Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TS suggests “There was no “alliance” between the Soviet Union and Germany only a non-aggression pact. Almost every country in Europe had a non-aggression pact with Germany including France and Britain (The Munich Agreement) and Poland (the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact)“.
However there is no mention of:
German–Soviet Commercial Agreement, signed on August 19, 1939 to deliver commodities (oil, raw materials and grain) to the value of 420 to 430 million Reichsmarks.
This involved the delivery to the Nazis by the USSR of the following:1939 1940 1941
(1st 6 months) Soviet
figures
(September 1939 – 1941)Oil Products 5.1 617.0 254.2 941.7
Grains 0.2 820.8 547.1 1611.1
Manganese ore 6.2 64.8 75.2 165.2
Phosphates 32.3 131.5 56.3 202.2
oils & fats 4.4 11.0 8.9 NA
Chromium 0.0 26.3 0.0 23.4
Copper 0..0 7.1 7.2 NA
Nickel 0.0 1.5 0.7 NA
Legumes 10.9 47.2 34.8 NA
Tin 0.0 0.8 0.0 NA
Platinum 0.0 1.5 1.3 NA
Chemicals:
Finished 0.9 2.9 0.2 NA
Chemicals:
Unfinished 0.9 2.6 1.0 NA
Raw Textiles 9.0 99.1 41.1 171.4
Wood Products 171.9 846.7 393.7 1227.6
Oil Cake 0.0 29.0 8.6 41.8
*thousands of tonsMaterials Germany imported from other countries using the Soviet Trans-Siberian Railway and from Afghanistan and Iran via the Soviet Union as an intermediary, included
1939 1940 1941
(1st 5 mos.)
Rubber NA 4.5 14.3
Copper NA 2.0 2.8
Soybeans NA 58.5 109.4
Whale &
Fish oil NA 56.7 46.2
Nuts NA 9.3 12.1
Tinned
Food NA 5.0 3.8
Textiles 0.0 19.0 17.0
Legumes 0 7.0 2.0
Dried
fruit 8.0 42.0 8.0
*thousands of tonsEricson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0-275-96337-3
It is also well established that Stailn had given Molotov the green light to being negotiations to start full negotiations for the USSR to become the fourth member of the Axis and Molotov and Ribbentrop and Hitler took part in initial discussions between both sides took place on 12-14th November 1940
Nekrich, Aleksandr Moiseevich; Ulam, Adam Bruno; Freeze, Gregory L. (1997), Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German–Soviet Relations, 1922–1941, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-10676-9
TS “I dispute your contention that China is a capitalist country. It is not. It has a mixed economy but the capitalist class does not pull the strings there”
The top 30 Chinese billionaires have an accumulated wealth of 860 billion dollars. In what world does that $860 billion not pull strings!
TS claims to be a Marxist. Perhaps he can explain how that $860 billion was accumulated other by the extraction of surplus value from the working classes of China and other parts of the world. The very system of economic class rule the so called communist party of China are aiding and abetting in every possible way.
TS “ A conspiracist? Really? What conspiracy are you claiming I adhere to?”
So far I’ve noted:
Holocaust denial
Denial of the Katyn Forest massacre
Denial of the Stalinist show trials
Denial of the Ukrainian famine
Denial of the massacre resulting from the Cuktural Revolution……
Etc. Etc.AJ asked – “Are the changes to Hong Kong’s electoral law, fair to the opposition?”
TS replies “Not if the opposition are separatist traitors no”
Our stooge of the Chinese “communist” party condemns himself with his own words. Democracy, according to him, is only available to those who agree with him!
He might not be the only true Scotsman, but he’s definitely the only person that still believes that China is a Socialist society.
Don’t just take our word that the BRI is a form of imperialism:
“Tanzanian President John Magufuli said the loan agreements of BRI projects in his country were “exploitative and awkward.” He said Chinese financiers set “tough conditions that can only be accepted by mad people,” because his government was asked to give them a guarantee of 33 years and an extensive lease of 99 years on a port construction. Magufuli said Chinese contractors wanted to take the land as their own but his government had to compensate them for drilling the project construction.
Indian commentator S. K. Chatterji considers debt traps an economic dimension of China’s salami slice strategy. According to Chatterji, China’s sovereignty slicing tactic dilutes the sovereignty of the target nations mainly using the debt trap. An example provided is Beijing pressuring Tajikistan to handover 1,158 km2 territory, which still owes China US$1.2 billion out of a total $2.9bn of debt. Other nations with a similar risk of sovereignty slicing are Pakistan, Madagascar, Mongolia, Maldives, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Sri Lanka, and Laos which have borrowed large sums from China.
