Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Putin Says Stalin No Worse Than 'Cunning' Oliver Cromwell
ria.ru ^ | December 19, 2013

Posted on 12/19/2013 8:17:40 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

MOSCOW, December 19 (RIA Novosti) – Soviet leader Josef Stalin may be credited with killing millions of his own people, but current Russian President Vladimir Putin says he was no worse than the “cunning” Oliver Cromwell, who ousted the 17th-century British monarchy.

“What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None whatsoever,” Putin said at a press conference Thursday.

Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor as much as the late British lord protector, a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”

But unlike Cromwell, Stalin has a lack of state-endorsed monuments in his honor, Putin said.

Putin made the comments in response to a question about a Stalin monument possibly being erected in Moscow.

Authorities in the Russian capital recently announced plans to commemorate all Soviet leaders who lived in the city.

Putin said he could not influence the decisions of Moscow’s City Hall. But he cautioned, “We must treat all periods of our history with care.” “It’s better not to stir things up … with premature actions,” he added.

Stalin, who led the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953, is credited with implementing political purges that resulted in the deaths of several million people and the servitude of just as many in gulag prison camps.

Cromwell led a Protestant army to defeat the monarchy in the British Civil War, becoming the ruler of England from 1653 until his death five years later.

Cromwell endorsed the execution of King Charles II, though he never conducted any mass purges.


TOPICS: Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: olivercromwell

1 posted on 12/19/2013 8:17:40 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
“What’s the real difference between Cromwell and Stalin? None whatsoever,” Putin said at a press conference Thursday.

Not just ignorant, but ignorant and proud of it.

2 posted on 12/19/2013 8:21:12 PM PST by Standing Wolf (No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I can understand why he is saying this.

Stalin expanded the USSR empire greatly after years of humiliation after they quit WWI.

He was the great Russian emperor,

So what if he had to break a few million eggs to make an omelet.


3 posted on 12/19/2013 8:22:08 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

At the end of the day, Putin will always be a conniving Soviet.


4 posted on 12/19/2013 8:24:13 PM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

It’s been a while since I have seen Oliver Cromwell in the news.


5 posted on 12/19/2013 8:25:09 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Cromwell slaughtered untold numbers of Irish and sold countless numbers into slavery so, yeah, I’d rank him with Stalin.


6 posted on 12/19/2013 8:27:08 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

This is historically ignorant and reductive. Both men were very cunning, but while Cromwell was not a good guy in my opinion and did a lot of Robespierre-esque things, Stalin is only bested by Mao Zedong in the mass murder department. He was one of the most evil men in history, and if Putin truly wishes to understand all Russians and not just the permanent political class which in the DUMA does include a large cadre of communists, he may need to get out of Moscow and visit the small villages where people still bear the scars of the Soviet Union’s gulag program.

Comparing Cromwell to Stalin is like comparing Mandella to Hitler. They’re not even in the same league.


7 posted on 12/19/2013 8:27:46 PM PST by Viennacon (Right vs. Left...... is Right vs. Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
unlike Cromwell, Stalin has a lack of state-endorsed monuments in his honor, Putin said.

Yet we have more than a few dopes on this site that actually support, admire, and defend this guy! This "former" KGB thug.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

8 posted on 12/19/2013 8:28:03 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Well I don’t suppose that England at the time had that many people he could starve to death.


9 posted on 12/19/2013 8:38:34 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"Stalin, who led the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953, is credited with implementing political purges that resulted in the deaths of several million people and the servitude of just as many in gulag prison camps."

Not to mention the millions starved to death in the Ukraine.

Ukraine Famine

The Ukrainian Famine was dreadful famine premeditated by the Soviet Union, headed by Joseph Stalin during 1932-1933, as a means to undermine the nationalistic pride of the Ukrainian people. It served to control and further oppress the Ukrainian people by denying them the basic vital essentials they needed to survive. The Ukrainian Famine is also known as Holodomor, meaning “death by hunger.”

