John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
Edgell Rickword served in the First World War. He wrote afterwards: "It was not the suffering and slaughter in themselves that were unbearable, it was the absence of any conviction that they were necessary, that they were leading to a better organization of society."
-
I suspect if West Ham lose on Saturday against Sunderland, Zola and Clarke will be put on gardening leave and Terry Venables or George Graham will be brought in for the rest of the season.
-
Well said, Jack.
This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.
The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.
Greg, I, for one, hope you stick around. Your level-headedness has been an asset to the forum.
I agree. Unfortunately, the abusive members of the forum often drive away the more reasonable members. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that is maybe their intention.
-
You know, Doug is a member of this forum, just like Tony Summers, Dick Russell, Bill Turner, Peter Dale Scott, AJW, - and even the JMWAVE asset crew are all here, but they don't like getting beat up - by people like Costella... - et al....I could name a dozen but don't want to inflame them - and all the authors ask for is a little respect.
And I too take exception to Doug Horne's reference to the Education Forum being misnamed, as it has certainly enhanced our understanding of the JFK assassination more than any other forum that I've known since the beginning of the internet, and continues to do so, and has yet to extend the limits of what it can acomplish. Thanks John, for providing the forum for John Costella's review and the platform for correctional feedback.
They may have misnamed the JFK Assassination Debate, since very few of the Lone Nutters or conspiracy deniers can stand it very long, having their basic assumptions challenged, but the debate among the Conspiracy Theorists themselves has shown that there really is no such thing as the "Research Community," and most everybody has their own agenda.
It is true that Doug is a member of the Education Forum. However, he told me a few months ago that he was not willing to debate his critics on the forum and would rather use his blog to communicate his views on the subject. As Bill points out, he is not the first member to stop posting when they come under attack. Judyth Baker falls into that category. She, like Gary Mack, prefer others to do their posting for them. The advantage of this approach is that they are not seen to avoid answering questions of their story/work. This is also true of a blog. However, I should point out that of the list Bill provides, Dick Russell, Bill Turner, Peter Dale Scott, have never avoided answering their critics on the forum. However, he is right to say that some researchers have been unwilling to deal with their critics on the forum. What tends to happen is that they use the Forum to publicize their work, and then leave when they face hostile questioning. That of course, is their right. At the same time, it does influence my opinion on their research. It is one of the reasons that I rate Larry Hancock’s book, Someone Would Have Talked, so highly. He spent several months on this forum answering questions on his book. Not once did he resort to abuse of his critics. Larry came across as someone who was completely confident about what he had written. If he had made a mistake, he was willing to admit it.
I therefore think Doug has made a mistake in not using the Forum to answer his critics. He is also wrong about the importance of forums such as this one. He states on his blog:
"I don’t usually bother to even read, much less respond to, the many “nattering nabobs of negativism” who attempt to inflate their egos by posting negative attacks on internet chat rooms---sites that are usually only read by a few hundred people on the entire planet."
The Education Forum gets a million visitors a month. Individual threads are read by thousands of people. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the “page views” column. The Education Forum is also highly ranked by Google. If you do a search for a JFK assassination reference you will invariable find the forum listed in Google searches. That is why writers use this forum to publicize their work. That is why Doug used the Forum to promote his book. However, he is not so keen on the Forum when it offers a platform for his critics. It seems that eventually everybody falls out with me over my insistence that everybody has the right to free speech.
By the way I have no strong opinions on the subject of the validity of the Zapruder Film. I do not have the time to assess all the available evidence. However, I have been influenced to a certain extent by the way people discuss the subject. I suspect that is true of others who read the threads on the “photographic evidence”. When one member begins abusing another member, I always assume they must have a very poor case to argue.
-
As with Diamante and Noble, Mido is not a good penalty taker. All these players are confidence players and none are good enough nor believe they are good enough to take crucial penalties. Noble's record is not good at penalties, as far as I can recall. Diamante, does not have the testicular fortitude to play in the premiership. A more fearful player would be difficult to find in the Premier League. Again, like Mido, like Noble, who really believed he would score when he puts the ball on the spot? Certainly the days of Tonka and Dicks are well gone.
Noble did have a good record for taking penalties for West Ham and England Under 21s. However, he did miss the last penalty that he took for West Ham and lost the job to Diamante. However, he also missed the last one. Mido should never have been allowed to take the penalty. He has a poor record and only grabbed the ball because he was trying to break his duck. His penalty attempt was pathetic.
I wouldn't and I won't dwell too long on tactics, why? Zola does not employ tactics, never has - no point questioning this now. Why would you expect tactics from the man whose complete coaching history consists of helping his firend out by putting out the cones for the Under 21's in Italy???.You are probably right to suggest that Zola does not employ tactics. I have never heard any manager as bad as Zola at explaining a game. I know he is speaking a foreign language but he has lived in England for a long-time and compare his comments to the Manchester City boss who has only been learning the language for six months. I get the impression that Zola is not too bright.
