User talk:Mariya Oktyabrskaya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Svetlana Alliluyeva

I have reverted your deletion of "where she enjoys cheese" from the Svetlana Alliluyeva article, because it's quite obvious...who doesn't enjoy eating cheese? Naaah, just kidding. Good catch and good wikipedia-ing! Cheers, --LeyteWolfer 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on British Empire

Maria, how can you say that being "granted" independence is not a British POV. I also provided a citation, the first Prime Minister of India said we achieved freedom from the British. And why should the article not have ANY criticims of the empire at all when there are clearly many present. I will not undo your edit but will wait for a reply. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Maria, perhaps freedom is not the right word but by the same token being "granted independence" arent the right words either. Can you give me a "heavyweight" source for that ? Whats wrong with saying that India (or for that matter other colonies) achieved independence ? Did Britain just decide to pack their bags up one fine day and give India independence, as a gift ? I was not talking about post-independence problems, they are each country's problem, I never blamed (and dont have to blame) anybody for them. My point was that the article contains absolutely no balancing critcism. Werent the British even partially responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, Bengal famine(1943), and the partition of India and the ensuing violence. These are not post-independence problems, they happened when the British were present in India and on many ocassions because of their policies. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your good wishes. I am doing fine, here in Austin and hope you are okay in the UK too. I appreciate your time and effort in answering my questions. I will conduct more research on the British occupation of India and hopefully be able to add content with better sources in the future. Take care. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "More Advanced"

Hi. If it's a matter of point of view, which I don't think it is, it's certainly not my point of view - I added a reference from Niall Ferguson's book the relevant page of which you can read here [1]. I think it is accepted fact that Holland was a pioneer of capitalism (e.g. it had the first stock exchange, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange), and its mechanisms of raising money for colonial ventures were well ahead of England or any other nation at the time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Spanish were essentially filling their coffers (and paying back their loans) via the mining of precious metals, which suffer from the problem that the value of precious metals derives from their scarcity. The result was rampant inflation, defaults and the eventual decline of Spain and its Empire. The Dutch model was the beginnings of modern capitalism, which is an entirely different beast. Am I missing something? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe (moved from the Europe page)

Not all europeans were christian anyway. The anglo-saxons weren't (until converted much later) - they saved Britain from civilisation Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a very good idea to restart an old thread on this talk page. Troublesome editor Scipio3000 disappeared from the WP some time ago and I added the sentence about the "legalization of Christianity after four centuries of imperial persecution". Please look at the edit history of the page and the article itself. This is not a forum or a place to air opinions. Your remarks above are offensive and racist. Please could you remove them? --Mathsci 07:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your reference to rascist and offensive. The view that the anglo-saxons saved us from civilization, is, at most, ironic, and surely reflects the "traditional" self-depreciating style of English humour, and/or English speech. Additionally, I am not sure why you feel the pursuit of excellence has an end. Anyway, aren't you supposed to assume good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ? Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I still can't understand how the remarks you added are directly related to the editing of the article on Europe. They seem to be the sort of remarks that would normally be added on a forum with a little :) for good measure. Where did I mention the "pursuit of excellence"? Did you mean "self-deprecating" by any chance? Born near the home of the Venerable Bede, almost a geordie, I rarely call myself English. Of course I do at the moment here in France, in the brief period before next Saturday: I narrowly escaped having a tricoleur painted on my face last Saturday. The french of course use anglo-saxon as a put-down :) --Mathsci 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


The French can describe Anglo-saxons in any way they want, but it might be inappropriate for these pages. The Venerable Bede certainly wasn't ashamed to be English - re. the great quote about when he gets to Heaven. By "pursuit of excellence" I was referring to the continuous, and unending, work of "Historical Truth". That's why History excites me - it should be fixed but it isn't!! Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Historical truth? Doesn't that depend on who writes the history books? I'm not sure that User:Scipio3000 would have liked Terry Jones' series "Barbarians" very much. --Mathsci 09:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Historical Truth - exactly - that's one of the reasons it changes. Mr Jones' series was very popular, and he is a very entertaining presenter, but that doesn't make it historically accurate. I could have another "long" discussion with you on Mr Jones. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya 09:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I also question the accuracy of Barbarians. The Life of Brian was far more scholarly, probably more accurate than many biblical passages. --Mathsci —Preceding comment was added at 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting too indented! back to square one.
I guess Barbarians fits into the current English mode of apologising for everything. But that leads to its own problems. For example, some historians have questioned the "morality" of the decision to end slavery, saying that it had good economic grounds. Similarly, the "moral" decision to return the British Empire (well most of it) has been criticised as racist, and that economic (too expensive) or practical (got kicked out) grounds are closer to the "truth". Mr Palin, Mr Jones, and their ilk seem to fall into this trap rather more readily than one might expect.
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer Michael Palin on the screen; at least he doesn't just try to make a single point and distort facts in so doing. --Mathsci 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr Palin does, however, subscribe to the "apologist" view of European History. He conveniently forgets when is is going on about the Crusades that the Muslim assaults on Europe started hundreds of years earlier (Spain 711-20), and was only halted by extreme violence (Charles Martel, at Poitiers in 732, and not by any reasonableness on the part of the Muslims). Later Muslim assaults on Europe before the declaration of the First Crusade in 1095 included Sicily (821 and onwards), the capture of Bari (Italy) from 840 - 871 (recaptured by Louis), the sackings of the Basilica of St. Peter (outside Rome's walls, Italy) in 846, Nice in 813, Marseilles in 838 and 848, Arles in 842 and 850, Sainte-Claude, Baume-les-Dames, and Luxeuil in the late 9th century, as well as assaults on Monte Cassino (Italy)(also around 846) and Valence about 860). It allows him to excuse all anti-western modern Muslim behaviour by saying that "we started it". It is both historically inaccurate, and patronising and racist to the Muslims at the same time (it denies them independent agency, for a start!). Nietzche's "Will" is perhaps a better description of Christian/Muslim relations over the last 1300 years than any middle-class post-colonial guilt. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 1973 Chilean Coup - sources.

Hello and thank you for contacting me regarding the Bachelet edit conflict. Unfortunately I know of no researcher that has undertaken an investigation into the Bachelet case and most of the international news media has simply accepted Bachelet's own declarations on the matter, while the truth appears much more complex. While I am aware that a newspaper article is perhaps not the best source, this article in particular appears realiable. I reproduce the Spanish original and my English translation below of the relevant paragraphs:

Las torturas y la verdad

Pues ella saltó en las encuestas cuando, tras declararse torturada por los militares e hija de un general fallecido a causa de torturas, apareció como ministra de Defensa, trepada en un tanque y en cordial convivencia con militares. Todo un símbolo ante el cual Chile entero se prosternó.

Pero ¿fue torturada? ¿Murió su padre debido a las torturas? El apresamiento y juicio del general Bachelet no se debieron a que él administrara el sistema de distribución de alimentos durante la UP, sino por su pertenencia a un grupo de oficiales, simpatizantes de Allende, que se habían reunido reiteradamente en el Banco del Estado con dirigentes socialistas y del MIR para planificar una acción contra la base aérea "El Bosque". Los detalles de esa conspiración constan en los llamados "procesos de la FACh", documentados en el libro del periodista democratacristiano Ricardo Boizard, "Proceso a una traición".

Y tampoco el general murió debido a torturas, sino por una afección cardiaca. En 1969 había tenido una seguidilla de infartos, tras una actividad deportiva. Estando preso, en 1974, fue derivado al Hospital de la FACh debido a la misma afección. Cuando volvió a la cárcel, en la mañana del 12 de marzo de 1974, y tras participar en un partido de básquetbol, sufrió un paro cardíaco y falleció. Así lo ha referido su compañero de celda, el capitán Raúl Vergara Meneses, testigo del desenlace, quien sin embargo también dice que "el general murió en la celda que compartíamos después de ser torturado.

El ex parlamentario socialista Eric Schnake, preso en el mismo recinto, tampoco dudó en atribuir la muerte del general a una práctica deportiva incompatible con su condición cardiaca. La verosimilitud de esa explicación resultó tristemente confirmada por el posterior fallecimiento del único hijo varón del general Bachelet, a causa de un ataque cardíaco, a los 54 años de edad.