The Communist Regime sought to eliminate any threat from Ukrainian nationalists, whom they feared had the potential to form a rebellion and to seek independence from the Soviet Union. More than 5,000 Ukrainian intellectuals were arrested and later were either murdered or deported to prison camps in Siberia. These individuals were falsely accused of plotting an armed rebellion; however it was very clear that Stalin’s intentions were to eliminate the leaders of Ukrainian society, to leave the masses without any guidance or direction.

Stalin regarded the self-sufficient farms of the Ukraine peasants, as a threat to his ideals. He did not want the Ukrainian peasants to prosper freely from the wealth accumulated from independent farm holdings. The wealthier farmers were termed as “kulaks”, and became the primary target of “dekulukization,” an effort to eliminate independent farm-holdings, and create collective farm units. The Communists attempted to gain the support of the poorer class of peasants, by turning them against the kulak class of farmers. A false image of the Kulak class portrayed them as a danger to society. Contrary to the expected outcome of the Communists’ plan, the poor farmers sided with the kulaks, instead of siding with the Soviet authorities. As a result many of them became new targets of dekulakization. Many other poor farmers unwillingly joined collective farms. Those who attempted to aid a “kulak” were punished under the law.

The Soviet police confiscated the Ukrainian farmers of their homes, livestock, wheat crops, and valuable possessions. They imposed heavy grain taxes, deliberately leaving families to starve. Those who resisted giving up their homes and crops, were violently shot to death or deported to regions in Siberia. Some families and individuals chose to burn their homes to the ground and kill their livestock, instead of handing it over to Soviet authorities. Families, who tried to hide grain resources, in order to sustain a source of food, were killed. This campaign of terror was organized to instill fear within the people, and force them to relinquish all that they had. The ultimate goal was to have these people embrace Soviet-ism and abandon all nationalistic pride.

A system of internal passports prevented Ukrainians from leaving their towns and villages. Thus villagers were not able to cross the border and escape the torment by fleeing to other countries. When news of the Famine reached the Ukrainian Diaspora in the United States and Europe, food supplies were sent to Ukraine to assist the starving people. However all food shipments were denied at the border by Soviet authorities. Following the Soviet Union’s policy of denying any allegations having to do with the Famine, all outside assistance was refused. Even journalists were not allowed in Ukraine, because the Soviet government feared that the media would reveal the perpetrated crimes against the Ukrainian people. When an individual claimed that there was a famine in Ukraine they were considered to be spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Even stating the words “famine” or “hunger” could cause someone to end up in jail.

All the grain taken from Ukrainian farmers were exported to European countries, and the money generated from these sales, were used to fuel Stalin’s Five Year Plan for the transformation of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union purchased many products and weapons from Western countries. Those western countries in return remained silent in regards to the starving Ukrainians. Grain that was not yet shipped out was reserved in granaries. While the animals that were needed for work on the farms were fed, the people were left to starve. The granaries were guarded to ensure no one would steal grain supplies. Anyone who attempted to do so was shot and killed.

It was estimated that about 25,000 Ukrainians were dying every day during the Famine. Desperation and extreme hunger even lead to cases of cannibalism and consequentially thousands were arrested  for this act.

Despite many Ukrainian Communist leaders’ objections to Stalin and his decrees, Stalin continued to raise grain quotas, which led to worsening of the famine. Many Communists blame the orchestrated famine on an unsuccessful harvest and crop yield, failing to acknowledge the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet government and authorities. It is estimated that more than 10 million people died as a result of violent executions, deportation, and starvation.

Currently Russia does not recognize the Ukrainian Famine or Holodomor, as genocide. The Russian State Duma stated that there was starvation in many parts of the Soviet Union, and it is insulting and incorrect for the Ukrainians to claim that they were directly targeted. Despite Russia’s persistent denial of the Ukrainian Famine, many countries around the world have recognized the atrocious crimes committed against the Ukrainian people as genocide. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Estonia, Ecuador, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, and the United States of America regard the Ukrainian Famine from 1932-1933 as genocide.  Argentina, Czech Republic, Chile, Slovakia, Spain, Balearic Islands, Spain, and Vatican consider Holodomor as a deliberate act of famine.

