare that the evil is visible in their eyes are suffering from hindsight bias. Don’t respond to things I haven’t said, it’s straw-manning and rude.

55. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 SMFS

“H. G. Wells was undoubtedly on the Left and yet he called for the lesser races of the planet to be exterminated.”

Genuine question: what puts Wells on the left? I ask because the eugenics-by-murder policy is the only political belief of his I know about, and that would put him on the right in broad terms (and completely off the scale by the standards of conventional British politics today).

@55. Chaise Guevara: “Genuine question: what puts Wells on the left? I ask because the eugenics-by-murder policy is the only political belief of his I know about, and that would put him on the right in broad terms (and completely off the scale by the standards of conventional British politics today).”

Wells is not of the left of today. He was of the left in granddad’s day. Wells, like many early Fabians, believed in eugenics. First generation Fabians were also fooled by Stalin for donkeys years (after they had abandoned eugenics?). Some second generation Fabians (eg Tawney, Cole) were liberals.

57. Chaise Guevara

@ 56

What policies/beliefs are we talking about here?

58. So Much For Subtlety

52. Bob B

The fact remains that Fritz Thyssen helped to fund the Nazis on their way to power – which is evident even from the quotes you chose to post.

Thyssen funded a lot of right wing parties back in the day. So what? Germany was going down into chaos and possible Communist take over. He did not know what the Nazis were like. The minute he found out, he protested, he resigned and he tried to flee. But even if it is so, Prescott Bush did not. He merely helped Thyssen try to save as much of his wealth as possible from the Nazis. Weakening their war effort. A good thing I would think. But if you think helping refugees flee the Nazis is a bad thing, by all means, tell us.

Another fact is that the US government seized the Union Banking Corporation in late 1942 under the trading with the enemy legislation. I’m glad to learn that Thyssen later felt contrition for what he had done in funding the Nazis on their way to power but the damage was already done by then.

Britain threw a whole bunch of German nationals into camps on arrival in the UK. Mainly Jews. They let them out as soon as they worked out who they had. That does not make every refugee from the Nazis a Nazi. Nor does the fact that the law said all the property of all German nationals – whether they were pro-Nazi or not – was to be seized prove Thyssen was a Nazi. Just a German. Who was open to Nazi pressure to use his assets in the US for Nazi ends. Being in a concentration camp and all. Thyssen had no responsibility whatsoever for the Nazis coming to power. Prescott Bush had even less. But that won’t stop you will it Bob?

As for my views on jews, I have no issues with Jews for Justice for Palestinians or with Avi Shlaim and Shlomo Ben-Ami.

Sure. You hide behind self-loathing Jews on the Far Left because it gives you a tiny shred of credibility. Even though we know you do not share their views and especially you do not share their views on major issues.

My issues are with Israelis, especially the Likudists and their coalition partners in government, who continue to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land,

Explain to me why those settlements are illegal. There is no government in the West Bank. The land is governmentless.

as well as the long documented history of terrorism and atrocities inflicted by Israelis – I can easily repost the list.

Indeed. And yet you continue to ignore the greater list of terrorist atrocities inflicted on Israels by pretty much everyone else. When someone has a double standard that applies to only Jews we tend to have a word for that don’t we Bob?

Remember that report of the Physicians For Human Rights on how stone-throwing Palestinian youngsters in the intifada were shot in the head or thighs by IDF sharpshooters? Barak, the present Israeli defence minister was the prime minister then.

How is that an atrocity? I note in passing that the Syrians have managed to kill in half a year more than the Israelis did in the half decade or so of either Intafada. Possibly more than both combined. Yet Bob only cares about stone throwers when they are disabled by Israelis. Go figure.

Electing retired terrorists to become prime ministers of Irsael is hardly a convincing way of demonstrating how opposed to terrorism and atrocities the Israelis are.

Indeed. Nor is electing non-retired terrorists as leaders of Palestine. Given they have yet to elect a non-terrorist. But Bob doesn’t care about that. Go figure.

59. So Much For Subtlety

53. Chaise Guevara

I’m more lenient here. I think there’s two main reasons. Firstly, we seem to see the Nazis as the Official Most Evil Empire ever, not without reason, but that seems to diminish our negative reactions to things associated with other regimes, even in the case of Stalin, who was arguably even worse.