However, I thought Clarke had been brought in to deal with tactics. He is looking very strange on the touch-line. He seems to be in a daze. Maybe the rumours that he is an alcoholic are true.
My friends say we have a decent defence and proceed to name Upson and Green; they are partially correct in that these 2 players are a huge reason we have as many points as we do. I simply mention, in response, that we have Spector, Tomkins (is there a more confident player who looks so abjectly uncomfortable on the ball) and Faubert in support. Spector headed the ball in the air for Everton's first and pathetically stood and watched the Everton striker move the 1-2 yards necessary to head the resultant cross into the net. This would be embarassing for an amateur player to watch again never mind a professional (sic). Does anyone remember feeling sick when Ilunga limped off against Spurs about 17 minutes after realising he was going to get roasted by Lennon all day? Nowadays even average teams with average players and worse managers pick on Spector.I am not sure Upson is that good. He has made a lot of mistakes recently. He was as much to blame for the first goal as Spector and Da Costa. Spector does make a lot of mistakes and that is why he should be dropped in favour of Depalla.
Undoubtedly the main reason Diamante doesn't play as often is that he offers nothing in support of the full back, or is it that he always gives the ball away by playing across the middle, or is the 60 yard cross field balls that never come off? He can strike the ball well however, no doubt about this, the frequency of this good strike though is what differentiates a high handicapper from a pro in golf - I wish the same system applied in football so Diamante would remain in Serie F, where he belongs.Diamante is indeed a liability playing wide as he does not get back to cover his full-back. You have to do this if you are playing with a front-three. However, he can make great forward passes and would be tempted to play him in behind Cole. I would play Illan wide because he is willing to come back to cover his full-backs. He is also good coming forward late which always causes defences problems. Considering the small time he has had on the pitch, his two goals are not a bad return. I would also play Noble in the centre of midfield. He is a much, much better player in that position.
-
John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY
PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he
intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in
his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate
questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.
Jack,
What happened?
First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)
Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?
Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.
I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.
I sent details to John Armstrong how he could join after Jack's complaints but he never replied. Very strange.
-
wiki
''All Quiet on the Western Front (German: Im Westen nichts Neues) is a novel by Erich Maria Remarque, a German veteran of World War I. The book describes the German soldiers' extreme physical and mental duress during the war, and the detachment from civilian life felt by many of these soldiers upon returning home from the front. The novel was first published in November and December 1928 in the German newspaper Vossische Zeitung and in book form in late January 1929. The book and its sequel, The Road Back, were among the books banned and burned in Nazi Germany. It sold 2.5 million copies in twenty-five languages in its first eighteen months in print.''
The first world war was a turning point in warfare psychology. When soldiers fought face to face, the reality and immediacy of the experience allowed a good return to civilian life. Mechanised warfare with massive killing power at a distance produces a much more dissociated human.
It's tragic the way the British treated its own soldiers (austarlians had a lot more latitude and had to stand aside and see these horrors being comitted on hteir british comrades whereas they themselves could go walk about with much less consequence.) What is war really for?
The main difference between "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Goodbye to All That" is that one was a novel and the other a memoir.
My favourite German memoir on the war was Ernst Toller's "I Was a German" (1933). Toller was a Marxist who believed that the end of the First World War would result in World Revolution. When he realised its real consequence was Adolf Hitler and a Second World War he committed suicide in his hotel room in New York on 22nd May, 1939.
-
Did you know that Johnny Mercer wrote "I Remember You" about his affair with 19 year old Judy Garland?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RhMoC6kjMQ
Other great songs by Johnny Mercer include:
That Old Black Magic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CApeWaTkl5k
Autumn Leaves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXYu-3r1S8
Moon River
Charade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZNUxrALtk
Laura
Too Marvelous for Words
Fools Rush In
One for My Baby (and One More for the Road)
Goody Goody
And the Angels Sing
You Were Never Lovelier
I'm Old Fashioned
You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby
In The Cool Cool Cool Of The Evening
-
In the early stages of the First World War local newspapers published letters from soldiers serving on the Western Front. Some of these letters were highly critical of the way the war was being fought. Others suggested that the nature of trench-war meant that the conflict would go on for many years. This was hugely embarrassing as the government was suggesting that it would be over in a few weeks. This was one of the reasons that so many young men had joined up.
The government reacted by establishing the British War Propaganda Bureau (WPB). Lloyd George, appointed the successful writer and fellow Liberal MP, Charles Masterman as head of the organization. On 2nd September, 1914, Masterman invited twenty-five leading British authors to Wellington House, the headquarters of the War Propaganda Bureau, to discuss ways of best promoting Britain's interests during the war. Those who attended the meeting included Arthur Conan Doyle, Arnold Bennett, John Masefield, Ford Madox Ford, William Archer, G. K. Chesterton, Sir Henry Newbolt, John Galsworthy, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Gilbert Parker, G. M. Trevelyan and H. G. Wells.