On November 28, 2006 the Parliament of Ukraine adopted a law that recognized the artificial famine in Ukraine as genocide committed against the Ukrainian people. The law also made public denial of the Ukrainian Genocide illegal. Ukrainian Genocide commemoration day is on November 26.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/ukraine_famine.htm

10 posted on 12/19/2013 8:44:21 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor as much as the late British lord protector, a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”
11 posted on 12/19/2013 8:50:14 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Plaque honoring Soviet leader Brezhnev restored in Moscow - Dec 19, 2013 - A plaque commemorating late Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was restored to the facade of his former apartment building on Thursday, a sign of nostalgia in line with President Vladimir Putin's calls to respect all aspects of Russian history.

Critics say Brezhnev presided over a period of political repression and economic stagnation and have likened Putin's nearly 14 years in power to his 1964-82 rule - longer than any Soviet leader but dictator Josef Stalin.

But many Russians see the Brezhnev era as a time of stability for the superpower, which broke up in 1991.

The plaque was removed that year, but a survey last April by independent pollster Levada found Brezhnev evokes positive emotions in more than half of Russians - more than any other Soviet-era leader or the last tsar, Nicholas II.

Moscow authorities restored the plaque, on a stately Stalin-era building that Putin sometimes passes on his way to the Kremlin, following a proposal whose backers included a lawmaker from the ruling United Russia party.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called the Brezhnev era a "huge plus" for the country.


12 posted on 12/19/2013 8:51:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Putin is trying to deny the horrors of history it seems


13 posted on 12/19/2013 8:54:22 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Cromwell killed many of my family, forced them to leave Ireland—I have no love for the dictator. BUT I don’t think you can rank him with Stalin—who killed Millions of people.


14 posted on 12/19/2013 9:22:22 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

Cromwell was not nice, he did make some good points - until he got real power. Robespierre was much worse of course, but Stalin and Mao and Hitler are the ones who deserve to be in that top box.


15 posted on 12/19/2013 9:23:36 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

“Cromwell killed many of my family, forced them to leave Ireland”

You must be centuries old!


16 posted on 12/19/2013 9:26:56 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Famine? Aw, that didn’t happen. The New York Times assured us all that that was not happening.

They even won the Pulitzer for saying so.


17 posted on 12/19/2013 9:31:44 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Cromwell was hanged, beheaded and gibbeted. Of course, this all happened after he was dead. Can we do the same to Stalin?
18 posted on 12/19/2013 9:38:35 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Prize Specimen:
The campaign to revoke Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.

Andrew Stuttaford
May 7, 2003

We will never know how many Ukrainians died in Stalin's famines of the early 1930s. As Nikita Khrushchev later recalled, "No one was keeping count." Writing back in the mid- 1980s, historian Robert Conquest came up with a death toll of around six million, a calculation not so inconsistent with later research (the writers of The Black Book of Communism (1999) estimated a total of four million for 1933 alone).

Four million, six million, seven million, when the numbers are this grotesque does the exact figure matter? Just remember this instead:

The first family to die was the Rafalyks — father, mother and a child. Later on the Fediy family of five also perished of starvation. Then followed the families of Prokhar Lytvyn (four persons), Fedir Hontowy (three persons), Samson Fediy (three persons). The second child of the latter family was beaten to death on somebody's onion patch. Mykola and Larion Fediy died, followed by Andrew Fediy and his wife; Stefan Fediy; Anton Fediy, his wife and four children (his two other little girls survived); Boris Fediy, his wife and three children: Olanviy Fediy and his wife; Taras Fediy and his wife; Theodore Fesenko; Constantine Fesenko; Melania Fediy; Lawrenty Fediy; Peter Fediy; Eulysis Fediy and his brother Fred; Isidore Fediy, his wife and two children; Ivan Hontowy, his wife and two children; Vasyl Perch, his wife and child; Makar Fediy; Prokip Fesenko: Abraham Fediy; Ivan Skaska, his wife and eight children.

Some of these people were buried in a cemetery plot; others were left lying wherever they died. For instance, Elizabeth Lukashenko died on the meadow; her remains were eaten by ravens. Others were simply dumped into any handy excavation. The remains of Lawrenty Fediy lay on the hearth of his dwelling until devoured by rats.*

And that's just one village — Fediivka, in the Poltava Province.

