question on treaties and effects

[poach...@hotmail.co.uk]

My educational background is a sketchy one barely anchored, in arts and the abstract humanities. I have skirted round history a lot in discomfort at my poor memory skills and in awareness that I do better elsewhere. I am often not far off from being distraught to hear locals in my small home town in south east England talking in a horrible fashion about what our newspapers and politicians term immigration. I duck out of getting involved in the talk because it has a stink of what must have been said in 30s Germany. More recently I learned that as recent as 120 years ago my own bloodline was French-Irish, and I'm unsurprised and pleased to learn this, to have this confirmation.

Is it _not_ a matter of fact, regardless of what opinions I might rest on it, that Britain helped facilitate the economic troubles of the eastern European and Balkan countries which many of of our new neighbours here have left? I'm trying to get a foothold on the topic that has an abstract basis I can feel for, in the hope that I can work my way through the right books to flesh out and test my argument. Have I been confused and/or forgetful to think that Britain in part enabled Russia to impose its conception of Communism? I don't mind being wrong, if I can be told conscientiously and politely - I'll just find another way to the humanitarian attitude.

Many thanks for any input.

[Surreyman]

Britain certainly 'helped' in the sense that the USSR was at that time an ally!
But, also, neither Britain nor the other Allies had much choice.

Related re immigration is the current rise of UKIP.
Just check the parallels regarding prevailing economic/social conditions and UKIP's methods v. 1930s Hitler.

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:28:49 -0700 (PDT), poach...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

> Have I been confused and/or forgetful to think that Britain in part enabled Russia to impose its conception of Communism?

Yes.

Britain actually sent troops to fight against the Communists in the
Russian Civil War.

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Related re immigration is the current rise of UKIP.
>Just check the parallels regarding prevailing economic/social conditions and UKIP's methods v. 1930s Hitler.

But UKIP remains, for the moment, a small and reasonably
insignificant movement.

As the mainstream parties harden their line on immigration and on
Europe their support will fade and they don't have another issue.

[Surreyman]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:45:07 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Related re immigration is the current rise of UKIP.
>
> >Just check the parallels regarding prevailing economic/social conditions and UKIP's methods v. 1930s Hitler.
>
>
>
> But UKIP remains, for the moment, a small and reasonably
>
> insignificant movement.
>

So were the Nazis.
But I tend to agree with you re the future.
Just an interesting comparison, that's all.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tpfrk89ah1tkhq94c...@4ax.com:

Canada and the U.S. did as well.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Paul J Gans]

Part of the problem, as the economist Paul Krugman keeps saying,
is that what is needed today is more government spending, not
austerity.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

As I recall, the US had troops in Russia too during the civil war.

[Bill]

Someone needs to tell the clowns running our economy that...

[Bill]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:01:28 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:45:07 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>
>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Related re immigration is the current rise of UKIP.
>>
>> >Just check the parallels regarding prevailing economic/social conditions and UKIP's methods v. 1930s Hitler.
>>
>>
>>
>> But UKIP remains, for the moment, a small and reasonably
>>
>> insignificant movement.
>>
>So were the Nazis.

But the Nazis seem to have been sponsored by the German army...

I doubt anyone in UKIP has covert government sponsorship

[Surreyman]

I'm obviously not saying that every detail matches, just the swell of opinion due to whatever surrounding conditions.
UKIP is obviously never as sinister nor as organised, but it remains an interesting parallel.

[Bill]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 04:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:16:20 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:01:28 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

>> But the Nazis seem to have been sponsored by the German army...
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt anyone in UKIP has covert government sponsorship
>
>I'm obviously not saying that every detail matches, just the swell of opinion due to whatever surrounding conditions.
>UKIP is obviously never as sinister nor as organised, but it remains an interesting parallel.

Oh I think they're every bit as sinister.

The tag 'The BNP in blazers' was a direct hit, as was David Cameron's
remark on being challenged about his comment that UKIP contained
racists when he said:

"I'm sure there are some members of UKIP who are not racist."