Opposition to the Nazis is an area we can all agree – the Left because they hated Communists, most people because they killed Jews, everyone on the Right because it was Britain’s finest hour etc etc. So I agree there. It is mainly PR and folk memory though. The war would not have been any less moral if we had fought the Soviet Union allied with the Nazis.

Secondly, Communism and things like it were harmed but not, in the eyes of the world, totally damned by association with the gulags. Whereas we think of fascism and Naziism as being the same thing.

Sure, the Communists are strong in academia and the media so they continue to spin a pro-Soviet line which most Useful Idiots follow.

Chaise Guevara

Genuine question: what puts Wells on the left? I ask because the eugenics-by-murder policy is the only political belief of his I know about, and that would put him on the right in broad terms (and completely off the scale by the standards of conventional British politics today).

Membership of the Fabians? Standing for the Labour Party twice? Pretty much everything he wrote about the future? George Orwell talks about what a major influence H. G. Wells was on him growing up – as someone smarter than his teachers who knew what the future would be like. Only I can’t remember where he did it.

Charlieman

First generation Fabians were also fooled by Stalin for donkeys years (after they had abandoned eugenics?).

What makes you think they were fooled? As opposed to what I think the evidence says – they knew what was going on but they approved it as the necessary price of constructing socialism.

@57. Chaise Guevara: “What policies/beliefs are we talking about here?”

Deep breath, but eugenics in UK politics was commonplace in Fabian politics. And elsewhere in Europe, and at later times, and at later times in non-Nazi politics post WWII.

Fabians twigged that Stalin was a mass murderer in the 1930s. For the less bright, it took longer. Wells was bright.

HG Wells, according to biographies, was an individual who we would regard as a pain in the buttocks.

61. Chaise Guevara

@ 59 SMFS

“The war would not have been any less moral if we had fought the Soviet Union allied with the Nazis.”

Yep, agreed. We didn’t pick the lesser of two evils, we picked the evil that was prepared to be mates with us.

“Sure, the Communists are strong in academia and the media so they continue to spin a pro-Soviet line which most Useful Idiots follow.”

No, untrue. Communism is hardly popular in either of those areas. Any communists among academics must be in a very small group, and as for the media.. communism is not cool these days. The media doesn’t portray communists as monsters any more, at least not in the UK, but it does portray them as romantic morons or well-intentioned extremists. Let alone Stalinism.

Claiming otherwise tends to require that you pretend socialists are the same as communists. That’s like claiming that garden-variety racists or people in favour of a harsh and powerful police force are actual Nazis.

@59. So Much For Subtlety: “What makes you think they were fooled? As opposed to what I think the evidence says – they knew what was going on but they approved it as the necessary price of constructing socialism.”

I am not an apologist. I am a liberal and part time historian.

63. douglas clark

Chaise Guevera @ 61,

You are getting an easy ride here with your revisionism.

You say:

We didn’t pick the lesser of two evils, we picked the evil that was prepared to be mates with us.

Well, the Soviets weren’t at war with us, Nazi Germany was. Whether that makes us ‘mates’ is debateable.

I take it you like that we, for a given value of we, won the Second World War?

Perhaps you should consider that the Russians, Soviets if you will, won the war in Europe.

Yup, they won it for us.

It does not matter what their political philosophy was – and frankly it appears to have more to do with patriotism – than politics. But the outome was that Nazi Germany lost.

You go and google it.

@63. douglas clark: “I take it you like that we, for a given value of we, won the Second World War?”

I cannot speak for Chaise. But having “won” one war, only freaks were geared up for a war against “you”, for a given value of “you”.

You know the side of the other road?

That is where Douglas Clark must be all of the time. Avoid intellectual pollution.

66. So Much For Subtlety

61. Chaise Guevara

Yep, agreed. We didn’t pick the lesser of two evils, we picked the evil that was prepared to be mates with us.

Well no. We picked a fight with Germany because the Soviets were more cunning – Stalin betrayed Hitler by not invading Poland on the same day Hitler did, as he promised – Germany was spoiling for a fight and the Soviet Union had a massive lobby that opposed any action against them. It was not that the Soviet Union wanted to be our mates. It was after their plan to ally with Hitler and work for a defeat of the West failed, with the Germans invading the USSR, that they had no choice. Even then they tried to make a separate peace.

