More US Propaganda

[MC Habber]

"Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, [Vladimir] Lenin and [Romanian dictator Nicolae] Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators," according to Donald Rumsfeld.

Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with that statement? Apparently most Americans don't, which is disturbing to say the least, and right in line with 50% of them believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.


Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu. One of these names doesn't belong. American Cold War rhetoric holds that any socialist or communist leader is automatically a brutal dictator and unfortunately the American public still believes it. To say that Lenin was like Hitler or Stalin is outrageous, as just about any sane person with any historical knowledge will tell you.

Given that Lenin is long gone and out of the public consciousness, I'm surprised that Rumsfeld didn't mention Castro instead (although he is not a 'failed, brutal dictator', but then neither is Lenin. In fact not only was Lenin not a brutal dictator on the same level as Hitler, he didn't fail either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I'd describe Stalin as a failure either, although the US certainly would like people to believe that.). It's interesting that Mussolini is not on that list as he would certainly be a more appropriate choice, but perhaps Rumsfeld didn't want to offend Italy?

english.pravda.ru/world/2003/04/10/45871_.html

Donald Rumsfeld today proclaimed that Saddam Hussein will join others in the annals of the history books as a failed dictator, naming "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Ceausescu".

For Donald Rumsfeld's information, Vladimir Ulyanov came to power on a message of "bread and peace", setting in motion a process which was to bring a Medieval state to the front line of development and give to an oppressed, illiterate population with a near to zero chance of social mobility every opportunity for a good education, a guaranteed job, house, retirement pension, food, vodka, health care and cultural and sports opportunities second to none.

Vladimir Ulyanov set in motion a process which sees the Russian people today as well or better prepared than their peers abroad to perform any job anywhere on earth.

Vladimir Ulyanov set in motion the mechanism to create the Soviet Union, which heroically defeated the fascist forces of Hitler, who Rumsfeld mentions in the same breath as Lenin, which lost 20,000,000 of its souls and whose armed forces, under Stalin, who Rumsfeld also mentions in the same breath, killed 90% of all German soldiers in the war.

That everything was not perfect in Vladimir Ulyanov's Russia is patently clear. However, to compare him to Hitler is wholly inappropriate and demonstrates a degree of arrogance and ignorance shocking in a person at the political level which Rumsfeld has somehow attained.

At least Vladimir Ulyanov did not flout international law and launch a murderous campaign against a sovereign nation, massacring civilians, leaving women and children without limbs. Maybe Rumsfeld forgot to add Bush to the list. For Rumsfeld's information, Lenin was Vladimir Ulyanov's pseudonym.

If Rumsfeld compares Lenin to Hitler, maybe we should compare Bush to Genghis Khan and Rumsfeld himself to Jabba the Hutt.

When the US government says things like this, why would anybody who isn't totally ignorant of the last hundred years of history believe anything they tell us?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

I point you to D. H. Rumsfeld's achievements in his true vocation.

[PTH]

At least Rumsfeld didn't like Hussein with Noriega, Pinochet and the other brutal dictators the US put into place and supported....

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

At least Rumsfeld didn't like Hussein with Noriega, Pinochet and the other brutal dictators the US put into place and supported....

Only while convenient, you understand. Not a second longer.

[MC Habber]

mr said:

I point you to D. H. Rumsfeld's achievements in his true vocation.

I read that before. Very funny ;D
Another great modern poet who's often overlooked is Chretien:


You Know
You know
you know
the Americans have won
I say that in Canada
all the time. You guys,
you won the Cold War,
without one tank, one missile
and losing one life.


Delays
Well, for me I,
he knows of my paper,
he called me and we discussed that
and my ambassador in New York
has talked with your ambassador there
and so on, you know. The problem is
for him he thinks, probably he’s afraid
that he has been dragging to,
delays
and delays
and delays
to just
to postpone a decision.

(Both from his interview with ABC).

I'm sure there's a lot more of his work that people should read.

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

At least Rumsfeld didn't like Hussein with Noriega, Pinochet and the other brutal dictators the US put into place and supported....

I suppose that makes him less of a hypocrite... but still a liar (or delusional), in my book.