Tampoco Michelle ni su madre fueron torturadas. Yo vi personalmente a la primera declarar en televisión, recién designada ministra de Salud, que no lo había sido, pero que su madre sí. No puedo precisar el canal ni la fecha exacta, pero estoy cierto de lo que vi y oí. El 23.04.00 declaró a Raquel Correa, de "El Mercurio": "Nos llevaron a Villa Grimaldi y después a Cuatro Álamos. Estuve con los ojos vendados y recibí golpes". No habló de torturas. Pero, finalmente, el 14.11.04, ya en campaña, declaró a la misma periodista: "Sí, me torturaron... me cuesta recordar detalles. Como que se me bloquearon los malos recuerdos....". En definitiva, estuvo nueve días detenida, y no quince o más, como ahora afirma. Tampoco fue exiliada, pero su madre sí, por lo que Michelle la acompañó.

Doña Ángela tampoco fue torturada, según se desprende de su declaración a "La Segunda" del 18.11.04: "En el centro de torturas fuimos sometidas a violentos interrogatorios", dijo. El diario agregó: "No relata torturas físicas a su persona, pero sí un duro tratamiento".

Esa es la verdad. Pero "¿qué es la verdad?", como preguntara Pilatos en "La Pasión de Cristo". Pues ha sido la no verdad la importante para gestar el fenómeno Bachelet y el primer lugar en las encuestas.

Torture and the truth

She [Bachelet] jumped in the polls when, after declaring herself tortured by the military and the daughter of a general killed because of torture, appeared as Minister of Defense, inside a tank and in a cordial relationship with a military. A symbol which all of Chile praised.

But was she tortured? Did her father die because of torture? The arrest and trial of General Bachelet was not because he administered the system of distribution of food supplies under the Popular Unity government, but because of his membership in a group of officials, sympathizers of Allende, who met continuously in the State Bank (Banco del Estado) with Socialist and MIR chiefs to plan action against the "El Bosque" aerial base. The details of this conspiracy are revealed in the so-called "processes of the Air Force", documented in the book Proceso a una traición by Christian Democrat reporter Ricardo Boizard.

An neither did the General die because of torture, but because of a heart problem. In 1969 he had had a series of strokes after sports-related activity. Under arrest, in 1974, he was taken to the Air Force Hospital because of the same problem. When he returned to his jail cell, on the morning of March 12, 1974, and after participating in a basketball match, he suffered cardiac arrest and died. This is what his jailmate, Captain Raúl Vergara Meneses, witness to the event, said, although he also declared that "the General died in the cell that we shared after being tortured".

Former Socialist parlamentarian Eric Schnake, detained in the same jail, also did not hesitate in attributing the death of the General to sports activities incompatible with his heart condition. The truthfulness of this explanation was sadly confirmed with the later death of the only male son of General Bachelet because of cardiac attack at age 54.

Neither were Michelle and her mother tortured. I personally saw the former declare in television, right after being appointed Minister of Health, that she had not been tortured, but her mother had. I cannot remember the channel or the exact date, but I am sure I saw it and heard it. On April 23, 2000, she told El Mercurio's Raquel Correa, "We were taken to Villa Grimaldi and then to Cuatro Álamos. My eyes were covered and I recieved punches". She did not talk about torture. But finally, on November 14, 2004, during electoral campaigning, she told the same reporter, "Yes, I was tortured... I can't remember the details. It's like my bad memories have been deleted". She was detained for nine days, and not fifteen or more like she now affirms. Neither was she exiled, but her mother was, so Michelle accompanied her.

Mrs. Ángela [Bachelet's mother] was also not tortured, according to her own declaration to La Segunda on November 18, 2004: "In the torture center we were subjected to violent interrogations", she said. The newspaper added, "She did not talk of physical torture, but yes of harsh treatment".

That is the truth. But "what is the truth?", like Pilate asks in The Passion of the Christ. Because truth has not been important for the gestation of the Bachelet phenomenon and her first place in the polls.

Pérez de Arce, Hermógenes. "Michelle Bachelet, ¿quién es realmente usted?". El Mercurio 1/15/06.

I really don't know whether this first Wikipedia's reliability standards, but it is a piece whose claims could be independently corroborated and is the only article which I have found that attempts to invesigate Bachelet's claims, instead of just repeating her own statements. There is a biography of Bachelet somewhere and I will try to get my hands on it to read what it says about her and her father's arrest.

Best regards, Marmaduque 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Very much appreciated. Especially the Spanish translation - my Spanish is only about a dozen words - literally :-)
So to play the "Devil's Advocate":
a) the "witness" could be re-interviewed to see if his story remains the same. Is this what you mean by "corroborated". Not all witnesses are entirely candid in their interviews - especially as a newspaper interview is not under oath, and many witnesses are less than candid even under oath. The article you quote seems to contain contradictory statements from both Mr Meneses and Ms Bachelet, but that is no reason to dismiss one-half of their statements - the conditions under which the statements were made, and the mental and emotional state of the individuals at the time has not been mentioned. Certainly, some people are very modest about their own suffering, while others seem to suffer a "martyr complex" and exagerate even the slightest inconvenience;
b) "Corroboration" usually involves looking at a number of different sources - a variety of witnesses, forensic evidence, documentary evidence. This, for example, is why the Holocaust is said to have happened (despite the denials of certain individuals and cultural groups) - the huge number of witness statements, the documentary evidence (the Nazi's, on the whole, kept very good records), and the forensic evidence (remains of some of the camps still exist. I myself have visited Auschwitz in '92, and although parts of the Birkenau site have been "re-constructed" both the narrative and the physical evidence are overwhelming). In the case of Mr Bachelet / Mr Schnake / Mr Meneses there certainly does not seem to be a single version of events from the witnesses, even in the article from which you quote, and there is no record of any forensic/physical examination of the claims;
c) The expression "torture" mmeans different things to different people. Amnesty International has one view, Mr Bush seems to have another, I suspect the Saudi police have another, and Mr Stalin certaily had another. So what is torture? What about holding a suspect's head underwater until they nearly drown, then pulling them out and asking them questions. It was very popular with the Gestapo while interviewing French Resistance subjects. I believe some governments think it is a good idea today. What about beating the soles of the suspect's feel with cables/rods (very popular, I understand, in Saudi Arabia). Ms Bachelet in one interview, when asked about torture, replied "Nothing involving electricity". Which means what? That statement doesn't even preclude "Medieaval" torture methods.
d) The reporter seems to have seized on an open statement of Ms Bachelet, and implied it means she said she was not tortured -"'We were taken to Villa Grimaldi and then to Cuatro Álamos. My eyes were covered and I recieved punches'. She did not talk about torture". That statement does not mean she was not tortured. The question (apparently) wasn't put to her. She may have been, for example, playing down on that aspect so as to avoid openly portraying herself as a "martyr". The best ever quote I have heard from someone plaing down a situation was from a Belgian guy who was an SS volunteer during the war. Henri Metalmann, or something very similar. He ws interviewed on a TV documentary. He said "But when you are young, you don't notice such things" about his injuries he picked up (he was discharged following his injured, but kept revolunteering until they let him back in). The injury to which he was referring was when he lost an arm and an eye on the Eastern Front.
e) Just because Mr Bachelet's son died of a (natural) heart attacka at 54 did not mean he did (as implied in the article) - there are a number of risk factors for coronary infarction, including diet, exercise, alcohol, stress (including being tortured), excessive exertion (including being tortured), as well as family proclivity.

So what do you think. The only person who appears to ahve made a clear statement in the article is Mr Schnake, and the circumstances under which he made that statement are unclear, and the statement itself isn't quoted. As regards Bachelet mother and daughter, the suggestion that they were not tortured seems to be implied by a particular interpretation of several "open" statements.
Not much basis for "objective" truth, methinks.
So that's my bit, picking holes in your side
So what do you think?
And thanks again for discussing, not just "warring". And I'm Still ready for that Putin arguement when you are ;-)
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 11:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to research more on the article's claims by digging up for past copies of El Mercurio to see if there is any follow-up on the article. I found that Mr. Pérez de Arce's article, perhaps predictably, caused a lot of controversy in the "letters to the editor" section. On January 17, Captain Meneses himself wrote denying that General Bachelet died after a basketball match and insisting in attributing his death to torture. Pérez de Arce answered the following two days later:

Señor Director:

En carta aparecida en esta sección, el capitán (r) Raúl Vergara afirma, pretendiendo desmentir un artículo mío, lo siguiente: "El general Bachelet no falleció ni durante ni después de un partido de básquetbol, sino en la mañana del 12 de marzo del 74, cuando recién se producía la apertura de las hacinadas e insalubres celdas donde se nos mantenía."

