Snimak izvanrednog virtuoza na violini iz neke 195?. godine. U sovjetskoj Rusiji je bilo teško saznati godišta snimaka ploča, valjda je to bilo antikomunistički.

Na ovoj ploči g-din Kogan izvodi sledeće kompozicije:

1 KSZYMANOWSKI Nocturne and tarantella 2 P SARASATE Andalusian romance 3 H WIENIAWSKI Elegic adaggio 4 M RAVEL Habanera 5 M PONSE Estrelita

Password je starigramofon.

By taxing the five percent BO will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

So yeah, The Soviet Story is a brand new doc mostly about war crimes, secret dealings with Hitler and the war. Part 1 and Part 2.

Kraftwerk and the Electronic Revolution is also a brand new doc that goes over an insane amount of German music history. You'll have to pick this up at Video Difference.

There is a neat video on YouTube that shows typical air traffic around the world in 24 hours. I've never been on a plane.

Also check out Google's Search 2001 to see how things on the net have changed in 7 years.

The new Kaki King album is out. It's called Dreaming of Revenge. You can find a few songs at The Hype Machine. 2 O'Clock is the best song. And I still have a crush on her.

A brave soul over at Slate Magazine decided to review some adult diapers. I think this is particularly funny because I have to sell these things for the pharmacy company I work for. Fun quote: Eventually I consumed enough liquor to muster the courage to wear them wet. Unfortunately, consuming all that liquor also mustered enough urine to make the testing process one of the more unpleasant experiences of my life. The diaper swelled until it could swell no more, at which point streams of urine began running down the sides of my legs. Ew.

262. Blue Star over Red Square by Carmela Raiz

I think I'd heard of Refuseniks when I was younger, but the whole era of the USSR ended when I was hardly even a teenager, so I appreciated getting a better insight into the phenomenon in general (of Soviet Jews applying for and being repeatedly refused permission to emigrate, especially to Israel, and also being harassed as traitorous for their wish both to leave and to live Jewishly in the meantime) and into one family who went through it in particular. Raiz published this book in 1994 (the Russian language edition came out in 1992), very shortly after the family's eventual aliya in 1990, which took place almost two decades after Raiz and her husband had first applied. It's an informative and inspiring book, which seems to be out of print but available second hand.

263. The Jewish Kingdom of Kuzar by Rabbi Zelig Shachnowitz

This is an even older tale, but it's a new translation, so should be available new for awhile. Rabbi Shachnowitz wrote for Jewish youngsters in Germany, with this book being first published in the 1920s. It is a retelling of what facts are/were known about the Jewish history of Kuzar, and fairly gripping as a novel. Well worth reading.

264. The Jacobite Wars: Scotland and the Military Campaigns of 1715-1745 by John L. Roberts

I'd read enough novels on the topic of the '45 to want a more specifically historical overview, and this book well fulfilled the purpose. The context of the '15 (which I hadn't read so much about previously) was useful, although it takes up far less than half of the book. Interestingly, Roberts never seems to say that things had to go one way or the other. He points out where (with hindsight, of course) certain campaigns and battles could have gone differently for both sides (as so often in such things, more unity and less bickering and taking of offence by generals, officers and princes would have helped!) and gives sometimes day by day recountings of who did what, and knew what, when and where. My main difficulty with the book was sometimes remembering which side a particular name was on, as they might have been introduced chapters before. A couple of charts of the main players on both sides would have been good to refer back to, as would a few maps, although I actually missed those less.

Stalin is much with us these days.  At left, a crude cartoon published in yesterday's NYTimes lampooning the proposed bailout that was voted down later that day.  It was paid for by someone in Texas who seems to own a venture capital business.  Today, he ran another one that was a crude parody of the famous Iwo Jima flag raising, with Bush, Berneke, and Paulson raising the flag of communism on American soil.

Also in today's paper, an article about a fellow in Georgia who makes a tidy living by impersonating Joe himself.

And on my home front, my latest aquisition.  From Regency  political cartoons and satires to deadly serious state propaganda.  A limited edition printing of the report on the first Five Year Plan of the USSR, completed in FOUR years, under the glorious leadership of Uncle Joe.  With a little help from slave labor.

[gallery]

When I look through these pages, I feel a tremendous sadness.  The forced collectivization was on.  The mass murder of the kulaks was in full swing.  The Ukrainian famine had wrought its horror.  The Gulag was growing apace.  The Great Purge was but three years off, to be followed by the cataclysm of the Nazi invasion.  All under Stalin's watch.  No hint of that in these stirring pages...

A colleague of mine is Russian.  She smells the paper and the ink, and is transported back to her grandfather's library...

Meanwhile is Chomsky's premonition of Russian forces in the Caribbean about to come true after all, via Chavez' Venezuela, also Bushie-provoked?

And why is every little troublemaking country all of a sudden a U.S. "ally," according to the Bushies and MSM?  The Defense Department informs me that America's only official allies in all the world are the members of NATO: "The official allies of the United States can be found on the NATO website at http://www.nato.int/structur/index.html."  No Georgia, no Israel, no Saudi Arabia, no Jordan, no Iraq, no Afghanistan, no Pakistan, no Ukraine, no Colombia, not even Japan or South Korea or Taiwan or Australia or New Zealand or Palau....

And does the Iran/Contra/October Surprise conspiracy/coverup continue at/above the highest levels of our Constitutional, official government, a generation later?!  Do they even explain the Sarah Palin nomination, and even the W. nomination and the Wall Street Mess and who knows what else???  (Two-part series at Counterpunch: Read the article linked from the linked article first, since Part I doesn't link to Part II, only the other way around.)

• what is important is not that Russia may try to change the international system so much as “the era when one superpower or the western alliance dominates the system is changing
• Talks are under way for the reopening of the Soviet naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus.
• Russian officials have also spoken of Moscow helping Iran to strengthen its air defence systems in addition to the 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defence missile systems under a $700- million contract it already supplied
• Russia has sought formal coordination with the OPEC.
• Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega are on their way to Moscow.
• Russian Foreign Ministry has voiced indignation at the U.S. attempts to overthrow Evo Morales of Bolivia, a staunch ally of Mr. Chavez
• Moscow began receiving important visitors from Russia’s outlying regions — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Azerbaijan President Ilham Alliyev

Alarm bells are ringing in the West

India and the world of tomorrow

M.K. Bhadrakumar

In view of Russia’s resurgence and its emerging role in the Middle East, aU.S.-India strategic partnership that was raring to go seems to have outlived its utility.

