Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who to trust?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who to trust?

It was barely 5 months ago that Dame Laura Cox issued her withering report on an entrenched culture within Parliament “cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.” Strong stuff. But despite token words of condemnation and promises to learn the lessons and implement the necessary changes, the report – let alone the promised actions – seem to have sunk without trace.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks for the header, cyclefree. :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Second! Good article yesterday which tied the rise of Labout’s antisemitism to the post-Corbyn Trots.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    RobD said:

    Thanks for the header, cyclefree. :)

    Seconded!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited March 2019
    If you break antisemitism into two parts, being anti-Israel and anti-Jew, then it is clear that Corbyn and many on that part of the left are anti-Israel and not anti-Jew. Their problem, Corbyn's problem, is that since the IHRA definition was promulgated and widely accepted, that distinction is no longer viable. Many who do not regard themselves as antisemitic, but anti-Israel or as they might put it, anti-Zionist, are nonetheless seen by others as antisemitic. Some former MPs might have been pictured in Nazi uniform for a fancy dress party: commonplace in the recent past but now beyond the pale).

    Ah, but it is easily possible to criticise Israel without being antisemitic. Yes. But less easy to travel back in time and not make crass comparisons of Israel and the Nazis (and it is ironic that one of Corbyn's keenest critics has also used absurd Nazi comparisons against his leadership). And since the IHRA definition also mandates taking a firm line against other states, it is not actually that easy.

    That, in a nutshell, is Corbyn's and Labour's problem: not now but the recent past; not this week's speech but the past few decades'; not Jews but Israel. There is a strand on the left that is unduly exercised by foreign affairs: Israel, Venezuela, and in the past, South Africa. (And not just Labour: remember that in 1974, Heath could not save the Conservative government by coalition with the Liberals because that party wanted to bomb Rhodesia.)

    There is also the suspicion this is being stirred up by the right. Well yes, of course it is. That's politics. It is true but does not explain, still less excuse, antisemitism.

    Corbyn will step down in a year or two. Unless Theresa May calls a snap election, he will not fight the next one in 2022. His views, and his record, will no longer prevent a change in the zeitgeist.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    A great article as usual from Ms @Cyclefree.

    Thanks for the reminder of how the Cox report was buried, mostly because a large group of MPs think that the guy at the top of that organisation would be useful to them in the coming weeks and months.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Half-asleep, but will give the article a proper look following caffeine infusion.

    Also going to start a ramble-blog about F1. Likely nothing too exciting, just mood music from testing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Scott_P said:
    TBH I have tended to disagree with people online who have criticised some of the output combatting AS but the guy does raise a good point which many Corbyn supporting critics have raised.

    It looks like he's saying were racist, which we know goes against the facts. So we probably shouldn't do it. Things like that can be used against you. From an electoral point of view the Tories response to their far greater Islamophobia problem is far better from a PR angle.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    And the other great party has been found guilty in court only last week of running a racist housing policy, introduced by you-know-who as Home Secretary. Motes and beams! And is widely held to have run a racist election campaign for London's Mayor. Motes and beams.

    Betting-wise, since this is a betting site, the main impact of all this is to kill off Boris's leadership chances..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    edited March 2019
    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    Apart from three years ago, where did you drag that up from? Mind, social care in the 80's was considered, IIRC, to be a somewhat dark place.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    It was Hodge's involvement that lent votes to the BNP in her constituency, rather than any great enthusiasm for that party's vile race policies.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2019
    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited March 2019
    How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited March 2019

    How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

    That Tom Watson is seen as the last man able to try and sort out the problem, shows how ingrained and pervasive that problem has become.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    On housing and race last Friday.

    The High Court found right to rent discriminatory and blocked its further roll-out to the rest of the country.

    As with most of Theresa May's works, the policy failed.
    Mr Justice Spencer said the scheme had "little or no effect" on its main aim of controlling immigration and even if it had, this was "significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47415383
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?

    Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'

    Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
  • How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.

    If the disciplinary process was fit for purpose then Watson wouldn't need to collect evidence of all the cases that the GC/LOTO are covering up.

    The truth is simple. Project Corbyn allowed back in all the screaming anti-semitic nutters. They advocate the right of return of "refugees" - in reality the second and third generation descendents of refugees whose return would sweep the extant Jewish population into the sea. They scream on about how Israel is using financiers to directly corrupt the media to tell lies about the JC. It's blatant open anti-semitism and yet anyone pointing it out is denounced as a Blairite.