We will never know whether Walter Duranty, the principal New York Times correspondent in the U.S.S.R., ever visited Fediivka. Almost certainly not. What we do know is that, in March 1933, while telling his readers that there had indeed been "serious food shortages" in the Ukraine, he was quick to reassure them that "there [was] no actual starvation." There had been no "deaths from starvation," he soothed, merely "widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." So that was all right then.

But, unlike Khrushchev, Duranty, a Pulitzer Prize winner, no less, was keeping count — in the autumn of 1933 he is recorded as having told the British Embassy that ten million had died. ** "The Ukraine," he said, "had been bled white," remarkable words from the journalist who had, only days earlier, described talk of a famine as "a sheer absurdity," remarkable words from the journalist who, in a 1935 memoir had dismayingly little to say about one of history's greatest crimes. Writing about his two visits to the Ukraine in 1933, Duranty was content to describe how "the people looked healthier and more cheerful than [he] had expected, although they told grim tales of their sufferings in the past two years." As Duranty had explained (writing about his trip to the Ukraine in April that year), he "had no doubt that the solution to the agrarian problem had been found".

Well, at least he didn't refer to it as a "final" solution.

As the years passed, and the extent of the famine and the other, innumerable, brutalities of Stalin's long tyranny became increasingly difficult to deny, Duranty's reputation collapsed (I wrote about this on NRO a couple of years ago), but his Pulitzer Prize has endured.

Ah, that Pulitzer Prize. In his will old Joseph Pulitzer described what the prize was designed to achieve: " The encouragement of public service, public morals, American literature, and the advancement of education."

In 1932 the Pulitzer Board awarded Walter Duranty its prize. It's an achievement that the New York Times still celebrates. The gray lady is pleased to publish its storied Pulitzer roster in a full-page advertisement each year, and, clearly, it finds the name of Duranty as one that is still fit to print. His name is near the top of the list, an accident of chronology, but there it is, Duranty, Times man, denier of the Ukrainian genocide — proudly paraded for all to see. Interestingly, the list of prizewinners posted on the New York Times Company's website is more forthcoming: Against Duranty's name, it is noted that "other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."

Understandably enough, Duranty's Pulitzer is an insult that has lost none of its power to appall. In a new initiative, Ukrainian groups have launched a fresh campaign designed to persuade the Pulitzer Prize Board to revoke the award to Duranty. The Pulitzer's nabobs do not appear to be impressed. A message dated April 29, 2003 from the board's administrator to one of the organizers of the Ukrainian campaign includes the following words:

The current Board is aware that complaints about the Duranty award have surfaced again. [The campaign's] submission…will be placed on file with others we have received. However, to date, the Board has not seen fit to reverse a previous Board's decision, made seventy years ago in a different era and under different circumstances.

A "different era," "different circumstances" — would that have been said, I wonder, about someone who had covered up Nazi savagery? But then, more relevantly, the Pulitzer's representative notes that Duranty's prize was awarded "for a specific set of stories in 1931," in other words, before the famine struck with its full, horrific, force. And there he has a point. The prize is designed to reward a specific piece of journalism — not a body of work. To strip Duranty of the prize on the grounds of his subsequent conduct, however disgusting it may have been, would be a retrospective change of the rules, behavior more typical of the old U.S.S.R. than today's U.S.A.

But what was that "specific set of stories?" Duranty won his prize " for [his] dispatches on Russia especially the working out of the Five Year Plan." They were, said the Pulitzer Board "marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and exceptional clarity…."

Really? As summarized by S. J. Taylor in her excellent — and appropriately titled — biography of Duranty, Stalin's Apologist, the statement with which Duranty accepted his prize gives some hint of the "sound judgment" contained in his dispatches.

""Despite present imperfections," he continued, he had come to realize there was something very good about the Soviets' "planned system of economy." And there was something more: Duranty had learned, he said, "to respect the Soviet leaders, especially Stalin, who [had grown] into a really great statesman.""