No, untrue. Communism is hardly popular in either of those areas. Any communists among academics must be in a very small group, and as for the media.. communism is not cool these days. The media doesn’t portray communists as monsters any more, at least not in the UK, but it does portray them as romantic morons or well-intentioned extremists. Let alone Stalinism.

Communists are enormously common in every level of academia. They may be a small group – although I doubt it – but they are a highly effective and organised group. Communism is not cool these days so they are all quite about their past affiliations. But if the Soviet Union had invaded Britain academia would have been one of the few places to celebrate. While Communism is not cool any more, anti-Communism is even less cool and the media hates those guys.

Claiming otherwise tends to require that you pretend socialists are the same as communists. That’s like claiming that garden-variety racists or people in favour of a harsh and powerful police force are actual Nazis.

I don’t have to pretend Socialists are the same as Communists. Someone like Eric Hobsbawm is not a Socialist, he was and is a Communist. Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited writers ever, and the only living one in the top ten (which tells you all you need to know about academia) is not a socialist, he is a Trot of some description. That is, a Communist. As I have been pointing out this week, the massively honoured Zygmunt Bauman defended Stalinism with pistol in hand. Not a Socialist. J. B. S. Haldane? Not a Socialist. Stephen Jay Gould for that matter. Not a Socialist. Richard Lewontin? Not a Socialist. Steve Rose? Not a Socialist. Frederic Joilet-Curie? Not a Socialist.

douglas clark

Well, the Soviets weren’t at war with us, Nazi Germany was. Whether that makes us ‘mates’ is debateable.

The Soviets certainly thought they were at war with us. That is why the Cambridge Spies were busy spying on us. That is why the likes of Eric Hobsbawm were demanding a British defeat. We could not fight both the Germans and the USSR which is why we did not declare war on them when they invaded Poland along with Hitler. Or when they invaded the Baltic states. Or when they invaded Finland. But the Soviets were clearly at war with us.

I take it you like that we, for a given value of we, won the Second World War?

Sure.

Perhaps you should consider that the Russians, Soviets if you will, won the war in Europe.

The Soviets lost I would have thought. Stalin may have won but at a huge cost.

Recap:

When Churchill became PM, following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain, he made a decision, with the full support of his Labour colleagues in his war cabinet, that there would be no peace settlement with the Nazis. He learned that the Foreign Office had been keeping diplomatic channels with Germany open via Sweden and ordered the channels closed:
John Lukacs: Five Days in London – May 1940 (Yale UP, 2001)

Churchill doubtless knew of the Soviet-German Friendship Treaty signed on 28 September 1939. France surrendered in June 1940. The Battle of Britain ensued in the late summer that year. Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. Germany declared war on America on 10 December 1941.

Churchill had long made it clear that he opposed Communism as well as the Nazis but the prospect of German hegemony over Europe for the foreseeable future represented a greater immediate threat. In 1940, Britain’s population of 40 million was half that of the combined populations of Germany and Austria.

From Hitler’s own benighted perspective, it was foolish for him to have ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union when he did with an inadequately equipped army – and even more so to have declared war on America in response to pressure from the imperial government of Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.

From Hitler’s perspective, rather than invade Soviet territory, it would have made better sense to have first consolidated hold of western Europe where substantial swathes of the indigenous populations of conquered countries were sympathetic to the Nazi cause. Evidently, the tempting prospect of gaining “lebensraum” in eastern Europe and supplies of slave labour was irresistible.

Very likely, the five Cambridge spies took great comfort from the German invasion of the Soviet Union as that was consistent with their theory that Communism was the only true opponent of the Nazis and the fascists – the Friendship Treaty of September 1939 was an embarrassment. But by many later accounts, Stalin had been completely surprised by the invasion.

68. Chaise Guevara

@ 63 douglas clark

“You are getting an easy ride here with your revisionism.

You say:

We didn’t pick the lesser of two evils, we picked the evil that was prepared to be mates with us.

Well, the Soviets weren’t at war with us, Nazi Germany was. Whether that makes us ‘mates’ is debateable.”

It’s called shorthand. We chose to declare war on Germany and to ally with Russia. So saying “Nazi Germnay was at war with us” doesn’t make sense. It wasn’t at war with us until we declared war. So where’s this revisionism you’re on about?

“I take it you like that we, for a given value of we, won the Second World War?”

Er, yes. Why? What has that got to do with it?

