Hello, Radh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Bassg☢☢nistTC14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama
Religion is not hereditary - everyone is an atheist at birth. Religious beliefs come from environmental exposure and learning, not some other inheritance mechanism. Obama was born in Hawaii, and exposed to a mixture of cultures and religions throughout his childhood. Eventually, he was drawn to Christianity. Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages to spread silly rumors with no basis in fact or common sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your compliments on my own talk page. You say you don't want to know. But can you afford that sort of attitude? TMLutas (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not mind that I called you a fool, but Kurras was a policeman in Westberlin, BRD! So he could not join the SEW from Eastberlin and had to join the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Westberlin, SEW.--Radh (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RAF edits
Hi Radh,
I stopped by to say I undid your edits ([1]
) to the article on Red Army Faction. Except for removing two brackets, I have to say your edits were a bit dubious. In your edits, it sounds as if the RAF was founded in 1970, and that all founding members were later recruits (The RAF was formally founded in 1970 by Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler. Ulrike Meinhof and Irmgard Möller were prominent later recruits). Mentioning that the third generation dissolved the RAF is a bit confusing, the third generation wasn't mentioned yet. It was also contradicting, the Movement 2 June and Revolutionary Cells (RZ) were associated with the RAF, not "rivals". The first attack by Baader and Ensslin was in fact the arson attack on the department store, in 1968. Late sixties is correct.
As I was talking mostly to myself in this debate, I feel free to erase most of it:
I will have another look at the facts, but some things are certain: The Frankfurt department store arson was done by Ensslin and Baader, but not under the name of RAF. The liberation of Baader from prison was a result of this Kaufhausbrandstiftung, so I can see that it is a bit confusing.
Well established and famous journalist Meinhof was needed by the others to help get Baader out, against their wishes and plans Meinhof panicked and went underground on the spot, she was supposed to stay legal.
The first published statement from the group was printed in the famous Berlin neo-anarchist sheet 883: "Die Rote Armee aufbauen!", Agit883, no. 62 (2nd year), from 5. Juni 1970, on page 6.
By the way: The group had a good legal-leftwing/leninist press at first, for example then very radical Wagenbach/Rotbuch publishe/tried to publish 2 or 3 books about them/ with their propaganda stuff (the state stepped in fast and surpressed all legal publications of raf textes).
But the whole question of urban guerilla/revolutionary action(s) in the urban West in the late 60s, early 70s: from very europeanized, democratic Uruguay (Tupamaros) and fascist Brazil to Japan, the USA (Panthers, Young Lords, AIM!, Weather), to Italy (not only the red brigades) and Westgermany is (to my mind at least) much more interesting than the story of the poor Baader Ensslin gang alone.
At the time of the Berlin Vietnam solidarity congress (February, 1968) both Rudi Dutschke and H-J Krahl forcefully demanded urban guerilla foci (focuses?). They of course did not want the real 70s thing, but if one takes their statements from the time and the Dutschke and Krahl congress speeches at face value, one has to say that their demands were identical to those later made by RAF (Mahler? Meinhof?) propaganda. The leaders of german sds in 1968 were propagandists of revolutionary action at home. It was widely felt that the weapon of criticism had to be replaced with criticism through weapons. (Later== SEW ==
I hope you do not mind that I called you a fool, but Kurras was a policeman in Westberlin, BRD! So he could not join the SEW from Eastberlin and had to join the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Westberlin, SEW.--Radh (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bigshot maoists started to run around looking like extras from Leone films. The Italowestern was popular with everybody from the motorcycle gangs to Baader)--Radh (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good manners are im(p)ortant:
Hey Radh, sorry for my late reply. I'm not too familiar with the history of the RAF. All I know is that the article in its current state is more or less properly cited and referenced. If you feel that is not clear or not neutral, by all means, go ahead. Just make sure that if you do change the article, change it troughout. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now?15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, you're not rude at all :-) You are correct, the RAF is a very sensitive subject. It is not the only touchy subject on Wikipedia. In the IRA article it is stated that editors should be careful with words like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist". A single word can change the tone of an entire paragraph. On the talk page of El Greco people were having a vivid discussion about where his true heritage lies. He was born on a Greek island, part of the 16th century Venician empire, and spent his life living in Spain.
I know a great deal about Dutch history, but to say why something did not happen is difficult. I couldn't really say why there was never such a group in the Netherlands, but perhaps of the polder model: a typical Dutch way of getting everybody to agree with a (political) decision. On the other hand, we did have the extreme Moluccan faction (see 1975 Dutch train hostage crisis). I wouldn't say there was strong support for the RAF. Perhaps there was in some circles like the extreme left or people bearing a grudge against Germany, but mainly just youth idealism. And as a former history student, I've never heard of a person called Schult too honest.
