Per PFB, Adc e altri...

[Pieffebi]

Beh sono stati pubblicati a suo tempo articoli sulla stampa missionaria cattolica, su IL Giornale, su Libero, e anche su Le Monde Diplomatique. Il signor Yuri non si accontenta dei link che in cinque minuti ho trovato in rete usando un solo motore di ricerca, lui vuole un documento firmato dal Segretario Generale del PC Coreano che ammetta i fatti. E' verpo che uno dei link forniti al signor Yuri smentiva l'attentibilità del cannibalismo (cosa documentata però per l'URSS anni trenta e la CIna del grande balzo in avanti), ma attestava condizioni di carestia tali da giustificarne "le voci". Il signor Yuri, per inciso, nega che il PCI abbia ricevuto soldi dall'URSS o che Stalin abbia fatto fuori milioni di connazionali, in quanto non è soddisfatto ....delle fonti.

Dimmi con chi vai..... caro mancato miracolato....

Shalom!!!

[yurj]

i comunisti mangiano i bambini!

E tu saresti un moderatore?

[yurj]

Io dico che tu sei uno sparacazzate che non sa nemmeno provare o contestualizzare ciò che dice.

[Fecia di Cossato]

Per cercare di dirimere la questione posso riportare qualcosa pubblicato su Libero alcuni mesi or sono in un articolo genericamente intitolato Crimini del comunismo [o qualcosa di assai simile...]. Questo articolo era corredato da fotografie una delle quali è quella riportata in alto che mostra alcuni bambini nord-coreani 'denutriti'. Se il loro stato [quale appare dalla foto] possa essere o no definito di 'denutrizione' lo lascio giudicare al lettore 'intelligente'...

ossequi!...


--------------

Nobis ardua

Comandante CC Carlo Fecia di Cossato

[yurj]

Sono messi meglio di quelli iracheni.

Noto che, invece di aiutarli, come fanno in tanti, ve la prendete con il loro governo.

Mandategli del cibo, no? invece di embarghi, bombe e pallottole.

[Pieffebi]

Veramente è il loro governo (nordcoreano komunista) che fa le bombe atomiche invece di sfamare i propri bambini.

Shalom!!!!!!

[yurj]

E come trova i dollari per pagare le materie prime o la tecnologia?

[Dario]

Yurj, ma non trovi anche tu un pò inutile, per non dire altro, continuare a discutere con certa gente, che ha ragione a prescindere, che ti considera uno ZOZZONE massimalista, stalinista, e copia speculare dei nazifascisti?

P.S.: per chi chiedeva la fonte dei 100 milioni di morti ammazzati da Stalin: la fonte è il libro di propaganda elettorale sul comunismo, scritto in quel di Arcore da qualche giornalista tirapiedi del nostro amato presidente del consiglio, guida e leader del popolo italiano.

[Pieffebi]

Berlusconi autore del "Libro Nero del Comunismo", dove lo hai letto su "La Repubblica" o lo hai sentito su Rai3?



Non sapevo che Berlusconi fosse il proprietario della prestigiosa Università di Harvard, e neanche del New York Times.....





Saluti liberali

"Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
View Related Topics
January 2, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

Section 7; Page 12; Column 2; Book Review Desk
1516 words
The Evil Empire

By Alan Ryan; Alan Ryan is a professor of politics at New College, Oxford.

THE BLACK BOOK
OF COMMUNISM
Crimes, Terror, Repression.
By Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth,
Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski,
Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin.
Illustrated. 856 pp. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. $37.50.

It is impossible to imagine any reader of "The Black Book of Communism" sitting down and plowing all the way through this
856-page catalog of the tortures, murders, deportations and deliberately created famines that Communist regimes have
inflicted on their subjects during the past 80 years. There is a limit to the human appetite for descriptions of horrible death
and hopeless misery. The authors of the several chapters that make up this grim compilation know this and do not wish it
otherwise. Their aim is not to dramatize the sufferings of the victims of Communism, or to astonish their readers with new
revelations. To the extent that the book has a literary style, it is that of the recording angel; this is the body count of a
colossal, wholly failed social, economic, political and psychological experiment. It is a criminal indictment, and it rightly
reads like one.

Nor is it the aim of "The Black Book of Communism" to engage in the quarrels over numbers that used to preoccupy
Robert Conquest and his critics some 25 years ago. In a sense, the collapse of Communism almost everywhere, and its at
least partial transformation in China, has made exactness irrelevant. The famine caused by the Great Leap Forward resulted
in the deaths of anywhere from 25 to 40 million Chinese -- nobody has wholly reliable statistics, and there is room for
legitimate disagreement about how to count the indirect effects of malnutrition and economic disruption. Given that the
economic policies of the Great Leap Forward were utterly disastrous in their own right, they were not worth the sacrifice of
one life. Given that they were persisted in with grotesque and extreme brutality long after their flaws were perfectly clear,
who is going to suggest that the lower of two appalling death tolls makes any serious moral difference?

The purpose of "The Black Book of Communism" in its original form was highly specific. When the book was first published
in France in 1997 (and became a best seller), it indicated the end of an epoch. Disillusioned social democrats had known
since 1917, if not earlier, that the old cry of "no enemies on the left" was a recipe for disaster, that Communist parties all
over the world had subverted their democratic allies whenever it suited them, and had murdered them in every country in
which Communism had come to power. French intellectuals had, however, made it a point of honor to stare unflinchingly at
the terrorism of successive Soviet regimes and announce that it was the price to be paid for the eventual liberation of the
oppressed. Anything else was a concession to bourgeois humanitarianism. This book signified the end of that particular
piece of nonsense.