In truth, of course, this was simply nonsense, a distortion that, in some ways bore even less resemblance to reality than "Jimmy's World," the tale of an eight-year-old junkie that, briefly, won a Pulitzer for Janet Cooke of the Washington Post. Tragic "Jimmy" turned out not to exist. He was a concoction, a fiction, nothing more. The Post did the right thing — Cooke's prize was rapidly returned.

After 70 years the New York Times has yet to do the right thing. There is, naturally, always room for disagreement over how events are interpreted, particularly in an era of revolutionary change, but Duranty's writings clearly tipped over into propaganda, and, often, outright deception, a cynical sugarcoating of the squalor of a system in which he almost certainly didn't believe. His motivation seems to have been purely opportunistic, access to the Moscow "story" for the Times and the well-paid lifestyle and the fame ("the Great Duranty" was, some said, the best-known journalist in the world) that this brought. Too much criticism of Stalin's rule and this privileged existence would end. Duranty's "Stalin" was a lie, not much more genuine than Janet Cooke's "Jimmy" and, as he well knew at the time, so too were the descriptions of the Soviet experiment that brought him that Pulitzer.

And if that is not enough to make the Pulitzer Board to reconsider withdrawing an award that disgraces both the name of Joseph Pulitzer and his prize, it is up to the New York Times to insist that it does so.

*From an account quoted in Robert Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow.

** On another occasion (a dinner party, ironically) that autumn Duranty talked about seven million deaths.

http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford050703.asp

19 posted on 12/19/2013 9:40:18 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

Proportionally, population wise, it was far worse for the Irish actually. Some estimates have half or more of the population of Ireland dead through the sword, disease, privation or sold into slavery.


20 posted on 12/19/2013 9:48:09 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
But Putin said BOTH deserved to have statues in their honor...

Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor as much as the late British lord protector, a “cunning fellow” who “played a very ambiguous role in Britain’s history.”

21 posted on 12/19/2013 9:53:28 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

>>>Proportionally, population wise, it was far worse for the Irish actually. Some estimates have half or more of the population of Ireland dead through the sword, disease, privation or sold into slavery.<<<

Bingo. Put Cromwell to Red China instead of Mao and we shall see.


22 posted on 12/19/2013 10:48:30 PM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ETL

They both deserve the same honors. They should dig up Stalin, execute him, cut his head off and stick it on pike, just like they did to Cromwell.


23 posted on 12/19/2013 10:52:14 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

bkmk


24 posted on 12/19/2013 10:53:34 PM PST by AllAmericanGirl44 (Wishing all a very Merry Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

Yes.


25 posted on 12/19/2013 11:00:28 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6; Forward the Light Brigade

I wont try and justify what Cromwell did, although I will point out that the Irish then and now exaggerate the death toll of 1649-50, and indentured servitude of prisoners of war was commonplace in Europe. Cromwell also took masses of Scottish Royalists as ‘slaves’. Ironically his army was not English, but an amalgam of English, Welsh and Ulster Scots, perhaps even a few Scots.

I would also remind people that any Cromwellian hate had its roots in the famous 1641 uprising, where the Irish Catholics slaughtered thousands of Protestant English and Scottish settlers, inc women and children.


26 posted on 12/20/2013 4:51:39 AM PST by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

You can take the man out of the KGB but you can’t take the KGB out of the man


27 posted on 12/20/2013 6:17:37 AM PST by capt B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Wasn’t Stalin cremated (after removal from Lenin’s tomb) and bricked into the Kremlin wall?


28 posted on 12/20/2013 6:49:58 AM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
You should perhaps broaden your research of Irish history. Perhaps starting with the search terms "enslavement of the Irish people" not "indentured servitude of the Irish people".

To diminish the magnitude of what happened to the Irish under English rule is quite disingenuous.

29 posted on 12/20/2013 12:43:30 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

I am an MA in History, thank you. I have probably studied more Irish history than you, both Catholic Irish and Ulster Scot, as well as Anglo-Irish history.

You are accusing me of something that I said clearly in my post I was not going to do, and didn’t.


30 posted on 12/20/2013 7:47:07 PM PST by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Well if we are going to go down that route, maybe the Germans should start putting up statues of Hitler.


