HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tribute to Stalin (1953) by Jawaharlal Nehru

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tribute to Stalin (1953) by Jawaharlal Nehru

    WHEN we think of Marshal Stalin, a panorama of the history of the last 35 years passes before our eyes. All of us here are the children of this age and have been affected by it in many ways. We have grown up not only participating in our own struggles in this country but, in another way, with the mighty struggles that have taken place in this world, and we have been affected by them. And so, looking back at these 35 years or so, many figures stand out; but perhaps no single figure has moulded and affected and influenced the history of these years more than Marshal Stalin. He became gradually almost a legendary figure, sometimes a man of mystery, at other times a person who had a rather intimate bond not for a few but with a vast number of persons.

    He proved himself great in peace and in war. He showed an indomitable will and courage which few possess. Perhaps when history comes to be written about him, many things will be said and we do not know what varying opinions may be recorded in subsequent generations. But everyone will agree that here was a man of giant stature, a man who, such as few do, moulded the destinies of his age and although he succeeded greatly in war, a man who ultimately will be remembered by the way he built up his great country.

    Again, people may agree or disagree with many things that he did or said. But the fact remains that he built up that great country, which was a tremendous achievement. In addition to that, and this was a remarkable fact which can be said about very, very few persons—he was not only famous in this generation but he was in a sense intimately concerned, if I may say so, with vast numbers of human beings. At any rate, vast numbers thought of him in an intimate way, in a friendly way, in an almost family way, certainly in the Soviet Union, and by many others too outside.

    I have known people who were associated with Marshal Stalin or the work that Marshal Stalin did and who subsequently disagreed with him. They told me that while they disagreed with him, they felt a personal wrench because of the personal bond that had arisen between them and him, even though they had not come near him or had merely seen him from a distance.

    So here was this man who created in his lifetime this bond of affection and admiration among vast numbers of human beings, a man who has gone through this troubled period of history. He made mistakes in the opinion of some or he succeeded—that is immaterial—but everyone must necessarily agree about his giant stature and about his mighty achievements.

    So it is right that we should pay our tribute to him on this occasion, because the occasion is not merely the passing away of a great figure but, perhaps in a sense, the ending of an era in history.

    Of course, history is continuing, and it is rather absurd, perhaps, to divide it up into periods as historians and others seek to do. History goes on and on. Nevertheless, there are periods which seem to end and take a fresh lease of life and, undoubtedly, when a very great man passes away who had embodied his age to a great extent in a certain measure there is an end of that particular period.

    I do not know what the future will hold. But, undoubtedly, even though Marshal Stalin has passed away, because of the great hold he had on their minds and hearts, his influence and memory will continue to exercise people’s minds and inspire them. He has been described by many persons, including some who have been his great opponents on the world stage, and those descriptions vary and sometimes are contradictory. Some of them describe him as a frank and even gentle person. Others describe him as hard and ruthless. Maybe he had all these features in him. Anyhow, a very great figure has passed away.

    He was not technically head of the Soviet State, but Marshal Stalin was something much more than the head of a state. He was great in his own right, whether he occupied office or not, and I believe that his influence was exercised generally in favour of peace. When war came he proved himself a very great warrior. But from all the information that we have had, his influence has been in favour of peace even in these present days of trouble and conflict.

    I earnestly hope that his passing away will not mean that that influence which was exercised in favour of peace is no longer to be available. Perhaps I may express the hope that this event may loosen all our minds a little from their rigidity in all countries, and that we may view the present problems of the world not in that rigid way which develops when people are continually in conflict and argument with each other but in a somewhat more responsive and understanding way, so that his death may serve to bring us more to think of this troubled world and to endeavour even more than before to secure peace in this world and to prevent any further disaster and catastrophes from happening.

    [Mr. Nehru disclosed that when news of Marshal Stalin’s serious illness came, he was reading a long report from the Indian Ambassador in Moscow about the recent interview; at which Stalin expressed his desire that world peace might not be broken.]

    He expressed then, also, his goodwill for India and sent his good wishes to our country and to some of us. And it was interesting how he discussed with our Ambassador some of our cultural problems, showing a certain knowledge which was slightly surprising. He discussed—it may interest the House—the languages of India, their relationships, their parentage and their extent, and our Ambassador gave him such replies as he could on the subject.

    So, while paying our tribute on this occasion, we may also hope that the world may be excited by this event into thinking more in terms of peace.
    Source.

  • #2
    Stalin was a cunt.
    "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
    - Kurt Vonnegut

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm pretty surprised at that. Of Gandhi's followers in the independence movement, there were definitely communists/socialists among them (Bose comes to mind) but Nehru was the least independently minded (for lack of a better phrase) from Gandhi in that he basically shared all his beliefs, and Gandhi was no communist. Weird, though that was probably written before the mass murders under Stalin were public knowledge.
      Originally posted by ethan20
      There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
      Originally posted by reservoirGod
      Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

      Comment


      • #4
        The so-called mass-murders (i.e. executions by the State) were certainly public knowledge in the Soviet Union and the whole wide world during the 1950s, and before. The most famous of the trials during the 'Great Purges', those of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, Rykov, and other famous individuals of the 'Rightist' and 'Trotskyite' groups, were covered by the international press and by international observers in very public trials in the years from 1936-39. Plus the executions of military leaders and cadre during the same period was well known during the time, and it made Nazi Germany miscalculate the weaknesses of the Soviet Union in their invasion tactics (they believed that France would be a harder opponent than the Soviet Union, for example). Other than those mass-executions*, there is virtually nothing else, except perhaps for the Katyn Massacre during WWII, that you can attribute mass-death to Stalin. So Nehru was quite aware of Stalin's record; even more so than the majority of people living today, as most people back then did not believe the foolish anti-Soviet sensationalist propaganda which the likes of the United States (post-FDR) spat out.


