Thatcher

[scoots]

I asked for evidence of mass killings, as alleged by you, outwith war (in which people die, or so I hear). You respond with... the Iraq War.

 

Sheesh. You forgot about World Wars I and II. I hear some folk may have died then as well, but maybe it's just a rumour. Or V-V-V-V-V-V-V-VietNam. ("N-N-N-N N-N-N N-N-N-N-N-Nineteen!")

[shetlandpeat]

Aww, just go for the ones films have been made about..

 

After an intensive study of American documents and interviews with survivors and perpetrators, the Canadian writer and former publisher James Bacque concluded that just before and after the end of the war German POWs and civilians in American detention camps in Europe died from hunger, exposure, and disease causing conditions as bad as the worse of gulag, and for which General Eisenhower was directly responsible. Bacque's figures are stunning: "undoubtedly . . . over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000, and quite likely over a million died.

 

Putting together all the subtotals (lines 333 to 350), in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told. Virtually all of these were foreigners killed during foreign wars. Domestically, throughout this century the American Federal or state governments were responsible for the murder of about 1 out of every 1,111,000 Americans per year.

 

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

 

The afore mentioned Operation El Dorado.

 

As allies the links report up to the numbers I quoted, 100s of thousands, if not millions.

 

I am sure you can find the rest...

 

China? Philippines? We were the US allies throughout the 20th C.

 

Thatchers involvement, I cannot quantify in all, nor do I want to. I am sure that google could help you there.

[scoots]

"Academic reviewers question three major aspects of Bacque's work: his claims that there was no post-war food shortage in other European countries; Bacque's estimate of the number of German deaths; and the allegation that Eisenhower was deliberately vindictive. Bacque's critics note many of the German soldiers were sick and wounded at the time of their surrender, and say his work does not place the plight of the German prisoners within the context of the grim situation in Western Europe in 1945 and 1946.

 

Writing in the Canadian Historical Review, David Stafford called the book "a classic example of a worthwhile investigation marred by polemic and overstatement."[1] R.J. Rummell, a scholar of 20th-century atrocities, has written that "Bacque misread, misinterpreted, or ignored the relevant documents and that his mortality statistics are simply impossible.".[2] More recently, writing in the Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment, S. P. MacKenzie states, "That German prisoners were treated very badly in the

months immediately after the war...is beyond dispute. All in all, however, Bacque's thesis and mortality figures cannot be taken as accurate".[3]

 

 

"However, in a 1991 New York Times book review,[5] Ambrose also claimed that "when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects. [...] Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945,[6] there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the Volkssturm (People's Militia) released without formal discharge and transfers of POWs to other allies control areas."

 

A book-length disputation of Bacque's work, entitled Eisenhower and the German POWs, appeared in 1992, featuring essays by British, American, and German historians."

 

You are labeling the U.S. as murderers over this? Keep taking the Nurofen.

[klanky]

An evil witch. I have friends whose relatives went to school with her. An awful person even as a child I gather.

 

Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing when she destroyed the mining industry, and her actions tore the heart and soul out of the part of South Yorkshire / North Notts I grew up in.

 

I'll not be mourning her passing when she finally shuffles off this mortal coil.

 

And she destroyed the bully boy NUM who waged a war of hate on anyone who didn't toe the NUM political line.

 

My family are from the pit villages around Hemsworth and Fitzy, there were many who were glad to see Scargill broken - but they dare not speak out because of the very real threat of physical violence that existed towards any dissenters form his 'crusade' to break a democratically elected government.

[shetlandpeat]

I still think she is part of the allied machine that has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. For the reasons I have already posted. The Americans held us to a debt for decades. So in a way we had to comply to allot of what has already been done, and what is still doing.

America is the most aggressive country in the world, it has invaded the most countries. What ever is released by the authorities we should not trust, as that has already been spoken about. And this is the information digested by the academics.

[scoots]

[OP8S]

I don't think Thatcher was evil, I don't think that there are many people in history that are evil.

War is evil & so is hatered of others.

Thatcher did give the go ahead to a war against Argentinia, over an island that is mostly populated by sheep & is about as far away from the UK as you can get. I'm sure that there could of been an alternative to the death & disabilities that were caused by the Falklands War. If we had come to an agreement which meant that over time the Falklands were given to Argentinia without any bloodshed would we be any worse off ? The families of the troops that lost their lives or limbs on both sides certainly wouldn't be any worse off.

I would certainly have more respect for any politician that difused what ended up in bloodshed, wouldn't you ? All too often they re-play history over & over again with their wars, it suits them for us to live in fear of some unknown enemy. Used to be the cold war, now it's the war on terror. Divide & rule, works a treat. We need world leaders that can see the mistakes that have been made in the past & do a little more thinking " outside the box ".

[Toast Rider]

She is gone.

[oldscalloway]

Trust many Shetland folk having a party tonight. Glasgow had one at 5pm, and there are others all over the country.

[Hamiltonian]

 

I have nothing more to say.

[unlinkedstudent]

I can't help but wonder with the last couple of comments how many people are old enough to remember what Thatcher inherited when she came into power.

 

This woman spent the last few years of her life suffering strokes and dementia, and is now being laid to rest. Is throwing street parties 'celebrating' the death of someone in such circumstances really appropriate? I suspect that even those current politicians in Westminster will show more decency and respect.

[Scorrie]

I can't vote on the poll as there isn't an option that says "Life and politics are never black and white, get a grip"

[shetlandpeat]

I can't help but wonder with the last couple of comments how many people are old enough to remember what Thatcher inherited when she came into power.

 

 

Some will celebrate when Brady dies.

 

As with many families, the past, especially one that Thatcher had been involved with would have been talked about, there are many, many tales of woe.

I used to tell my family how I drove to Liverpool to drop food to the dockers to prevent children starving because effectively, the dockers were locked out.

 

Some may come to think, because of her governments policies, we have ended here, they did deregulate the banks, and sold off utility companies, food, heat and water are basic human rights, they are the essentials of life.

 

Large industries closed down as well.

 

Though I will not be celebrating her life. I will mourn some one who stood up in public for what she believed, and given the times she came to power, a woman too. Still, not enough women doing that.

[Colin]

I can't help but wonder with the last couple of comments how many people are old enough to remember what Thatcher inherited when she came into power.

 

This woman spent the last few years of her life suffering strokes and dementia, and is now being laid to rest. Is throwing street parties 'celebrating' the death of someone in such circumstances really appropriate? I suspect that even those current politicians in Westminster will show more decency and respect.

 

I'm old enough to remember what she inherited and, I'm old enough to remember what she did....

 

As for celebrating the life/death of a person who carved up the country and sold off a lot of the 'family silver'.. Get a grip...

 

I will show her about as much respect and decency as she showed the average working man... Next to none...

 

As for her getting a state funeral... To expensive at the moment... Take her to Wales/Scotland/Northern England and drop her down a coal mine.. There's plenty of empty ones.

[paulb]

i fully remember what it was like before maggie the milk snatcher. yes it was bad. but what she did was worse.