It is Schut actually, I really must stop writing stuff down at the the top of the head. The most awful debates I had on Wikipedia were about Obama, not surprisingly perhaps /I have the strange impulse to find it strange that nobody wants to notice that his name is Hussein).
nice guy!, re: written in stone
Haha! Actually sad to say, the dictionary approach was my initial response as well (you'll see at the top of the discussion) and I included the footnotes for it. Strictly speaking he's right== SEW ==
I hope you do not mind that I called you a fool, but Kurras was a policeman in Westberlin, BRD! So he could not join the SEW from Eastberlin and had to join the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Westberlin, SEW.--Radh (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
, that is the Wikipedia approach. The irony is clear though. I appreciated our debate as well; I am glad we could constructively discuss it, whereas some of the other guys upthread who challenged Chomsky as a philosopher were extremely hostile unfortunately. This is the sort of discussion that makes Wiki great, IMO. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say to work with people interested in philosophy is quiet good all in all, it is the political debates (Abu-Jamal, Obama) that have a tendency to get ugly or stupid fast. Both the Charles Hockett and Robert A. Hall pages are pretty basic by the way and Hockett' s criticism of Chomsky is really not as dumb as presented there. Also, Hockett and Hall both agreed at the time that structuralism had reached a dead end in the 50s. But all this is of course only relevant for early Chomsky.--Radh (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, some great names have next to nothing on the web (Davidson), Wollheim also. There is more of Tugendhat, but not his theoretical stuff. I have everything of Castoriadis I hope, but his very best stuff (the essays collected in Durchs Labyrinth) is not freely available. The poet Ron Siliman' s Chinese Notebook is also interesting, more philosophy than poetry. And I really wish I would know Chinese, the sites look simply amazing.--Radh (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do write about philosphy, if you are not up to it dept.: NPOV
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Continental philosophy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Please re-read the NPOV policy; it looks to me like a lot of your editing to philosophy articles has been tendentious in the extreme. -- Rbellin|Talk19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, we may all end up cleaning Chinese toilets. But I'm not ready quite yet to write Western Civilization off. Predicting economics is notoriously hard -- the math is strongly non-linear.
The Chinese system of choosing a leader causes them to get some very good leaders and some very bad leaders -- and some leaders who are both at the same time or by turns. Gaius Marius was a good leader of Rome until a blood vessel in his temple burst. Then he tried to build a pyramid of human heads in the forum.
No, and you (in the role of the us-american optimist) are not even allowed to write us off: The Europeans for all their anti-americanism have this idealistic view of an american system able to turn around and repair itself at will. Change, indeed. But sometimes the checks and ballances also provide welcome daoism: Clinton in the end could not spend the money now being thrown out of the window, because the Republicans played just say njet.
I have my strong feeling of the (relative) decline of older industrialized economies (the UK around 1920, but now USA, Germany and Japan) not from this nationalistic german sage of the 20s, but from Charles Kindleberger At least one of his books should be available online, University of California Press, with an essay on the hoarding of gold: What happened to the american gold in Spain and beyond. Kindleberger also wrote a history of the Great Depression, which I am now rereading and (if nothing else) which shows how different and at once more complicated and more easy things really are if you know something about economics. I cannot really understand his technical arguments about money and exchange rates and their role in the 1930s, but this book leaves me pretty sure that all the easy answers and reasons now given about our new Great Depression must be wrong (or insufficient). Some stuff real economists point to surely has played a part: the less than happy anti-speculative money tightening of the Bank of England a year ago (just like the anti-speculative policies shortly before the old GD), the way too long Greenspanism, simple greed, politicians asleep at the wheel (not in Canada, surprisingly enough), etc pp. But state sponsored "socialism"? I can well remember the old East Germany, which was a joke compared to "us" economically, but which also (like "us") was a country nobody starved in and certainly not the Concentration Camp China of Mao.-Radh (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the suggestion. Today I came across a book review of the 2008 collection of her writings, that's how I got on the subject. It reminded me of the time I visited some leftist friends in Germany in 1990, when RAF grafitti was still visible around Berlin; it was quite provocative and fascinating. So was the stuff I read today about the tenor of German leftism in the 60s, reacting to the residues of National Socialism still swirling around the country--something I've always been curious about; rather different from the situation in the U.S. Anyway, take care. AdRock (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now begin to miss the old gdr East-Berlin! something I never ever thought would happen, I can understand your pleasure in history. Berlin is still a great city, by the way and in the provinces in the east there are some places still looking very much like 1990 (or even 1945?)--Radh (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British