The apologists of Chinese state capitalism (you included) look frighteningly similar to the apologists of Stalinism, dressed in the same disguise of Marx and Engels, with the same language of comradeship, but the same familiar policy of exploiting the workers and supporting the imperialist and expansionist interests of the ruling class.
I wonder who it was that installed Pol Pot?
Perhaps the following might help us decide:
“it is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which was provided to the Khmer Rouge came from China.”
Or perhaps we should look at Kim Jong-Un
As Xi Jingping states:
“No matter how the international situation changes”, China would “firmly support Chairman Kim Jong-un to lead the North Korean party and people to implement the new strategic line”,
Yes, the Chinese “Communist Party” is clearly a great friend to the oppressed workers of North Korea, no self interested foriegn policy there.
(just a note of clarification I am being ironic, just that your use of the spelling color indicates that you are probably not a Scot and maybe even from the good old USA, so you may be unfamiliar with my use of irony)
Yes it is clear that China’s “Communist Party” is ensuring the profits from China’s industry are being invested in its population, a very small percentage of the population, unfortunately:
“Conspiracies are happening everywhere all the time. The Holocaust was a conspiracy, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Iraq war were conspiracies.”
You forgot to mention the Apollo Landings, QAnon, that Dinosaurs built the pyramids, Paul McCartney is dead, the Queen is a lizzard, Adolf Hitler lives in South Shields and the Arsenal 1919 promotion debacle.
God bless Lenny Bruce
https://www.geocities.ws/dontforgetyourpubes/images/lennybruce/bruce1.jpg
Gavin Williamson is the first Tory in the new session of parliament to parrot a response about the brilliant UKcovid Vaccine Programme.
The brexiteers are very quiet about the fact that Malta, Spain, Portugal, The Republic of Ireland, Denmark, France, Belgium and Finland all have a hgher level of 1st jab administration, and most of them have a higher level of double jabbed citizens.
“Facebook was swamped with middle aged (too young to receive the state pension) overweight(due to years of working unsocial hours), white males,”
As a middle aged, white, male, fat bastard, I plead not guilty
‘In any event, scandals involving the ruling class are of no interest to socialists. Even if they were all saints they would still be exploiters and privileged parasites.’
I think the events involved in the Epstein and the Maxwell situation are far more substantial than the allegations against Ted Heath, et al. Epstein was in prison and had previously been convicted of offences, whereas Maxwell is currently remanded on very serious offences. With regard to conspiracy theories, most of them relate to Epstein’s death rather that the fact that these two wealthy perverts preyed on children.
Similarly in terms of Prince Andrew, judging from the evidence of the photographs and other testimony, in legal terms there appears to be a case to answer. That is not an issue of conspiracy, other than the fact that the legal system conspires to treat the rich in a different way to the poor. WHat I was pointed out was that there seems to be a prima facia case for Prince Andrew to face thorough investigation based on the existing capitalist laws.
Does this have any implications for Socialists?
If the allegations related to themselves and their own behaviour, no.
However these allegations relate to a number of vulnerable members of the working class! These young girls appear to be have been targetted on the basis of their social class and the fact that they can be exploited due to their ecomomic Susceptibility.
The way that Epstein and Maxwell are able to carry out these vile acts has its foundations in class society. This appears to be compounded becasue it appears that the wealthy and the powerful appear to be escaping justice, whilst the long arm of the law is quickly brought to bare on trivial transgressions of the working class.
If these kinds if actions are not the business of socialists then what is our business?
Although I understand that we are not in the business of reforming the inadequacies of the capitalist system surely we must be in the business of exposing another example of the ongoing unfairness and exploitation which is hard wired into the class system.
I think perhaps you meant Prince Andrew rather than Prince Charles?
With regard to Epstein, what no one in the press or media in the UK has raised the issue of Section 72 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 this amendment removed the aspect of ‘dual criminality’ for sexual offences.
This means that UK nationals who commit sexual offences against children abroad are criminally liable for the offence, regardless of whether the exploitation is classed as a criminal offence overseas.
In other words, there is no requirement for the crime to be an offence in both countries. The Act extended extraterritorial jurisdiction for the offence of grooming of children for sexual exploitation.
Although Virginia Giuffre was 17 at the time of the alleged liason with Prince Andrew, the law in the UK regarding prostitution outlaws use of prostitutes under the age of eighteen, see below:
Paying for sexual services of a childSexual Offences Act 2003
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B),
(b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.Big question is why have the CPS not sent a bobby off to Buck House to knock on Prince Andrew’s door?
Perhaps the Party should gain a bit of publicity by asking the same question in the Standard?Apologies, ALB, I have now edited the contribution.
The presentation of the article by the anti vaxers was a little alarming, but the comments underneath show the bizarre thought processes some of the anti vaxers have. I am not being insulting by saying that it appears that some of the respondents have serious mental health issues.