Like Banquo’s ghost at Macbeth’s dinner table in William Shakespeare’s play, there will be an unseen presence in the Oval Office in White House on Friday when President George W. Bush receives Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. That will be the ghost of the 17-year-old post-Cold War era . It died in adolescence — unnaturally and unnecessarily. Mr. Bush can see the ghost and he knows it to be a metaphor for usurpation but like Macbeth’s noble guests at the feast, Dr. Singh may not.

The post-Cold War era came to a premature end on the night of August 7. The conflict in the Transcaucasus has impacted on Russia’s relations with the United States, European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation — what to speak of the U.S.’ trans-Atlantic leadership role, NATO’s future or NATO-EU relationship.

Most of all, Russia has transformed. All this leaves us with no option but to revisit the predications and assumptions on which India’s new foreign policy took off in the early 1990s. Could Delhi anticipate — like Washington, the European capitals or Beijing — that Russia’s resurgence was inevitable, that it was a matter of time before Russia would rise from its Soviet ashes? Our strategic community, which promptly trooped out of Russia-watching in 1991 and took to the greener pastures of Euro-Atlanticism, still seems to attribute Russia’s resurgence to the happenstance of petrodollars. It seems unaware of the little detail that the first signs of Russia’s resurgence were visible by the mid-1990s when Boris Yeltsin brought in Yevgeniy Primakov to the leadership hierarchy in the Kremlin and Moscow demonstratively reached out to Beijing. At least, China and the West took note. That was a long time ago when a barrel of oil was still going for less than $20.

Why did our strategic community willingly suspend its disbelief about the permanence of post-Soviet Russia’s disarray? After all, very few countries can claim to possess such insights as India to fathom the Russian genius and its infinite capacity for regeneration. But our movers and shakers eagerly lapped up the U.S. triumphalist narrative about the death of communism and the end of history. Sadly enough, they went on to advance Russia’s disarray as one compelling justification for the so-called “adjustments” or “course correction” in foreign policy, which incrementally added up to be the extraordinary “strategic partnership” we have in hand today with the U.S.

The fact remains that we drifted, as if inebriated, towards habitation within the U.S.’ post-Cold War hegemonic model whose principal purpose was to maintain a power structure for the New American Century by absorbing some emerging powers.

It was this model that Russia turned on its head on August 7-8. Of course, this was a long time coming and when it came, to borrow W.B. Yeats’ words, a “terrible beauty” was born in the world order. What are the ground realities? One, it is very obvious that Russia has drawn a red line on NATO’s further expansion into the Transcaucasus — Russia’s soft underbelly and gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East. Two, Russia di d not blink when NATO and U.S. warships gathered in the Black Sea for muscle-flexing in front of the Sevastopol naval base. Three, Russia recognised the newly independent South Ossetia and Abkhazia, ignoring protestations by the U.S., EU and NATO. It is about to set up military bases in the two countries to offset the U.S. bases in the Black Sea on the eastern shores of Romania.

But then, there are bigger realities too. First, Russia has signalled its determination to assert its legitimate interests. Second, it will no longer accept the sort of fait accompli the West presented it with in the Balkans in the 1990s or in Kosovo in February. Instead, it insists on being an active protagonist first in its region and in the world at large. Third, the U.S. must get used to negotiating with Russia on an equal footing and to mutual benefit. Fourth, Russia has hardly any economic vulnerability open to manipulation by the West. Nor is it beholden to the West in any particular way. It would seem comical if the West were to flaunt a G8 or WTO membership card to frighten Russia.

Fifth, post-Soviet Russia is not bogged down in futile ideological baggage, nor does it face isolation in its rejection of the “unipolar” world. In its championing of multilateralism and a democratic world order, it is echoing the spirit of our times and the majority world opinion. Sixth, Russia is convinced of the continued validity of its non-confrontational, “multi-vector” f oreign policy for the optimal pursuit of its national interests as a Eurasian power.

All in all, therefore, as a prominent Chinese scholar, Fu Mengzi, Assistant President of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, wrote in the government newspaper China Daily, “the fact that Russia stood up to the West on this issue signifies that the end of the days in the post-Cold War era when Russia had to let the western powers do whatever they wanted, is finally over. As a major power on the rise again, Russia has found its inner energy … and the will to be the rising power it really is.” Fu noted that Russia’s pursuit of “joining the West-dominated world order” is over and this has come about because of the “western powers’ deep-rooted misgivings about and guardedness against other rising powers.”

Interestingly, Fu concluded that what is important is not that Russia may try to change the international system so much as “the era when one superpower or the western alliance dominates the system is changing.” True, countries in far-flung regions are keenly watching how the world of tomorrow shapes up. Hardly had the guns fallen silent in the Transcaucasus, when Moscow began receiving important visitors from Russia’s outlying regions — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Azerbaijan President Ilham Alliyev.

0D

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega are on their way to Moscow. Russian Foreign Ministry has voiced indignation at the U.S. attempts to overthrow Evo Morales of Bolivia, a staunch ally of Mr. Chavez.

Russian strategic bombers have reappeared on the Caribbean skies; Russia will be sharing space communication systems with Cuba; a Russian naval flotilla including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Pyotr Velikyi is heading for exercises with Venezuela in November.

But, as far as India is concerned, it is the Middle East that sails into view. Not only is that region adjacent to ours but also the Middle East theatre has always been crucial to the shaping up of the world of tomorrow. Moscow is determined that the Cold War history of isolation should not repeat in the Middle East. Talks are under way for the reopening of the Soviet naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus. The Russian Foreign Ministry publicised that at the closed-door meeting of the “Iran Six” (the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia) in New York on Friday. “We [Russia] spoke out against extra measures by the U.N. Security Council [against Tehran] at the current stage. The Russian side stressed the need to continue efforts to get Tehran engaged in a constructive dialogue aimed at starting a process of negotiations.”

Russian officials have also spoken of Moscow helping Iran to strengthen its air defence systems in addition to the 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defence missile systems under a $700- million contract it already supplied. Most significantly, Russia has sought formal coordination with the OPEC.

Alarm bells are ringing in the West. Despite being the most ferocious critic of the Kremlin in the western world in the recent weeks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has invited Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to an energy summit in London in December. Much to Washington’s discomfiture, the EU has indicated that it would like to resume negotiations over a new partnership agreement with Moscow. Recently Henry Kissinger characterised as a “political and economic earthquake” the largest transfer of wealth in human history, which the tripling of the price of oil in the space of 7 years represents for the Middle East. If Russia bonds with the OPEC, that makes it a devastating earthquake measuring 10 on the Richter scale, giving them what Kissinger called “a disproportionate political influence on world affairs”.