El partido de básquetbol fue mencionado por el ex parlamentario socialista Eric Schnake, que compartió prisión con el general Bachelet, y también está mencionado en una investigación de dos alumnas de periodismo de la Universidad Diego Portales, Pamela Campusano y Silvana Celedón, que señala:

"La mañana del 12 de marzo de 1974, Alberto Bachelet quiso jugar básquetbol para distraer su mente. Luego, cumpliendo con los turnos que se le habían designado esa semana, se dirigió a lavar los platos usados la noche anterior, mientras intentaba olvidar el infernal interrogatorio a que había sido sometido dos días atrás. Bajo las órdenes del coronel Horacio Otaíza, había sido sometido a un centenar de preguntas, las que lo habían dejado muy decaído y sintiendo fuertes malestares. Su ex colega de labores en la Secretaría Nacional de Distribución y actual compañero de celda, capitán Raúl Vergara, amaneció especialmente nervioso esa mañana, pues había sido notificado que ese día sería llevado a una cita. Mientras afeitaba su rostro, se percató de que Alberto estaba tumbado en el suelo. Rápidamente, llamó al comandante Yáñez, médico de la Fuerza Aérea, quien le aplicó los primeros auxilios, mientras otros compañeros golpeaban en forma desesperada la puerta de hierro que daba hacia la calle para pedir ayuda."

Hermógenes Pérez de Arce Ibieta

Mr. Editor,

In a letter that appeared in this section, retired Captain Raúl Vergara affirms, trying to debunk one of my articles, that, "General Bachelet did not die during or after a basketball match, but on the morning of March 12 of '74, when the horrific and unhealthy cells where we were kept were just being opened."

The basketall match was mentioned by the former Socialist parlamentarian Eric Schnake, who shared prison with General Bachelet, and was also mentioned in an investigaton by two journalism students of Diego Portales University, Pamela Campusano and Silvana Celedón, which says:

"On the morning of March 12, 1974, Alberto Bachelet wanted to play basketball to distract his mind. Later, following the schedule given to him that week, he went to clean the dishes used last night, as he tried to forget the infernal interrogation that he has been subjected to two days ago. Under the orders of Coronel Horacio Otaíza, he has been subjected to hundreds of questions, which had left him very depressed and feeling very ill. His former colleague in the National Secretariat of Distribution and now jailmate, Captain Raúl Vergara, awakened especially nervious this morning, since he had been notified that this day he would be taken to an appointment. As he shaved his face, he noticed that Alberto was thrown on the ground. Quickly, he called Commander Yáñez, an Air Force medical doctor, who applied first aid, while other inmates hit the iron door that led to the street in desperation, calling for help."

Hermógenes Pérez de Arce Ibieta

Letters to the Editor. El Mercurio 1/19/06.
On the 23rd, Captain Meneses did not contradict the University's study, but limited himself to claiming that the "infernal interrogation" was torture and that interrogating someone with heart problems in such a manner made the interrogators responsible for his death. On the 26th, Mr. Pérez de Arce responded by citing the declarations of Air Force official Sergio Contreras Mejías, who guarded the cell of General Bachelet, to Ercilla magazine on August 4, 2003: "Quiero dejar en claro una situación. Yo tuve mucha participación con esta persona (el general Bachelet), lo conocí muy bien. Al general Bachelet nunca se le torturó, tuvo un muy buen trato. Estuvo primero con arresto domiciliario y cuando no lo cumplió, porque hizo una salida por ahí, se le arrestó en el Hospital de la FACH. La enfermera jefe lo atendía, tenía el trato de un general, con visitas diarias y todo." (I want to make this situation clear. I stayed a long time with this person [General Bachelet], I knew him very well. General Bachelet was never tortured, he was treated well. At first he was under house arrest and when he violated the rules, because he tried to run away, he was arrested in the Air Force Hospital. The chief nurse attended him, he was treated like a general, with daily visits and everything.)
Captain Meneses responded by criticizing Contreras' reliability, saying that he was being accused of human rights violations. Dr. Álvaro Yáñez del Villar, who attended Bachelet when he died, also weighed in saying that Bachelet was mistreated, did not have access to proper medical care in case of an emergency, was tortured physically and mentally (he claimed Bachelet was forced to stand or lay down without moving, with his hands cuffed, which made breathing difficult, and received punches), and that on the day he died Bachelet was very sick.
Mr. Pérez de Arce had the last word on his letter on January 31 in which he repeated that his claims were backed by the statements of Sergio Contreras Mejías on the August 4, 2003, edition of Ercilla and by the declarations of Eric Schnake in the Qué Pasa newsmagazine on November 11, 2005. There were no more follow-ups on the issue. Unfortunately, Mr. Schnake did not manage to clarify his statements since he died on November 23, 2005. I just want to repeat that Schnake was the Socialist Party's No. 2 man in during the Popular Unity government and a close advisor to President Salvador Allende. He was accused of sedition and treason and sentenced to four and a half years in prison. He was a founder of the Party for Democracy. His statements to the magazine were pretty clear and he has no reason to lie about Bachelet's death.
The journalism investigation by Diego Portales University seems to me to be a reliable source that should meet Wikipedia's standards. I will try to find it. Nothing was said in the letters to the editor about now-President Bachelet, except for one sentence by Captain Meneses were he said "punches" equalled "torture".
However, I was able to find a statement that could corroborate Mr. Pérez de Arce's recollection that Bachelet initially denied she was tortured. Left-wing author Luis Sepúlveda wrote, "Michelle Bachelet, candidata a la presidencia y evidente ganadora, ex ministra de Sanidad y Defensa del presidente Lagos, hija de un general leal a la Constitución torturado hasta la muerte por órdenes de Pinochet, es una mujer brillante que conoció el exilio, y junto con su madre pasó por el peor centro de torturas, el de Villa Grimaldi. Sus asesores de imagen se apresuran a declarar que, si bien es cierto que estuvo en ese infierno, también lo es que no fue torturada" (Michelle Bachelet, candidate to the presidency and probable winner, former Minister of Health and of Defense of President Lagos, daughter of a general loyal to the Constitution tortured to death under Pinochet's orders, is a brilliant woman who knew exile and together with her mother passed though the worst torture center, Villa Grimaldi. Her image consultants hurry to declare that, while it's true she was in that hell, it is also true that she was not tortured). Although Sepúlveda's comments contain many inaccuracies (there is definitely no evidence General Bachelet was tortured under Pinochet's direct orders, and Michelle Bachelet was not exiled but decided to accompany her mother, who was), he does expressly state that Bachelet was not tortured. I was able to find a transcript of an interview with Bachelet where she states: "Sufrimos algún tipo de tortura, la privación de libertad en condiciones extremadamente duras, vendada, encerrada en lugares pequeños, maltratada (...). Pero no fui parrillada [torturada con electricidad]" (We suffered some type of torture, privation of liberty in extreme hardship, covered eyes, being enclosed in small spaces, mistreaed [...] But I was not tortured with electricity). Her definition of torture appears to encompass anything that made her uncomfortable, but she clearly states she did not receive the electrical treatments other detainees allege to have suffered. Finally, Bachelet's biography quotes her as saying that she and her mother were "separated and subjected to physical hardships" in Villa Grimaldi. However, her biography, which is definitely favorable to her, does contain significant inaccuracies, like saying the Bachelet women spent "two weeks" in Villa Grimaldi, while in fact her late father's friends in the Air Force managed to free them within five days.
Whew, that took long! Now, what about Putin? :) While I am definitely no expert in Russian politics, I try my best to keep up with Russian current events. From what I know, Putin has done his best to dimish Russia's democracy, has endangered freedom of speech rights, done his best to continue in power as long as possible, and the deaths of his opponents are extremely suspicious, to say the least. Unfortunately, his approval ratings are exorbitantly high and his party will win in the upcoming elections. That's my pessimistic take on Russia's state of affairs.
Best regards, Marmaduque 17:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mr Putin