“Perhaps you should consider that the Russians, Soviets if you will, won the war in Europe.

Yup, they won it for us.

It does not matter what their political philosophy was – and frankly it appears to have more to do with patriotism – than politics. But the outome was that Nazi Germany lost.

You go and google it.”

Where the hell do you get off? Perhaps you shouldn’t assume everyone except you is grossly ignorant just to inflate your already outsized ego. If you’ve got something to say, rather than giving me unbelievably basic history lessons that aren’t relevant to what I said and that I didn’t ask for, then do so. If you’re only interested in being a patronising little arse, then kindly fuck off. I’ve got better things to do than waste my time talking to smug dickheads who get their kicks out of insulting strangers on the internet.

It’d be nice if I could spend five minutes on here without someone like you confirming the GIFT principle once again.

@67 Aye, it turned out that one dictator was more swivel-eyed and megalomanic than the other, oddly it was the one who demonised and sought to eliminate minority groups and who also believed in racial purity. Who’d have thought!?

70. Chaise Guevara

@ 66 SMFS

So what we’ve got is a vague claim, backed up by a list of “communists” that a) is anecdotal and b) consists of people we’re supposed to accept are communists on your say-so. If I go and research these guys, am I really gonna find that they’re communists? I suspect I’ll find that they’re lefties who at some point praised some facet of the Soviet Union without going in for all the facist stuff. Or that calling them communists requires using a definition of the word so broad that it’s meaningless.

As for anti-communists being hated by the media, I’m not sure what group you’re talking about. If you mean people who are constantly screaming about the Red Menace every time they have to pay tax or get upbraided for making racist comments, or people who think that Labour is the same thing as Stalin, then I hope the media hates them, cos they’re fucking morons.

If you mean anyone opposed to communists – i.e. everyone with a political opinion who isn’t a commie themselves – then the media evidently doesn’t hate them, because communists are a bit of a joke, and non-communism covers the leanings of every single national paper and TV channel with the exception of a couple of little-read communist rags.

More recap:

“The Blitz (from German, ‘lightning’) was the sustained strategic bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941, during the Second World War. The city of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 76 consecutive nights and many towns and cities across the country followed. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, half of them in London.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

What tends to get overlooked is that thanks mainly to the RAF, by the end of WW2, total civilian fatal casualtes in Britain from bombing, V1 flying bombs and V2 rockets, were just over 60,000.

But by the end of the summer in 1943, that number had been surpassed by a few 1000-bomber air raids on just Hamburg.

What also gets overlooked is that German production of fighter planes peaked in the winter of 1944/45 – which tell us a lot about how effective strategic bombing is in impacting on weapons manufacture. Fortunately for us, Germany was critically short of fuel to fly the newly made fighter planes.

The asymmetry of treatment between Nazism and Communism is quite interesting. For example, I find the following confusing:

First, the Nazis.

We fought a war to prevent Hitler from taking over Europe.

We not only defeated Hitler, but we erased all traces of his regime–the Nazis were totally annihilated, every dimension of Nazi civilisation was squashed flat.

Today, merely to remind people of the Nazis, however spurious the connection, is to invite career death and social exile.

Then there are the Communists.

We fought a war that enabled the Communists to take over Europe.

There was no real suggestion that we crush the Soviet Union into the ground and annihilate it utterly. Instead, we tried to win it over, to convert it. Eventually, we did.

Today, being a communist is a little anachronistic but basically no big deal and certainly not something that prevents one from being invited to good parties.

Odd thread. It kind of misses one key point of why Nazism/Facism (which might be summarised as state-control for the people (where people is defined as a racial group or groups)) is seen as the greater evil than Communism (which might be summarsied as state-control for the people (where people is defined as the workers)).

Simply put, people have seen through the fallacy of trying to control the country for the good of the people (where people is a racial group). They haven’t yet seen through the fallacy of Leninist Communism in the same way, so it is still a current idea (albeit now very marginalised).

As Nazism is no longer current, it is easier to use it as a bogeyman, because it will have no defenders and no-one to correct your misinterpretations.

74. Chaise Guevara

@ 72 vimothy

This might be the key:

“We not only defeated Hitler, but we erased all traces of his regime–the Nazis were totally annihilated, every dimension of Nazi civilisation was squashed flat. ”

Naziism went away, by and large. Communism didn’t. Furthermore, “communism” is a general term, whereas “Naziism” inevitably harkens back to Germany during WWII. So while it’s possible to be a communist while rejecting the horrors of Stalin, calling yourself a Nazi will be interpreted as meaning you’re a latter-day follower of Hitler.