The English language differs from German in the treatment of adjectives: if a noun is capitalized (Britain, Byzantium. Buddhism) the corresponding adjective is also capitalized (British, Byzantine, Buddhist). When in doubt, check a dictionary. Ewulp (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.--Radh (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richter
I change a couple of words in that section. I believe I understand what you are saying about "beschweren" being verbal or written, as opposed to an action. The word "protest" does imply either a passive or active action (words or physical actions). So in this sense, protest rather than voicing protests is sufficient. I can look through the other two articles, although I'm going offline until this evening. My parents are German-born, but I haven't picked up much of the language. I can read very basic German but nothing more. "Beschweren" is over my head, I'm afraid. freshacconci talktalk16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do mind you calling me a fool. I don't think insults are the way to go here. He was a member of the east-german SED, member of the Stasi as well. Please refer to his article Karl-Heinz Kurras, including references. BigBen212 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just put up a stub: Henry Voth. I found a few resources on him as well. I seem to remember the name from some research I did on the Hopi in college, but it's been a while. Thanks for the recommendation! --babbage (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That is very kind of you. I once read a lot on Aby Warburg and his Pueblo visit and Warburg met Voth, so I have a special interest in him. German Hopi linguist Ekkehart Malottki always defends Voth and his knowledge of Hopi against the modern detractors of him and against the pc crown.
I will add stuff on Voth from my bookmarks as soon as I can. I feel a bit silly to have had to ask you, but I just have never started an article on wikipedia, will have to have a go at it with "my" Hopi photographers.--Radh (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
Hi again. Just noticed your comment here. Glad that you've gone ahead and started the article, it's looking good. Don't be intimidated about starting articles. If one gets deleted, just start another one :) As the saying goes, Be bold! babbage (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was pretty intimidated about starting something here ex-nihilo. Your article on Matthews is really great!--Radh (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bakker Schut
This dutch lawyer who was a ferocious advocat of the raf is called Bakker Schut. Now, there seems to have been an (semi?) official dutch plan for a post-45 "Dutch Rheinlands", a so called Bakker-Schut plan. Is this strange or is this strange? Do you know anything about it?--Radh (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Radh, sorry for my late reply. I saw your message earlier, but without that big orange banner on top I easily forget my messages. I haven't heard of that so called Bakker-Schut plan. I find it very strange, you don't hear or read about that kind of stuff in common Dutch history books. Stranger still, I didn't even know that 69 km2 was allocated to the Dutch, let alone it was returned later on. Black Tulip, same thing. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now?12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo und Danke für Deine Antwort. I was also completely surprised by this plan (and I grew up in Mönchengladbach Rheydt near Venlo) and just thought how strange. MfG--Radh (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I got your message thanks. I suggest that if you want George Jackson (Black Panther) in that category then you go ahead and add him yourself. I do not know enough about the Jackson case personally to be able to make the decision as to whether he was assassinated or not, and his article leaves definate room for doubt as to the circumstances of his death. As to your second request, for the SA man Rohm (I assume you are referring to Ernst Röhm), I cannot see any grounds for him to be in this category at all: he wasn't American and he wasn't a civil rights activist - if anything he was the opposite. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Your original message was far from clear, but in the context of the second seems to have been that George Jackson should not have been included in Category:Assassinated American civil rights activists. However, I never added Jackson to the category or intended to do so myself. I actually set it up for men like James Chaney and Jonathan Daniels, and it was not intended for men whose deaths came in circumstances like those in which Jackson died. When you mentioned Ernst Rohm were you therefore being sarcastic? (And note that the American aspect of the category is explicity expressed in the title.)--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that is just my point (leaving my stupid mistake with the nationality well aside for the moment): including Hampton is understandable, even Frontline Magazine does not defend that. G. J. was a criminal with an enormous ego and charisma (Angela Davis was very impressed, his brother was prepared to kill and die for him), which was over-fed by the black power and maoist rhetoric of the time.
To include them in a Civil Rights list simply dirties the memory of the true heroes. But I am all for a list of all BPP (including the dead).--Radh (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see page 219 (and 5 or 6 before if you have the patience) 219 says he didn't know he was supposed to die but 225 says he sat on the plane preparing for his death and it says he was ashamed that he failed to die and requested a bullet from the Israeli general who was on the scene.