Yes, it appears that democracy is not the first priority for most Russians, and I think that is a huge problem. This apathy towards democracy is what got people like Adolf Hitler, Ismail Haniyeh, Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Salvador Allende power. And Putin's 82% [2] approval rating is not only bad for Russian democracy, which has never been strong, but for the entire world. Putin protected Saddam Hussein in Iraq before the invasion, and now he is protecting Iran. And he is truly acting like a bully against neighbouring nations who want stronger ties with the West (Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine). Putin is leading the world to another conflict with the United States, perhaps not a full-scale Cold War, but definitely a dangerous rivalry. At the same time, within Russia dissent is being slowly repressed. But ordinary Russian voters, like ordinary German voters in the 1930s and ordinary Venezuelan and Bolivian voters today, do not seem to care or notice... Marmaduque 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll go point by point.
a) A true leader can bring Russia to richness and stability without quashing democracy, arresting and killing opponents, and threatening its neighbours.
b) Exacly. Putin cares more about money than about peace and freedom in the world. His actions are severely undermining efforts to end Iran's theocratic dictatorship. He is being extremely selfish.
b)1) I doubt Ahmadinezhad would be voted out, even if his presidency ends up as an economic disastrous. Serious questions have been reaised about his 2005 election and his "victory" was most likely due to electoral fraud. The Iranian ayatollahs can easily make sure he is "elected" again.
c) I don't necessarily think Putin should bail the USA out of Iraq, but what Putin did was actively help Saddam Hussein's regime by selling him weapons which he later used against his own people. One can be against the Iraq War and be against Saddam Hussein at the same time.
d) Actually, Iraq was an avid supporter of anti-Israel and anti-USA terrorism. See this link. Besides, Saddam had detailed plans on nuclear bomb building. If the USA had invaded Iran, perhaps today we would be arguing about what to do about a nuclear-armed Iraq.
e) While admittedly America did support Saddam back in the 1980s, Russian support was significantly greater. American aid ended almost completely after the 1987 Halabja massacre and there was no aid during the 1990s. Russia, particularly under Putin, kept on helping Saddam right up to 2003, and Saddam trusted that France and Russia would block any action against Iraq in the UN (which is why he was horribly unprepared for the attack).
f) Because at least America is promoting democracy and freedom (at least today), whilst Russia is definitely not and backs authoritarian Soviet-era dictators (Lukashenka for example). The aid to the Afghan mujahideen was not against Russia itself but against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to back a crumbling and dictatorial communist régime. The Monroe Doctrine is a statement against colonialism in the Americas, which in my opinion is very positive. Russia could make its own such doctrine, but the problem is Russia today does NOT support the ideals of liberty that Monroe did.
g) Nevertheless, the German people did kow about Hitler's anti-Semitism and his extermination of the Jews. They stood by and let millions of Jews be killed. America has no responsibility over that. The Ayatoollahs in Iran and the Taleban in Afghanistan are oppressing their OWN people. America holds no responsibility over that. Why should innocent Iranians and Afghans pay America's alleged sins?
h) I also have a very negative opinion of most of Putin's opposition. That does not excuse Putin's actions.
i) Yes but national pride can lead to the extreme nationalism that allowed fascists and other dictators to get into power.
j) Russia is to big, why not let a few of those republics go and follow their own destinies. Why not let the ex-Soviet republics choose their own destinies instead of being bullied by Russia? Sure, Putin is doing a good job with the economy, but his legacy will not be good. Russia's democracy has been completely undermined, there is no counterbalance to Putin's Unified Russia, and Iran has been emboldened to a dangerous degree.
Going back to the Chilean coup and the Bachelets, I think we should edit the article to add the conflicting statements by witnesses to General Bachelet's death, and also Michelle Bachelet's own contradictory statements regarding whether she was tortured. What do you think?
Best regards,
Marmaduque 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
a)McCarthyism is NOT comparable to persecutions under dictatorship. It is admittedly a horrible chapter in American history, but only a handful of people were actually imprisoned under false charges and McCarthy eventually fell (a triumph of democracy). Democratic tradition in the United States survived that period. If one compares the USA and Russia today, the political climate in the former is undoubtedly far more democratic. There is a stable two-party system, unlike in Russia where Unified Russia is dominant, and free speech is alive and well. America also quashed a very few democracies in the past (and an even smaller number were completely liberal and free democracies), but it is NOT doing so today. Russia is.
b) I live in Chile and lived during the economic crisis under Allende, so I think I can get some feel of what it's like. I feel financial disasters can usually be solved by classical liberal economic measures, as they were in Chile, but going for help to terrorist régimes is CERTAINLY the wrong way.
b)1) Yes, perhaps Ahmadinezhad himself will get kicked out of power, but he will simply be replaced with another fanatic and irresponsible ruler. No real change is possible in Iran's theocracy.
c) The United States was wrong, but that doesn't legitimize Russia's actions, particularly now, when Iran is more dangerous to the world than ever.
d) Iraq's nuclear plans were very well developed, as was discovered after the invasion. The New York Times states: "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." A year a way was 2003. America has, in general, been a force for good in the world. It HAS in fact won quite a few wars alone (against Spain, Mexico, for example), and in World War II it deserves most of the responsibility of winning the war on the Western Front (Britain could not have done it without American aid) and against Japan. (Russia of course deserves all responsibility for winning the Eastern Front). Regarding Pakistan and India, there is not much the USA can do now. Invading them would lead to nuclear chaos. We must stop Iran from getting nukes because when it does we cannot stop them. Pakistan's nuclear program, by the way, was aided by communist China, another dangerous nation. The United States had no involvement. The only American ally that has built a secret nuclear program with American knowledge is Israel. Quite frankly, I trust a nuclear-armed Israel because it is a thriving democracy who will use these weapons wisely.
e) Russia was helping Saddam militarily and promising to block any action against it in the UN. That is worse than anything the USA ever did. Giving money to some UN body for food would've been a disastrous move. We all know about the Oil-for-Food Scandal. I would not have trusted the UN either.
f) Chávez was democratically-elected, just like Hitler and Hamas. However, once in power Chavez has heavily undermined democracy, and now the Enabling Act has given him dictatorial powers. The Russian government not only supporting friendly governments (some of which are dictatorships..) its attacking nations which prefer to look to the West! Look at what happened to Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine during Yuschenko's election. The United States did not commit hostile actions against Canada, for example, when it refused to support the Iraq War! The US funded many mujahideen factions, and the vast majority of them CONTINUE to support America (the Taleban were the exception).
g) Again, I think you are overstating McCarthyism. Russian persecution today by any measure worse. No suspected communist was ever killed with polonium during the 1950s in America. Germans KNEW of Hitler's anti-Semitism and were EXTREMELY naïve if they thought he would never act upon it once in power. Besides, once in power Germans mostly accepted Hitler's rule; there were very few efforts to challenge his genocide against Jews. There were significant efforts against slavery in the United States since its independence. It IS very unfortunate it took so long to erradicate it.
h) That does not excuse Putin's excessive 83% approval rating. Besides, there ARE good choices in the next presidential and parliamentary elections, but polls show virtually no support for anyone except Putin's followers.
i) So what if some Americans did not support entry into World War II? That changed and in the end the vast majority of Americans did support the war effort. It's true that American support for Saudi Arabia (and Egypt) is unacceptable. However, Iran IS a bigger threat because of its nuclear capability. Saudi Arabia has not posed this kind of threat. Russia KNOWS the threat of a nuclear-armed fanatical Iranian theocracy, and yet not only blocks any action on it but HELPS the régime in its search for nuclear bombs.
j) Chechnya, Dagestan, Tuva, and the other republics are buffers to WHAT exactly? Currently not a single one of Russia's neighbors poses a credible threat. I will read a Russian history to inform myself better on the issue, but the facts today are that Chechnya and Dagestan, for example, have a culture so radically different from the rest of Russia's that the best course, I think, is independence for these nations.
Regarding the Bachelet article, I would prefer to refer to primary sources instead of second-hand. Somewhere along the lines of "According to Eric Schnake's declarations to Que Pasa newsmagazine, General Bachelet died after a basketball match because of his recurring heart problems. Other witnesses (naming them) dispute this and sustain that he was tortured."
Best regards, Marmaduque 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I also enjoy these discussions. I like sharing points of view with other people as it often helps me reconsider my own positions.
a) Whatever economic troubles Russia may have, this does not legitimize Putin's destruction of the opposition and the aid Russia gives to rogue regimes. I lived in Chile during the Allende presidency and am convinced most of the economic chaos was product of his own economic policies, beyond anything Nixon or Kissinger ever did. I see a mirror of Allende's Chile in today's Venezuela. Inflation is rapidly rising and basic products are difficult to find. The only thing that keeps Venezuela from falling into catastrophe is the high price of oil.
a)1) No, I don't think I have ever been poor. I did live though the economic crisis in Allende rule, and I know what it is like to make eternal lines to buy a simple loaf of bread and for the currency to become more worthless every day. I know it's not comparable to actual poverty, but I have suffered economically.
b) America didn't declare war on Germany after the 1939 invasion of Poland because of the isolationist conservatives in Congress. President Roosevelt certainly appreciated the Nazi threat and did everything possible to help Britain. Roosevelt DID want to declare war on Germany, but until Pearl Harbor he could not because Congress stopped him. After the attack America did help out the Allies and of course Americans accepted Hitler was wrong.
b)1) Actually, Roosevelt has been heavily criticized, particularly by conservative writers, for failing to stand up to Stalin. That is not ignored by Americans. Additionally, the USA did win the Pacific War almost singlehandedly. Russian aid did not come until August 1945, when Japan was on the verge of defeat anyway.
b)2) Roosevelt did make numerous mistakes because he did not appreciate the danger the USSR posed. This has been accepted by modern American historians. However, Roosevelt was in fact a great leader overall who did see the threat of Nazism before most people in America and tried in every legal way possible to help the Allies before the United States got into the war. Even the greatest leaders have made mistakes.
c) Because Russia has prevented every effort to stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs. Surely you saw Putin a few weeks ago in Tehran criticized the sanctions Bush has recently imposed. Russia (and China) have consistenly blocked any action against Iran in the UN Security Council.
d)Okinawa is a complex problem. Remember Japan does not have a strong military and the Okinawa Islands are in front of China. The United States provides military protection against China and if they leave there is little doubt in my mind that China will try to occupy that island if the US leaves. Fortunately, the United States is in the process of moving the base so that it will not be as annoying to Okinawans. The Diega Garcia case is very unfortunate, but responsibility for the removal of the Chagossians rests mostly with the United Kingdom, who has sovereignity over those islands.
d)1) Whatever other countries believe, America is still a beacon of democracy and freedom.
e) Finland also allied itself with the Nazis in World War II, but that doesn't mean Finland should be part of Russia. Looking at the situation today, Chechnya (and a few other republics) is so radically distinct from the rest of Russia that it should be independent if that is what Chechens want. It is true that many Chechens have participated in unforgivable acts of terrorism, but perhaps all this mess could have been avoided if Russia had simply allowed Chechnya to become independent in the first place. Chechnya is a buffer to nothing except Azerbaijan. Some of the ex-Soviet republics are indeed dictatorships, but I doubt the situation would be different if they were still Russian. In fact, Russia itself has helped many of these dictatorships. Eccentric dictator Kirsan Ilyumzhinov rules the Russian Republic of Kalmykia, in fact. If Putin allows the corrupt and oppresive Ilyumzhinov government to survive, he'd probably allow Lukashenka, Karimov, Aliyev, and all the other dictators to survive as well.
f) I do understand why the Saudis cozy up to the US. I think mantaining this relationship with Saudi Arabia is one of Bush's biggest mistakes.
f)1) You think a communist Afghanistan was preferable? Most of the mujahideen were equally or more democratic than the Soviet Union, certainly not less. The Taleban (only a small part of the group fighting the Soviet invasion) became prominent and gained power because of their brutality and violence. The Afghan people in general support America because it ended a brutal regime and installed freedom and democracy.
g) The Fugitive Slave Act came before the Civil War. It was an unfortunate compromise between pro- and some anti-slave states. After the Civil War, slavery was completely abolished. I don't see much difference between slavery and serfdom. Also, Russia continued to have what was essentially serfdom under the collective farm system, all the way until the later half of the 20th century.
h) If Iran gets nukes it will happily give them to terrorist groups in Lebanon and elsewhere and carry out Ahmadinezhad's threats against Israel, plunging the world into a nuclear war. Iran can still be stopped without direct military action, but Russia is stopping every effort to do so.
i) Pakistan has a serious problem with Islamic terrorists in the border with Afghanistan. In the recent weeks it has seen a surge in terrorist activities which would for almost any country be enough reason for a state of emergency. I completely support Musharraf on this one and think that the US State Departments demands for elections in this climate is ridiculous. When Musharraf can restore some more peacefulness, then elections can be held.
j) Well, I'm Chilean, not American, and also don't know much about military equipment, so I really don't know enough to argue about this point. It does surprise me though.
k) Plato wanted a government of "philosopher-kings", which I'm sure you'll agree is impossible to archieve. Most of the weaknesses of democracy that Plato talked about can be minimized, and this is what he didn't understand.
l) No political viewpoint (except those which threaten peace and security) is illegal in America today. McCarthyism was a short period of time that ended thanks to democracy itself.
l)1) I doubt that. I have never read anywere the America had a bigger problem than Russia with regard to people divulging nuclear secrets.
Best regards, Marmaduque 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Discussion