In reference to Nazis, the equivalent term to “communist” is “fascist”, although obviously there’s been heavy overlap in the real world. Calling yourself a fascist is almost or equally as bad as calling yourself a Nazi; I reckon that’s because it’s associated with Hitler’s regime, and that the policies of fascism (rather than just the name or the image) have less appeal among modern Westerners than communism. “From each according to his means” is an easier sell in Europe than “rule with an iron fist”.

Chaise,

Interesting comment.

Notice how quickly the passive voice appears: “Nazism went away“.

Of course, it’s true that Nazism went away and Communism did not. Nazism was made to go away. Communism, not so much. The point of interest (for me) is what generated this asymmetry.

One explanation is that Nazism is wholly evil, an thus its eradication by the Sons of Light was both inevitable and necessary, whereas Communism took a good idea a little too far at times, but other than that was not so bad. Nazism and Communism belong to different categories, and should not be compared.

This is, perhaps, the official explanation. Like all official explanations, it has its merits. On the other hand, I find it altogether too convenient.

Chaise

There were distinctive differences between the ideologies of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (so-called Nazi) and Italian Fascism. The latter was not initially antisemitic and only became so under pressure from Nazi Germany towards the late 1930s. The Italian Fascists claimed to be the ultimate inheritors of the traditions and values of the civilisation of ancient Rome. In Germany, the Nazis had to invoke mythological roots in the Aryan Volk.

The fundamental 25-point programme of the Nazis, as published in 1920 and never subsequently amended, was explicitly antisemitic, as was Hitler’s (turgid) autobiographical and ideological testament: Mein Kampf 1925/26. The supporters, sympathisers and funders of of the Nazis cannot deny knowing that the party was antisemitic by intent. In both ideologies, the role of an autocratic leader was of paramount importance.

Latter-day Nazis are widely reviled – in many countries, the Nazi party and similar parties are legally proscribed and holocaust denial is a criminal offence. But Communist Parties survive in many countries, sometimes with alternative, populist names. Some Communists openly admit to revering Stalin – the Communist Party fared quite well in the recent elections in Russia for the Duma attracting almost 20 pc of the total votes cast. Such an outcome for a Neo-Nazi party at an election would prompt international outrage.

77. So Much For Subtlety

70. Chaise Guevara

So what we’ve got is a vague claim, backed up by a list of “communists” that a) is anecdotal and b) consists of people we’re supposed to accept are communists on your say-so. If I go and research these guys, am I really gonna find that they’re communists? I suspect I’ll find that they’re lefties who at some point praised some facet of the Soviet Union without going in for all the facist stuff. Or that calling them communists requires using a definition of the word so broad that it’s meaningless.

Your prejudice and refusal to learn are not really my problem are they? If you want to close your mind and refuse to listen to people who know better, well, that’s your problem. Look them up. Given you will not accept facts when they are placed before you, it is hard to know what you would accept. Copies of their party cards? Signed confessions?

As for anti-communists being hated by the media, I’m not sure what group you’re talking about. If you mean people who are constantly screaming about the Red Menace every time they have to pay tax or get upbraided for making racist comments, or people who think that Labour is the same thing as Stalin, then I hope the media hates them, cos they’re fucking morons.

They don’t hate the equally stupid morons on the Left. As can be seen by the disproportionate treatment of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. Richard Murphy is given vastly more respect than his Right Wing counter-part. Whoever that might be. The John Birch Society perhaps. I mean anyone who ever took a stand against Communism.

If you mean anyone opposed to communists – i.e. everyone with a political opinion who isn’t a commie themselves – then the media evidently doesn’t hate them, because communists are a bit of a joke, and non-communism covers the leanings of every single national paper and TV channel with the exception of a couple of little-read communist rags.

Non-communism does cover a lot. But they still tend to be anti-anti-Communist. Naturally. So they give genuine Communists a pass but still put the boot into people like Reagan. Like it or not the media is simply biased. They like the Left, even or perhaps especially Communists. That is why someone like Seamus Milne can have a prominent media career and, in this country anyway, someone like that BNP guy cannot. Even though Milne is probably not the smarter of the two.