All the writers present at the conference agreed to the utmost secrecy, and it was not until 1935 that the activities of the War Propaganda Bureau became known to the general public. Several of the men who attending the meeting agreed to write pamphlets and books that would promote the government's view of the situation. The bureau got commercial companies to print and publish the material. This included Hodder & Stoughton, Methuen, Oxford University Press, John Murray, Macmillan and Thomas Nelson.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwpb.htm
As a result of the Defence of the Realm Act that was passed in 1914, all letters that the men wrote had to be read and censored by junior officers. This was a major task as twelve and a half million letters were sent from the Western Front every week.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWletters.htm
The government realized that it was also important to control visual images of the war. Only two photographers, both army officers, were allowed to take pictures of the Western Front. The penalty for anyone else caught taking a photograph of the war was the firing squad. The official photographers were told not to take pictures of dead soldiers. That is why the only photographs of dead bodies during the First World War were taken by non-British photographers.
In May 1916 Masterman recruited the artist, Muirhead Bone. He was sent to France and by October had produced 150 drawings of the war. When Bone returned to England he was replaced by his brother-in-law, Francis Dodd, who had been working for the Manchester Guardian. In 1917 arrangements were made to send other artists abroad including Eric Kennington, William Orpen, Paul Nash, C. R. W. Nevinson and William Rothenstein. Masterman also recruited John Lavery to paint pictures of the home front. When people like Nevinson painted pictures that revealed the true horrors of the war, they were not displayed in Britain. However, an exception was made of William Orpen’s painting as it was entitled, “Dead Germans in a Trench”
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTnevinson.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTorpen.htm
The general public only discovered the true horrors of the First World War after the Armistice in 1918. This was mainly via the poems of people like Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosenberg and Ivor Gurney. However, this work only found a small minority audience.
It was not until the publication of Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All That" in 1929, that an autobiography attempted to tell the truth about the conditions endured by the men in the trenches. The book was also an attack on the way the senior officers treated the lower ranks. This was followed by books by other junior officers who supported the claims made by Graves.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jgraves.htm
The most shocking book about the war was Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier's A Brass Hat in No Man's Land (1930). There is a good chance you have never heard of this book. It is rarely quoted by historians who have written about the war. It sold few copies and was never reprinted. The book not only told of what the British soldiers had to endure on the Western Front, it also revealed details of the atrocities carried out by the men. The tone of the book was also disturbing. Crozier was not critical of the men's behaviour, he argued that these acts were inevitable when you put men in such conditions.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcrozierF.htm
Crozier writes of how British soldiers routinely killed German prisoners. He also tells of how soldiers sexually abused French and Belgium young women. He casually talks of how junior officers shot dead their men if they refused to attack the enemy trenches. He also tells of how he arranged the execution of Private James Crozier, of the Royal Irish Rifles, for desertion.
http://www.cwgc.org/search/casualty_detail...casualty=311775
Later, an officer, Rochdale by name, who once went to Amiens for ten days on private business, is sitting in the redan dugout at 2 a.m. with his company commander. I enter. They show me a peculiar German rifle grenade and say it is of new design. As Rochdale understands bombs I suggest he takes it down and examines it when we come out to rest. He agrees. The big trench mortars then start. Everything is shaken, including Rochdale's nerves. We are short of subalterns. Rochdale has been sent out earlier to put a notice on the German wire, by order of Corps headquarters, a propagandic move to inform the front line men that their families are starving at home. Now the trench mortaring is too much for him. He rises, rushes past me, and bolts down the trench in front of his men as fast as he can go. After daylight he is discovered in a disused French dugout behind the lines, asleep - apparently a deserter, as absence and evasion of duty are the two chief factors which go to constitute the offence. There is the additional fact that he has shown apparent cowardice in action, in front of his men. It is just as futile to be half a mile away from the duty point as sixty kilometres. I have already a private soldier absent. He will no doubt be caught and tried. What about this officer? I see him and put him back for trial by court martial for cowardice and desertion. He is tried and found guilty of one charge or both. Meanwhile the private - Crocker - is caught by the military police, a long way back. He too is tried. I sign the charge sheet of both these men. Promulgation, where death sentences occur, is a long and painful job. One day we received a wire. Rochdale is to be "released from arrest and all consequences." They try to send him back to duty but I refuse to receive him. I am asked my opinion as to whether sentence of death should be carried out on Crocker. In view of certain circumstances I recommend the shooting be carried out. At last I receive the orders and documents relative to the execution. We leave the line for four days' rest at Mailly-Mailly.