“Yet, the victims stand by impotently… This state of affairs is intolerable in the long-run,” he wrote, underscoring how profoundly the world has changed since Mr. Bush received Dr. Singh in the Oval Office in July 2005. A U.S.-India strategic partnership that was raring to go, focussing on what our strategic analysts call the “larger overlapping interests” of the two countries in “jointly promoting” regional security in the Hindu Kush, the Malacca Straits and the Persian Gulf seems to have outlived its utility.

Anthony Suau (more work here) shows us the transition the former Soviet bloc between 1989 and 1999 in a project called Beyond the Fall. A good meaty piece of classic black and white photojournalism, it took me two days to get through, but I loved every minute of it. As a matter of fact, I think I might start it again.

Jonas Bendikson, one of the new young Magnum photographers, spent a few years, between 1999 and 2006 photographing the varied societies, "stateless states", and isolated communities that even further divide the 15 countries that the USSR shattered into. Also not a small piece of work, but beautiful and fascinating and absolutely worth it, check out: Sattelites.

-g-

In February 1922, Myasnikov was expelled from the Russian Communist Party. In 1923, he formed an opposition faction called “Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party” that opposed NEP. The group included some former members of the Workers' Opposition. Party leaders arrested Myasnikov in May 1923, but then released him and attempted to isolate him from his support base by assigning him to a trade mission in Germany in 1923.  There Myasnikov formed ties to the Communist Workers' Party (KAPD).  These groups helped him publish the manifesto of the Workers' Group, without permission from the Russian Communist Party.  The main source for this group’s writings in English, the Manifesto of the Communist Workers' Group of Russia, was published in the Workers' Dreadnought throughout January and February of 1924.  The Workers' Group was suppressed after its preparations to call a one day general strike and a mass demonstration, in commemoration of the Bloody Sunday march of 1905, with Lenin’s portrait heading the march. The Central Committee produced a resolution branding them as anti-Communist and anti-Soviet and ordered the GPU to suppress it.  In 1923 Myasnikov was persuaded to return to Russia, where he was arrested and imprisoned.   In 1927, his sentence was changed to internal exile in Armenia. In 1928, he fled the USSR for Iran.  In 1930, he immigrated to France, where he worked in factories until 1945. In 1945, the Soviet secret police returned Myasnikov to the USSR, where he was executed.

Chris Kane, The Commune

Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)

To the Communist Comrades of all countries:

The present condition   of   the   productive forces in the countries of highly  developed capitalism gives the proletarian movement of these countries a character of a fight for the communist revolution.   Either humanity - drowning by national and civil wars in its own blood will disappear in barbarism, or the proletariat will carry out its historical mission to take the power and once and for all put an end to the exploitation of man by man, and to civil and class  wars  among   peoples and nations, and will plant the banner of eternal peace, work and brotherhood.

The hurried proceedings with the armaments of the air fleet by England, France, America, Japan, and so on, threatens with a new never heard-of war, in which many tens of millions of human beings will perish through centuries of collected riches  of  the  cities,   factories,  and worships, and everything which the labourers and peasants have created through  centuries painful work.

It is the mission of the proletariat in every country to throw down its own national bourgeoisie.    The quicker the proletariat makes an end of the bourgeoisie of its own   country, sooner will the proletariat of the whole world solve its historic problem.

In order to put an end to the exploitation, repression,  and the wars,  the proletariat must cease  to fight for  a  slight   increase of wages or for shortening of the working time; formerly it was necessary to do so, but to-day it must fight for its  rule.

The  bourgeoisie  and  the  other  oppressors classes of all kinds and shades are satisfied with the social  traitors  of  all   countries   and  peoples.  Especially because these divert the attention 'the proletariat away from the chief objects the struggle against the rule of the bourgeoisie and of the oppressors, and continuously put up such small, petty demands that they cannot check the repression and violence.   The Socialists of all countries are at any given moment the only saviours of the bourgeoisie from the proletarian revolution, because the numberless mass of the working class is accustomed to be suspicious of everything which comes from their oppressions, but when the same things are described as being in its interests and will be adorned further with Socialist phrases, then this workman who dimmed by these phrases believes the traitors and expends his power for a hopeless fight.  The bourgeoisie has, and will have, no better advocate.

The Communist vanguard of the proletariat must, before everything, destroy in the heads of their class-comrades the bourgeois rubbish and capture their   consciousness in   order to lead them to a bloody fight for victory.    But order to burn out this rubbish; one should stay always on the side of the proletariat in its dangers and difficulties.    Naturally, it should be attempted to win the sympathy of e proletariat by all manner of means,  but not by cutting away, neglecting, or giving up fundamental   watchwords.     Whoever departs from them—for temporary advantages - he does not attempt to lead the masses, but limps after them   and does not conquer, but surrenders himself to those with whom he must fight.

One must not, also, 'always look around for others and wait till the proletarian revolution will simultaneously break out in all countries; one must   not   excuse   its   indecision  “We  are  ready  for   revolution and are also strong, but the others are strike the German bourgeoisie and the social “set "  (of   people),   what   will   take   place then?     The following happens: the bourgeoisie and social traitors will flee before the proletarian ire to France and Belgium and will implore Poincare weepingly, to finish with the German proletariat, promising the French in return for it to keep the Versailles treaty holy and perhaps even to give up the Rhine and Ruhr territory; that is, they will so act as the Russian bourgeoisie and their   allied   social traitors did and do till to-day.    Poincare and Co. will   naturally   accept with   the   greatest pleasure the good cause saving Germany from its proletariat—just as the robbers of the whole worlds did with Soviet Russia. But the ill-luck of Poincare and Co. consists in the matter that their army composed of workmen and peasants, as soon as it will see, that they should help the German bourgeoisie and its accomplices against the German proletariat and Soviet Germany, will turn its arms against its own bourgeoisie, against Poincar6, and Poincare—in order to save the skin of himself and his bourgeoisie with their socialist accomplices to their fate, and that, although the German proletariat will break the treaty of Versailles, drive away Poincare from the Rhine and Ruhr, and will proclaim a peace without annexations and contributions with self-determination of nations. It is not difficult for Poincare to get the upper hand of the Germany of Cuno and of the Fascists, but he will break his teeth with the proletarian Germany of Councils. Therefore, if there is possession of strength, one must fight and not turn round to see all sides.

There is still another danger for the proletarian revolution. That is the splitting of its forces.

In the interests of the proletarian world revolution, the exertion of the total revolutionary proletariat must be unified. If the victory of the proletariat is unthinkable without definite break and desperate fight with the enemies of the working class— with the social traitors of the Second so-called International, who, arms in hand, suppress the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in their own as well as foreign countries, this victory of the proletariat without the union of all forces which are for the communist revolution, for the dictatorship of the proletariat, is equally unthinkable. And, therefore, do we, the workers' group of the Communist Party of Russia (B), address to all honest Communist revolutionary proletarians with the appeal to unite their forces for the last and decisive battle. We call upon all parties of the Third International, the parties which are united in the Fourth International, and also those separate organisations which belong to neither of these, but which pursue the same objects as these, to form a united front. A united front for fight and victory.