        * Legally, it is the State that defines what is 'murder', and the executions were not illegal under the Soviet penal code and constitution.
        Last edited by | K Y L E |; 07-05-2008, 10:23 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by | K Y L E | View Post
          The so-called mass-murders (i.e. executions by the State) were certainly public knowledge in the Soviet Union and the whole wide world during the 1950s, and before. The most famous of the trials during the 'Great Purges', those of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Radek, Rykov, and other famous individuals of the 'Rightist' and 'Trotskyite' groups, were covered by the international press and by international observers in very public trials in the years from 1936-39. Plus the executions of military leaders and cadre during the same period was well known during the time, and it made Nazi Germany miscalculate the weaknesses of the Soviet Union in their invasion tactics (they believed that France would be a harder opponent than the Soviet Union, for example). Other than those mass-executions*, there is virtually nothing else, except perhaps for the Katyn Massacre during WWII, that you can attribute mass-death to Stalin. So Nehru was quite aware of Stalin's record; even more so than the majority of people living today, as most people back then did not believe the foolish anti-Soviet sensationalist propaganda which the likes of the United States (post-FDR) spat out.


          * Legally, it is the State that defines what is 'murder', and the executions were not illegal under the Soviet penal code and constitution.
          The genocide taking place in Nazi Germany was said to be within "their right" to act as such. Does that make it right for us to judge the actions occurring within a sovereign state?
          The USSR avoided serious accusations of politicide by only ratifying a UN Declaration of Human Rights that did not mention such examples of state-terror. If the UN were unable to condemn such actions, what chance did the offending state's penal code and constitution* have to condemn it?

          *A penal code and constitution created in an environment of political chaos (as are many) and designed to create stability by stamping out ideas and desires hostile to the 'communist' situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Stalin.....?

            wow...

            I got two bad hands and still built this house of cards/
            Just an average Jack up in the Club who thinks he found a Heart/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by escobar View Post
              The genocide taking place in Nazi Germany was said to be within "their right" to act as such. Does that make it right for us to judge the actions occurring within a sovereign state?
              The Nazi genocide, which itself was only a secondary crime to the principle one war[s] of aggression, took place on conquered peoples lands. The Nazis were very careful not to have their death camps on their own backyard concentration camps, but rather in the likes of Poland. Your point is still somewhat valid, however. Arguably still it was not strictly murder, as Nazi Imperium was the sovereign and defined what was murder while the genocide took place. A counter argument to that, however, was that Nazi Germany's war and annexation of Poland was illegal (which it was) and the Polish government before the Nazi invasion was still the sovereign after the invasion, not the Nazi Imperium and its sympathisers, and that therefore the killing of Jews in death camps was in fact murder according to Polish laws pre-1939.


              The USSR avoided serious accusations of politicide by only ratifying a UN Declaration of Human Rights that did not mention such examples of state-terror.
              Not too many people were executed by the Soviet State after WWII, when the United Nations was created, and I was mainly concentrating on the 1930s period, which is where the main accusations of murder against Stalin concentrate on. The League of Nations was the main international governmental organization - and they kicked out the Soviets after the Winter War (Finno-Soviet War).


              If the UN were unable to condemn such actions, what chance did the offending state's penal code and constitution* have to condemn it?
              *A penal code and constitution created in an environment of political chaos (as are many) and designed to create stability by stamping out ideas and desires hostile to the 'communist' situation.
              My point was that strictly speaking, Stalin was not a mass-murderer by the largely accepted and legal definition of the term. However, I am not a majoritarian nor legalist and I understand that the State does murder whether it complies with its own laws or not. I would soonerconsider wars between states to be murders, yet many do not, than executions against convicted criminals.

              Was Stalin a mass-murderer? Well, if we apply the same standards (i.e. State killings) to all other leaders, then they all are.

              Comment

              Post ad widget 300x250

              Collapse

              LATEST POSTS

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Deborahlanker, 05-10-2021, 08:27 AM
              5 responses
              22 views
              0 likes
              Last Post vowk
              by vowk
               
              Started by fhnctuli, Today, 07:32 AM
              0 responses
              2 views
              0 likes
              Last Post fhnctuli  
              Started by Tarzan, 07-19-2021, 04:40 PM
              1 response
              5 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Allanmathew  
              Started by Deborahlanker, 06-13-2021, 09:19 AM
              2 responses
              4 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Qwasap
              by Qwasap
               
              Started by mbvdasrtys, Today, 12:38 AM
              0 responses
              2 views
              0 likes
              Last Post mbvdasrtys  
              Started by bellywatson, Yesterday, 11:32 PM
              0 responses
              3 views
              0 likes
              Last Post bellywatson  
              Started by Heun, 06-09-2021, 02:09 PM
              3 responses
              35 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Florida White  
              Started by Franok, Yesterday, 11:21 AM
              0 responses
              5 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Franok
              by Franok
               
              Started by harman19, 06-04-2021, 05:00 AM
              2 responses
              13 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Gornawil  
              Started by Jared30, 07-23-2021, 06:58 AM
              1 response
              7 views
              0 likes
              Last Post noahharry  
              Working...
              X