French block airlift of British troops to Basra

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...


You may wish to review what happened to those
who fought with the loyalists during the US war of independence.
They didnt do nearly as well as the rebels in 1865

Yeah. The United Empire loyalists. They were mentioned in our gr. 9
Canadian history class in highschool, in Ontario. But it was
only a passing mention, along with the French Acadians of the
Maritimes. I actually learned more about the injustices done
to those people after I moved to the USA :|

But so what! None of this has much bearing on your defence,
in spirit, of Stalins' Soviet Russian treatment of Soviet
Empite subjects of every type, after the second world war.


Once more with feeling.

I have not , will not and do not ever intend to defend
Stalin or his regime. However I believe its fair to point
out that joining the forces of the enemy in wartime
has always been a very dangerous option. If that enemy loses
the results are dire and usually fatal for those concerned.

Oh I fully agree that being in the armed services of the losing
side is dangerous and liable to have nasty consequences. More
so if the winner thought you should have been on his side.

The USA no different and regards such acts as treason,
you may recall its definition.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

By that definition those Soviet citizens who joined the German
forces were undoubtedly committing treason. You may care
to recall what happened to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on their conviction.

Keith

So how relevant are the Rosenbergs to the discussion of your
your comment
"I doubt that the handful of British citizens in German
uniform were too happy to be sent home either, their
leader was hanged and they all received lengthy prison
sentences. "

made in reference to
"You may recall that, at war's end, thousands of Russians in German
prison camps and in German uniform were pleading with the Americans
and British to let them remain in the west. Stalin insisted on having
them back, so he could kill them or send them to the camps. Some
killed themselves rather than board the trains to the east. "

A comment which I judged to be made as a defence of Soviet
action, but which you deny.
--
Rostyk

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

What happenned to any Balts or Finns whom the Russians
managed to get into their clutches?


The Finns signed a separate peace treaty with the USSR so I imagine
that issue was handled in that context and I dare say those
Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians who were captured
by the Soviets got short shrift. I dont believe many were
returned by the allies because quite a few ended up settling
in the UK as refugees.

Keith

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote:

.... Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ...

They were not convicted of treason, but of wartime espionage. Of course
the espionage was on behalf of a nominal ally, not an enemy,

Yeah sort of like the recent spy on behalf of Israel

but that was conveniently overlooked because by the time of the trial
the cold war had begun.

Well it really is sort of irrelevant, since it was still espionage
for a foreign power.

Their guilt and the justice of the trial and sentence are
debated to today.

Well even with the newly unsealed evidence, and revelations from
soviet sources which support the guilt of the Rosenbergs as well as
implicating many others, debate will continue regardless of the facts.
As to debates of the justice of trying and punishing
them, well that depends of feelings and loyalties, for
which facts are irrelevant.

Vince

In article , William Black
writes:

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

2) There were a handful of British citizens in German uniform
versus thousands of soviet subjects who chose to serve with
the Germans against the soviet Russian regime.

I don't actually have a problem with this, a traitor is a traitor is a
traitor.

Or does committing crimes with large numbers of other people make it
right?

There's no difference to me between a Don Cossack in a German uniform
and
a
British fascist in a German uniform, except that some of the Don
Cossacks
shot at British troops, including possibly some of my family.

Really? Where?

Some of the Cossacks were captured in German uniform behind Gold beach on
D-Day.

Several of my relatives went ashore with UK forces on D-Day.

The book Victims of Yalta tells of what happened to those Cossacks :-(


----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email

Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:


Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.


So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

FWIW the only part of my family heritage that is not Irish traces back
through a Nova Scotia German family with Hessian connections from the
revolutionary war.