The beginning is made. The proletarian Russia has finished according to the proletarian communist art, the bourgeoisie and its followers of all sorts and shades (social-revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and so on), who defended them so zealously. As you see, although it was weaker than the German bourgeoisie was, it has beaten the whole world bourgeoisie, as a result of the attack made upon it at the request of the Russian bourgeois, landlords, and socialist renegades.

Now it is the turn of the proletariat of the west to act, and it must unify its powers and begin the fight for its rule.

Naturally, it is harmful to close one's eyes before the dangers, which threaten the Russian October Revolution, and also the world revolution from inside of Russia.

Soviet Russia goes through one of the most difficult moments. It has many drawbacks of such nature that it can become disastrous for proletarian Russia and the whole world. These drawbacks result from the weakness of the Russian working class and of the weakness of the proletarian world movement.

The proletarian Russia cannot yet oppose its will to the tendencies of liquidation of the conquests of the October Revolution—tendencies come from the bureaucracy degenerated in the New Economic policy, and, therefore, a very great danger threatens the achievements of the Russian proletarian revolution, not so much from outside as from inside itself.

The proletariat of the whole world is directly and indirectly interested in protecting the victories of the October Revolution against every danger. Such a country as Russia, as the basis of communist world revolution, means already to achieve half the victory, and, therefore, the pioneers of the international proletarian army, the communist of all countries, must give expression to their views upon the deficiencies and illnesses from which Soviet Russia and its troop of the Communist army of the proletariat—the Communist Party of Russia (B) suffers.

The workers' group of the Communist Party of Russia (B), which is well posted on the Russian situation, -makes the beginning. We are not of the opinion that we, proletarian communists, should not speak about our mistakes because there are on the earth social traitors and scoundrels who will be able to exploit our words against Soviet Russia and Communism. All these fears are beside the point. Whether our enemies openly or secretly are inimical to us, it does not matter; they are troublemakers, who, according to their nature, cannot live without doing harm to us proletarians and communists. But what is the conclusion of it? Should we pass, therefore, over our sicknesses and deficiencies silently and not speak of them nor take measures to destroy them? What will take place, then, when we allow ourselves to be chased by the social traitors upon the hours of a dilemma and keep silent? In such a case it can go so that there remains only a memory of the achievements of the October Revolution.

It is, therefore, exactly in the interests of the proletarian world revolution and of the Russian working class, if we, the workers' group, make the beginning, and, without trembling before the opinion of the social traitors, we put the decisive questions of the international and proletarian movement. We have already said that the deficiencies can be explained from the weakness of the international as well as from the Russian proletarian movement, and the best help which the proletariat of other countries can give to the Russian proletariat is a revolution in their own countries, even if only in one or two of these most developed of capitalist countries. If even there is not sufficient strength at present, it is at any rate enough to help the Russian revolution to hold its position of the October Revolution till the proletariat of all other countries will rise and vanquish the enemy.

The working class of Russia, weakened by the imperialist world war, the civil war and the famine, is not all all strong; it can overcome the dangers which threaten at present just because it has acknowledged these dangers and will exert all its powers in order to overcome them and, with the help of the proletariat of all other countries!, it will also succeed.

The workers' group of the Communist Party of Russia (B) has sounded the alarm, and its call finds loud echo in whole, great Soviet Russia. Everything which is proletarian and honest in the Communist Party of Russia is uniting and beginning the struggle. It will be successful for us to awaken in the minds of all thinking proletarian groups the thought about the fate of the achievements of the October Revolution.

The struggle is hard. Legal work has been made impossible for us—we work unlawfully (illegal). We could not print our “Manifesto” in Russia. We printed it secretly and continued to copy it upon the typewriter. The comrades who come to be suspected of being near to us in sympathy will be excluded from the party and trade unions simply upon suspicion, arrested, and spirited away.

To the Xllth. Party Congress of the Communist Party of (Russia, the comrade Zinoviev had announced, under the acclamation of the party and Soviet bureaucrats, a new formula of suppression of every critique of the working class. He said: “my and every criticism of the central office of the Communist Party of /Russia, whether it comes from the right or left side, is Menshevism." (Read his speech to the Xllth. Congress of the Communist Party of Russia.) What does it mean? It means the following: If the conduct of the central office does not appear right to a workman-communist, and, he, in his proletarian simplicity, begins to criticise, then he will be excluded from the party and from the trade union; will finally declare him 'a Menshevik, and will thrust him into the G.P.U. (political police department). The central of the party does not tolerate any criticism……………………….

Every Bolshevik and especially the average members of the party who possessed little experience in political intrigues, cried at every street-corner to the Mensheviks: "you faithless traitors of the working class! We will hang you to the telegraph poles. You carry the guilt of the international carnage in which the working people of all countries were drowned. You have murdered Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. The streets of Berlin become red, thanks to your atrocities, with the blood of the workers who rose in indignation against the capitalist exploitation and oppression. You are the makers of the treaty of Versailles; you have committed numberless crimes against the international proletariat by betraying them at every step." The readers must admit that it is not quite proper to offer to a communist worker with such an attitude the "socialist united front" i.e. a united front with Noske Scheidemann, Vandervelde Branting and Co.

It must be somehow masked. The theses are not entitled simply 'Socialist united front' but 'on the united workers' front and on the relation with the workers who follow the Second, Two-and-a half, and Amsterdam Internationals and also to those who support the Anarcho-Syndicalist organisation.  The same comrade Zinoviev who writes these theses, a little earlier had invited us to take part in the funeral of the Second International. He has apparently received news from this International that the announcement of its death is a little exaggerated. Therefore comrade Zinoviev has not lost his presence of mind and invites us now to the marriage of the Communist International with the, Second International.

An agreement with the workers is not spoken of only with the parties of the Second and two-and-half Internationals. Every workman, even if he has been a refugee abroad, knows that the parties are represented by their head offices and there sit Vandervelde, Branting, Scheidemann, Noske and Co. With them, an agreement will be arrived. Who was at the Berlin Conference of the Three Internationals? To whom has the Comintern offered its heart and hand? To Wels, Vandervelde among others.

Have they tried to come to an understanding with the Communist Workers' Party (KAPD) of Germany, although the same comrade Zinoviev says that in it very valuable proletarian elements are to be found.

It is true, comrade Zinoviev says in the theses that no amalgamation at all of the Comintern with the Second International is attempted and that the former will keep its organisational independence.