I'm pointing to the relevant guidelines, which may be worth a read for editors of the article. If I'm not using the sticker as it was intended, I'd like to know it, and all my apologies if that's the case. --ColdWind (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my personal conviction is that terrorism is a word to use with caution in an encyclopedia, and a terrorist organization would be better described as something like an armed group [...] considered a terrorist organization by the European Union, United States, Japan, and [...]. Maybe I'll do that eventually in some articles, but I think it's better that the regular editors of each article make the necessary change to comply with the style guidelines through consensus. --ColdWind (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that uniformity is nice and even necessary in an encyclodedia and everything. I also do not blame You for WP's pussyfooting around "terrorism". I can see that the Weatherpeople were more of a joke than a threat in the end and may be called "armed leftist group" or something But the RZ or RAF or IRA, ETA, PFLP or even the Japanese Red Army Fraction (the group based in the Lebanon, not the earlier Japanese ones) were no joke. In the real world all these organizations are called terrorists by everybody with any common sense. Their sympathisers see things differently and while I cannot believe You or many WPedians are sympathizers, is it not a bit strange, that ironcast WP rules like No User Research, No Private Opinions, NPOV etc all count for nothing once a certain leftist world view is concerned. But, as I said before, no big deal, leave the stamp and we will see what happens--16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Karl August Wittfogel
Thanks for the hello on my talkpage. Keep up the good work on Karl August Wittfogel! It's frustrating to have such an important figure with not enough time to do him justice, but at least it's a start. I'll try to get back and integrate some of the juicy stuff from the footnotes into the main text by turning it into more narrative prose. ch (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the notes are a bit õver the top, if you manage to turn the Zettelkasten into readable prose, good luck to you! --Radh (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am glad to hear that you are not going to give up on WP and also thanks for your answer. Ella Deloria looks very good. Like her, Frank Speck is not on german WP. Alles Gute, Ralf. --Radh (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also come back :-) I am the guy who started the German Ashley Montague article, remember? But still not much time for the next few weeks - as I seriously have to finish an essay. Best, --Werchowensky (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Radh. I've been perusing your contributions and find them very relevant, interesting and sorely needed. I am glad that you are working on improving our coverage of 20th century american anthropology. Great work - keep it up! ·Maunus·ƛ·16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you posted about my edits to the SPK page. I'm very interested in information on the SPK and the Hubers that pre-dates the Berster trial - could you point me in the right direction? There must have been news on the Huber trial in 72, but I can't even find German language mentions of it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.232.24 (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered also on the SPK/talk page, with nothing much different to say. I will try to find out about this Berster trial.--Radh (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read some stuff onthe net about the SPK and nearly everything was bizarr or uninformed (this includes right-wingers: the SPK was not/did not develop into a real "terrorist organization", at least not like "June, 2nd","RZ" or "RAF") or godawful psychotic stuff (from a lawyer called Muller).
K. Berster seems to have given the magazine "Stern" an interview before her trial.
The magazine "Spiegel" says she crossed the Vermont border with Michael Baumann ("Ray Kaimir"), someone lost, a woman called "Maria Anadola", perhaps Angelika Speitel, and that K.B. called herself "Shahrzad Sadegh Nobari".
1 site says she had been in Jemen, "to do Red Cross work". Some young Germans did of course do other stuff there at the time
List of conc-camp
If you revert me, then please source your restored information. Everything should be sourced, and claims which present something a concentration camps should be sourced too. POV and unsourced information has no place in such article. If you want to keep that info, please:
Wikipedia requires WP:RS sources, if you would produce those, I would never revert you. It is Wikipedia policy that everything should be sourced. And exceptional statements, such as "Chechen filtration centers are concentratio camps" require exceptional sources accoridng to Wikipedia rules. If you would produce them, then the text which I have reverted couldn't be removed. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered something on your page, but: I did not write the text, I only reverted your revert, because I thought you gave no good reason for your action. But please, let's ask someone else? But I will not start an edit war anyway, as I now think you are acting in good faith.--Radh (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. You misunderstood me also. If you are interested in that topic and have sources, then, please, go on and contribute. In no way I am going to start edit wars if sourced and NPOV text would be there.
I was concerned about completely off-topic"sharashkas" were mentioned competely unsourced, and Chechen filtration centers depicted as concentration camps (unsourced radical POV), Appelbaum figures of 16 000 000 million people gone through Gulag are more or less close to reality, but it is not mentioned that political prisoners were less than 5% of 16 000 000, with the rest being simple criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) and that's why I asked that Appelbaum's methods of presenting these figures should be reflected. You cannot equate muderer and political prisoner, right? If you want to leave 16 000 000, then please submit the number of political prisoners out of that total figure and describe Appelbaum's methods of calculation an sources where she took that data. This would be fair, correct?
Moreover that figure - 16 000 000 people over 1929-1953 should be given in comparison, because people not acquainted with penitentiary systems could be confused. In modern days US, these figures are much more higher than in USSR during Stalin's rule in fact. Incarceration in the United States gives 2 300 000 people, only for the year 2008 in the United States in jails and prisons alone. If we would compare it with 16 000 000 over 24 years n Stalin Russia, then the reader could compare where is what. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I now think that you were right to revert the Chechena sentence, such a proposition really should have been well sourced. I am also against over-use (or "hype") of the word KZ or Concentration Camp. But if the USA camps for Japanese are to be called KZs/CCs on Wikipedia, I have had this discussion, what do you want to call the Soviet (or the Maoist) camps?
Criminals vs. Political Prisoners, OK, but are you sure about the less than 5% figure? There were simple criminals in Hitler's jails and KZs, but was Dachau OK for them? Some people may well say so, others: if Stalin's main victims were all (high level) Bolschewiki, good ridance...
I sometimes wish the USA would put its hardcore criminals in Stalin type camps, if only for some months, it would save a lot of money and hassle.
How many people are in jail in Russia and the former member-states now? But that does not make the awful US numbers any better.--Radh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC). Just found the Russian figures and they do not look that low. But I think the Chinese figures are a complete joke, also: as you may well be shot dead, if you try to leave that country without permit, this figure should be closer to 1,000,000,000. Also, 99.99% of North Koreans are incarcerated right now.--Radh (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Gulags do not match Nazi concentration camps, Gulag aim was isolation of the individual, and not its extermination. The average death rate in Gulags from offficial documents (including attempts for runaway) was around 1 %. In prisons the death rate was 5%. Look there http://spv098.moole.ru/11660-kakovy-masshtaby-stalinskikh-repressijj.html. Stalin in fact never acted alone in Purges. It was not only Stalin invention. Please consider that that period - 30-ies, is the first small peaceful period after the end of Civil War and Foreign Military intervention (Japan, US, UK, Chechoslovakia, Poland, France) into Soviet Russia. This Purge was not spontaneous decision by some crazy madmen, it had very objective reasons. It is very stupid to think of Stalin and his aides as foolish tyrant bloodthurst monsters. Their adversaries were no less bloody and tyrant.
In order to evaluate Gulag figures, you might want to read the following sources (use Google translate):
First of all, Stalin Purge was condemned by Communist party itself, and Khrushchev published and disclosed the official total number of those who were sentenced from 1929-1954 for (very important moment) "contr-revolution crimes" and the number for the prisoners is 2 369 220. Please also consider that White officers who conducted White terror, as well as Foreign interventionists, Spies, traitors, terrorists, Trotskiy and trotskists, Zinovievists are in those figures also. It is almost impossible to distinguish those who were thrown into Gulags as peaceful dissidents, and those who made their way there as militants conducting terror among civilian population after the date which is accepted as the end of Civil War in Russia. What is needed to separate them is to go through all the binders on each person gone through Gulag which are kept in Kremlin State archives. It is impossible to do it even in 4 years. Those researchers who claim they did (thanks God I haven't met those still) would surely lie.
As about US camps for Japanese. Look it is politics. No one in US would ever acknowledge it, but we should also note that these camps were not for extermination, these were isolation camps. They even still haven't published for the victims of Great Depression. Just ask them about data of population for the year 1932 (this year is the peak of Depression in the US). Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a very interesting point about the victims of the Great Depression. But I sincerely hope even the loony left does not think the US Japanese camps were Extermination Camps? But I know, that Rudy Kousbroek in the Netherlands had a tough time convincing his fellow citizens that the ugly Japanese run East Asian camps were no German style KZs.
I also don't think it makes sense to lump any amount of dfferent things (a1 to an) together and call them all 1name. Even the Eastern Nazi extermination camps were different from Western KZs like Dachau and, as you point out, they all were different from the Russian camps.
Your death rate for the Gulag seems to be a bit low, but I will look up your references.
I do not think Stalin or "The Russians" were/are more inhumane than a lot of rulers and a lot of peoples. I am also no friend of any White Terror (I grew up thinking Pinochet was Hitler2).
I learned a long time ago of Trotzki's responsability for the Kronstadt massacre, I have never supported his movement. But, I was a kind of Maoist once, so...
In fact I think that in terrible situations everything turns ugly: in the Spanish Civil War every site massacred its enemies; the same probably happened in the Russian Civil Wars after 1917.--Radh (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the list! However, I do not understand German, so can you tell me what "Übersetzungen" means (the header of a section in the bibliography) before I can transfer it to English Wikipedia? Cheers Wandering Courier (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it is just "translation".--Radh (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