What I like, are people who argue that the media is biased towards leftwing politics, despite the media being largely owned by rightwing Billionaires.

79. So Much For Subtlety

78. Cylux

What I like, are people who argue that the media is biased towards leftwing politics, despite the media being largely owned by rightwing Billionaires.

The media is not largely owned by right wing Billionaires. Rupert Murdoch is the main exception and he does own a large share of the British newspaper market. Even there, he has to push against the natural trend of his journalists to produce something that is even remotely right wing. Often with little success. Perhaps the Telegraph is another example.

But newspapers without a dominant, usually first generation, owner revert to the views of their journalists. If the owner takes his eye off the ball, the journalists write what they like. So what are the main left wing papers? The Guardian and the Observer – owned by a Trust in times past. No clear owner and hence no clear editorial direction. They publish unapologetic supporters of suicide bombings and thought that commissioning a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir was a good way to mark the 7-7 bombing. The New York Times? Owned by a family trust without a clear first generation owner. The Independent? No clear owner.

Journalists are just inherent on the Left.

@79 Right Wing newspapers in the UK:
The Sun
The Daily Star
The Express
The Telegraph
The Daily Mail
The Times
The Metro
Plus their Sunday stablemates

Left wing newspapers in the UK:
The Guardian
The Mirror
Plus their Sunday stablemates

Centrist newspapers in the UK:
The independent
Plus it’s Sunday stablemate

And I can guarantee you the biggest argument is if I shoul have actually removed the left wing category and lumped those papers into the centrist category.

Oh wait I forgot the Morning Star, though if I wait a couple months there won’t be a morning star to bother with.

C’mon. No mention of whether the Financial Times is left or right and nothing about the weeklies: The Spectator, The New Statesman and The Economist, all or most of which are more important for business people and policy makers than the red tops and other tabloids, possibly excepting the Guardian.

The circulation of the regular dailies is in decline. Broadcast media have become more important as sources of news and analysis – hence the listener ratings for the the BBC news and current affairs programmes.

83. THE VOICE of REASO 200111 2001

Strange when Nazi symbols and slogans are paraded and shouted out by Muslims LC is not bothered….Even as their readership stands next to them as they do it.

@82

C’mon. No mention of whether the Financial Times is left or right and nothing about the weeklies: The Spectator, The New Statesman and The Economist, all or most of which are more important for business people and policy makers than the red tops and other tabloids, possibly excepting the Guardian.

As far as I’m aware Statesman is leftwing, the rest are rightwing.

“Strange when Nazi symbols and slogans are paraded and shouted out by Muslims LC is not bothered”

Perhaps it’s due to that old Arab adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

After all, the Stern Gang (Lehi Group) tried to make common cause with the Nazis in December 1940 in an initiative by Avraham Stern to close down the British mandate in Palestine. Nowadays, there’s a museum in Tel Aviv to celebrate the “achievements” of the Lehi Group – like the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948.

As Gerald Kaufman MP put it in a speech to Parliament two years ago: Israel acting like Nazis. Gerald Kaufman is shown making that speech on YouTube.

@84: “As far as I’m aware Statesman is leftwing, the rest are rightwing.”

Right wing? FT economics writers have been delivering serial criticisms of Osborne’s budgetary policies and the FT often includes pieces from Larry Summers, now a prof at Harvard who was Clinton’s last Treasury secretary, and from Kenneth Rogoff, who was chief economist at the IMF.

If all that is “right wing”, I guess that must make me right-wing too by association. But then I think all that left wing v right wing stuff is just silly nonsense for those who can’t remember that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a Friendship Treaty on 28 September 1939.

@86 Yes, you see it’s a paper with the City’s interests at its heart and as such is inescapably right wing. If it is writing serial criticisms of Osborne, then it will only be doing so due to incompetence on his part, rather than any major ideological disagreement. As for Rogoff and Summers, well, I don’t suppose I need to tell you left wing opinion of how the IMF operates these days or the former Clinton administration now do I?
You also bring up that two dictators signed a treaty a lot, it’s very tiresome and doesn’t really prove the points you think it does.

@87: “Yes, you see it’s a paper with the City’s interests at its heart and as such is inescapably right wing.”

That’s just rubbish – and you obviously don’t read the FT.