The Communists impose upon themselves a discipline in activities, but they must preserve unconditionally with it the right and the possibility, not only before and after but even when necessary during action, to give expression to their opinions about the politics of all workers organisations without exception.

Discipline in action and independence in expressing the views is formally recognised for the inner party life in the Statutes of the C.P. of Russia. That does not mean any thing other than one must do what the majority has decided …you can exercise only criticism…….. Do that which has been commanded to you, but if you are too angry and know quite definitely that it does harm to the cause of world revolution, then you can give your anger free vent, during, before and after action—speak. That is synonymous with giving up independent action, exactly as Vandervelde had provided a clause when he subscribed to the Treaty of Versailles.

In the same theses the executive gives out the watchword of 'Workers' Government' whereby it slyly substitutes for the slogan of the "dictatorship of the Proletariat" the slogan of "Socialist Ministries." What is exactly then 'Workers' Government'? It is a government which will be formed out of the Central Committees of Allied Parties and Ebert (Socialist) is President, as in Germany—even if  a cabinet, as befits him, is added, we get an ideal programme which is built upon these theses.  Then when this watchword is not accepted, the Communists must support with their voice the Socialist Prime Minister Branting in Sweden and Ebert in Germany. Comrade Zinoviev offers them the united front and proposes to them the formation of a Socialist government with communist supplement.

Noske, Ebert, Scheidemann and company will go to the meetings of workmen and will tell them that the Comintern has declared amnesty and offers instead of the gibbet, Ministerial Chairs. But upon one condition, viz. that the Communists will receive one, even if the worst Ministerial Chair. To give or not to give? It will be voted and decided to give it. They will tell the whole working class that the Communists have recognised that only together with them and not against them is it possible to fight for Socialism. Only look at these people! They lept and they jumped, they buried and hanged us and finally, however, have they come to us.

The Communist International has certified the political trustworthiness of the Second International and has received from it a certificate of political poverty. What is really the cause of this change?  Why does comrade Zinoviev offer Ebert, Scheidemann and Noske a Ministerial seat instead of a gibbet? Only a little previously had he sung the burial hymn to the Second International and complained against its spirits. Why does he sing now a panegyric? Shall we see its resurrection and worship it?

The theses of comrade Zinoviev answer this question thus: "The economic world crisis' is sharpening, unemployment is increasing, capital is taking the offensive and endeavours to press down the standard of life of the proletariat."  Also a war is inevitable. For these reasons, the working class is going more to the left. The reformist illusions are destroyed. The broad workmen's circles begin for the first time to prize the Communist vanguard... and therefore... one must form a united front with Scheidemann.

The end does not correspond with the beginning. We would not be just unless we added a few more grounds which comrade Zinoviev adds in his defence of the united front. He makes a wonderful discovery: "The working class strives towards unity. And how can it do otherwise than through a united front with Scheidemann?!!!

Every conscious worker to whom the interests of his class and of the world revolution is not foreign, can ask: Is it only now, in the movement when the necessity of united front is supported, that the working class has desired to become united? Everyone who has lived in the moment of the appearance of the working class on the arena of political struggle, knows the desperation which rises in every workman: why do the Mensheviki, Bolsheviki, the Social-Revolutionaries and the members of the Workers' Party fight one another? They all want the best for the people. Then what do they fight each other for? Every workman lives in this doubt. But what conclusion must one draw from that? It is necessary to organise and lead the working class into a self-dependent class-party, in which act one must place oneself in antagonism to all other parties. That our petty-bourgeois prejudices must be laid aside, was correct. It is true also until today. We must prepare the working- class in all capitalist countries where the era for social revolution has arrived, for open armed attack, exactly against International Menshevism and Social-Revolutionaries. In this case the experiences of the Russian Revolution must be considered. It must be tightly hammered into the working class of the whole world that they, the Socialists of the Second and Two-and-a-half Internationals are at the head of counter-revolution and will continue to remain there. The propaganda of united front together with the social traitors of all shades attempts to convince that the latter also fight for and not against Socialism.

LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon's trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn't legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.

OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven't done it, as in North Korea -- let me just take one more example -- in North Korea, we cut off talks. They're a member of the axis of evil. We can't deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went -- they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged -- because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this -- then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.

MCCAIN: I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.

Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.

As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.

We don't know what the status of the dear leader's health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they've entered into.

And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify," and certainly not sit down across the table from -- without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it's just dangerous.

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn't worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he's spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell...

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We're going to go to a new...

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.

Please, go ahead.

Alright, so again, I bolded the parts relevant to Dr. Kissinger.

Obama is arguing that Kissinger said that we should meet with Iran without preconditions.  McCain has taken this to say that Obama is saying that we should have the President meet with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions.  Personally, I didn't get that strong of a statement from this debate; HOWEVER, he did say (back in the Youtube primary debate) that HE would meet with Iran (and other nations) without preconditions in his first year of office.  He also said (in this debate), "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe." So although Obama may only be arguing for lower-level negotiations now, he HAS in the past said HE HIMSELF would meet without preconditions.  To me, it seems like McCain is making Obama's statements from this debate seem a little more extreme than they necessarily are, but Obama is clearly changing his stance on the issues.

But we have one other thing:

Dr. Kissinger released the following statement:

Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Sen. John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.

So, although McCain may have stretched Obama's statements a bit, Obama took Dr. Kissinger's comments farther than Dr. Kissinger intended, and Obama has flip-flopped on the issue.  The greater fault definitely lies with Obama here, who is just being completely dishonest.

Kissinger did say that "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."  Personally, I disagree with that - I will note that we have NEVER successfully met with a hostile country without preconditions at the Presidential level.  Nixon and Mao met with preconditions after years of other lower-level talks.  The same with Gorbachev and Reagan.  And the one time we did meet without preconditions, was when Kennedy met with Khrushchev and Kennedy admits that "He just beat the hell out of me.  I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.  Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him."

That, my friends, would be Barack Obama.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

"We must not allow ourselves as a movement and as a country to be bullied into submission by the deluge of political and economic commentators who warn of dire consequences if there are any changes in policy," SACP general secretary Blade Nzimande told the party's three-day national policy conference in Johannesburg.

Our constitution allows a lot, even for people to put on gratuitous public displays of stupidity. In this case it is the South African Communist Party pretending that communism still has a valid voice in the political landscape. They should rename themselves to the South African Circus Party if they wish to retain a shred of credibility, or do they wish us to believe that the USSR still exists and that North Korea is the last place on earth still worthy of being called "The Peoples Paradise".

Lets have a quick look at what the ring master in charge of the communist circus has to say...