In the afternoon of the first day out we parade in hollow square. The prisoner - Crocker - is produced. Cap off he is marched by the sergeant-major to the centre. The adjutant reads the name, number, charge, finding, sentence and confirmation by Sir Douglas Haig. Crocker stands erect. He does not flinch. Perhaps he is dazed: who would not be? The prisoner is marched away by the regimental police while I, placing myself at the head of the battalion, behind the band, march back to billets. The drums strike up, the men catch step. We all feel bad but we carry out our war-time pose. Crocker didn't flinch, why should we? After tea the padre comes to see me. "Might I see Crocker?" he asks. "Of course, Padre, but don't be too long-winded," I say seriously, "after you have done anything you can for him tell his company commander. But I don't think his people should be told. He can go into the died return. War is all pot-luck, some get a hero's halo, others a coward's cross. But this man volunteered in 1914. His heart was in the right place then, even if his feet are cold in 1916. What do you say?' "I quite agree," answers the good man, much too overcome to say more.
Now, in peace time, I and the rest of us would have been very upset indeed at having to shoot a colleague, comrade, call him what you will, at dawn on the morrow. We would not, in ordinary circumstances, have slept. Now the men don't like it but they have to put up with it. They face their ordeal magnificently. I supervise the preliminary arrangements myself. We put the prisoner in a comfortable warm place. A few yards away we drive in a post, in a back garden, such as exists with any villa residence. I send for a certain junior officer and show him all. "You will be in charge of the firing party," I say, "the men will be cold, nervous and excited, they may miss their mark. You are to have your revolver ready, loaded and cocked; if the medical officer tells you life is not extinct you are to walk up to the victim, place the muzzle of the revolver to his heart and press the trigger. Do you understand?" "Yes Sir," came the quick reply. "Right," I add, "dine with me at my mess to-night." I want to keep this young fellow engaged under my own supervision until late at night, so as to minimise the chance of his flying to the bottle for support. As for Crocker, he leaves this earth, in so far as knowing anything of his surroundings is concerned, by midnight, for I arrange that enough spirituous liquor is left beside him to sink a ship. In the morning, at dawn, the snow being on the ground, the battalion forms up on the public road. Inside the little garden on the other side of the wall, not ten yards distant from the centre of the line, the victim is carried to the stake. He is far too drunk to walk. He is out of view save from myself, as I stand on a mound near the wall. As he is produced I see he is practically lifeless and quite unconscious. He has already been bound with ropes. There are hooks on the post; we always do things thoroughly in the Rifles. He is hooked on like dead meat in a butcher's shop. His eyes are bandaged - not that it really matters, for he is already blind. The men of the firing party pick up their rifles, one of which is unloaded, on a given sign. On another sign they come to the Present and, on the lowering of a handkerchief by the officer, they fire - a volley rings out - a nervous ragged volley it is true, yet a volley. Before the fatal shots are fired I had called the battalion to attention. There is a pause, I wait. I see the medical officer examining the victim. He makes a sign, the subaltern strides forward, a single shot rings out. Life is now extinct. We march back to breakfast while the men of a certain company pay the last tribute at the graveside of an unfortunate comrade. This is war.
-
Once again I could not understand Zola’s set-up today. To play two up-front away from home against a team that plays one up-front was madness. I can’t think of one manager in the premier league who would have done that. It is true that Mido played more in midfield than upfront, but what was the point of that?
Noble is the West Ham penalty-taker when Diamante is not in the team. He went to take-it when Mido took the ball away from him and then took a terrible penalty. If Zola had arranged for Noble to take the penalty, then he should have taken Mido off straight away. He needs to exert his authority over the team. For some reason it seems that Mido has some sort of hold over Zola. Why is he in front of Illan and McCarthy?
West Ham only got a draw because Everton played so badly. Parker was immense and Noble and Kovacs put in a good shift. Spector was at fault for both goals but Faubert continued to show improvement. The cross for the equalizer was sublime.
-
In 1919 Roger Nash Baldwin joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Baldwin later recalled: "I was a member of it for a very brief period in which I tried to earn an honest living with my hands. I was experimenting with manual labor, as a preparation, I thought, for a possible role in the labor movement. I lasted about four months. I came to the conclusion that I was better suited for something else. Clarence Darrow once said that it's a lot easier to be a friend of the working man than a working man. I found that out."
-
Email from Jeff Belmont:
In 1964 Hoover blasted Alan and Sullivan for not sticking up for the Bureau in regards to King. Al was blasted because it took him long to recognize communist involvement with King. That is how he dealt with things he was not enthsiastic about. Sullivan is accurate when he says Hoover wont speak to you for a while. Months would go by with no speaking and only memos. Sullivan switched his stance dramatically. Alan decided that he would retire before the time he had planned. As other agents will attest, Al was one of a few people to question Hoover.and Hoover repected that. William Sullivan did a big flip flop on King and got aggressive with King. It is obvious that he must be following new orders. I dont think he should blame Al, as he knew that for a long time Hoover disapproved of King.