The FT was critical of the banks and their bonus incentive systems which led to the financial crisis and immediately reported the interview by the BBC Today programme on 4 November of Bob Diamond, head of Barclay’s Bank, in which he said that the banks should accept responsibility for what went wrong.

City financial institutions are hugely competitive and have no common interest apart from needing a daily which delivers dependable news reporting without partisan political bias and solid analysis of the news by respected journalists.

The paper has a wide international readership with high demographics so there is no shortage of informed, potential critics out there. Martin Wolf, its lead economics writer, was described by Larry Summers as the best financial journalist in the world. Sam Brittan, who used to be the lead economics commentator, writes from an admitted keynesian perspective to attack the merchants of austerity programmes when the British economy is flagging. Ed Balls worked for the FT before he went to work for GB. The headline news on Friday was about an ECB policy insider pressing for the use of QE in the Eurozone to avert the possibility of deflation – which is hardly like to soothe the wingnuts out there and here who think that QE means hyperinflation.

Btw there is no consistent stance which can be described as “left-wing”. What matters is the quality of the analysis.

For any who missed this recent gem: Sam Brittan in the FT on: A chancellor still wedded to wrong dogma
http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text413_p.html

Btw Sam Brittan is the older brother of Leon Brittan, who was one of Mrs T’s ministers and who sent on to be an EU Commissioner.

@88

The FT was critical of the banks and their bonus incentive systems which led to the financial crisis

I’m pretty sure David Cameron’s done that at least once too, while it was fashionable to do so, which doesn’t make him Dave Spart though does it?

and immediately reported the interview by the BBC Today programme on 4 November of Bob Diamond, head of Barclay’s Bank, in which he said that the banks should accept responsibility for what went wrong.

Financial newspaper reports on what the head of a bank says? Clearly they mustn’t be right wing then.

However I don’t really give much of a toss, so you can file it under ‘centrist’ if you’re that bothered. The Independent could use some company in there anyway.

It is indeed nonsense to describe the FT and the Economist as “right-wing”, BTW.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Mark Raven

    Heh: 'I should have left the Nazi stag party earlier that night, admits Tory MP Aidan Burley' http://t.co/P6w55nyy

  2. Richard Comaish

    I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/dfNkOMpr

  3. Shazia Awan

    RT @sunny_hundal 'I should have left the Nazi stag party earlier that night admits Tory MP Aidan Burley' http://t.co/oKEISgMU"<~~he needs2go

  4. Hanif Leylabi ????

    Heh: 'I should have left the Nazi stag party earlier that night, admits Tory MP Aidan Burley' http://t.co/P6w55nyy

  5. Elwyn Sharps

    Heh: 'I should have left the Nazi stag party earlier that night, admits Tory MP Aidan Burley' http://t.co/P6w55nyy

  6. Oppressors.org

    Tory/Nazi MP @AidanBurleyMP sacked as ministerial aide http://t.co/xAsue1a8 If the UK was a democracy, he'd be sacked as an MP & JAILed!

  7. Gildas ApCaw Sapiens

    Tory/Nazi MP @AidanBurleyMP sacked as ministerial aide http://t.co/XeprfcCy If the UK was a democracy, he'd be sacked as an MP & JAILed!

  8. Gildas Sapiens

    Tory/Nazi MP @AidanBurleyMP sacked as ministerial aide http://t.co/KYhoiAht If the UK was a democracy, he'd be sacked as an MP & JAILed!

  9. Julian Block

    I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/dfNkOMpr

  10. Wladyslaw Mejka

    Before? "@libcon: I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/9UuOXbai&quot;

  11. TheCreativeCrip

    I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/dfNkOMpr

  12. Dances With Fascists

    I should have left Nazi stag party earlier that night, admits Aidan …: After being photographed at a stag part… http://t.co/AjoDDb2y

  13. Emma

    I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/dfNkOMpr

  14. Calum Sherwood

    I should have left the party before Nazi uniforms became offensive, admits Aidan Burley http://t.co/dfNkOMpr

  15. Miliband gets serious, Clegg is ‘petulant’ over Europe, and Morgan squirms at Leveson: round up of political blogs for 17 – 23 December | British Politics and Policy at LSE

    […] Liberal Conspiracy covers Tory MP Aidan Burley’s comments on the ‘Third Reich stag party’ he attended that led to him being sacked as a PPS – Burley says he “should have left [the party] earlier”. […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.