    Which is the ultimate charge because association with a trice elected Prime Minister who materially transformed the lives of people like Angela Rayner is truly a crime. These hard left agitators are experts at manipulation. Which is how I now read on Facebook from younger "if it's on Facebook it's true" members that the evil Watson is a Blairite. Yes. He personally organised against Blair and was I strumental in Blair going. He's a Blairite apparently. Says someone who doesn't undertake d what a Blairite is, what it means, or who the key players were and what they did.

    It truly is 1984 levels of bullshit. Which is why Watson has to keep track. Because when LOTO is actively squashing moves against headbangers because they are allies, when Formby is doing literally nothing, then what else is he to do?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited March 2019

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    I do not know of any direct Corbyn involvement.

    However, what ‘The Independent’ article does not mention is that one of the main perpetrators of the abuse was a (now dead) prominent Labour activist in Islington Labour Party.

    Hodge does bear a terrible responsibility for failing to do any thing -- actually worse, attacking the victims -- but the allegations against the individual concerned must have been known more widely in the local Labour party.

    I don’t think YDoethur’s suggestion is out-of-the-question.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    If you break antisemitism into two parts, being anti-Israel and anti-Jew, then it is clear that Corbyn and many on that part of the left are anti-Israel and not anti-Jew. Their problem, Corbyn's problem, is that since the IHRA definition was promulgated and widely accepted, that distinction is no longer viable. Many who do not regard themselves as antisemitic, but anti-Israel or as they might put it, anti-Zionist, are nonetheless seen by others as antisemitic. Some former MPs might have been pictured in Nazi uniform for a fancy dress party: commonplace in the recent past but now beyond the pale).

    Ah, but it is easily possible to criticise Israel without being antisemitic. Yes. But less easy to travel back in time and not make crass comparisons of Israel and the Nazis (and it is ironic that one of Corbyn's keenest critics has also used absurd Nazi comparisons against his leadership). And since the IHRA definition also mandates taking a firm line against other states, it is not actually that easy.

    That, in a nutshell, is Corbyn's and Labour's problem: not now but the recent past; not this week's speech but the past few decades'; not Jews but Israel. There is a strand on the left that is unduly exercised by foreign affairs: Israel, Venezuela, and in the past, South Africa. (And not just Labour: remember that in 1974, Heath could not save the Conservative government by coalition with the Liberals because that party wanted to bomb Rhodesia.)

    There is also the suspicion this is being stirred up by the right. Well yes, of course it is. That's politics. It is true but does not explain, still less excuse, antisemitism.

    Corbyn will step down in a year or two. Unless Theresa May calls a snap election, he will not fight the next one in 2022. His views, and his record, will no longer prevent a change in the zeitgeist.

    Hostility towards Israel is one route into anti-semitism; the other is believing in the conspiracy theory of international financ
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    On housing and race last Friday.

    The High Court found right to rent discriminatory and blocked its further roll-out to the rest of the country.

    As with most of Theresa May's works, the policy failed.
    Mr Justice Spencer said the scheme had "little or no effect" on its main aim of controlling immigration and even if it had, this was "significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47415383

    The Govt. has been granted permission to appeal.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The whole Corbyn project is based on his ‘movement’. Much of that is good, ordinary people taking part. But one of the key pillars of that movement are vocal outriders that attack opponents, whip up outrage and provide cover for the leader.

    This is not some out of control fringe, but the heart of the operation. They cut their teeth on Iraq/Blair, sharpened them on the Tories/austerity and bite hard into anyone and everyone that threatens the Corbyn project. They have a holier than thou, blind missionary zeal. They wear a white hat and for that reason can do nothing wrong.

    In doing so they created the conditions that caused many to cross the line and to continue to cross the line on AS and other issues. And yet for all that, the leadership doesn’t seem to take ownership of the monster they have created. They wash their hands and say it’s not in their name.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?

    Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'

    Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
    I'm not so worried about paedophilia in Labour, because Tom Watson is on the case.

    Oh. Just Tories was it? Ah. Awkward......
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.

    I trust Watson way less than Corbyn.

    I can think of no problem or injustice which will not be magnified by an investigation by Tom Watson.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    On housing and race last Friday.

    The High Court found right to rent discriminatory and blocked its further roll-out to the rest of the country.

    As with most of Theresa May's works, the policy failed.
    Mr Justice Spencer said the scheme had "little or no effect" on its main aim of controlling immigration and even if it had, this was "significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47415383

    The Govt. has been granted permission to appeal.
    You missed out the bit that an independent study had found to the contrary...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    On housing and race last Friday.

    The High Court found right to rent discriminatory and blocked its further roll-out to the rest of the country.

    As with most of Theresa May's works, the policy failed.
    Mr Justice Spencer said the scheme had "little or no effect" on its main aim of controlling immigration and even if it had, this was "significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47415383

    The Govt. has been granted permission to appeal.
    As my own solicitor once remarked: "there are always grounds for appeal; whether there are good grounds..."
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Jonathan said:

    The whole Corbyn project is based on his ‘movement’. Much of that is good, ordinary people taking part. But one of the key pillars of that movement are vocal outriders that attack opponents, whip up outrage and provide cover for the leader.

    This is not some out of control fringe, but the heart of the operation. They cut their teeth on Iraq/Blair, sharpened them on the Tories/austerity and bite hard into anyone and everyone that threatens the Corbyn project. They have a holier than thou, blind missionary zeal. They wear a white hat and for that reason can do nothing wrong.

    In doing so they created the conditions that caused many to cross the line and to continue to cross the line on AS and other issues. And yet for all that, the leadership doesn’t seem to take ownership of the monster they have created. They wash their hands and say it’s not in their name.

    Plausible deniability and outsourcing responsibility are hallmarks of these times.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Jonathan said:

    The whole Corbyn project is based on his ‘movement’. Much of that is good, ordinary people taking part. But one of the key pillars of that movement are vocal outriders that attack opponents, whip up outrage and provide cover for the leader.

    This is not some out of control fringe, but the heart of the operation. They cut their teeth on Iraq/Blair, sharpened them on the Tories/austerity and bite hard into anyone and everyone that threatens the Corbyn project. They have a holier than thou, blind missionary zeal. They wear a white hat and for that reason can do nothing wrong.

    In doing so they created the conditions that caused many to cross the line and to continue to cross the line on AS and other issues. And yet for all that, the leadership doesn’t seem to take ownership of the monster they have created. They wash their hands and say it’s not in their name.

    I fear some of it reaches back further and links to the readmission of all the old Militant trots Neil Kinnock slung out. That might explain why Liverpool MPs like Luciana Berger were targeted.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Jonathan said:

    The whole Corbyn project is based on his ‘movement’. Much of that is good, ordinary people taking part. But one of the key pillars of that movement are vocal outriders that attack opponents, whip up outrage and provide cover for the leader.

    This is not some out of control fringe, but the heart of the operation. They cut their teeth on Iraq/Blair, sharpened them on the Tories/austerity and bite hard into anyone and everyone that threatens the Corbyn project. They have a holier than thou, blind missionary zeal. They wear a white hat and for that reason can do nothing wrong.

    In doing so they created the conditions that caused many to cross the line and to continue to cross the line on AS and other issues. And yet for all that, the leadership doesn’t seem to take ownership of the monster they have created. They wash their hands and say it’s not in their name.

    The KKK also wear white hats.....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    The whole Corbyn project is based on his ‘movement’. Much of that is good, ordinary people taking part. But one of the key pillars of that movement are vocal outriders that attack opponents, whip up outrage and provide cover for the leader.

    This is not some out of control fringe, but the heart of the operation. They cut their teeth on Iraq/Blair, sharpened them on the Tories/austerity and bite hard into anyone and everyone that threatens the Corbyn project. They have a holier than thou, blind missionary zeal. They wear a white hat and for that reason can do nothing wrong.

    In doing so they created the conditions that caused many to cross the line and to continue to cross the line on AS and other issues. And yet for all that, the leadership doesn’t seem to take ownership of the monster they have created. They wash their hands and say it’s not in their name.

    The KKK also wear white hats.....
    This is the sensible, insightful analysis on which we have come to rely on you MM.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?

    Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'

    Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
    But would that have been the case in the 80's? I know little about children's homes but certainly care of the elderly advanced considerably during the time I was involved with it..... roughly 1995-2010.
    In other contexts we are warned not to apply the standards of today to activities in the past.

    Not defending, just saying.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    On topic, I see Joan Ryan has contacted police after receiving a note calling her "a lying Jew wanker" who should "burn in the ovens".
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,099
    edited March 2019
    Thanks for the header, @Cyclefree.

    After your last post on this subject, I was left feeling that you had too much faith in systems and procedures. This one leaves me feeling the other way, that all complaints systems depend on the people who are respnsible for them .. and they will never be perfect, either.

    So it is back to a hunt for an analogue of democracy - the least worst system.