Nzimande said the SACP needed to review:

exchange control measures to lessen the country's vulnerability to ongoing major financial instability;

Never mind that they are not in charge, they can review all they want. So they want to bring exchange controls back, oblivious to the fact that it was brought in as an emergency measure under apartheid. It does not serve any constructive purpose other than advertising to the world that we have zero faith in our own country.

import controls

Even more vague.... every country has import controls on some level, so what's his point. Trying to impress us that he knows that import controls exist?

state-led industrial policy measures to address job creation and retention;

Once again, says nothing. Maybe they could make a more detailed version of this policy available, test it out on a small scale, for instance involving the large potential workforce idling away their time in prison and see how successful it is.

address the country's energy crisis through proper pricing favouring ordinary South Africans; and

It is a global crisis, and it is getting solved already without intervention. The best cure for high prices is high prices.... we are already seeing a huge move towards "alternative" energy sources, more fuel efficient cars etc. In other words, the root of the problem is getting addressed in the best way possible, by the free market and people voting with their wallets.... short term solutions have always ended up costing more.

The only way they can otherwise achieve this is by raising taxes to subsidize lower prices, and higher taxes cannot be brought down by choosing not to pay taxes.... the only way to avoid paying tax is by becoming a criminal (limited upside and not attractive) or not owning anything and not working at all, essentially asking for handouts - in which case they will have to force people to work old Russia style.

Subsidising cheaper fuel will also not motivate anyone to adress the root of the problem, cars will not become more efficient, innovation will stop etc. The end game will only be a disaster.

Maybe the SACP could apply their collective brilliance in designing a car that does not need fossil fuels, or providing excellent affordable public transport...

renationalising Sasol, after imposing a windfall tax on the company.

And here is the clincher... the pinnacle of stupidity. It is like asking a woman to buy her own engagement ring before being forced to marry an abusive husband.

Do they want Sasol to become like Eskom that brilliantly run government institution (in their imaginations), which is run so efficiently that they can afford to drop their electricity prices every year, creates thousands of jobs and provide uninterrupted electricity to every citizen...

Or do they have the memory of a gold fish.... forgetting the protest marches they held against Eskom for shedding jobs and jacking prices through the roof... because Eskom is a government sponsored monopoly and therefore they can do what they want, which includes making a complete mess of the company because they do not have to fear loosing market share, retribution from shareholders and have no motivation whatsoever because they are "protected".

Do they really want Sasol to become another government institution they can organise protest marches against for raising prices because of "capacity" problems..

Also speaking at the conference, Cosatu president Sidumo Dlamini pointed out that the alliance would be holding its first economic summit in a week.

They are joking right? Their first one and modern economies have been going for how long?

I have nothing against trade unions and believe they are necessary to provide balance and checks in any capitalist system where the drive for profits tend to get out of hand if not tempered.

"They call for instance for economic policies centred on creation of decent work and poverty alleviation," he said.

Oh for fucks sake, please go look at what happened in Russia where everyone had decent work etc and compare it to Russia today.... Or try and get a better grip on human nature instead of jabbering on about your failed ideologies.  It also irks me to drive past squatter camps (slums) and see the squalor, on an emotional level I would also love to see everyone having a decent home, decent medical care, decent everything but the reality is that people only appreciate what they have if they worked for it. Giving things are essentially destructive and short sighted (just look at how winning the lotto has really changed peoples lives).... think the fish versus the teaching to fish example.

"Ultimately, the mass base remains our insurance and source of power against the entrenched power of capital and those defending minority privileges.

Well, if the power of capital was not there then there would not be any jobs to speak off in the first place, human nature is not based on self-sacrifice and constant acts of selflessness. That is what government is for, to provide checks and balances, to ensure that nobody is forced to do anything and that basic needs (not wants) are catered for...

Yes, not everybody is interested in (or capable of) becoming billionares or be business moguls, and just because they are interested in living uncomplicated lives does not mean that they should be excluded from a proper education, health care, solid nutrition and having a roof over their heads... but in order to provide this you need those who are interested in becoming filthy rich and buy "stuff"...., in fact the more people you encourage to "chase" after cash the more taxes you can collect and the more "poor" people can be looked after.

Essentially government should be there to allow the "rich" to be slaves to their own greed and preventing them from making the "poor" slaves in the process... in other words using selfish human nature to benefit everyone to a certain degree.

Capitalism is probably not the ideal but has worked much better, in the bigger picture, than any other system so far.... It uses human nature constructively instead of wasting energy, time and resources trying to change it.

Technorati Tags: South African Communist Party, Blade Nzimande, Sub Prime Crises, Oil Price, Sasol, Eskom Fiasco, Nationalisation, Communism, Taxes, Capitalism, Cosatu, Trade Unions, Tervor Manuel, Kgalema Motlanthe, Russia, USSR

On Aug. 8, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. Molotoff received the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. Sato, and gave him, on behalf of the Soviet Government, the following for transmission to the Japanese Government:

“After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan became the only great power that still stood for the continuation of the war.

“The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, on July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan, and thus the proposal of the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union on mediation in the war in the Far East loses all basis.

“Taking into consideration the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies submitted to the Soviet Government a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of victims and facilitate the speedy restoration of universal peace.

“Loyal to its Allied duty, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposals of the Allies and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26.

“The Soviet Government considers that this policy is the only means able to bring peace nearer, free the people from further sacrifice and suffering and give the Japanese people the possibility of avoiding the dangers and destruction suffered by Germany after her refusal to capitulate unconditionally.

“In view of the above, the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan.”

Source: Soviet Declaration of War on Japan - Aug., 8, 1945

We're about a minute out, I'll be live blogging the whole event.  Jim Lehrer (PBS) is the moderator.  I'll be watching CNN (it would be FOX, but they weren't ready on time).

The Ku Klux Klan is in the audience, we've heard, but not in robes and not protesting.

First question, "Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?"

Obama: Thank you to everybody - the usual beginning.  "Worst financial crisis since the great depression. ... We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely."  Talking about oversight, since it's a lot of money.  Taxpayers need to be able to get the money back.  Shouldn't be padding CEO bank accounts.  Talking about trickle down economics not working.  That's not going to help him win over any Republicans.

McCain: Senator Kennedy is in the hospital.  Thank you to the sponsors, etc.  Talking about seeing Democrats and Republicans sitting down and working together, and the magnitude of the crisis.  Emphasizing that we have to work together, something that Obama didn't mention - that was good from McCain.  Talking about having options for loans for businesses, not the government taking over those loans.  GOOD - not a pure bailout!  CNN has an audience  reaction, and McCain is getting a pretty good response from the Independents (must be some keypad rating system or something).  Talking about a lot of work to do if this will work.  Eliminate dependence on foreign oil - good.

Lehrer: Do you favor this plan?