But in an atmosphere when even the political leaders on the left are
raising the roof with direct lies about immigration in order to
appease the right wing press I suppose that UKIP's bigotry and general
nastiness disappears into the background noise.

[Paul J Gans]

It is becoming clear that more and more economists in the US
back that. They seem to be rereading their own textbooks.

[Surreyman]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:02:06 PM UTC, Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:01:28 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

>
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:45:07 PM UTC, Bill wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>
> >>
>
> >> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >Related re immigration is the current rise of UKIP.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Just check the parallels regarding prevailing economic/social conditions and UKIP's methods v. 1930s Hitler.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But UKIP remains, for the moment, a small and reasonably
>
> >>
>
> >> insignificant movement.
>
> >>
>
> >So were the Nazis.
>
> >But I tend to agree with you re the future.
>
> >Just an interesting comparison, that's all.
>
>
>

> Absolute twaddle. Nigel Farage is no Adolf Hitler and to try and find
>
> parallels between a slightly right of centre party which simply wants
>
> to restrict immigration and leave the EU, and the Nazis probably says
>
> more about you than it does about UKIP.
>
> If anything, the Nazis were only too keen to start their own version
>
> of the EU.

Slightly right of centre?
Learn up!

[Nightjar]

On 30/03/2013 20:31, Dave wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:47:32 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:02:06 PM UTC, Dave wrote:

...

>>> Absolute twaddle. Nigel Farage is no Adolf Hitler and to try and find
>>> parallels between a slightly right of centre party which simply wants
>>> to restrict immigration and leave the EU, and the Nazis probably says
>>> more about you than it does about UKIP.
>>>
>>> If anything, the Nazis were only too keen to start their own version
>>> of the EU.
>>
>> Slightly right of centre?
>> Learn up!
>

> Taking the current coalition as slightly left of centre (how could you
> argue otherwise given their reluctance to lower taxes and welfare
> benefits) then UKIP is clearly slightly right of centre.

The description of UKIP as the BNP in suits is a more realistic
assessment of their position.

Colin Bignell

[Surreyman]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 8:31:52 PM UTC, Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:47:32 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

> Taking the current coalition as slightly left of centre (how could you
>
> argue otherwise given their reluctance to lower taxes and welfare
>

> benefits) then UKIP is clearly slightly right of centre. On that basis
>
> the American Democrat party is slightly further right of centre and
>
> the American Republican party is way off to the right. Just because
>
> you wish to stay in the EU and/or have unlimited immigration doesn't
>
> make people with an opposing view nazis.
>
> Get a grip.

"the American Democrat party is slightly further right of centre and
the American Republican party is way off to the right."

Absolutely correct, in UK terms.

"Just because
>
> you wish to stay in the EU and/or have unlimited immigration"

No, I'm agin much of that and am not a Nazi.

You seem unaware of the current subleties of the UK sociopolitical scene and the UKIP approach.

[Nightjar]

On 31/03/2013 12:20, Dave wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:39:09 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2013 20:31, Dave wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:47:32 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
>>> <alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:02:06 PM UTC, Dave wrote:

>> ....

>>>>> Absolute twaddle. Nigel Farage is no Adolf Hitler and to try and find
>>>>> parallels between a slightly right of centre party which simply wants
>>>>> to restrict immigration and leave the EU, and the Nazis probably says
>>>>> more about you than it does about UKIP.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anything, the Nazis were only too keen to start their own version
>>>>> of the EU.
>>>>
>>>> Slightly right of centre?
>>>> Learn up!
>>>
>>> Taking the current coalition as slightly left of centre (how could you
>>> argue otherwise given their reluctance to lower taxes and welfare
>>> benefits) then UKIP is clearly slightly right of centre.
>>
>> The description of UKIP as the BNP in suits is a more realistic
>> assessment of their position.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>

> About as accurate as describing the Lib Dems as the Conservative party
> in sandals. Good sound bite but just not true.