Its editor, Stephane Courtois, the director of research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, might
demur at the thought that even in France Communism is definitively extinct. He refers in passing to Mao's China and Kim Il
Sung's North Korea as among the "Communist regimes currently in vogue in the West," but this is surely an error. Whatever
anyone's doubts about the problems caused by the triumph of capitalism on the world stage, nobody suggests China or
North Korea as answers to them. Courtois was, perhaps, puzzled by the fact that nobody had commemorated the collapse
of the Soviet bloc and the evaporation of the Soviet Union itself by drawing up the kind of criminal accounting he wanted.
The answer, surely, is not that anyone still wishes to defend Stalin, Mao or Kim Il Sung, but that nobody knows what more
to say.

As Courtois points out, the observation that you can't make an omelet without broken eggs may be true, but it was long ago
destroyed as a justification of the Soviet tyranny by the fact that we had all seen the broken eggs but nobody had ever seen
the omelet. As he also notices, the decisive event both in awakening Western intellectuals to the horrors of Stalinism and in
setting in train the destruction of the Soviet Union took place long ago. Khrushchev's "secret speech" to the 20th Party
Congress in 1956 lifted the lid on the lies, murders and stupidities of Stalinist rule, and nothing was ever the same again.

The next 40 years saw the slow unraveling of the Soviet bloc, but the impact on Western Communist parties was
instantaneous. The silence over the horrors of Communism that Courtois complains of is not the silence of people who are
morally uncertain, as someone might be in trying to think whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a
hideous act justified by its effectiveness in preventing very much worse things from happening. It is the silence of people who
are simply baffled by the spectacle of so much absolutely futile, pointless and inexplicable suffering.

Courtois spends a good deal of his introduction worrying at a question that few Americans will hesitate to answer for him. In
what sense can we describe whole governments as criminal? Narrowly construed, crimes are what particular states define
as such, and if Stalin or Mao failed to criminalize the murderous behavior of their secret police, prison guards and militias,
how can we call these acts crimes? Ever since the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, Americans have known the answer:
"crimes against humanity" are what the conscience of the ordinary, nondepraved human being recognizes as such. It is the
answer that Courtois comes to as well. It is hard to know what other answer one might come to.

There are in the end two large and fascinating questions that the several contributors, along with Martin Malia -- an
American historian of Russia and the Soviet Union and the author of a very useful foreword to this translation -- all settle on
as decisive. The first indeed gives the book's last chapter its title: Why? This is a somewhat embarrassing question for West
Europeans, particularly the British, whose occupation of North America, Australia and parts of Africa involved the
near-extermination of their original inhabitants. But the striking difference with the Soviet case is that the Soviet leadership
made war on its own people. This was not invasion and colonization but supposedly the work of the ordinary government of
a country.

The short answer is that there is not one answer. The Russian penchant for rule by murder was centuries old by the time
Stalin outdid all his predecessors in the sheer numbers he killed. A couple of years after the revolution, Gorky brooded
unhappily on the curious Russian taste for inflicting death by the most painful and humiliating means -- and a decade later
was proposing that the enemies of the people should be used for medical experiments. China had a violent and troubled
history, but not the Russian culture of political murder. What is common to all Communist states, however, is the perversion
of utopia.

The frame of mind that sees society as a sheet of blank paper on which the great leader is to paint the ideal city of the future
has often been accompanied by a readiness to imagine that killing off opponents is a necessary first step. But what might be
a passing fantasy in the mind even of Sir Thomas More, the author of "Utopia," became something that Lenin and Trotsky
could begin to put into practice and Stalin turn into a settled policy.

Popular though this view is -- nicely summed up in Malia's claim that it takes great ideals to cause great crimes -- I have
never been convinced by it. The tyrant's dilemma, explored by thinkers ever since Plato, explains all we need to have
explained: each death a tyrant perpetrates gives more people reason to hate him and therefore creates more enemies he has
to eliminate. Trotsky and Lenin would probably have understood this and stopped; Stalin was thought by Trotsky to be a
paranoid maniac, and may well have been so by the end of his life. But even paranoids have enemies, particularly when
everything they do gives so many people reason to hate them.

All of which brings one to the second great question. What of the relative immorality of Communism and Nazism? Both
Malia and Courtois chew over this puzzle at some length; oddly, they do it as though it were not one of the standard
subjects of debate back to the 1950's. The body count tips the scales against Communism. If wild utopian disregard for
human life is the charge, there is little to choose between the practices of Nazism and Communism. But if the issue is the
intrinsic evil of the entire project, it still seems no contest. Nazism was committed in principle to exterminating the Jews. So
long as a shred of Marxist intelligence remained to Communist practice, it was not in itself an exterminationist project. Just
how and why socialist aspirations came in practice to be so thoroughly betrayed will continue to preoccupy historians well
into the next century.

http://www.nytimes.com

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: January 2, 2000 "

[Dario]

Non mi riferivo al 'Libro nero sul comunismo', quello è stato scritto nel 1999 per la campagna elettorale di Bush, poi rubato anche da FI per Berlusconi. Ma questo libro da nessuna parte, che io mi ricordi, parla di 100 milioni di morti da parte di Stalin.

Se non ricordo male questa cifra è riportata nel libercolo che il berluska ha spedito a tutti gli italiani con la sua agiografia, in occasione delle elezioni del 2001. Ove ricordassi male, prova anche a controllare i manuali distribuiti ai candidati FI, quelli che specificavano che gli italiani hanno una cultura da 2° media, e neppure da primi banchi. E che se gli parli di più di uno-due argomenti è tempo sprecato, perchè non sono in grado di seguirti per tre argomenti.

Se proprio non trovi questa fonte berlusconiana, dimmelo e cercherò di darti una mano.