a) Allende and his coalition came to power promising to destroy the capitalist system, even by violent means if necessary (numerous quotes available to back this up). He declared that he wanted to "increment the economic power of the State and expand the area of "social property" in expenso of the capitalist enterprises and of the burgeoise". He took over countless private companies, oftentimes illegally by encouraging conflicts between (armed) workers unions and the management. Allende, though the State Corporation of Development (Corporación Estatal de Fomento, CORFO), took control of the Chilean banking system, nationalizing numerous private banks. In order to buy more banks, the government raised taxes and printed massive amounts of money. Stocks fell because of investors' fear of government takeovers. Inflation obviously started rising rapidly and economic crisis took hold. Carlos Matus, Minister of the Economy, told Der Spiegel that, "By conventional economic criteria we are, in fact, in crisis[...] But what is crisis to some, for us is the solution." Because of this twisted logic, the government took no real steps to halt inflation. Claiming to be taking steps to stop the crisis, the government established maximum prices on basic products, making these products scarce. The government then created Juntas de Abastecimiento (Provision Juntas, led by Alberto Bachelet), a system of rationing that limited liberties even more. The government also kept the salaries of professionals low, destroying the middle class. Allende put unqualified party members in charge of the nationalized companies, and production predictably started falling, at a rate of 10% per year. I recall very clearly that the shelves were out of the basic necessities, which were only available in the black market. Official government figues put the inflation rate at 508% in 1973, but in the black market the inflation was over 1000%. As you can see, much of the crisis was caused directly by government interference. Again I state the example of Venezuela, which is going though a similar cycle of inflation, decreased production, and shortages. Oil is the only thing that keeps Chávez's government afloat. There is a reason why the Socialists ruling Chile now have not repeated this "Chilean Way to Socialism" and instead opted for the liberal economic system implemented by President Pinochet.
a)1) If Manslow thinks democracy is a luxury then I am vehemently against him. Economic crisis does not give dictators the right to persecute the opposition. Looking at the raw economic figures, Ronald Reagan helped the American economy substantially. So did Thatcher.
b) Yes, there was a strong isolationist sentiment in America that was thankfully eliminated after Pearl Harbor. I fail to see your point. Roosevelt was already trying everything he legally could to help the Allies. Regarding the Pacific War, I perhaps "singlehandedly" is too strong a word, but America was the most active participant in this theatre. I think you are excessively minimizing American resposibility in the defeat of Japan, just like some Western writers minimize Russia's role in the defeat of Germany.
b)2) Again, you are minimizing the American role. Japan was cornered by August 1945, the bombs were a way to force Japanese surrender without the soldier's loss of life in an invasion. America had the manpower and the resolve to complete the mission, but it would have cost numerous lives.
c) Iran has breached the treaty by illegally starting to build nuclear bombs. That country has consantly made a fool of the useless IAEA inspectors, hiding evidence on their nuclear program countless times. The Treaty mantained nuclear programs should be transparent; Iran has tried to hide as much as they could. I don't think I've ever implied America helped Israel get nukes. The country that helped Israel most in their nuclear program is actually France (who also helped Iraq in the 1980s...). The United Kingdom also gave some help, but I am not aware of any significant help given by the United States.
d)1) I quite frankly don't care what much of the world says. America was one of the first democratic nations in the modern age and has been a prime mover for freedom in the world. I thank the United States for the help they provided to Chile in its fight for independence, for example. Europeans are much wearier of freedom, it seems. In Sweden, for example, classified as the "most free" state in the world by some organizations, an unacceptable 25% of voters think criticizing religion should be illegal. In other words, the care more about the religious sensibilities of medieval Islamic fanatics than about freedom. This has not happened in America.
d)2) Nope, I am talking about Okinawa. This island is, because of its geography, vulnerable to an American attack. American need to do what the Japanese government wants, and the government understands the valuable military protection America provides. That is why this issue is complex. America is already moving to a place where is will be less troublesome for Okinawans.
d)3) The British government has not pressed America for the return of the islanders either. But I agree, the islanders must be allowed to return and some solution has to be reached between both parties to ensure that Chagossians can return to their homes but that the strategic base can be kept. e) Because Lukashenka is a tyannical dictator that kills his opponents just to mantain his hold on power! Belarus is in no serious economic crisis and there is no reason why democracy can't be allowed. I'm not sure why you bring up Ukraine.
e)1) Not colonies since they are for solely military purposes, with no intention of establishing settlements. They are there to protect against any threat, be it Russian or, more likely, of some Arab dictatorship.
e)2) Today Chechnya is a buffer to nothing. The Ottomans are no longer. If they want independence, give them independence.
e)3) Putin isn't "stabilizing" Chechnya, he is mantaining Russia's grip on this nation which should be independent. Chechnya was not part of Russia until the 19th century, and even under Russian rule they have mantained a distinct culture and a yearning for independence. Russia looses nothing by loosing Chechnya. The only border war America fought was against Mexico, where is stole more than a third of its territory. I condemn America for stealing part of Mexico, so there is no double standard.
f) The Wahhabi are a fundamentalist sect that Saudi Arabia was based on. It cozies up to America because of the economic benefits and because it knows American today poses no threat to the survivial of the royal family. The USA has been particularly weak in confronting the lack of freedom in Saudi Arabia. I am not defending America's actions here.
f)1) As we have seen the very successful elections, democracy is available in the vast majority of Afghanistan, not only in Kabul. There are pockets in Qandahar and the border with Pakistan that are yet out of Karzai's control, but when news sources say his power is only in Kabul they are spreading lies. It is pointless that women are equal to men if both sexes are subjected to the tyranny of communism. Again, most of the mujahideen were not fundamentalists like the Taleban. Look at Karzai and his followers, many of whom fought against the Soviet invasion. I see threats and violence as the principal means used by the Taleban to stay in power. Afghans clearly repudiated them after the US-led liberation.
g) You are arguing semantics. Whether is called slavery or serfdom it's an evil system that rejects basic human liberties.
h) The Soviet Union deserved humiliation and defeat just like Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Japan did back in the 1940s. The United States and democracy will again triumph if Putin dares to revive the Cold War.
h)1) Your point?
h)2) The two-party system is very adequate for American politics. Despite the fact that is popular to talk about Republicrats, both parties differ sharply on many issues. Having many parties is no virtue.
i) In the 1980s, sadly yes.
j) I don't know enough about military matters to rebut that. I don't think Russia has the best thank though.
k) "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Churchill was right. There is no other system that is better. How do we determine who is the best? Which system consistently chooses the best leaders? Plato was wrong. I have found this link very useful in explaining Plato's errors.
l) Russia's rôle should not be minimized. Neither should we ignore America's role in helping in the Western front and their defeat of Japan in the Pacific. I was aware of Himmler's attempts at surrender.
l)1) Well, note there hasn't been a major American leak for quite a number of years now...
l)2) Yes, it was the Poles. Does this somehow belittle America's victory in World War II? I don't see how.
l)3) The only allegation that the CIA knew what Khan was up to is by Ruud Lubbers. He doesn't seem like a reliable person to me, given his animosity towards the United States. I am accusing Russia of helping Iran by protecting it from any attempt to stop it from developing a nuclear bomb. I am not saying Russia helped AQ Khan.
Regarding primary sources, yes I prefer them much more than news articles from the international media that most probably did not investigate the issue but blindly repeated what Bachelet's campaign alleges. Bechelet herself said she was not tortured before it became politically advantageous to say so. The investigation by Diego Portales University confirms that Alberto Bachelet was not tortured but treated harshly during interrogations. General Bachelet was not a political prisoner, having participating a terrorist plot against an air base. Anyway, he was a high ranking member in the Air Force and a personal friend of many members of the military government, among them Air Force General Gustavo Leigh. This is why he was treated very leniently. He was in house arrest, remember, until he tried to run away. Therefore it is not surprising that even in prison he was allowed to play sports. I don't know with who he played since Eric Schnake didn't say. Bachelet's Air Force friends also helped free his wife and daughter after less than a week.
No not all Germans stood by. But it was the German voters who brought Hitler to power knowing of his genocidial hatred of Jews. All they had to do was pick up a copy of the Mein Kampf. America was very far from Europe so of course it has less people in the list. And while I'm happy there is one Chilean in the list one Chilean consul in Prague was Nazi sympathizer to was responsible for handing over 1,600 Jews, all with the knowledge of the (lefist) Chilean government. I wish my country had gotten on the right side earlier.
Best regards, Marmaduque (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that Hume quote. I have learned a lot from these discussions.
a) I know about Russia's hyperinflation in the 1990s and I think that the economic transition was done disastrously. Going back to Chile, however,I have outlined how the socialist government's policies brought about economic chaos. The vast majority of the people Allende put into places of economic power had no economic training whatsoever. I don't know what effect American policies against Chile had, all I know is that Allende's own policies were the principal cause of the crisis, the very reason why the Socialist Party today has abandoned Allende's economic ideas. Again, Venezuela is seeing a similar parallel. US sanctions against Chile were very limited, completely unlike those imposed against Sudan and Iran. And while sanctions debilitate other countries' economies, they don't work in the sense that they usually hurt the people rather than the dictators (Iraq in the 1990s for example). While sanctions are oftentimes useful, they are never the only solution when dealing with rogue régimes.