"The Romkey (Ramichen or Ramge) family came to Halifax, Nova Scotia in
1750 from the village on Nieder-Klingen in Odenwald region of the
Palatinate. The family has its origins in the neighbouring village of
Spachbrücken in the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt. Johann Wendel
Ramichen or Ramge, his wife Anna Margaretha Uhrig, and their children
spent three winters in Halifax before moving to Lunenburg in 1753. The
family eventually settled at Five Houses on the LaHave River where Anna
Margaretha's brother had his 30-acre farm lot."
http://kenneth.paulsen.home.comcast....cotian_Fam.htm

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994

Vince

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

Nope. Largely revisionist spin.

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

Many loyalists and Hessian soldiers were settled in Nova Scotia after
the American revolution. See for example The Hessians of Nova Scotia:
The Personal Data Files of 225 Hessian Soldiers who Settled in Nova
Scotia by Johannes HelmutMerz. 1994


Lots of Hessian POWs settled in this area (western MA) and upper NY state
after the war. Of course they also gravitated towards PA "Dutch" country as
well for obvious reasons.


SMH

Brian Sharrock wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

Quite so, thus following the letter of the law, however those
loyalists who had sided with the British during the American revolution
tended to get rather less gentle treatment.

I think the post war US government itself was not especially harsh
on loyalists. State governments tended to be more severe, but I
don't know if there was large scale, organized oppression of those
who remained loyal. The problem was more on the scale of conflicted
neighbors, making it clear to loyalists they had no future in America.

The real brutal treatment of loyalists during the war was at the hands
of local military or paramilitary groups, and bandit gangs selective
in who they preyed upon. Both loyalist and revolutionary communities
had their groups. Similar things happened on the eve of the American
Civil War; "Bleeding Kansas" being a good example of conflict between
pro and anti slave groups.

IIRC, Lousiana has its "French flavor" due to people kicked out of
Canada when the British took over Canada at the end of what we call
the "French and Indian War", and of course the direct and indirect
displacement of the Irish is well known.

Lose the fight and you lose your property seems to be pretty much the
way it goes, especially on local levels.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Stephen Harding wrote:

Brian Sharrock wrote:


Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?
My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

It is the historical record, not current spin
See for example

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf


Nope. Largely revisionist spin.

Smuggling was indeed a common undertaking in port cities all along the
eastern seaboard. Some fairly prominent people benefited from the "trade"
as well.


so smuggling is accepted as a description

Slave owners were by no means the majority, even in the south. Independence
from Britain would have had little effect on the American slave market, just
as it had little effect even when the US finally got around to banning the
import of slaves.


The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

And of course, the French were originally content to watch from the sidelines
until there was actually some possibility of success. That didn't happen
until at least Saratoga. The French had nothing to do with starting the
American Revolution except in providing theory from philosophical types.

sure, but so what. they suppied material aid when it was useful


The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.


Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.


Strawman crap. as one example Prize money drove the Royal navy officer
corps.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.


Ben Franklin pretty much put the revolution supporters as 1/3rd of the population,
with about 1/3 loyalist, and 1/3 fence sitters. He ought to have some idea of
this since he was a very bright man, a reporter at heart, there at the time, and
even had a son who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey, who stayed loyal to the
crown, eventually leaving America to finish his life in Britain.

Fair enough.

Vince

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:


Under this paradigm of human political/economic/social action, no one does
anything without clear beneficial economic gain. Only the "socialist man"
is able to rise above this selfishness because the people own the means of
production, and workers can no longer be exploited. The bad things capitalism
does (and capitalist governments) is thus no longer possible.

The fact is the America of 1770 had probably the largest percentage of middle
class population of any place on earth, doesn't lend itself well to risky
propositions like treason against the most powerful country on earth. An
extremely high percentage of Americans were property owners.

But, that fact is what started The American Revolution
and is what keeps it going. Since, there is an even higher percentage
of middle class in American today than there was in 1770.

And the powers that be are *still* New York British, French,
and German morons. Just like it was in 1770.

And it's also why we to keep telling the French that their
greeny anti-jet missles are obviously of no use when
faced with a well-tuned black-smoking 757.