If you think that, you really don't have much idea about UKIP and the
xenophobes it attracts.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 31/03/2013 16:30, Dave wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:38:57 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> About as accurate as describing the Lib Dems as the Conservative party
>>> in sandals. Good sound bite but just not true.
>>
>> If you think that, you really don't have much idea about UKIP and the
>> xenophobes it attracts.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>

> So you're an expert, are you? Presumably you attend a lot of their
> meetings?
>

I know a number of people who do and the arguments they use to try to
get me to join. I also know that, despite the supposed ban on former BNP
members, some of them are exactly that.

Colin Bignell

[Bill]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:03:56 +0000, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 14:43:13 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>Pity they weren't more successful.

They seem to have been highly successful.

[Bill]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:02:06 +0000, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:

>Absolute twaddle. Nigel Farage is no Adolf Hitler and to try and find
>parallels between a slightly right of centre party

Slightly right of center!

Come off it.

[Bill]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:13:35 +0100, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:

>Just as the odd former Communist party member are now members of the
>Labour party, you mean? I even expect some ex-BNP members will have
>infiltrated the Labour party and almost certainly the Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems!

Have you ever been to a Lib Dem social event?

The Lib Dems are a small world socially (all lawyers and teachers and
doctors and generally 'nice people') and everyone knows someone
else...

[Surreyman]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 4:29:27 PM UTC+1, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:37:39 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

> The UKIP approach, as you call it, is completely due to the vagaries
>
> of the British electoral system. To stand any chance of making a
>
> breakthrough against the major two parties they have to have a clear
>
> difference from those parties and also be seen as a way of making a
>
> protest against the current cosy buggins turn type politics. You may
>
> think their policies extreme but they certainly appeal to many people
>
> and if they influence the major parties into at least rethinking their
>
> approach to Europe and unlimited immigration that can only be a good
>
> thing, in my opinion. But Nazi's they aren't, any more than American
>
> Democrats are.

Largely true and what I've been saying if you'd read it properly.
I didn't say UKIP were Nazis, for a start.
I said there were parallels in the way that UKIP (and the Nazis) milked their relevant sociopolitical climates.
There are, and you seem to agree.

[Surreyman]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:13:35 PM UTC+1, Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:31:46 +0100, Nightjar
>
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>

> Just as the odd former Communist party member are now members of the
>
> Labour party, you mean? I even expect some ex-BNP members will have
>
> infiltrated the Labour party and almost certainly the Lib Dems.

The BNP & Lib Dems??!!
They're just about on the political and behavioural extremes!

[Bill]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:31:52 +0000, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:


>Taking the current coalition as slightly left of centre (

I'll have some of whatever he's smoking, but nowhere near as much...

[Bill]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:39:09 +0100, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

Blazers, not suits.

It's the golf club turned to politics...

[Bill]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:02:23 +0100, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:

. Perhaps you should be glad it is UKIP and
>not more extreme right or left wing parties that are taking advantage
>of the public's apparent current distaste for the main parties.

The party of the extreme right is in tatters after a small electoral
success in the EC elections four years ago.

They couldn't deal with winning two seats and fragmented...

The parties of the extreme left aren't what you'd call 'attractive' to
anyone with a brain...

UKIP is just a single issue pressure group with ideas above its
station.

That the three major parties take it seriously says more about their
intellectual bankruptcy than anything else.

[Surreyman]

On Monday, April 1, 2013 3:02:23 PM UTC+1, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 02:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman

> I'm glad you agree UKIP are not Nazis. Perhaps you should advise them
>
> on a better method of obtaining political credibility than their
>
> current tactics, which like it or not seems to be working.
>
> I would agree that the current state of British politics with both
>
> governing and main opposition parties basically offering the same
>
> middle of the road policies gives an opportunity for new parties and
>
> ideas to be given a chance. Perhaps you should be glad it is UKIP and

>
> not more extreme right or left wing parties that are taking advantage
>
> of the public's apparent current distaste for the main parties.

Again, if you'd read my comments, I largely agree.
UKIP are being very savvy, as were the Nazis (& the Bolsheviks).
Whether I agree with their policies or not is irrelevant.
I don't think they have any future(famous last words?) - they're a one-policy, one-man set-up. They could well get a few MPs at the next General Election, though, for the reasons you've stated.