    On the specifics - progress on Parliamentary bullying will not happen until Bercow is defenestrated, and it is a material issue in the following Speaker's election. I don't think they will accept a "suspend while investigating' paradigm for bullying *or* sexual abuse complaints, given the recent string of failed / false sexual abuse complaints against Parliamentary figures - it is too open to abuse for political purposes as a system.

    On antisemitism, consider Paul Flynn. Whilst being an Expenses Saint, Paul Flynn's 'dual loyalties' was imo also an example of casual antisemitism. Like many of the current incidents, after his 'dual loyalties' comment he just could not see what was wrong, so any apology is for 'choice of words', which is a mere triangulation.

    I think there is a Corbyn-Bercow parallel. Bercow cannot deal with bullying because he is implicated; Corbyn cannot deal with AS because doing so resolutely that would involve washing away a chunk of his own powerbase.

    I am not sure on Watson. I know him as a Brownite machine-politician with some big pluses (eg his Open Rights work), and some big minuses.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. F, that should dampen down accusations of anti-Semitism.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited March 2019

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?

    Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'

    Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
    But would that have been the case in the 80's? I know little about children's homes but certainly care of the elderly advanced considerably during the time I was involved with it..... roughly 1995-2010.
    In other contexts we are warned not to apply the standards of today to activities in the past.

    Not defending, just saying.
    To an extent, you are correct. At the time that we are talking about, Corbyn had no legal responsibility in the matter. That is also true of, say, Roman Catholic bishops.

    However, this isn't about legal responsibility. I was pointing out that he was involved in a cover-up. He may just have been involved because he's quite lazy and not very bright and failed to ask the right questions, but he's still involved.

    For that I am afraid he has a problem. As do so many other organisations (and the Tories' and Liberals' hands are not clean on this either).

    Edit - you asked me where I got this from. It was actually John Mann who raised it during the leadership election, so of course the cult will dismiss it as a Tory smear. Before that, indeed, I had never heard of Corbyn (ah for those happy days of innocence and bacon sandwiches). Being rather startled by it, I did some further research and came across some very disturbing investigations in the Islington Gazette from the mid 90s. Not sure if they're still online, but they were pretty shocking.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
  • Sean_F said:

    On topic, I see Joan Ryan has contacted police after receiving a note calling her "a lying Jew wanker" who should "burn in the ovens".

    All hashtagged #jc4pm or some other cult mantra.

    To give you an example, I witnessed in the pub an old comrade 6 sheets to the wind ranting on (as usual) about the media. Then on to how the Jews were controlling the media and spreading lies about The JC. Then onto how Israel was paying £300 @ week to a rival local activist to do his apparent false flag obsessions about AS.

    Another old comrade who was sat listening to this still loudly denounces anyone who says we have an AS problem as he himself has apparently never witnessed any. They are so anti-capitalist anti-establishment that they don't get how these paranoias spill over into overt AS.

    And no. I haven't reported it. What's the point?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    If you break antisemitism into two parts, being anti-Israel and anti-Jew, then it is clear that Corbyn and many on that part of the left are anti-Israel and not anti-Jew. Their problem, Corbyn's problem, is that since the IHRA definition was promulgated and widely accepted, that distinction is no longer viable. Many who do not regard themselves as antisemitic, but anti-Israel or as they might put it, anti-Zionist, are nonetheless seen by others as antisemitic.

    I think that's all correct. And attitudes to Israel were hardened during the Cold War, when there were default attitudes on right and left to "democratic countries allied to the west, even if they behave badly" and "non-democratic poor Third World countries, even if they are run by autocrats".

    Personally, even as someone who was on the Labour Friends of Israel executive, I don't think that people who are against Israel are necessarily anti-semitic, which if it means anything sensible means "hostile to people who are Jewish, irrespective of anything else about them". Anti-semitism in that crude form is both idiotic and extremely rare and has been ever since WW2. As Sean Fear observes, one way that people critical of Israel can slide into it is believing that Israel, with all its faults, is propped up by a global conspiracy, and anyone Jewish is automatically part of it.

    After WW2 and the Holocaust, virtually anyone with a shred of decency felt sympathy for Jews feeling they needed a safe homeland (basically that's what made me join LFI), and for some that extended to shrugging off the impact on Palestinians. But it has never been wicked to say (however unrealistically) that ultimately Jews and Palestinians would be better off if there was a unified secular state. It becomes wicked if one extends that to supporting war or terrorism or, more relevantly, to eyeing Jewish people with suspicion as "part of the conspiracy".

    I don't think the litmus test for anyone on this should be what they think about the Middle East - even if they think Israel is malign and should be replaced, that's one-sided but ultimately it's just an opinion unless it mutates into support for war. The litmus test for anti-semitism is whether you have a theory about what "most Jewish people are like". If you do, you're a racist nutter and should be thrown out of any sensible party, following legally-sound but nonetheless speedy procedures (and frankly our procedures are ludicrously slow for all kinds of suspension). There are clearly some nutters like this in Labour who have been dealt with too slowly or too leniently. But I think that some critics, inside and outside the party, are in turn generalising too much, sometimes because they're eager to have a go at Corbyn or Labour in general. We should address the issue seriously, but there is an edge of hysteria to some of the criticism that shouldn't be accepted.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Where have I heard "the holocaust was a minor detail" before?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    On topic, I see Joan Ryan has contacted police after receiving a note calling her "a lying Jew wanker" who should "burn in the ovens".

    All hashtagged #jc4pm or some other cult mantra.

    To give you an example, I witnessed in the pub an old comrade 6 sheets to the wind ranting on (as usual) about the media. Then on to how the Jews were controlling the media and spreading lies about The JC. Then onto how Israel was paying £300 @ week to a rival local activist to do his apparent false flag obsessions about AS.

    Another old comrade who was sat listening to this still loudly denounces anyone who says we have an AS problem as he himself has apparently never witnessed any. They are so anti-capitalist anti-establishment that they don't get how these paranoias spill over into overt AS.

    And no. I haven't reported it. What's the point?
    To their credit, Momentum released a video criticising AS. Some of the comments in response were blackly funny, particularly the debate between those who fought Umunna was in the pay of Israel, and those he thought he was such a scumbag that Israel didn't need to pay him.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Nice shovel. Nice hole.

    Keep digging......
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    So claims of anti-semitism are all a Zionist conspiracy?

    There is a very old and useful saying: when you are in a hole, stop digging.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    edited March 2019
    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.



    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    I think that's all correct. And attitudes to Israel were hardened during the Cold War, when there were default attitudes on right and left to "democratic countries allied to the west, even if they behave badly" and "non-democratic poor Third World countries, even if they are run by autocrats".

    Personally, even as someone who was on the Labour Friends of Israel executive, I don't think that people who are against Israel are necessarily anti-semitic, which if it means anything sensible means "hostile to people who are Jewish, irrespective of anything else about them". Anti-semitism in that crude form is both idiotic and extremely rare and has been ever since WW2. As Sean Fear observes, one way that people critical of Israel can slide into it is believing that Israel, with all its faults, is propped up by a global conspiracy, and anyone Jewish is automatically part of it.

    After WW2 and the Holocaust, virtually anyone with a shred of decency felt sympathy for Jews feeling they needed a safe homeland (basically that's what made me join LFI), and for some that extended to shrugging off the impact on Palestinians. But it has never been wicked to say (however unrealistically) that ultimately Jews and Palestinians would be better off if there was a unified secular state. It becomes wicked if one extends that to supporting war or terrorism or, more relevantly, to eyeing Jewish people with suspicion as "part of the conspiracy".

    I don't think the litmus test for anyone on this should be what they think about the Middle East - even if they think Israel is malign and should be replaced, that's one-sided but ultimately it's just an opinion unless it mutates into support for war. The litmus test for anti-semitism is whether you have a theory about what "most Jewish people are like". If you do, you're a racist nutter and should be thrown out of any sensible party, following legally-sound but nonetheless speedy procedures (and frankly our procedures are ludicrously slow for all kinds of suspension). There are clearly some nutters like this in Labour who have been dealt with too slowly or too leniently. But I think that some critics, inside and outside the party, are in turn generalising too much, sometimes because they're eager to have a go at Corbyn or Labour in general. We should address the issue seriously, but there is an edge of hysteria to some of the criticism that shouldn't be accepted.

    I think I agree with almost all of this lucid and clear-headed post.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:



    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").

    Where have I heard "the holocaust was a minor detail" before?
    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobody is now arguing that they are. They are arguing by how much - and whether it has the will to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Where have I heard "the holocaust was a minor detail" before?
    I don't know. Let us know if you remember.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.



    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
    The Wannsee Conference was not until January 1942.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited March 2019
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
    The RC church was only really concerned about the fate of Jews who had converted to Christianity, as its antisemitism was not racial but religious. It was particularly supportive of the Axis regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which were led by priests and participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The Nuremberg trials happened after WW2 ended, and are not relevant to how and why the war was conducted at the time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.



    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
    The Wannsee Conference was not until January 1942.
    Exactly my point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
    The RC church was only really concerned about the fate of Jews who had converted to Christianity, as its antisemitism was not racial but religious. It was particularly supportive of the Axis regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which were led by priests and participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The Nuremberg trials happened after WW2 ended, and are not relevant to how and why the war was conducted at the time.
    Your first point is not correct. It seems to be lifted from John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope, which has long been known to be an Irving style forgery. For a Jewish response to it, see here: https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-g-dalin/pius-xii-and-the-jews-1806

    Your second point is ludicrous. You said it was a minor detail. I was pointing out that the Nuremberg trials give the lie to that. Your response that they had no bearing on how the war was fought is a non sequitur.

    I don't know why I debate people like this. Maybe because there's nothing funnier than watching people like you squirm as your myths are demolished.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?

    Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited March 2019
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some in today's Labour Party found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    Fixed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    edited March 2019

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.



    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
    Of course. Anti negative views about Jews were common, and apparently acceptable in many countries in the 30's. There are some very unpleasant (to today's reader) in A P Herberts books, for example.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    Ummmm...
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html

    Prominent Labour members implicated in the coverup of this scandal include Hodge, Harman, Corbyn, Macdonnell, Blair...
    TBH I think it is mainly you and a few other out there thinkers that implicate Corbyn in this...

    You understand of course that as MP Corbyn wasn't actually anything to do with the running of care homes. Slipped your mind again I'm sure.
    You mean like, for example, Liz Davies, the whistleblower, who told him three times only for him to smile her and tell her there wasn't really a problem?

    Of course he didn't have anything to do with running children's homes. Nobody is suggesting that. But he knew what was happening and failed to report it or take any action over it. That counts as being part of the 'cover up.'

    Put it this way - if, knowing what he did, I had acted as he did, I would be sacked and banned from teaching.
    I'm not so worried about paedophilia in Labour, because Tom Watson is on the case.

    Oh. Just Tories was it? Ah. Awkward......
    Labour do appear to have been remarkably uncurious about paedophilia when Tories weren’t involved:

    https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/keith-vaz-and-the-mystery-of-barnes-common/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    Well, that is simply not true. The Foreign office as early as March 1942 was alarmed at reports of the massacres of Jews and had long discussions about what to do. They did nothing, in the end, because there was nothing they could do other than win the war as fast as possible, which they were trying to do already. And it wasn't fast enough.

    What you have done this morning is demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about, and whether deliberately or not you are now spouting Nazi propaganda, Try to get your facts from history books written by sane people, not from Irving, Cornwell, Hochhuth, Faurrison, Zundel or Katz.

    To everyone else, have a good morning.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?

    Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?

    Surely, nothing can happen until the unveiling of Cox's Codpiece?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
    The RC church was only really concerned about the fate of Jews who had converted to Christianity, as its antisemitism was not racial but religious. It was particularly supportive of the Axis regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which were led by priests and participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The Nuremberg trials happened after WW2 ended, and are not relevant to how and why the war was conducted at the time.
    Your first point is not correct. It seems to be lifted from John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope, which has long been known to be an Irving style forgery. For a Jewish response to it, see here: https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-g-dalin/pius-xii-and-the-jews-1806

    Your second point is ludicrous. You said it was a minor detail. I was pointing out that the Nuremberg trials give the lie to that. Your response that they had no bearing on how the war was fought is a non sequitur.

    I don't know why I debate people like this. Maybe because there's nothing funnier than watching people like you squirm as your myths are demolished.
    I suggest you do it because ridiculous untruths like @daodao's should not be allowed to go unchallenged; and you are right to do it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    edited March 2019

    O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?

    Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?

    Surely, nothing can happen until the unveiling of Cox's Codpiece?
    Which is dependent on...?
    The EU giving ground - not going to happen.
    Cox just modifying his previous interpretation - could happen right away.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    Exactly what ally forces were in position to do anything in 1942?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
    The RC church was only really concerned about the fate of Jews who had converted to Christianity, as its antisemitism was not racial but religious. It was particularly supportive of the Axis regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which were led by priests and participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The Nuremberg trials happened after WW2 ended, and are not relevant to how and why the war was conducted at the time.
    Your first point is not correct. It seems to be lifted from John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope, which has long been known to be an Irving style forgery. For a Jewish response to it, see here: https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-g-dalin/pius-xii-and-the-jews-1806

    Your second point is ludicrous. You said it was a minor detail. I was pointing out that the Nuremberg trials give the lie to that. Your response that they had no bearing on how the war was fought is a non sequitur.

    I don't know why I debate people like this. Maybe because there's nothing funnier than watching people like you squirm as your myths are demolished.
    I stated that it was a "minor detail" from the Allied perspective, and was not the reason why or how they fought. However, the atrocities were a useful tool for the victors to convict the vanquished German leaders at Nuremberg after the war had ended.

    The Germans, in diverting resources to their "war against the Jews", didn't help their fighting war effort, but it was only in Hungary in 1944 that the 2 events were happening at the same time and place.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    10% of the total fatalities are a 'minor detail?'

    It's a view, I suppose. Not one I share.

    Churchill of course was only interested in two things: (1) all the battles and (2) his own brilliance in winning the war(!). The Holocaust wasn't relevant to that.

    I think you will find however that it was very relevant at, say, the Nuremberg trials. It was also a key theme running through Foreign Office documentation for most of the period 1941-44 (1942 being of course the year when rather over half the victims were killed) and a key concern of the papacy (which is ironic given what Pius XII has subsequently been accused of).
    The RC church was only really concerned about the fate of Jews who had converted to Christianity, as its antisemitism was not racial but religious. It was particularly supportive of the Axis regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which were led by priests and participated in ethnic cleansing.

    The Nuremberg trials happened after WW2 ended, and are not relevant to how and why the war was conducted at the time.
    Jewish religious leaders after WWII, and at the time of Pope Pius XII's death, spoke warmly of the work that he had done to save Jewish lives.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some in today's Labour Party found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    Fixed.
    That is pretty offensive.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    The only way to save Jews was to win the war.
  • That we are somehow now discussing and debating the why's and wherefores as to at which point the Nazis went from exploitation to genocide is deeply depressing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobodywill to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    There is more than meets the eye on this whole matter. I suspect it springs from Corbyn's anti-Zionist viewpoint. For example, with regard to the ex-Labour MP Berger, the Wavertree CLP chair Scott-Samuel who is accused of having hounding her is himself Jewish, and the Jewish Labour MP Ellman in the neighbouring constituency of Liverpool Riverside has not been subject to harassment of the same degree. The Zionist lobby and its agents are determined to have Corbyn's head on a platter, because they wish to ensure that an anti-Zionist never becomes UK PM. Corbyn's other opponents (both blue and red Tories) are seizing it as weapon with which to attack him, and he lacks the mental ability to deal with the issue adequately.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Where have I heard "the holocaust was a minor detail" before?
    I don't know. Let us know if you remember.
    It was a remark made by Jean Marie Le Pen.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    That we are somehow now discussing and debating the why's and wherefores as to at which point the Nazis went from exploitation to genocide is deeply depressing.

    At least no one is (as yet) denying the Holocaust....
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    That we are somehow now discussing and debating the why's and wherefores as to at which point the Nazis went from exploitation to genocide is deeply depressing.

    I know where you are coming from but the fact people get fed up and eventually stop shutting / shouting down / removing members with these views is the reason why Labour has suddenly found itself in the mess it’s in.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Scott_P said:
    Johnny Mac is very vocal at the moment, it is like he is leader of the Labour party.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited March 2019
    McDonnell on Sophy on Sunday ever so lukewarm on a second referendum, complaining they are being forced into it
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    daodao said:

    Thanks for this, Cyclefree.

    You really have to take about four paces back, to think to yourself "We are talking about one of our two great democratic parties of the past hundred years. We are talking about an issue that was integral to one of the two great wars of the past hundred years. And that democratic party is now on the wrong side of that issue. Nobodywill to do anything meaningful to reduce it."

    How the hell could that state of affairs come about? And how the hell does it still have more than about 30 MPs? If instead of anti-semitism, the party was riddled with keyboard warriors who were advocates of paedophilia, safe because those at the top wouldn't boot them out, you have to wonder how many of them would still be MPs proud to wear the red rosette.

    If the Labour party was actually institutionally antisemitic, as distinct from anti-Zionist, Lansman (founder of Momentum) and E.Miliband (the previous leader) would also be hounded out. The Italian Fascist party had Jewish supporters and even ministers until the mid 1930s, but they were expelled and some subsequently killed after Italy's rapprochement with Germany consequent to the Abyssinian affair in 1935. That is what happens when a political party actually becomes institutionally antisemitic.

    Regarding WW2, other than from a Jewish perspective, and in some of the countries where it took place (mainly in eastern Europe), the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war or how it undertook it, and barely gets a mention in Churchill's epic 6 volume history of WW2.

    As for the Tory party, its current leader was shameless in the use of the classic antisemitic trope "citizens of nowhere" (akin to Stalin's phrase "rootless cosmopolitans").
    Where have I heard "the holocaust was a minor detail" before?
    I don't know. Let us know if you remember.
    It was a remark made by Jean Marie Le Pen.
    Who, in a discussion on anti-semitism, could feature. The Vichy French government didn't exactly cover itself with glory in that respect.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Scott_P said:
    Johnny Mac is very vocal at the moment, it is like he is leader of the Labour party.
    Difficult to know who would be worse. Two cheeks of the same arse.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:
    Who was the Conservative PPS sacked last week for supporting government policy?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Scott_P said:
    Johnny Mac is very vocal at the moment, it is like he is leader of the Labour party.
    Difficult to know who would be worse. Two cheeks of the same arse.
    Johnny Mac is far more dangerous. He is more extreme in his views, he isn't a moron and he will say whatever is required to get the job done.
  • O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?

    Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?

    I would be surprised as TM is still negotiating workers rights and funding to leave areas with labour mps and talk of a compromise with DUP. Additionally, delay is on her side
  • ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    Seconded.
  • Scott_P said:
    Who was the Conservative PPS sacked last week for supporting government policy?
    Alberto Costa and on McDonnell the key word is 'hints' - he was very lukewarm no doubt seeing the dangers to his front bench.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
  • ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
    Yeah, and Rwanda too. And ISIS. There will be another bunch of horrible bastards along in a minute as well. It's just that the factory farming methods of the Holocaust just seem like something out of a SciFi movie.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Off topic but given the direction the discussion is going this may be for the best. It is however brexit related

    https://twitter.com/HeleneBismarck/status/1102110283923886080
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good grief!

    "...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."

    Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?

    The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.

    But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
    The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some in today's Labour Party found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
    Fixed.
    That is pretty offensive.
    No. One of the two major democratic parties of Goverment allowing anti-semites a free rein - that is pretty offensive.

    And doing nothing meaningful to prevent it is not pretty at all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    eek said:

    Off topic but given the direction the discussion is going this may be for the best. It is however brexit related

    https://twitter.com/HeleneBismarck/status/1102110283923886080

    That would make a lot of people very happy from a political point of view - No Deal, but imposed by the EU.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.

    Within the limits of the technology available the French Revolution saw executions on an industrial scale. The simultaneous killing of 150 Catholic priests in the "Noyades de Nantes" was done using a specially modified boat called La Thérèse. Pété de rire...
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Dura_Ace said:



    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.

    Within the limits of the technology available the French Revolution saw executions on an industrial scale. The simultaneous killing of 150 Catholic priests in the "Noyades de Nantes" was done using a specially modified boat called La Thérèse. Pété de rire...
    Bohdan Khmelnytsky is regarded as a national hero in the Ukraine, but tens of thousands of Jews were massacred during his rebellion, that started in 1648.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    Scott_P said:
    Who was the Conservative PPS sacked last week for supporting government policy?
    And, of course, in relation to the backstop, TMay herself voted against something which she had a few weeks earlier required her party to vote for.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Worth noting the world doesn't move in one direction. Barbarity and torture rose from the Middle Ages to the 'enlightened' Renaissance.

    We had liberal democracy, and then some people chose to leave that to join death cults that would've been considered vicious and deranged even a thousand years ago.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    Sadly, I think that every age will witness atrocities like the holocaust.

    I don't know what's worse. Industrialised killing, or chopping people up in person.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
    Visiting Cambodia a few years ago we were horrified; it was their own friends and neighbours and even relations, not a minority community. The nearest parallel I can think of was the French Revolution where a Revolutionary Tribunal, when condemning Lavoisier, on of the foremost science of the day to death, is alleged to have said 'La République n'a pas besoin de savants ni de chimistes; le cours de la justice ne peut être suspendu." ("The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.")[

    And what about the Rohingya in Myanmar?
  • Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal

    She is seeking a free vote
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883

    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.

    It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.

    For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
    Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
    For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
    As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
    Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    In short, The Formby-Watson spat is a proxy battle.

    Though I do like the point about how many of the most intensely loyal Corbyn supporters in effect call Corbyn a liar by adopting positions denying a problem or seeing it all as a weapon against him, even where he has said that is not the case.
This discussion has been closed.