-
All this took far too much time, and I have decided that I do not want to waste further precious time on the matter of Judyth Baker.
DSL
I think most researchers will agree to that statement. Judyth Baker is old news. She had her chance and she blew it.
-
Why does'nt Robert Charles Dunne have to post a photo?
BB
He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.
-
The final consolidation of power by Stalin was the gradual discreditation of Leon Trotsky and, then, his expulsion in 1926-7. ( and symbolically finalised with the assassination of Trotsky as the last of the original supremes except of course Stalin., the changes in the third international and the change of national anthem further underscoring stalins doctrine of communism in one state as opposed to trotskys contribution, the concept of permanent revolution. ). He left hordes of loyal followers and many visitors like James Cannon were swayed and started with the Socialist Worker Parties under the umbrella of the fourth international.
The interests of Stalinism meshed well with Capital, but you cannot as an ordinary person avoid the writings of the early persons like Marx Lenin Engels Lenin etc and not sooner or later stumble across Trotsky.
edit:er...
It is now clear that the FBI and CIA made full use of these divisions in the Communist Party. However, they used very different tactics. Whereas the FBI persecuted them (especially thhose favouring democratic change like Earl Browder), the CIA relied more on money to get them to change sides. One of the most interesting cases was of Max Shachtman, who was not turned until the Bay of Pigs.
-
That's quite interesting. It'd be great if you'd elaborate. Just pretend I'm a complete dork who soesn't know how to jump around the net. Was Bukharin the second last apart from Stalin of the originals, that gained a position, to die?
After the death of Lenin, Stalin joined forces with two left-wing members of the Politburo, Gregory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, to keep Leon Trotsky from power. Both these men had reason to believe that Trotsky would dismiss them from the government once he became leader. Stalin encouraged these fears. He also suggested that old party activists like themselves had more right to lead the Bolsheviks than Trotsky, who had only joined the party in 1917.
Leon Trotsky accused Stalin of being dictatorial and called for the introduction of more democracy into the party. Gregory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev united behind Stalin and accused Trotsky of creating divisions in the party.
Trotsky's main hope of gaining power was for Lenin's last testament to be published. In May, 1924, Lenin's widow, Nadezhda Krupskaya, demanded that the Central Committee announce its contents to the rest of the party. Gregory Zinoviev argued strongly against its publication. He finished his speech with the words: "You have all witnessed our harmonious cooperation in the last few months, and, like myself, you will be happy to say that Lenin's fears have proved baseless." The new members of the Central Committee, who had been sponsored by Stalin, guaranteed that the vote went against Lenin's testament being made public.
In 1925 Stalin was able to arrange for Leon Trotsky to be removed from the government. Some of Trotsky's supporters pleaded with him to organize a military coup. As commissar of war Trotsky was in a good position to arrange this. However, Trotsky rejected the idea and instead resigned his post.
With the decline of Trotsky, Joseph Stalin felt strong enough to stop sharing power with Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev. Stalin now began to attack Trotsky's belief in the need for world revolution. He argued that the party's main priority should be to defend the communist system that had been developed in the Soviet Union. This put Zinoviev and Kamenev in an awkward position. They had for a long time been strong supporters of Trotsky's theory that if revolution did not spread to other countries, the communist system in the Soviet Union was likely to be overthrown by hostile, capitalist nations. However, they were reluctant to speak out in favour of a man whom they had been in conflict with for so long.
When Stalin was finally convinced that Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev were unwilling to join forces with Leon Trotsky against him, he began to support openly the economic policies of right-wing members of the Politburo such as Nikolay Bukharin, Mikhail Tomsky and Alexei Rykov. They now realized what Stalin was up to but it took them to summer of 1926 before they could swallow their pride and join with Trotsky against Stalin.
When Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev eventually began attacking his policies, Joseph Stalin argued they were creating disunity in the party and managed to have them expelled from the Central Committee. The belief that the party would split into two opposing factions was a strong fear amongst communists in the country. They were convinced that if this happened, western countries would take advantage of the situation and invade the Soviet Union.
Under pressure from the Central Committee, Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev agreed to sign statements promising not to create conflict in the movement by making speeches attacking official policies. Leon Trotsky refused to sign and was banished to the remote area of Kazhakstan.
In the summer of 1932 Stalin became aware that opposition to his policies were growing. Some party members were publicly criticizing Stalin and calling for the readmission of Leon Trotsky to the party. When the issue was discussed at the Politburo, Stalin demanded that the critics should be arrested and executed. Sergey Kirov, who up to this time had been a staunch Stalinist, argued against this policy. When the vote was taken, the majority of the Politburo supported Kirov against Stalin.
In the spring of 1934 Sergey Kirov put forward a policy of reconciliation. He argued that people should be released from prison who had opposed the government's policy on collective farms and industrialization. Once again, Stalin found himself in a minority in the Politburo.
After years of arranging for the removal of his opponents from the party, Stalin realized he still could not rely on the total support of the people whom he had replaced them with. Stalin no doubt began to wonder if Sergey Kirov was willing to wait for his mentor to die before becoming leader of the party. Stalin was particularly concerned by Kirov's willingness to argue with him in public, fearing that this would undermine his authority in the party.
As usual, that summer Kirov and Stalin went on holiday together. Stalin, who treated Kirov like a son, used this opportunity to try to persuade him to remain loyal to his leadership. Stalin asked him to leave Leningrad to join him in Moscow. Stalin wanted Kirov in a place where he could keep a close eye on him. When Kirov refused, Stalin knew he had lost control over his protégé.
On 1st December, 1934. Sergey Kirov was assassinated by a young party member, Leonid Nikolayev. Stalin claimed that Nikolayev was part of a larger conspiracy led by Leon Trotsky against the Soviet government. This resulted in the arrest and execution of Lev Kamenev, Gregory Zinoviev, and fifteen other party members.
In September, 1936, Stalin appointed Nikolai Yezhov as head of the NKVD, the Communist Secret Police. Yezhov quickly arranged the arrest of all the leading political figures in the Soviet Union who were critical of Stalin. The Secret Police broke prisoners down by intense interrogation. This included the threat to arrest and execute members of the prisoner's family if they did not confess. The interrogation went on for several days and nights and eventually they became so exhausted and disoriented that they signed confessions agreeing that they had been attempting to overthrow the government.
In 1936 Nickolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Krestinsky and Christian Rakovsky were arrested and accused of being involved with Leon Trotsky in a plot against Stalin. They were all found guilty and were eventually executed.
Stalin now decided to purge the Red Army. Some historians believe that Stalin was telling the truth when he claimed that he had evidence that the army was planning a military coup at this time. Leopold Trepper, head of the Soviet spy ring in Germany, believed that the evidence was planted by a double agent who worked for both Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Trepper's theory is that the "chiefs of Nazi counter-espionage" took "advantage of the paranoia raging in the Soviet Union," by supplying information that led to Stalin executing his top military leaders.
In June, 1937, Mikhail Tukhachevsky and seven other top Red Army commanders were charged with conspiracy with Germany. All eight were convicted and executed. All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed. This included fifty per cent of all army officers.
The last stage of the terror was the purging of the NKVD. Stalin wanted to make sure that those who knew too much about the purges would also be killed. Stalin announced to the country that "fascist elements" had taken over the security forces which had resulted in innocent people being executed. He appointed Lavrenti Beria as the new head of the Secret Police and he was instructed to find out who was responsible. After his investigations, Beria arranged the executions of all the senior figures in the organization.
-
Interestingly some sources say the bone belonged to a woman.Most (all?) indicated "for now, the researchers have steered away from describing the specimen as a new species. " let alone as an "alien"
Len, that was a joke.
-
The right-wing leadership of the Socialist Party of America opposed the Russian Revolution. However, those members who disagreed with this policy formed the Communist Propaganda League. In February 1919, Jay Lovestone, Bertram Wolfe, John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow created a left-wing faction that advocated the policies of the Bolsheviks in Russia. On 24th May 1919 the leadership expelled 20,000 members who supported this faction. The process continued and by the beginning of July two-thirds of the party had been suspended or expelled.
In September 1919, Jay Lovestone, Earl Browder, John Reed, James Cannon, Bertram Wolfe, William Bross Lloyd, Benjamin Gitlow, Charles Ruthenberg, William Dunne, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Louis Fraina, Ella Reeve Bloor, Rose Pastor Stokes, Claude McKay, Michael Gold and Robert Minor, decided to form the Communist Party of the United States.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcommunist.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jreed.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfrainaL.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdunneWF.htm
The American Communist Party was therefore a product of the Russian Revolution. It also received a considerable amount of funding via the Comintern. William Z. Foster, went on record as saying, "I am for the Comintern from start to finish. I want to work with the Comintern, and if the Comintern finds itself criss-cross with my opinions, there is only one thing to do and that is to change my opinions to fit the policy of the Comintern".
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfosterW.htm
The party was divided between the views of Foster and those of Charles Ruthenberg who favoured independence. The Comintern eventually accepted the leadership of Charles Ruthenberg. As Theodore Draper pointed out in American Communism and Soviet Russia (1960): "After the Comintern's verdict in favor of Ruthenberg as party leader, the factional storm gradually subsided... At the Seventh Plenum at the end of 1926, the Comintern, for the first time in five years, found it unnecessary to appoint an American Commission to deal with an American factional struggle.... "
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAruthenberg.htm
On the death of Charles Ruthenberg in 1927 Jay Lovestone became the party's national secretary. James Cannon, the chairman of the American Communist Party, attended the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928. While in the Soviet Union he was given a document written by Leon Trotsky on the rule of Joseph Stalin. Convinced by what he read, when he returned to the United States he criticized the Soviet government. As a result of his actions, Cannon and his followers were expelled from the party. Cannon now joined with other Trotskyists to form the Communist League of America.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlovestoneJ.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcannonJ.htm
In 1929 Nikolay Bukharin was deprived of the chairmanship of the Comintern and expelled from the Politburo by Stalin. He was worried that Bukharin had a strong following in the American Communist Party, and at a meeting of the Presidium in Moscow on 14th May he demanded that the party came under the control of the Comintern. He admitted that Jay Lovestone was "a capable and talented comrade," but immediately accused him of employing his capabilities "in factional scandal-mongering, in factional intrigue." Benjamin Gitlow and Ella Reeve Bloor defended Lovestone. This angered Stalin and according to Bertram Wolfe, he got to his feet and shouted: "Who do you think you are? Trotsky defied me. Where is he? Zinoviev defied me. Where is he? Bukharin defied me. Where is he? And you? When you get back to America, nobody will stay with you except your wives." Stalin then went onto warn the Americans that the Russians knew how to handle troublemakers: "There is plenty of room in our cemeteries."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgitlowB.htm
Jay Lovestone realised that he would now be expelled from the American Communist Party. On 15th May, 1929 he sent a cable to Robert Minor and Jacob Stachel and asked them to take control over the party's property and other assets. However, as Theodore Draper has pointed out in American Communism and Soviet Russia (1960): "The Comintern beat him to the punch. On May 17, even before the Comintern's Address could reach the United States, the Political Secretariat in Moscow decided to remove Lovestone, Gitlow, and Wolfe from all their leading positions, to purge the Political Committee of all members who refused to submit to the Comintern's decisions, and to warn Lovestone that it would be a gross violation of Comintern discipline to attempt to leave Russia."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwolfeBD.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTminor.htm
William Foster now took over as leader of the American Communist Party. It was now a completely loyal to the dicatates of Joseph Stalin.
-
A lot has been written about the FBI and the American Communist Party. However, it is not very well-known that the CIA turned several members of the party.
Bertram D. Wolfe had been one of the founders of the Communist Party of the United States in 1919. He remained a loyal member of the party until Nikolay Bukharin was deprived of the chairmanship of the Comintern and expelled from the Politburo by Stalin in 1929. Attempts were now made to purge foreign communist parties who had previously supported Bukharin. Representatives from Stalin arrived in the United States and several members including Wolfe, Jay Lovestone and Ben Gitlow were expelled. They then formed the Communist Party (Majority Group). Later it changed its name to the Communist Party (Opposition), the Independent Communist Labor League and finally, in 1938, the Independent Labor League of America. The group was disbanded in 1940.
After the war these individuals came under the control of the CIA. Ben Gitlow gave evidence against the American Communist Party before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Martin Dies of Texas. The following year he published his autobiography, I Confess: The Truth About American Communism. His second volume of autobiography, The Whole of Their Lives: Communism in America, was published in 1948. In the 1960s Gitlow was closely associated with another fanatical anti-communist, Billy James Hargis, a man who has been linked to the assassination of JFK.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgitlowB.htm
Wolfe worked as an advisor to the State Department's International Broadcasting Office which was in charge of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. He also wrote anti-communist books such as Three who Made a Revolution (1956), The Marxism (1965), Strange Communists I have Known (1966), The Bridge and the Abyss (1967) and An Ideology in Power: Reflections on the Russian Revolution (1969).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwolfeBD.htm
Probably, the most interesting of the three is Jay Lovestone, who had been party secretary of the American Communist Party between 1927-29. After leaving the party Lovestone went to work for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU). After the war he was active in the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization sponsored by the American Federation of Labor. Later it also received secret payments from the CIA. This began a long-term friendship with James Jesus Angleton, Director of Operations for Counter-Intelligence.
In 1963 Lovestone became director of the AFL-CIO's International Affairs Department (IAD), which arranged for millions of dollars from the CIA to aid anti-communist activities internationally, particularly in Latin America. The AFL-CIO president George Meany discovered in 1964 that Lovestone was involved with the CIA and instructed him to break-off contact with James Jesus Angleton. Lovestone agreed to do this but when Meany discovered in 1974 that he was still working with Angleton he forced him from office.
-
Message from Jeff Morley:
Spartacans will be interested to know that Judge Leon issued his latest ruling in my lawsuit yesterday. He supported the agency on all major points and dismissed most of my claims as "speculative." Ouch. No April Fools joke about it.
Three thoughts:
1) The secrecy claims around the George Joannides story are extraordinary. The Court has ratified that.
2) The Justice Department backed the CIA, despite Obama's executive order on FOIA. Politics prevailed over principle and historical merit which too bad but perhaps not inevitable.
3) With all due respect, Judge Leon is factually wrong about Joannides and the AMBARB and AMHINT operations.
If I don't come up with a better idea, I will appeal via the heroic counsel of Jim Lesar.
-
Another interesting figure in Operation Mockingbird was Bertram D. Wolfe. He had been one of the founders of the Communist Party of the United States in 1919. He remained a loyal member of the party until Nikolay Bukharin was deprived of the chairmanship of the Comintern and expelled from the Politburo by Stalin in 1929. Attempts were now made to purge foreign communist parties who had previously supported Bukharin. Representatives from Stalin arrived in the United States and several members including Wolfe, Jay Lovestone and Ben Gitlow were expelled. They then formed the Communist Party (Majority Group). Later it changed its name to the Communist Party (Opposition), the Independent Communist Labor League and finally, in 1938, the Independent Labor League of America. The group was disbanded in 1940.
After the war these individuals came under the control of the CIA. Ben Gitlow gave evidence against the American Communist Party before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Martin Dies of Texas. The following year he published his autobiography, I Confess: The Truth About American Communism. His second volume of autobiography, The Whole of Their Lives: Communism in America, was published in 1948. In the 1960s Gitlow was closely associated with another fanatical anti-communist, Billy James Hargis, a man who has been linked to the assassination of JFK.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgitlowB.htm
Wolfe worked as an advisor to the State Department's International Broadcasting Office which was in charge of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. He also wrote anti-communist books such as Three who Made a Revolution (1956), The Marxism (1965), Strange Communists I have Known (1966), The Bridge and the Abyss (1967) and An Ideology in Power: Reflections on the Russian Revolution (1969).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwolfeBD.htm
Probably, the most interesting of the three is Jay Lovestone, who had been party secretary of the American Communist Party between 1927-29. After leaving the party Lovestone went to work for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU). After the war he was active in the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization sponsored by the American Federation of Labor. Later it also received secret payments from the CIA. This began a long-term friendship with James Jesus Angleton, Director of Operations for Counter-Intelligence.
In 1963 Lovestone became director of the AFL-CIO's International Affairs Department (IAD), which arranged for millions of dollars from the CIA to aid anti-communist activities internationally, particularly in Latin America. The AFL-CIO president George Meany discovered in 1964 that Lovestone was involved with the CIA and instructed him to break-off contact with James Jesus Angleton. Lovestone agreed to do this but when Meany discovered in 1974 that he was still working with Angleton he forced him from office.
-
John Maxwell has never been refused membership. I have sent him an invitation to join.
-
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=114869
Los Angeles, CA, March 29, 2010 –With all the rancor and acrimony in Washington these days, now’s a perfect time to revisit…The assassination of JFK! And filmmaker John Hankey believes our former president and CIA Director George H.W. Bush had something to do with it.
That black day in November 1963 will never, be put to rest, its ghosts doomed to walk the earth and compel us to keep digging. An issue as durable as it is nonpartisan, conspiracy theorists, mere theorists and armchair speculators will debate the assassination till the end of time. Why? Only 22 percent of the American public believes in the official account of the shooting. A majority believe there was more than one shooter. But no has come along to blow the lid off the case until John Hankey, a Southern California high school teacher who has spent years researching the case and assembling connections from historical sources, interviews and detective spadework.
A spirited, well-documented indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, the film makes a very strong case establishing Bush was part of the chain of command in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. The evidence is compelling; one letter from the FBI places George Bush, an acknowledged CIA agent who rose to the top of its ranks, in Dallas during the assassination. Bush, once asked about it, said that was some OTHER George Bush, also in the CIA. As Hankey says, "If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he would pay with his life"
Equally raw, direct, opinionated and compelling, this video explores the tangled web of connections between George Bush and the Kennedy assassination and makes a very convincing argument that the elder Bush helped in the most important coup in American history. And lest Hankey be dismissed as a crackpot or a partisan, he’s got company from across the political spectrum. Independent Jesse Ventura is touring the country promoting his book American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us. In the book he argues the assassination of Kennedy needs to be re-examined. Back in 2007, fellow Republican Brice Willis told Vanity Fair, "They still haven’t caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy…I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form….”
With this documentary, Hankey joins the debate in a calm but energetic, engaging way, that will leave viewers convinced, or forever unsure. And if that weren’t enough, he concludes, “Who killed JFK Jr.?” he’s got some ideas about THAT too. But that’s another movie.
-
I see that Gary Mack was quick to say that it had nothing to do with him.
The important point was why she was shot from behind?
What makes a successful manager/coach? The Zola Problem
in Football
Posted
You are right to suggest that West Ham cannot afford to sack Zola. At the same time they cannot afford to be relegated and I am sure it would be worth £2m to pay Graham/Venables to keep them up. Zola would be so humiliated he would probably resign in such circumstances.