Obama: I "haven't seen the language yet."  "How did we get in this situation in the first place?"  Talking about him warning 2 years ago that mortgage abuse would lead us down a trail we can't afford to go down.  "Yes, we have to solve this problem short term, ... but ... look at how we shredded so many regulations ... and that has ... to do with an economic philosophy that says regulation is bad."

Lehrer: "Will you vote for the plan?"

McCain: "Sure."  Talking about warning about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Talking about getting flack for calling for resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission.  And the Independents' rating has skyrocketed.  Republicans increased too.  It was good - him calling for the resignation, and people like that.

Obama: Talking about people struggling before this crisis.  It's interesting - the Dems are rating Obama higher than the Indies, but the Indies rated McCain higher than the Reps.  Talking about holding ourselves accountable, all the time, talking about nurses and teachers, and politicians not paying attention to them.  Good - he's appealing to the average Americans here, and that's who he needs to win over.

McCain: "We have a long way to go."  Need consolidation of regulatory agencies who failed and let us slip into this crisis.  Talking about the greatness of the American worker, and the Republicans like it, but it's not that appealing to Independents, but it will appeal to a lot of average Joe Americans, as long as they believe he's sincere (and the audience must not have).

Lehrer: How do we get out of the crisis?

McCain: Spending control.  And the Reps and Inds, liked it - and this is one of McCain biggest points, and now he's talking about Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a huge anti-earmark politician.  Talking about the DNA testing of bears.  I LOVE McCain saying he'll veto earmarked bills.  It's one of his best stances.  He's talking about Obama asking for earmark spending.  Talking about not being able to rein in spending with a plan like Obama's.

Obama: The earmark process has been abused.  Lobbyists and special interests introduce these things, often times.  Contrasting the cost of earmarks against tax cuts (by allegedly McCain) for CEOs and big companies.  "Grow the economy for the bottom up."  Tax cut for 95% of working families.  HOLD IT!  Only 90% of working families even PAY taxes!!!!  Come on Obama, don't lie.

McCain: Obama suspended those earmarks after he started running for Congress.  YOU TELL 'EM MCCAIN!  He's saying that earmarks have tripled in 5 years, even though "it's only $18 billion" (as pro-earmarkers say).  He was called the Sheriff.  That's pretty sweet.  As I was saying before, we need to take Coburn's example and STOP EARMARKS!

Obama: Interrupted McCain (must be kinda less formal).  Talking about priorities, and shipping, and I missed the rest.  Saying he'll keep us from spending unwisely.  Earmarks alone won't get us back on track.  The Democrats are loving this, but the Independents, aren't really liking it.

McCain: Talking about the business tax, that we pay the 2nd highest in the world, 35%.  "I want to cut that business tax.  I want to cut it."  "It's a lot more than $18 billion in pork barrel spending."  And he's right, it's SO much more than that, and it's hidden in so many bills.  The Independents are liking this.  "I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit" for healthcare.  Double the dependent amount refund for children.

Obama: "Here's what I can tell America 95% of you will get a tax cut."  LIAR.  10% don't even PAY taxes.  And another 5% make over $200,000, and he won't give them a tax cut.  LIAR!  Saying McCain wants to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes.  Talking about McCain's health care tax credit.  Saying McCain wants to tax health benefits.  That's not true.

McCain: Talking about an energy bill with breaks for oil companies, and McCain voted against it, but Obama voted for it."  Obama tried to interrupt - that just looks tacky when he keeps doing it.  Saying that Obama has shifted on a number of occasions.

Obama: Talking about Obama lying about the oil companies.  "I was opposed to those tax breaks ... tried to strip them out."

Lehrer: "As President ... what are you going to have to give up ... as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"

Obama: "Right now, it's hard to anticipate what the budget is going to look like next year."  He's right about that.  "Energy independence."  Talking about solar, wind, biodiesel here at home.  And the Independents REALLY loved that - highest rating I've seen all night.  Fix our healthcare system.  Compete in education - science and technology.  "Make sure our children are keeping pace in math and in science."  Make college affordable for all.  That's not even useful.  Not EVERYBODY needs college.  America needs plumbers and other basic labor workers too.

McCain: "No matter what, we have got to cut spending."  Obama has most liberal rating.  "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."  Do away with cost-plus contracts.  Talking about defense contracts and needing fixed-cost contracts.  And he's absolutely right.  One of the big areas we need to save money is in defense contracts.  Talking about fixing a contract with Boeing, and people ending up in prison because of it, but hte Independents didn't like that too much.

Lehrer: Neither of you are really going to have big changes?

Obama: "I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to [break off from] foreign oil."  Right now, even the Democrats aren't giving him a good audience reaction.  The Republicans are giving him a higher rating!  Saying that him being wildly liberal is just him opposing George Bush.  And that spiked the Dems' rating.  Saying that he's worked with Coburn so that taxpayers can see who's promoting spending projects.

Lehrer: "How [will] this effect you in the approach you will take to the Presidency."

McCain: Spending freeze on all but Veterans, defense, and I forget what else.

Obama: You're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.  But heck, that'd have to be a big scalpel.  But he does have a point here.

McCain: We're sending money overseas, and some of that goes eventually to terrorists (through oil).  We need nuclear, solar, wind, offshore drilling, etc...  Get 70,000 (?) jobs by building nuclear plants throughout the country.  And Obama is against this.  And that's one thing that really angers me about Obama - WE NEED NUCLEAR!

Obama: "There is not fact that it [economic crisis] will affect our budgets" even if we get the $700 billion back.  "If we're lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen."  "We can expect less tax revenue."  And he's really not getting a good audience response here.  Talking about not being able to leave out healthcare, and the Independents' and Republicans' approval just dropped.

McCain: Families should make decisions between themselves and doctors, not federal government.  "I have fought to cut spending."  "Obama needs to cancel new spending programs."  Talking about taking care of veterans.  Healthy economy, lowering, not raising taxes, with spending restraint.  And the independents liked that.  Talking about owing China money, and saying he's fought against excessive spending.  And the ratings are skyrocketing - and again, I LOVE his stance on spending!

Obama: It's been your President who presided over this spending.  But Bush and McCain aren't the same.  Stop pretending they are.  That still got a good reply from the Independents.

McCain: I have opposed the President on spending, torture, Guantanamo, climate change.  Talking about being an Independent and Maverick, and having Sarah Palin as the same.  His ratings stunk right there.  He lost Dems, Reps, and Inds.

Lehrer: On to Iraq.

McCain: "Our initial military success ... Baghdad, and everybody celebrated."  Then the war was mishandled.  Came up with a new strategy.  It's succeeding.  The Inds and Dems rating has fallen a lot, but hte Reps are rating him high.  Talking about the consequences of defeat being Iranian influence higher, more sectarian violence, and U.S. having to come back (referring to defeat before the surge).  And the Inds just started to rate him a lot better.  I think he did as good as he could back there.