[The New Guy]

I suppose you all figured I'd be in here taking apart Pravda's little article. I suppose the dove will likely be running around when I'm done saying that all media is biased, therefore CNN is lying, therefore Bush is only out for Oil, so to start I'm going to make a clear, concise thesis statement.

Thesis: The article you are presenting is based on telling only half the story. Using it to do something such as make Donald Rumsfeld look stupid for saying something that was half true is pointless, as it disqualifies itself.

Addendum to the thesis: The media is biased. That's why I ask folks arguing with me to support your theories/comments/ideas with logic and fact rather than media articles and illogical propoganda.

Now. Onto the show.

Donald Rumsfeld today proclaimed that Saddam Hussein will join others in the annals of the history books as a failed dictator, naming "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Ceausescu".

I'll assume this is fact.

For Donald Rumsfeld's information, Vladimir Ulyanov came to power on a message of "bread and peace", setting in motion a process which was to bring a Medieval state to the front line of development and give to an oppressed, illiterate population with a near to zero chance of social mobility every opportunity for a good education, a guaranteed job, house, retirement pension, food, vodka, health care and cultural and sports opportunities second to none.

Vladdy also, if memory serves me correctly, massacred White Russians (not the drink - those supporting a democratic system in Russia), slaughtered the Russian royal family (except possibly the princess Anastasia) and did a lot more not so nice things.

The medieval state to the front line of development is questionable. The medieval part I mean. Russia had made some moves towards industrialization by the time of the Revolution.

The illiterate population with zero chance of scial mobility is, ironically, still going strong in Russia. The ability to move up or down is better, but we're not talking about a model society here.

A guaranteed job doing something you hate is not a great thing.

A house that was in disrepair is not a great thing.

Access to vodka in a country that has a major problem with alcoholism is not a good thing.

Health care was certainly not second to none. Unless you like the idea of having surgery done in an assembly line method (doctor A makes a couple incisions, doctor B removes whatever, doctor C sews you up, you're sent home as early as concivably possible.

Sports opportunities is also debatable. Seems to me that as soon as the walls fell, all those Russian hockey players jumped to North America pretty fast.

But while we're talking about what Lenin set in motion, I would also point out that if he is responsible for all those things, then he's also responsable for such wonderful things as the KGB, the slaughter of Poles in Poland, and Chernobyl among other things.

Vladimir Ulyanov set in motion a process which sees the Russian people today as well or better prepared than their peers abroad to perform any job anywhere on earth.

Debatable, but we'll chalk it up to national pride

Vladimir Ulyanov set in motion the mechanism to create the Soviet Union, which heroically defeated the fascist forces of Hitler, who Rumsfeld mentions in the same breath as Lenin, which lost 20,000,000 of its souls and whose armed forces, under Stalin, who Rumsfeld also mentions in the same breath, killed 90% of all German soldiers in the war.

Oh yeah. Those wonderful Soviets who ensured the fall of France and the death of who knows how many million Jews by allying themselves with the Nazi's during the fall of Poland. Riiiiggghhhttt.....

There's no doubting the hardship and the valor of the Russian soliders in the Second World War was great. But those numbers would've been much smaller had the nation that VI built not signed a deal with the devil.

[quoteThat everything was not perfect in Vladimir Ulyanov's Russia is patently clear. However, to compare him to Hitler is wholly inappropriate and demonstrates a degree of arrogance and ignorance shocking in a person at the political level which Rumsfeld has somehow attained.[/quote]

I tend to agree, but I think he's a lot worse than you're willing to let on. Lenin was not a nice man.

At least Vladimir Ulyanov did not flout international law and launch a murderous campaign against a sovereign nation, massacring civilians, leaving women and children without limbs. Maybe Rumsfeld forgot to add Bush to the list. For Rumsfeld's information, Lenin was Vladimir Ulyanov's pseudonym.

Once again, of course not. He didn't massacre civies - except those members of his own country that opposed him. And the Russian royal family. He didn't wage any wars against his own people, didn't use terror to protect his reign, didn't allow Stalin to succeed him.

I will concede that he didn't flout international law. There really weren't international laws when he was around.

Funny that

If Rumsfeld compares Lenin to Hitler, maybe we should compare Bush to Genghis Khan and Rumsfeld himself to Jabba the Hutt.

