Your post is mostly incoherent and obnoxious, hence not worth much of my time; only just a little. By contrast, Ken is a model of decorum and reason.
Basic point still holds: most Communists supported the Allies against the Axis. You can say they weren't the "real" communists, but your historical position remains an embarrassing minority one. You can try to equate your idiosyncratic position with that of socialists everywhere, but only gullible people will believe you. The complicity of the Allied nations in acceding to Hitler's rise, and to the launch of his military adventures, is obvious and utterly beside the point. In the breech, the Allied nations did the right thing, for whatever reason, and you still can't figure that out.
You said:
> . . . Isolationist and racist currents like "Multiethnic
communities in the Balkans can work." Yeah, that's real racist
and isolationist.>
No, it's just foolish, at this point in time. If you don't think the American public's attitude towards intervention is not colored by race and isolationism, there isn't much more to be said.
> >As for demonization, some here expect to get away with all
manner of slurs against those with whom they disagree, but
scratch them with, in this case, nothing more than a political
attack exploiting their own phraseology, employing no greater
pejorative than terms like "confused," and well its just boo hoo
hoo.>
> Don't forget the explicit term "lunatic" or phraseology that
boils down to
"pandering to racism" or "too stupid to figure out that Hitler
was bad."
All of those are worse pejorative than confused. >
Those are your words, not mine, except for 'lunatic'. I was considerably more polite, then and now, as well as compared to yourself. You are right to say this is at least borderline ad hominem, but your standing on this is undercut by your own language. Even so, lunatic referred to a doctrine, not to persons, as in:
> > I would like to isolate the lunacy of those who cannot pass
the Hitler Test, typified by the doctrine of revolutionary
defeatism or, for that matter, by the Spart treacle Doug posted
yesterday.>
Nevertheless, I will admit this is backpeddling. So I will apologize to Ken for use of the word lunatic if he apologizes for saying anyone on the other side of the debate is simply interested in justifying a renunciation of progressive activism.
> >You only salute him because he validates your position. He's
> >just another useful idiot.
>
> More Stalin baiting.
I make no apologies for prejudice against the grave-digger of socialism. Go ahead and spread it around.
The rest of your post consists of excerpts from mine, followed by absurdly warped paraphrases that you attack. Not worth response; anyone who cares will see the difference.
In closing, in regard to:
> Like being annoying on a mailing list?
. . . I will say that I normally do not take pleasure in annoying people, but in your case I will make an exception.
mbs