"There are two components working to destroy British society and western civilization, the left and Islam." – ‘Dwight‘. Poor bastard probably belived the Cold War was a real threat too…
"There are two components working to destroy British society and western civilization, the left and Islam." – ‘Dwight‘. Poor bastard probably belived the Cold War was a real threat too…
The Cold War was a real threat. Your youth betrays you here. There was genuinely dangerous infiltration, the "enemy" had genuinely deadly weapons, genuinely pointed at us. Doesn’t mean we should have supported all those dodgy proxy wars, they weakened us & strengthened them, but the threat was real.
To imagine the Soviets were interested in peaceful coexistence is patently shit. But very easy for you to say.
I bet you’re proud to wear your CCCP shirt, John.
Actually, John: I defy you to provide any evidence that the Cold War was not a real threat.
I’ll be waiting.
God what an awful thread you linked to there. The original post was along the lines of "Paki bashing is wrong, but…" and included the line:
Of course, violence should not be condoned because it actually further damages the patriotic cause.
To which the ghastly Vertity (of course) replied "Give violence a chance.", before others chimed in.
Spade – why don’t you see if you can provide any evidence that the USSR at any time post-Stalin seriously sought to take over Western Europe?
Once Stalin was dead, the whole thing was a silly game of East/West chess fought using proxy wars that killed a lot of brown, yellow and black people (with the USSR and the West pretty much sharing the blame), but which had no real significance to anything. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the only time any serious threat was posed to The West, and that only came about because of Kennedy’s prize dickishness.
And a certain number of Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians etc. I seem to recall a certain number of tanks on the streets at certain dates after Stalin’s death.
A little more than a "silly game".
What the hell are they supposed to be over there? I thought libertarians were in favour of open borders… Perhaps I’m confusing what they believe is good for ‘us’ with what they believe is good for ‘them’.
By the way, John, I hope your post there was sarcastic, ‘cos being in constant danger of incineration felt pretty threatening to me back in the day.
Tim – that’s a claim (with which I agree) that the USSR did terrible things, but not one of expansionism. Eastern Europe was already in the Soviet sphere of influence.
John B is always amusing to read, but thank God he’s not responsible for anyone’s well-being but his own.
John is too young to have taken the slow rail journey from Magdeburg to Berlin Zoo, looking out the windows at the Soviet armour parked all along the route. He’s also too young to remeber people being shot by GDR border guards up to the late ’80s. He’s possibly old enough to recall the shootings of demonstrators in Vilnius in 1991.
Is it not possible that the Cold War could be a "threat" without entailing intent to "take over Western Europe?"
Meanwhile on today’s Scottery thread his loopiness may have caused him to cross the line into libelling journalists at the Scotsman.
http://www.stalinism.com/shot-by-both-sides/full_post.asp?pid=1258#comment6232
A threat to the lives of people in the Eastern Bloc and the proxy wars, yes; a threat to the way of life experienced by people in the West, no.
John, I can only say what I felt at the time: The whole ‘Protect and Survive’ thing scared the shit out of me.
The Berlin Wall was another thing that could have triggered an actual confrontation.
I’m a little bit older than John, but I think he’s essentially correct – the USSR had no real intention of invading western Europe or of launching any pre-emptive strike against America. Soviet documents declassified after the fall of the USSR do give a general impression that the abiding concern of the USSR was invasion BY the west, not invasion OF the west. If you look at a map of the world centred on the USSR, you can easily see Moscow’s point of view. The entire periphery of the Soviet sphere of control is surrounded by actual or potential enemies – Canada and the US, China, Iran, Turkey, western Europe.
It might also be noted that one of the reasons Brezhnev, Suslov and co. got rid of Khrushchev was "foreign adventurism" in the shape of dangerously irresponsible action over Berlin and Cuba. Hardly the mark of an aggressive power about to conquer the west.
As for the Samizdata thread, I have for once refrained from commenting on that one. There’s a pretty thin line between BNP policy and some of the "nationalist" comments expressed there. I’m a thoroughly indecent right-winger (mainly) myself, but I draw the line well before that point.
For john b, ignorance is bliss.
If ignorance was bliss, JiL, you’d be the happiest man alive and I get the sense that you’re not.
I am happy as "Larry" needling leftie loonies like you, dsquared.
john b has a very superficial "knowledge" of post-war history. And most of that is the propaganda he has swallowed.
But to be kind to the youngster, I am trying to warn him that he is risk of a libel suit on his Scottery thread.
Quick, dsquared, call your lawyer!
(Unless you are actually mentally ill, of course)
john b has a very superficial "knowledge" of post-war history. And most of that is the propaganda he has swallowed.
Don’t you think that the fact that Soviet documents pretty much support his contention undermines your opinion just a tad?
Me too, me too:
I am happy as "Larry"
That’s got to be actionable too, surely?
You simply have no idea how happy I am, and your conjecture that my state of happiness is comparable to that of a half-wit like you is deeply offensive and defamatory.
Larry
So sue me. You clearly know very little law.
You clearly know very little law.
Oh dear JiL you’re digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Not content with making baseless accusations about my state of happiness, you’re compounding your problems by speculating on the state of my legal expertise. I’ll have you know that I have watched several episodes of Judge Judy, and therefore count myself as something of an expert on the subject.
When did I refer to YOUR state of happiness ? Are you so pompous as to believe you are the only Larry around ? That happy as Larry is not a well-known figure of speech ?
And if you were all that happy, you would not take umbrage.
Indeed the more i think about it, you are not the REAL Larry at all.
THAT is why I doubt your legal knowledge. Judge Judy is just an American fix. With Karl Rove pulling the strings.
you are not the REAL Larry at all. THAT is why I doubt your legal knowledge.
This is an outrageous slur on my good name.
Well, so-called "John" who is oh-so-plausibly "in London" you’ve really done it now. First you have the affrontery to compare suggest that my state of happiness as comparable to that of a miserable wretch like you. Then you cast aspertions about my (considerable) legal expertise. And now you cap it all by suggesting that those libelous allegations were justified because I am not the real me. How dare you?
You’ll regret that: as soon as I’ve watched a few more episodes of Ally McBeal, I’ll have you for breakfast.
You continue to be delusional in thinking I am not in London. Maybe I am in the West Wing, near Karl’s office.
The real Happy Larry of folk myth was Antipodean, around 1875. So you are definitely not the REAL Happy Larry.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-lar1.htm
Your case would be thrown out on its ear.
I could conceivably bring an action against you for direct unequivocal and undeniable description of me as a miserable wretch. But you are not worth the bother, and I am as magnanimous as I am happy.
Alright, everyone: may I propose that we all make a point of going outside and trying to interact with other people every once in a while? It might do us all good.
So, I suppose this is the "I love you, but we should see other people" post.
Off to smell some exhaust!