a)1) I'm afraid I don't see your point. The same thing as what?
a)2) Of course basic needs come first and in some very limited cases democracy becomes unpracticable. In this sense I agree with Maslow (the misspelling before was a simple typo). In cases of extreme socioeconomic crisis, a benevolent dictatorship is aceeptable, even preferable, to a liberal democracy. However, these benovolent dictatorships should last only until the crisis ends and then pave the way for a strong democracy to rise again. Very few people have been able to do this (there is a list of more successful benevolent dictators in my user page). Most fall victim to Lord Acton's famous phrase (Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely) and end up leaving their countries even worse off. In Russia's case, the economy has largely recovered and, except for places like Chechnya, the country is stable. There is no longer any excuse for Putin to undermine democracy, persecute his opposition, and support rogue régimes.
b) Yes, there are were undeniable contibutions by the British and the Chinese (and the Soviets in August 1945) in the Pacific War. Still, America was the principal force behind Japan's defeat and for most of the war bore the brunt of the conflict there. I in fact read the Wikipedia webpage on the Pacific War and am aware of the limited Russian rôle at the end of the conflict. America is still the primary Ally responsible for the defeat of Japan.
c) Whole books have been written on the wealth of evidence there is that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. I particularly recommend The Iran Threat by Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who revealed Iran's secret nuclear program to the world for the first time. He offers undeniable evidence of Iran's ambitions, charts the Iranian government's repeated lies to the world community, and offers a plan for getting rid of the theocratic régime without resorting to full-scale war or useless diplomacy. The IAEA has become a completely worthless organization who has failed in its job. They knew nothing of Iran's nuclear program until Jafarzadeh's organization uncovered it, and now they were caught completely by surprise when it was revealed that Syria also had a nuclear program. ElBaradei, instead of confronting Syria, has resorting to blaming Israel, a completely bizarre response. If I previously implied that the US helped Israel in its nuclear program, I apologize since that was not my intention. I haven't changed my mind at all; the evidence points to France and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom being the two countries that helped Israel the most in this matter.
d)1)Many countries have become democratic due to past European occupation. Still, the United States has been the foremost defender of democracy and freedom since the Monroe Doctrine. America is a far freer society today than many European nations, and the mentality of Americans is far more supportive of freedom than the average European's. Regarding the legal system, I far prefer America's adversarial system of justice. Chile's system is based on the European model and it's very unfair.
d)2) Whatever label you give it, my position is that America should help spread democracy and end dangerous dictatorships by military force if necessary, both to let more people enjoy freedom and to make America safer. I believe that position is called neoconservatism in modern American politics.
d)3) Haha, no it's not a Freudian slip, it's a simple typographical error (just like you confused Belarus and Ukraine). I obviously means that "This island is, because of its geography, vulnerable to a CHINESE attack." It's not that the opinion of Okinawans doesn't matter, it's that that is not the only factor in this matter. The security of Japan is also a very important factor. Look at a map: the islands are right in front of China. Japan has no powerful military and America provides necessary protection, which is why the Japanese government has not outright asked America to leave. The base is also key to protecting other vulnerable democratic nations, such as South Korea.
d)4) My position is that America, Britain, and the islanders should reach an agreement whereby the islanders can return and the strategic base can be kept. Regarding the aside on the Falklands, the Monroe Doctrine states that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere." It only applies if a European powers attacks an already sovereign nation. I am proud that Chile helped Britain in the Falklands War. The islanders are 100% British and they want to remain so. Giving the islands to Argentina would be completely anti-democratic. Besides, the Argentinean claim is also very weak. The islands were ruled by both Spain and the UK until 1776, when the UK left but did not relinquish its claim. Spain abandoned the islands too shortly thereafter. Neither side has an indisputable claim to the island, so the best thing to do is take into consideration what the people living there want. Obviously, they want to stay British.
e) Lukashenka's russophilia has sometimes reached ridiculous levels, like the proposed confederation. Unfortunately, he is a dictator with an unshakable grip on power, and the Belarussian people suffer because of it.
e)1) The bases are there for military protection. Islamofascism is very different from Soviet communism, and some of the Cold War stategies are no longer relevant.
e)2) Sure America has colonized territories from other nations, I have never denied that. To the contrary, I have condemned the imperialism of 19th century America. However, the formerly Mexican territories have become fully integrated into the US. Following democratic principles, it is wrong and unfair to return those lands to Mexico now since all those people are and prefer to remain American. The situation in Chechnya is different since that country has not become fully integrated into Russia. Why can't there be a referendum to let Chechens decide? Regarding Ottoman equivalent, if you mean Islamic terrorists, they would never have taken hold of Chechnya if Russia had not invaded them after the Chechen declaration of independence.
f)The Wahhabi sect is an intolerant fundamentalist sect fueled by Saudi Arabia's oil money. What else is there to it?
f)1)The BBC loves to spread propaganda. I base my opinions of various news reports coming from Afghanistan, including polls which are very revealing. Karzai has proven himself to be very popular among Afghans in successful elections and in various polls. He has widespread support. And what you imply about Afghan women is ridiculous. They weren't free under communism, nobody is. Then the Americans helped the Afghans get rid of, yes, the tyranny of communism. Unfortunately, a violent fundamentalist group of mujahideen took hold. Now, Americans have helped free Afghans again. Women are able to get an education and participate in politics freely. Why do you imply that if I support Karzai I do not support women's rights? The Karzai government has done more for Afghan women than any government before him. Now Afghanistan is a democracy, not a communist or an Islamic dictatorship, and everyone is much freer.
g) Mobility in serfdom was extremely limited. It was just as possible for a slave to run away from the South to a Northern free state and abandon slavery that way. Perhaps racial slavery is worse than serfdom, but not by much, and both are evil and morally equivalent systems anyway. Also, the Soviet collective farm system was very much like serfdom, I think you'll agree, and that survived until 1975.
h)Of course Nazi Germany was humiliated. Not as bad as in World War I, perhaps, but it was. The country was divided up by the victors and eventually split in half. The humiliation of Germany's "thousand-year" Third Reich was much greater than the fall of the USSR.
h)1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbor principally because they were busy building a Pacific empire and America was in the way. Perhaps the Japanese government gave excuses like the humiliation of Japan by America in the past, but seriously, everyone knows Japan attacked because of its imperialist mindset in that era.
h)2) In American politics, the two-paty system works. Parties in America have evolved significantly over the years. Originally, for example, the Republicans were the anti-slavery party and the Democrats were pro-slavery. Then the Republicans became protectionists and Democrats free-traders. Now again everything has changed. The two-party American system has never been stagnant. My country, Chile, also has a two-party (two-coalition actually) system that well-represents most Chilean's political opinions. In other countries the situation may be different, but often times I see that having numerous parties is not the best thing. Look at Italy, for example, with their countless political parties and governments that last for a year and a half on average because of huge coalitions that are impossible to mantain. Argentina also has an excessive number of parties and the people are still unhappy with their political system. Basically, the number of parties there should be depends on the country. In America, two parties work well.
j) I'll have to research the matter more. I'll grant you that Russia has great equipment.
k) Not at all. Checks and balances are an integral part of the American government and no branch has more power than the other. If it were an elected king system, Roosevelt would have declared war on Germany much sooner, but because the President is not all-powerful, he couldn't. Congress recently overrode a Bush veto and the Supreme Court has challenged some of the Guantánamo detentions. I really prefer the American system of three equally powerful branches of government where everyone can keep a check on each other than Britain's fusion of powers system where the legislative is always supreme. In Italy and Israel the British-like parliamentary system has not worked well and promoted instability, but both systems (plus the French "semipresidential" system), have their virtues and their drawbacks. Democracy is the best and most of all fairest system of government there is and in the more than 2000 years since the ancient Greek civilization fell no thinker has come up with a better system. Liberal democracies promote human liberty and that is why the United States should spread it. Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy is an excellent explanation of why a democracy is the best system we have and why it should be spread all over the world.
l) The American contribution was much more important than you give it credit for. It saved Britain from falling to German hands and vastly shortened the conflict. If America had not intervened, Britian would have fallen and Russia alone would be left fighting Germany and perhaps eventually Japan. The war would have been much longer and much costlier. Even if Russia finally managed to defeat the Axis, it would have been a very Pyrrhic victory. And having to choose between facism and communism would have been unbearable.
l)1) The USA has had a few leaks, but yes, I'll accept that.
l)2) I oversimplified the matter. The Polish contribution was very important though. Anyway, I still do not see how that belittles America's victory in World War II.
l)3) AQ Khan has nothing to do with Russia. Putin is still helping Iran get nukes.
Sources are the biography of Michelle Bachelet mentioned above and the statements of Sergio Contreras Mejías. There are many other sources regarding Bachelet's friendships with high-ranking Air Force officers and Leigh himself, so it's not far-fetched to believe that Bachelet's Air Force friends helped him receive better treatment than ordinary prisoners.