Funny. Cute. But erronous.

Lenin = Hitler is a lot close to reality than Bush = Khan. A lot closer. You're just blind to the facts.

[PTH]

TNG - I don't want to get into a major argument here, but I think you're mixing up a lot of things, blaming Lenin for a lot of the abuses that were present later on in the Soviet Union. Can't blame Lenin for assembly-line surgery after all.

Lenin's biggest failing was that Stalin followed him (you'll note Pravda doesn't even try to protect Stalin ), but even then, that wasn't entirely in Lenin's control. He once said something along the lines of "for everyone's sake don't let that butcher take over". So the good and the bad of wwii and Stalin and forced collectivization can't be blamed on Lenin. In fact, Lenin's Soviet Union was meant to have a form of internal democracy, where the desires of the common man went up the chain of command - but Stalin managed to take over the system for himself. So Lenin put together a flawed system, but that doesn't mean we should blame him for Stalin.

The white russians were the opponents to the revolution - ie, there was a civil war, white vs red. Don't confuse that with White Russians (ie, Bielorussians) who are an ethnic group.

Lenin might not have been a nice man, but he wasn't the monster Stalin or Hitler was, and really shouldn't be judged as such.

[MC Habber]

TNG, I really didn't mean for you to take apart that article - I agree with some of what you said. It wasn't meant to be proof of what I said - if you want proof you can read a few history books - I just posted it because it gave a different perspective.

There's no doubting the hardship and the valor of the Russian soliders in the Second World War was great. But those numbers would've been much smaller had the nation that VI built not signed a deal with the devil.

Seems to me you could say almost exactly the same thing about the US and Iraq....
(It's funny how history repeats itself)

[The New Guy]

PTH said:

TNG - I don't want to get into a major argument here, but I think you're mixing up a lot of things, blaming Lenin for a lot of the abuses that were present later on in the Soviet Union. Can't blame Lenin for assembly-line surgery after all.

My point was the article was giving him credit for all these things (something to the tune of Lenin set in motion the events which led to a wonderful health care system blah, blah, blah). If they're going to give him 'credit' for those things (like Russian hockey teams), then they ought to give him credit for everything (like the horrors that followed his rule)

Lenin's biggest failing was that Stalin followed him (you'll note Pravda doesn't even try to protect Stalin ), but even then, that wasn't entirely in Lenin's control. He once said something along the lines of "for everyone's sake don't let that butcher take over". So the good and the bad of wwii and Stalin and forced collectivization can't be blamed on Lenin. In fact, Lenin's Soviet Union was meant to have a form of internal democracy, where the desires of the common man went up the chain of command - but Stalin managed to take over the system for himself. So Lenin put together a flawed system, but that doesn't mean we should blame him for Stalin.

Lenin had more than on failing. But yes, Stalin was the largest. And this is perhaps why it is so easy for people to associate the two. In fact, after Lenin's death Stalin and his soon to be rival Trotsky both created a cult of Lenin - from which it would appear most of this article is inspired by. Stalin later hitched his own star to the cult, thus forever intertwining the two.

And being intertwined with Stalin is not a good thing by any stretch.

The white russians were the opponents to the revolution - ie, there was a civil war, white vs red. Don't confuse that with White Russians (ie, Bielorussians) who are an ethnic group.

I hadn't... I just wasn't sure which ones are capitalized. Although I would ask in a slightly sarcastic tone how many Gore supporters Bush offed....

Lenin might not have been a nice man, but he wasn't the monster Stalin or Hitler was, and really shouldn't be judged as such.

Was he a monster on the level of Stalin, Hitler, Miloslovic or Saddam? No. Was he a bad guy (particularily in the view of a guy who fought the communists, lived in terror of their nuclear warheads and associated communism with the greatest evil in the world for most of his life)? Yes.

Ask any Russian of his age what they think of an American leader of that era. Everyone was painted as monsters during that era - that old hatreds and fears run deep should be nothing new.

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

I hadn't... I just wasn't sure which ones are capitalized. Although I would ask in a slightly sarcastic tone how many Gore supporters Bush offed....

A better comparison would be with the US Civil war, IMO.