What Were the Chances To Be Sent to Gulag?

by Pavel Krasnov

In the article “A Logical Analysis of the Mass Repressions Theory” we found out that the so called “tens of millions of repressed peoples” – are nothing but a bunch of far-fetched lies unable to withstand even the simplest logical analysis. But how were things actually? How many people were sent to GULAG and why? How terrifying was it to live, that is how high were the chances of being sent there in real life, not in the lies of TV-propaganda clowns?

Supposed image of a former Soviet GULAG. Note the lack of resemblance to a Nazi death camp.

There are very clear Soviet statistics regarding this, because it is totally impossible to handle millions of people without bookkeeping and data records. Moreover it is not even possible to run a hundred-man factory without bookkeeping, let alone a whole country. This data does exist, and no one from serious scientific communities questions the statistics of those years. Otherwise they would have had to make a crazy supposition that in 30s of 20th century the USSR jails kept 2 records of the statistics – a real one for them to use, and a fake one for the people that would live decades later.

Let’s have a look at the statistics. We will also find out how much truth there is in the theory that the Industrialization in the USSR was made by the hands of ‘many millions of slaves-prisoners’. Continue reading

Advertisements

Logical Analysis of the “Mass Repressions” Theory

by Pavel Krasnov

When speaking about mass repressions that took place during Stalin’s years, anti-Soviet propaganda states the following:

  • 20 million Soviet people were killed during World War II, 20 more million were killed by the government during the war with its own people;
  • 10 million people were executed;
  • 40, 50, 60 up to 120 (!) million went through labor and concentration camps;
  • Almost all the prisoners in these camps were innocent, since it is obvious that 40 millions people can hardly all be criminals;
  • Almost all the prisoners were forced to build canals or sent to lumber camps in Siberia, where most of them died;
  • Even the most notorious “Gulagers” state that mass repressions did not begin until 1933-1935. This means that all of the above events have passed in 15-20 years including the War time;
  • When asked “Why didn’t the people rebel while they were being exterminated?” they answer that “The people didn’t know”. The fact that the people did not know the scale of the repressions is not only confirmed by almost all who lived during that time, but also by numerous written documents and testimonies.

Overwhelming as these statements appear, they bring up several questions for which there are simply no answers. Continue reading

More Distortions About North Korea

by Rick Gunderman

A curiosity about capitalist ideology is its claim to have fully advanced the movement for the freedom to learn, to express, and to speak.

By all appearances, it has. Those who have grown up in a capitalist society are told ad nauseum that they grow up in a “free country” (often a qualifier for the concurrent claim to be the “best country”) where constraints upon pursuing information are only reasonably limited, if at all.

In their renowned work on the political economy of the mass media, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman categorically challenge this view. Through numerous examples, including the attempted assassination of the pope and the Indochinese Wars, the authors show how the news media has five “filters” to censor certain information. Continue reading

Cypriot Communists on European Parliament Resolution on 2011 progress report on Turkey

Statement of the Head of the International Relations and European Affairs Department of the Central Committee of AKEL, Costas Christodoulides

Release Date: March 30, 2012

Press Office C.C. AKEL, 30/3/2012, Nicosia

Yesterday the European Parliament approved the annual assessment of Turkey’s accession course.

AKEL do not vote in favour of the Report because it contains some serious inaccuracies and errors in the paragraph on the Cyprus problem and other relevant points. We tabled amendments which although were not approved sent the message that there is significant room for improvement.

This does not negate the fact that the Report includes elements that are evaluated as positive. The Resolution regarding the Cyprus notes the following:

The reference to the need for Turkey to comply with the Law of the Sea and the inclusion of the provision in the Report on Turkey’s statements and threats against the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU are perceived as positive. Turkey’s assessment that it can behave in an unruly and aggressive manner against the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus without any cost is not accepted by the European Parliament.

In addition, we also assess as positive the call for the withdrawal of the Turkish troops, the return of Famagusta based on UN Resolution 550, as well as the inclusion of a provision regarding the colonisation.

The negative aspect of the Report includes the erroneous equation of Turkey’s role with the other interested parties regarding the call to work intensively and constructively for a comprehensive solution.

Furthermore, it mistakenly calls on the Republic of Cyprus to open the port of Famagusta under the customs aegis of the EU, given that this position is a proposal of our side, but which the Turkish side rejects.

In addition, for the second year it avoids referring to the parameters of the solution (UN, EU) in contradiction to the decisions of the EU Council.

We wish to point out the following. Those forces and institutions who want to really contribute to the solution of the Cyprus problem must consistently exercise their political influence on the intransigent side which is the force keeping the people of Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, prisoners for 38 years.

We reiterate our position that we are in favour of Turkey’s accession course, subject to its full compliance with the negotiating framework that has been set and that it fulfils its obligations towards Cyprus.

AKEL will continue to disagree with approaches that appease Turkey, particularly as long as the latter exhibits an intransigent stand with regards its own obligations.

Finally, the Cypriot people once again had the opportunity to determine that the most consistent supporter of its rights in the European Parliament is the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, which backed all the positions of principle for the solution of the Cyprus problem and the need for Turkey’s compliance with its obligations.