The reporter is a conservative columnist, so of course he was nothing positive to say about Allende. The newspaper on the other hand is the most respected newspaper in Chile (ask just about any Chilean) and I have found its news stories to be very neutral. Its editorial opinion is conservative but I have never seen a conservative slant in any of the actual news articles. In fact, some articles I have read about issues related to Pinochet have actually had a more leftist bias (there was a recent article about the discovery of the remains of some terorists executed under Pinochet that was outragerously anti-Pinochet). The quality of journalism is mostly good, but I do not have a high regard for most Chilean journalists in any newspaper or media source anyway. El Mercurio is definitely the newspaper of record in Chile, just like The New York Times is in America (and note the NYT has a liberal editorial opinion and some of its articles are very biased). I insist its better to have a Chilean source than international news reports which investigate these controversial matters less.
Best regards, Marmaduque (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
a) I have read all these quotes by Kissinger and Nixon, bust have yet to see actual concrete evidence of economic sanctions against Chile. Sure, some American companies left the country, notably Pepsi, but I have no knowledge of any law establishing any sort of sanctions. I have shown above how Allende destroyed the economy all by himself, without any American sanctions. Again, the same thing is happening to Venezuela, except that the oil prices have helped Chávez postpone complete chaos. Regarding the use of sanctions against rogue régimes, I have said they're not effective if the objective is to bring down the rogue government. Sanctions usually end up hurting the people, which is what happened to Iraqis during the Clinton presidency. However, sanctions can ocassionaly be useful in order to apply pressure to the rogue nation and, in Iran's case for example, to bring it back to the discussion table. But again, sanctions are not effective if the objective is to bring down a government.
a)1) Whatever America may have done in Iraq, it does not exonerate Allende. It has been shown again and again that nationalization is not a good path economically. It may have a higher "justice factor", but at least the way it was done in Chile, it caused an incredible economic chaos, which makes the justice factor irrelevant. Besides, many, if not most, of the nationalized companies were owned by Chileans, not multinationals.
a)2)i) Having a democratic mandidate really does not legitimize anything you do. Hitler had a democratic mandate, but that does not excuse the Holocaust or the repression. Allende had a democratic mandate, which does not legitimize his stupid economic policies or his support for radical left-wing terrorists. So a democratic mandate does not legitimize supression of the opposition and support for dangerous, terrorist governments.
a)2)ii) Yep, populism gets you high approval ratings. But populism is usually a very bad path in the long run.
a)2)iii) Power isn't "disproportionately held by the rich" in America?! You have a very incorrect impression. Many of the presidents were born poor, for example, and the majority of the members of Congress were not born rich either. And again, I am not saying that the vote of the pensioner shouldn't count, I am just saying that Russian are making very bad decisions in choosing Putin and his followers.
a)2)iv) Honestly, so what? Not every bad leader has lines his own pockets. Not being corrupt does not mean your government is good.
a)3) If Russia is too big, then why is Putin scaling back federalism? Federalism is the best way to keep a big country together. Anyway, having a difficult country to govern does not make it right to kill your opponents. Overthrow of the government may be a crime, but sometimes it is necessary. I am not saying that Putin should be violently overthrown, I am just pointing out that in some very extreme cases, e.g. Chile 1973, a coup d'état is the only way to put the country back on the correct track.
b) Agreed.
c) Well, read the book. I have found it to be very well sourced. Also, I would like to point out that Jafarzadeh was an opponent of the Shah and at first supported the revolution, until things turned awry and Khomeini because equally bad, or even worse, than the Shah.
d)1) I like the British too, in fact I like Anglo-Saxon culture much better than the Spanish culture I live in. But yes, I unfairly credited America with the creation of the adversarial system. Ah, if only the British had gotten to Chile before Spain... :)
d)2) America failed in Viet Nam because of Lyndon Johnson's policy of "graduated force", preferring to send small doses of troops rather than sending in a large amount of troops and fighting for total victory. Bush adhered to a similar policy during most of the Iraq conflict, with the bad results we all have seen, but as soon as large amounts of troops were sent (the "surge") and America actually started fighting for complete victory, the situation improved dramatically. In the end, Johnson himself admitted this, saying that ""our restraint [after the Tonkin Gulf incident] was viewed as weakness; our desire to limit conflict was viewed as prelude to our surrender." Triumph Forsaken by Mark Moyar is a good explanation of the failed American strategy. I think you have the wrong impression of neoconservatism. The principle of this movement is to support and expand democracy everywhere, and relying even on "benign" dictators as little as possible. My main criticism of the "realist" Kissinger/Nixon policy is that, instead of going for democracy, it took what it called a "pragmatic" approach and supported evil dictators. Even Reagan, who was already going for a neoconservative policy, made this mistake, supporting such tyrants as Hissène Habré is Chad and Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan. Iran is not democratic and has seldom respected the rights of its people. It has constantly threatened the USA and Israel and has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by hiding nuclear information from the IAEA (information later revealed by exiles such as Jafarzadeh). Given the disregard Iran has shown for the rights of its people and to the world community, it has no right to pose an even larger threat by having nuclear bombs.
d)3) China's desire to be a superpower has not been quieted. I do not for a second trust communist China at all.
d)4) If many years have passed and the land has been populated entirely by the invaders, then unfortunately it cannot be returned to its original owner because it will be extremely antidemocratic. In the Falklands case, however, I repeat again that Argentina and the UK both have an equally good claim to the islands, so it is not really theft.
e) Well, if Russia is doing something wrong, like support Lukashenko, the world community does have the right to speak out and criticize what Russia is doing. Monroe is supposed to protect the Americas from further colonization, so I don't see any parallel with Russia's protection of the Belarus dictatorship.
e)1) The bases are to fight the current threat, Islamofascism. The UK and Germany are committed to this fight and have allowed the USA to establish bases in their territory. The bases are an expression of power against terrorists and the nations that harbor them.
e)2) Yes, time can sometimes legalize theft of other nation's territories, unfortunately.
f) I must admit I hadn't seen it this way. The Middle East is such a complex place.
f)1) Looking at the Afghan situation now, I must disagree with you. Reports that I have seen make me think most Afghans have truly embraced democracy. The power of warlords has been significantly dimished and Afghans, polls show, are happy with the Karzai government. I do think Afghanistan will slip back into chaos after NATO leaves; I have faith that Afghans can preserve their new freedoms. With regard to the Taleban, perhaps they has support when they came to power, but all that support quickly vanished because of the brutality of their rule.
g) Numerous former slaves reached positions of influence and power. Benjamin S. Turner, Josiah T. Walls, John R. Lynch, P. B. S. Pinchback, and Frederick Douglass, to name just a few.
h) Even if Germany was later "unhumiliated", having your country be split by the victors was very humiliating. I agree that ostracizing all Ba'athists after the fall of Saddam was a really catastrophic mistake.
h)1) No, what is your point?
h)2) Well, Japan is more of a dominant-party system. Anyway, having numerous of parties has slowed progress down in Italy and Argentina. The number of parties really depends on the country. Going back to what started this debate, the two-party system has worked well for the United States.
k) Since popular opinion can change so wildly (see American opinion on the Iraq War, for example), having an over-powerful legislative is not necessarily the best option. An over-powerful execute becomes a dictatorship, which is why I think the American system is a nice middle ground. In parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is not always removed when the people want to. For example, Gordon Brown now has a 33% approval rating, just as bad as Bush, but since the Parliament has a Labor majority and Brown does not want to hold elections, he won't be replaced any time soon. The Prime Minister of Hungary, Ferenc Gyurcsány, has admitted he is a liar and his approval ratings are even more dismal, in the low 20s. And yet because Parliament has a Socialist majority, he still remains in power. One last example, Ehud Olmert, who is considered "rubbish" by the majority of Israelis, will also remain in power because of his majority in Parliament. So being able to remove bad leaders is not always true in parliamentary systems. And since public opinion can be so fickle, I am not a very big fan of the recall referendums. If the president commits crimes, Congress can impeach him. Italy today can easily change its Constitution, so it makes to sense to blame America for Italy's political troubles. Finally, the lack of a powerful "workers party" in America is not, I think, the fault of McCarthyism. Socialist parties started dying out in America by World War II.
l) Hitler wanted to dominate Europe. Even if he had signed a treaty with the UK, he would have found a way to violate it and get the islands eventually. Sure I'd like some quotes. I truly cannot se any side emerging truly victorious in a Nazi Germany vs. communist Russia struggle. Any side would have suffered such enormous losses than victory would have meant very little.
l)2) The British role in the war has never been called into question in America. The UK, however, still needed the USA if it was going to survive the war.
l)3) OK, the United States did not directly help Pakistan get nukes. Helping Zia was a stupid thing to do. He wasn't even very pro-American in the first place.
And by trying to humble America by using Iran, Russia is helping Iran get nukes.
No, there has been no pro-socialist article in recent years in El Mercurio. Neither have I read a pro-rightwing article, excepting editorials and opinion columns (there are rather leftist columnists in El Mercurio, by the way). What I am saying is that we should not accept any newspaper article at face value. We should check its sources particularly in controversial matters such as this. Most of the international media has simply accepted Bachelet's allegations at face-value, while the articles in El Mercurio at least gave sources.
All the best,
Marmaduque (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kyriakos (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: various topics

Hello, nice to hear from you again. The current version of the Bachelet incident in the 1973 coup page is acceptable to me, with the sole issue of labeling El Mercurio a "conservative Chilean newspaper". While editorially the paper is indeed conservative, its reporting is neutral and that label tends to imply that it is biased. I changed it to "major Chilean newspaper", which is objectively true. About Litvinenko, I realize he is not stricly a journalist. I've changed it to writer, which is what Wikipedia calls him. Unfortunately, I'm also pressed for time, so I can't respond to the WWII debate point by point at this momemnt. I will say however that the high number of Russian casualties is because of the direct ground invasion of Russian territory and urban warfare that took place, something which the UK and US did not experience. The high number of Russian casualties does not diminish the UK and US' rôle in defeating Nazism. It is also important to note that at the time America was ripped between two ideologies: isolationism, advacated by most Republicans and conservatives who didn't want to get involved (many isolationists has fascistic tendencies themselves), and internationalists like President Roosevelt who were eager to help the Allied cause. Unfortunately, at the time Congress was controlled by isolationist conservatives who before Pearl Harbor did everything they could to avoid American participation in the war. Roosevelt himself however saw the danger posed by Nazi Germany andwas a strong supporter of entering the war against Germany and did everything he legally could to help the Allies. I'll respond to the other points later.

Best regards, Marmaduque (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kiev (1943)

Hi Mariya. Thank you for all the editing you have done on this article. I'm going to suggest renaming it though to the Kiev Strategic Offensive Operation per the list in Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II if that is ok with you?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)