2·
1 month agoThere was a pretty decent EPUB at https://annas-archive.org/md5/5212d271f108a89b4dbd54b658b4fbda so I modified it very slightly, https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/elementary-principles-of-philosophy/
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/its, she/her, fae/faer, love/loves, null/void, des/pair, none/use name, kitty]
AuDHD cat. If you don’t know which pronoun to use, go for it/its. Kitty is for it/its and could be used instead of sir/ma’am.
- 0 Posts
- 36 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
Cake day: July 10th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
A cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.
However if you care about Palestinians at all you should vote for the lesser of two evils
“If you care about the palestinians, you should vote for their genocide”.
Ok, that’s really good insight, so it boils down to France not respecting the 1935 treaty by refusing to declare Czechoslovakia as a victim of aggression?
No. So, there are two parts here: Romania allowing Soviet troops to pass through it and French and Soviet aid to Czechoslovakia.
I can’t find the part I was thinking about when I wrote “so the Soviet Union never came to help Czechoslovakia under the Pact”, and just I realized that there are actually two pacts.
The treaty mentioned is either the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance or the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Had France decided to fight for Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union would also have. But the French didn’t, and Czechoslovakia didn’t fight (and therefore didn’t call upon the Soviets to come to their aid), and so the Soviets didn’t.
In the case that fighting had broken out, Romania would allow Soviet troops to pass through their borders, if the League of Nations declared Czechoslovakia to be a “victim of aggression” (not France).
I assume they’re talking of how the Soviet Union was the only country to sell weapons to Republican Spain in their fight against fascism, even as the Nazis and Italian Fascists were militarily and economically helping the reactionaries in Spain, and how France and England didn’t do anything under the guise of “non-interventionism”.
Yes.
Admittedly, I feel like a sicko for saying that these subjects ‘interest’ me… but hey, somebody has to get their hands dirty when studying these tragedies.
And we salute you for your impressive work. Thank you.
It’s only fitting that the one doing the job most often would also be the one who can tolerate it the best.
Yea… I probably wouldn’t be able to do this, I couldn’t deal with it.
I’m not really sure how much more I can elaborate. I haven’t read the book—I read Flemmings book, see below, and found it to reference “Munich, Prologue to Tragedy”, so I went ahead and quoted it. Here is the full footnote which that part came from (with my own inserts in []):
quote
On September 11 [1938] M. Bonnet, at Geneva, conferred with M. Litvinov and M. Comnen, the Rumanian Foreign Minister. On this occasion M. Litvinov repeated his assurances that Russia would support France in accordance with the Pact of 1935 and informed him that Rumania had agreed to permit Russian troops to pass through her territory to the assistance of Czechoslovakia as soon as the League of Nations had pronounced Czechoslovakia to be a victim of aggression. He therefore advocated to M. Bonnet the urgent necessity of a joint démarche to the League. M. Bonnet again refused this suggestion and, in reporting the results of his conversation to the French Cabinet on the following day, said that the Russians and Rumanians had “wrapped themselves in League procedure” and had shown little eagerness for action
France didn’t uphold their part of the 1935 Pact, so the Soviet Union never came to help Czechoslovakia under the Pact. And President [of Czechoslovakia] Benes didn’t call upon the Soviet Union “outside” of the Pact:
The Cold War and Its Origins, Denna Frank Flemming, p. 84
In justification of the crucifixion of Czechoslovakia at Munich it was said that Russia could not be trusted and that her assistance would not be worth much in any case. On the points there could be honest difference of opinion, but not about the diplomatic record. Certainly the Czech Government did not doubt Russia’s sincerity. At a session of the Harris Institute at the University of Chicago in August 1939 I asked President [of Czechoslovakia] Benes whether Russia would have supported him had he decided to fight in September 1938. He replied, without an instant’s hesitation: “There was never any doubt in my mind that Russia would aid us by all the ways open to her, but I did not dare to fight with Russian aid alone, because I knew that the British and French Governments would make out of my country another Spain.”
The rest of your comment is quite consistent with my own understanding of how things went down, which I got from Flemmings book.
but Romania and Poland denied pass to Soviet troops
I thought Romania did?
“Rumania had agreed to permit Russian troops to pass through her territory to the assistance of Czechoslovakia as soon as the League of Nations had pronounced Czechoslovakia to be a victim of aggression” - Munich, Prologue to Tragedy by John W. Wheeler-Bennet, p. 100
Hey Comrade, please use it/its.
41·2 months agoNeither of these links show OBJECTION accepting a genocide.
Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who’s disciples were Jews.
Cowbee didn’t do that. Cowbee said that Engles was a Capitalist, i.e. he had Capital, I am reading it as if you are mistaking it for Liberal? Cowbee also didn’t call Marx a socialist.
Yea I haven’t. But it changes none of what I have said.
As always, it ends like this.
This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine
No it isn’t.
Cowbee has asked multiple times for you to expand upon what you stated such that it can be engaged with. Much of what you have stated is vibes, it doesn’t contain any specifics. You feel that Marx would have been this way, you feel that china is authoritarian, none of it engages with reality, none of it contains any sources. If asking for this is bad-faith pedantry, then no discussion can be had.
No, his stance is that Communism, or as I believe Marx called it upper stage communism, has not been achieved. Lower stage communism‒or socialism‒has, as seen in China and the USSR. Both of these are/were communist, as in they are/were led by Marxist/communist parties working towards Communism.
And what is authoritarianism? What are tankies?
For this to be a fruitful discussion, you two have to agree on what the definition of things are
The first comment is self-contradictory, “not going to read” yet there is “circular logic”. If they haven’t read it, how can they know that it is there?
Why make a comment if you aren’t going to engage in good faith? What is the point?
You may not have seen it, but I changed it to an image with a bunch of quotes.
That would be counted as “non-voting” (see Ukr, Afg, Ven). Abstain means the rep was there and voted “abstain”