31 posted on 12/20/2013 7:50:34 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until 31 October 1961, when his body was removed from the mausoleum and buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.

Nothing about cremation according to that impeccable source, Wikipedia.

32 posted on 12/21/2013 6:08:39 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Okay, I thought he was behind some brick in the wall.


33 posted on 12/21/2013 7:35:21 AM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Cromwell endorsed the execution of King Charles II, though he never conducted any mass purges.

Tell that to the people of Ireland and Scotland, where Cromwell committed mass murder.

34 posted on 12/21/2013 7:43:06 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
"I wont try and justify what Cromwell did, although I will point out that the Irish then and now exaggerate the death toll of 1649-50, and indentured servitude of prisoners of war was commonplace in Europe."

The "Irish" exaggerate? According to you what was the "real" number?

Yes, indentured servitude of prisoners of war was common. The wholesale roundup of men, women and children that were sold into slavery in the Carribean and the New World was not. To deny that this happened is, yes, disingenuous.

"I would also remind people that any Cromwellian hate had its roots in the famous 1641 uprising, where the Irish Catholics slaughtered thousands of Protestant English and Scottish settlers, inc women and children."

So they had it coming. I see.

35 posted on 12/21/2013 12:55:58 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Apologies if I wasn’t clear, when I said Irish, I was referring to Irish Republicans/Nationalists. Yes, the figures have been exaggerated over the centuries at times for political effect and is till debated over even today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Debate_over_Cromwell.27s_effect_on_Ireland

I did not and will not suggest what he did was justified, my point was how people can use terrible incidents and abuse history for political aims.

As to slavery to the New World, as a Scot, I know exactly what Cromwell did, conservative estimates state he sent 10000 Scots to the colonies.

As to 1641, the contemporary sources clearly show that the 1641 killings were upmost on the Cromwellian mind, and that a great deal of the ruthlessness in 1649-50 can be traced back to it. I didn’t say or suggest that 1649-50 was justified by 1641. Nor would I.

(I would point out though that 1641 is of course ignored and/or even justified by Irish Republicans/Nationalists. And tends outside Ulster to be forgotten by the British and Irish public. It is little taught or not taught in history on the UK mainland, few books and TV/radio has been done on it, and its dosent have the public attention of other parts of Irish history. Cynics might say because it dosent fit the narrative of brutality towards the ‘native’ Irish)

You know I am not justifying anything, I am merely explaining why they happened. So please stop s*it-stirring and have a proper historical discussion with me on the issue.


36 posted on 12/22/2013 5:08:14 AM PST by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
Me s*** stirring? i believe that you responded to my post in an attempt to mollify my view of Cromwell .

The link that you provided does not support your case and you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a source.

While there is little debate as to what Cromwell did there is debate as to whether he was directly responsible for all of the atrocities that occurred. I hold that as the supreme military commander and ruler of England that he was ultimately responsible for all.

Conservative estimates have Ireland losing a quarter of her population due the sword, disease, privation, forced starvation, banishment and transport into slavery.

More realistic, in my view, estimates hold that Ireland lost well over half of her population during the Cromwell campaign.

For the sake of argument we'll split the difference and call it a third. By any historical standard this is horrific.

Were these depredations fueled partly by revenge for the killings in the 1641 uprising? No doubt. Using that same argument the killings of 1641 were fueled by the oppression of the centuries old rule by the English. Also the number of English, Scots Protestant settlers killed at this time is also open to debate. We're the actual numbers inflated for political purposes?

Indentured servitude was established by contract between the indentured (or his guardians) and the master. In exchange for transport to the New World and / or learning a trade the indentured would work for the master for a fixed period, often 4-7 yrs.

The Irish of this time were not indentured servants, they were slaves. They were captured and sold as slaves. They were valued less than African slaves as they did not fare well in the tropical climate and they were hated by the Protestant masters for being Papists. They had no fixed term of servitude and no hope of freedom.

Now please answer my previous question. How many Irish died or were sold into slavery?

37 posted on 12/22/2013 1:55:04 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson