we can't just vote fascism away. the time has come to disobey. (be brave)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 year ago (186 children)

Are there any actual leftist spaces on this site? This place is as filled with libs as r/leftist back on Reddit which was always cringe. Need more active anarchist pages or those site's version of latestagecapitalism to get more use.

  • source
  • hideshow 186 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (51 children)

    No? The fuck kind of question is that? It's like asking if I want Israel to continue existing after everything they've done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (50 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Better than accusing me of being one simply cause I refuse to fall in line with the blue or red fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Democrats and Conservatives. Anyone who sides with capitalism, supports state sanctioned violence by the police along with genocide and thinks that human rights are something to be debated over with shit like "up to the states to decide" or whatever is a fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (46 children)

    People are using tankie for Russia supporters?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (44 children)

    Tankies are people who identify as communist or socialist, but want a state where the ruler cannot be switched out through elections, or a comparable peaceful process. Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term "tankie" was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution.

    Authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. Under communism, the means of production are publicly owned. Ownership over a thing means that either a) you control the thing, and owe no accountability to anybody. Or b) the person controlling the thing is accountable to you. If the person who claims to control the means of production as the representative of the people is not accountable to the people, then he is actually the owner of the means of production. For example, Stalin effectively owned the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wasn't communism, it was the end state of capitalism, the complete enslavement of the working class to the owner class.

    And for some reason, people who think Stalin was great like Russia, even though modern Russia doesn't even claim to be communist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not supporting the "dictatorship of the proletariat" types, but the reason tankies support Russia isn't because they think modern Russia is Communist. It's because Russia is fighting Ukraine, which they see as a proxy war against the United States and its puppets in NATO.

    In the authoritarian Communist worldview, the United States is the vanguard of capitalism and the most dangerous threat to global communism. That's why they think Communist nations need authoritarian governments and powerful militaries: to protect themselves from the United States and its client states.

    So tankies support anyone fighting the United States or its allies, no matter who they are or how bad their governments are. Because they think anything that weakens the United States is good for the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (38 children)

    Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term “tankie” was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution

    Not to be pedantic or anything, but wasn't the etymology of the word "tankie" vindicated recently when it was released by Trump that the leader of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters ended up being funded by CIA?

    Regarding your point of Stalin controlling the Soviet Union and dictating whatever happened with the means of production, I actually have stuff to add: union membership was highest in the USSR than it's ever been anywhere to that point of history, with unions taking care of a lot of stuff such as guaranteeing workers access to housing and healthcare, organizing vacation, ensuring workplace safety, and obviously representing the will of workers: in every factory there was a factory newspaper where workers could submit their complaints or comments on the work organizing, and unions had the power to change the workplace director. As for sources of this, you can have a look at Pat Sloan's "Soviet Democracy", a book written by an Englishman who left the UK to go to the USSR in the Stalin era and lived there for about a decade; also Mick Costello's "Worker Participation in the Soviet Union", a book written after a series of interviews to workers all over the USSR by the author, published 1977 so a very different era, tells a lot about this. I think most of the misconception that "workers had no say in production" comes mostly from western anticommunist propaganda and isn't substantiated by any serious evidence. If you have any works contradicting what I've said above, I'd be glad to look into it.

    Lastly, regarding your point of "Soviet Union being the end state of Capitalism and the enslavement of the working class to the owner class": who was said owner class?

    Source for the graph above, hopefully you know Meduza well enough to know that it's not very much aligned with socialism. Wealth inequality has never been lower in any Soviet Union territories as it was during the Soviet Union, not before, not after. In fact, wealth inequality was remarkably low compared to most capitalist countries (again as you see in the graph), and the highest salaries belonged actually not to politicians as you could expect, but to highly trained intellectuals such as University professors or military researchers (my sources for this are Albert Szymanski's "Is the Red Flag Flying" and Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory: a Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution). If there were an "owning class vs. working class" dynamic, wouldn't we expect high wealth disparity between workers and "owners", whoever they were? Why, if workers had no say over 70 years in industrial and economic production, was wealth inequality consistently at historic minima and not growing as is the case in proven class-societies such as capitalism (Russia post-1990 per the graph) or feudalism (Russia pre-1929ish per the graph)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    If you took care to actually read the graph, you would see it says "income inequality". How income (i.e. regular earnings, NOT amount of property owned) relates to formal ownership of something is beyond me. Additionally:

    What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them)

    I don't even know what to say. Are you not aware that in 1991 the USSR was dissolved? How exactly would the communist party achieve formal ownership of means of production in 1991 if the system was discarded in favour of capitalism? What happened is kinda exactly the opposite: means of production went from formal ownership by the state, to formal and de-facto ownership by private owners over the following 5-10 years (the "vertical" line you talk about).

    I'm under the impression that you have done 0 reading on the topic of actual worker representation, which you haven't rebuked and haven't given any sources too, and you're pulling stuff out of your ass from hearsay, because your comment literally makes no sense whatsoever

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ok, so why if they already de-facto controlled everything, did they have comparably much lower INCOME. What stopped them from having higher INCOME? Why do you refuse to answer to that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ohhh, so now we bounce from your misunderstanding and conflation of wealth and income which now you conveniently forget about, and jump to "actually, money didn't mean anything, so it doesn't matter that income inequality was low". Good to see you keep making up stuff on the spot.

    If you had bothered to read my first comment, you'd have seen that highest wages were given not to party members but to highly trained professionals of the intelligentsia such as university professors or researchers (many of the latter in military projects). If wages were used as an incentive for these people, then how come money wasn't real and didn't mean anything? Then they would have paid those professionals the same!

    Your point of "access to goods and services in the USSR through non-monetary means" has a bit of merit though, but it actually backfires to your agenda. Food basics, energy, heating, housing, basic clothing items, public transit and even housing were astonishingly low-priced, with housing costing about 3% of monthly family unit income, and with metro tickets in Moscow not changing price between 1940s and 1980. Healthcare was free to everyone, education was completely free to the highest level for everyone, and there was universal access to such important services. Those things actually work in the opposite direction that you mean: the poorer people were heavily subsidized in comparison to capitalist states. It's especially relevant to rural areas, with tens of millions of formerly rural people being forced to abandon their hometowns after the deterioration or outright closure of formerly state-subsidized services (e.g. Moscow metropolitan area has grown by 6mn people over the past 30 years whereas the total population of Russia has shrunk by a few million).

    Every single measurement of inequality has grown since the dismantling of the soviet state: reduction in life expectancy over the 90s and 2000s leading to above ten million premature deaths, lower childbirth rates, destruction of the public pension system, dismantling of public healthcare and education, removal of basic services in rural areas that have forced migrations of millions to cities, crime rates skyrocketed... What argument will you make up on-the-spot now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You explained it perfectly well: you have as an axiom based on no sources provided yet (I.e. hearsay) that the "owning class" of the USSR owned the state property de facto, and so inequalily was perpetuated. Not through income, conveniently, as I already provided data contradicting that, so you shift to saying money was worthless.

    I have explained and given you numbers and evidence on how access to many goods and services was subsidized to the working class and stopped being so after the transition to capitalism, which again contradicts your initial assertion that it was also capitalism and a class society with an owning class and a working class. Now, answer my proposition: given how universal access was I such things and how it stopped being the case, why did the "owning class" previously grant the working class access to such healthcare, education, housing, foodstuffs, energy, public transit, infrastructure, sports facilities, and even holiday resorts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • People needing to line up for basic goods

    This is, as you say, the Soviet Union close to its dissolution. These are the post-1985 times of Perestroika, in which unsuccessful liberal reforms were implemented to Soviet industry in a radical manner, such as overnight replacing 50% of resource allocation by planning committee to markets that didnt exist, and general chaos ensued. It was a big mistake that led to issues such as bread lines, but it's specific to the late 80s. You and I have lived the lack of stock of basic goods in supermarkets such as toilet paper and sunflower oil or eggs from particular historical events. Bread lines just did not happen in the USSR from the postwar recovery to the perestroika, and focusing on a few years of turmoil due to war or to bad policy towards the end isnt accurate of the experience of the rest of the time.

    Based on the personal accounts of a relative

    Then do your reading, mate, I'm sorry. I have relatives who have personal accounts of the streets being dangerous just because they're racist pieces of shit and saw a black person. Look at the crime rates of my area and they're at historic low, despite what personal accounts say. If you want personal accounts, go ask an old soviet person, most old people in Russia want the USSR back, and it was the case in Ukraine too until 10 years ago. Go ask old people in former Yugoslavia whether life was better under Tito or on what ensued. Or, be materialist, and don't "listen to one personal account": do your reading of actually researched studies. I gave you plenty of sources for my information regarding foodstuffs, access to housing and work, access to public transit, urban planning, infrastructure and the rural exodus since 1990, education, healthcare, sports... The information is there, and these books use sources that you can check by yourself. So please, don't tell me "but I heard a relative say something different".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Killing civilians is bad, now go get that job

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (22 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] [S] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] [S] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (49 children)

    The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?" It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.

    And while 71.5% of Ukrainians voted in favor of the New Union Treaty, 81.7% voted for an independent Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (47 children)

    Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?

    I wonder if something happened to make them change their mind on neutrality

    You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda.

    Because there's nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (40 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (38 children)

    My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union.

    Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.

    In short: Wikipedia is primarily edited by white young males of english-speaking countries, so it features the bias or young males of English a speaking countries. This is well-known and even has Wikipedia articles dedicated to it. In particular, source selection on English Wikipedia is mostly taken from western news sources, so it reflects the bias of western news sources. Western news sources present systematic pro-western bias in geopolitically sensitive issues, you may recall the behaviour of western news sources regarding Palestine up to a few years ago, with no media talking of genocide and presenting the occupation of Palestine as a "both sides issue". Other, possibly more egregious cases you may or not remember are Nayirah's Testimony or the media flip on coverage of Russia in European countries, where up to 2022 Putin was said to be a "great governor and Russian patriot" (e.g. Francisco Marhuenda), which is now unthinkable. If you're interested in this issue with Wikipedia, I wrote this detailed post about it some time ago.

    I hope you, a self-declared socialist from what I've seen on your post history, will reflect on using mainstream western sources to analyze topics that are sensitive to western geopolitics as is the case for communism, we're well aware of what the red scare in the US entailed and the lies that have been spread about socialism in general (not just the Soviet project) by the US state propaganda apparatus over the past century.

    I encourage you to do some reading of my sources, especially Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", which dispells a ton of western-manufactured myths about the USSR using mostly western academic sources.

    And why does Russia's life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed?

    On the graph you can see Russia's life expectancy peaked in 1990, then fell for one and a half decades coinciding with the dismantling of the USSR, and then in 2005 it starts to rise back, but doesnt reach pre-1990 levels until about 2015, so life expectancy didnt recover from capitalism until 25 years of technological advances passed. Regarding Brazil, yes, Brazil surpassed life expectancy in Russia during the crisis of the dismantling, I do think this supports my thesis that the dismantling murdered millions (by Paul Cockshott's calculations, about 5-10 million in Russia alone).

    Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?

    If there were a class of owners strongly gripping to power in order to keep exploiting the majority of workers, you would expect very violent revolutions being needed to dismantle the system and remove them from power, but the transition to capitalism in the Eastern Block was overwhelmingly peaceful, which again supports my thesis that there wasn't an owning class enjoying the fruits of others' labour. As to why the USSR was dismantled this is a long topic, and if you're interested in some materialist historical analysis, I recommend "Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Robert Keeran and Thomas Kenny. It gives a good historical outlook on how it's possible that the USSR survived something as impossibly difficult as WW2 and the murder of 25 million Soviet citizens (13% of the population) by Nazis, but it was dismantled in half a decade since the start of the perestroika in 1985.

    Please, you're patently showing that the reading you've done of the topic of the USSR is superficial and based off primarily western anticommunist sources. I encourage you to keep an open mind and read more about the project that uplifted 150 million peasants in the Russian Empire from extreme poverty to being the second most powerful nation on Earth, guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, work, not performing unequal exchange or economic imperialism with any sort of colony unlike US and Europe with Africa and Latin America, and helping emancipatory movements such as that of Vietnam or Cuba.

    Stop looking for excuses with on-the-spot reading of graphs or moving the goalposts (first wealth and de-jure ownership, then income not mattering, then radio silence about widespread access to social services and essential goods).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (35 children)

    Again, way to ignore 90% of my comment.

    Democracy isn't when there's three parties, it's when people generally get what they want. People in the entirety of Europe have been consistently overwhelmingly against Austerity Policy since 2008 and that's all we've gotten, regardless of party in government or country in question, and when one country (Greece) decided to ignore austerity, it was literally threatened with a default by the European Central Bank and wasn't allowed to do so. Plenty of parties and free vote in Europe, it all means nothing at the end of the day. If you're USian instead, you're probably aware that the overwhelming majority of USians want universal healthcare for decades and that's systematically ignored by either party in government. What's democracy then?

    Again: why would an antidemocratic dictatorship of an owning class create free universal healthcare, free education to the highest degree, guaranteed housing and work, public services, thoughtful urban planning and walkable neighborhoods, quality public transit for the period, subsidies of basic foodstuffs, sports centres aplenty, paid holidays for everyone, high workplace safety, etc? Maybe, possibly, because it was more democratic than you've made out to think? Again, I've given you plenty of sources mate, and you're just ignoring 90% of the comments I'm writing. Are you even a leftist at all? I wouldn't have this patience with a rightoid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    You're being purposefully obtuse. Did Bush obey the popular will when he invaded Iraq?

    The only and best measure of democracy is the existence of multiple parties?

    I'm trying to have an actual conversation with you, dont be a dick

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ok I thought I was talking to someone with basic political literacy. Yes, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens were/are against rise of retirement age and against defunding of public healthcare and education.

    Greece was threatened with a default because EU states with Euro as their currency gave up their monetary sovereignty to the European Central Bank. England, the US or Japan have their own currencies so the state cannot default by definition, because the state can literally create an unlimited amount of the money it borrows through debt. Greece had a DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM to revise its sovereign debt and the idea won by a long shot, and then the country was not allowed to exercise its democratic will under threat of cutting Euro supply by the ECB, i.e. default.

    Every poll in the USA comes to some result close to 70% of USians supporting the idea of implementing universal healthcare because essentially every Democrat wants this and many Republicans want it too. It's not done because the US isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

    I'm actually done talking with you. You pretend to be a leftist but you have literally 0 support to offer to the working class, you have the narrowest understanding of politics as defined by whatever western outlets you consume, and you're a smug debatelord who doesn't care to inform themselves in the slightest, you haven't picked up a single book about politics in your entire life and it shows. You constantly replicate lies and don't care to admit it, you constantly miss information and you don't care to admit it, and you think you're the smartest person in the universe. Go waste someone else's time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You're losing and you know it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (52 children)

    I suppose you don't care about Gaza either, do you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    So, why are you indifferent to Russia committing genocide, but not to Israel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    So, your standard is "Imperialism is fine, as long as you're not committing genocide"? Also, Russia not committing genocide is highly questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    The reason to invade Finland wasn't sue to Nazi collaborationism, Finland still wasn't allied with the Nazis. The reason was the need for the USSR to put additional territory between themselves and the Nazis due to the geography of the region, i.e. the Great European Plain, a vast flatland without natural defenses that is very hard to protect from Nazi blitzkrieg. USSR attempted negotiations with Finland to gain terrains to have control over lands further from Moscow, Leningrad and the oil fields at the south of Russia, and only when those negotiations failed did the Soviets invade. This isn't just explicitly what the Soviets were saying at the time of negotiations, it was openly said so by all western leaders at the time of the Molotov Ribbentrop truce:

    “In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

    “It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

    "One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • load more comments (16 replies)