Obama: I would've voted against it.  "We hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan ... caught bin Laden ... and put Al Qaeda to rest."  Talking about soon to be a trillion dollars spent, plus 4,000 lives lost.  Saying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.  "We took our eye off the ball."  Talking about Iraq having a surplus while we're losing money.  He's bringing up a LOT of good points that I thought would appeal to people, but he's not rating THAT great, although the Dems really like him.  Now it's peaked a bit more.

McCain: President will have to decide how and when we leave and what we leave behind.  He's absolutely right.  Obama saying surge worked, but he'd still oppose it.  And he lost a lot of Indy rating points just back there.  But he's right.  Obama is simply sticking by what he said even though what he said was WRONG!

Obama: Talking about McCain being right about reduced violence.  Saying troops and Petraeus doing a good job.  But that made up for mismanagement before that.  War started in 2003, not 2007.  Saying McCain said it'd be quick and easy, but he was wrong.  Saying we'd be greeted as liberators, but we weren't.  And he lost a lot of support from Inds, but he's still doing better than McCain has on Iraq.

McCain: Saying Obama doesn't have military experience, he's got some better support form Inds and Reps now.  Saying that this strategy and general are winning, but Obama refuses to acknowledge this.  (Obama: "That's not true.")  Talking about elections and peace coming to Iraq, and the strategy will be employed in Afghanistan in a McCain administration, and the Inds went up a bit there.  Talking about Obama voting against troop funding.

Obama: McCain opposed funding for troops in a timetable bill.  Had a difference on timetables, not funding.  And Obama's right.  It always looks bad on paper when you vote against funding, but if you don't agree with the overall bill, don't vote for it.  I have to side with Obama here, and the Inds liked that a lot, and even the Republicans aren't that negatively rating him.  Reduce combat troops in Iraq.  "Capture and kill bin Laden."  We don't have enough troops to deal with Afghanistan.

McCain: Saying that military leaders saying that Obama's plan would be bad for the troops.  Talking about Petraeus praising the progress we've made.  Saying that under Obama's plan, we'd have been out before the surge could have even succeeded.  Saying that Obama's plan will "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

Lehrer: How many and when (if more troops in Afghanistan)?

Obama: As soon as possible.  Saying that this year has been the year for highest troop fatalities.  Can't separate Afghanistan from Iraq.  And the Independents are rating him lower than the Repubs now - that's surprising.  Saying that Al Qaeda is the greatest threat against us, and that we have to deal with them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.  Press the Afghan government to make sure that they're working for their people.  And he's absolutely right - we need to press the Afghani government.  Talking about needing to reduce the poppy trade over there.  And that's another area we need to work on.

McCain: Talking about not being ready to threaten Pakistan, because that'd be dangerous.  We need to get support of the people of Pakistan.  And the Independents are rating him pretty high here.  Saying that Obama doesn't understand that we need a new strategy.  Saying that Pakistani terrorists are married to Al Qaeda and Taliban.  Ratings are very high from Reps and Inds.  Although it's dropped now.  Saying we need more troops in Afghanistan, but saying that we have put more in already.  Talking about Obama publicly saying he'd attack Pakistan.

Obama: Saying that if we have Al Qaeda in sights, and Pakistan won't help us take them out, then we need to take them out.  Again, I have to side with Obama here.  Talking about McCain singing "Bomb Iran."  And that was so stupid of McCain, and really makes him look like a hypocrite a bit here.  Although he lost a lot of ratings there surprisingly.  Talking about not going after Al Qaeda, and they're more powerful than ever.

McCain: Talking about him being a new Congressman - Reagan wanting to send Marines into Lebanon, and McCain voting against it, because he didn't think that 300 Marines could make a difference, and saying that he was right - many Marines were killed in the bombing.  Talking about voting for going into Bosnia, when it wasn't popular.  Saying that we need more than a peace-keeping force in Somalia.  And he's right.  We need to do what's RIGHT, not what's popular!  Saying that our mission NEEDS to succeed.  And he's absolutely right.  We don't want defeat, and we cannot afford defeat!  "We won't come home in defeat and dishonor and probably have to go back if we fail."

Obama: "No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain. ... We honor the service they've provided. ... Are we making good judgments" for keeping America safe, because sending troops is such a huge issue.  "We are having enormous problems in Afghanistan."  Saying it's not true that McCain has consistently cared about Afghanistan.  Saying McCain said we could "muddle through" Afghanistan.

McCain: "I've visited Afghanistan ... and I know what our needs are.  We will prevail ... and we need a new strategy."  If we adopt Obama's plan, we'll fail in Iraq, and that will have a great effect on Afghanistan.  Obama fails to see that the 2 are connected.

Lehrer: "What is your reading from the threat from Iran?"

McCain: If Iran acquires nukes, it's a threat to Israel and other countries.  Others will feel the need to get nukes.  "We can't afford a second holocaust."  Proposing a league of Democracies who would impose sanctions on Iranians, since the Russians won't do it.  "The Iranians have a lousy government, so their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues."  A nuclear Iran is a threat to the world.  They're putting IEDs in Iraq.  They're a sponsor of terror.  And he's getting some pretty good ratings right now, from both Indeps and Repubs.

Obama: Talking about the thing that strengthened Iran was the War in Iraq.  Their involvement has grown.  They've tried harder to get nukes.  "We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran."  It would threaten Israel, and "create an environment [that would] set off an arms race in the Middle East."  We can't have sanctions without Russia and China.  Well Obama, you're not going to get Russia OR China to side with you!  You're dreaming if you think you will.  Saying we need to talk to leaders in Iran and North Korea, and he as President will.

McCain: Senator Obama twice said he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Castro.  Ahmadinejad is in New York now talking about extermination of Israel.  Saying that we can't sit down without preconditions.  And he's right.  NO President has ever sat down without preconditions (Reagan didn't, JFK didn't, and Nixon didn't).  And now McCain is using examples that I just gave.  "I'll sit down with anybody, but there's gotta be preconditions."  GOOD job McCain!  You're absolutely right.

Obama: Ahmadinejad isn't the most powerful person in Iran.  Saying as President, he can sit down with whoever he wants if it keeps America safe.  Saying that we CAN meet without preconditions, but not do with what we've been doing where we say you must do X or we won't meet with you.  "Of course we need preparations."  "It may not work.  Iran is a rogue regime."  Obama is getting pretty much the same ratings now as McCain was getting a minute ago (about a third of the way between neutral and as positive as you can go).  "The Bush Administration and McCain's advisors (Kissinger)" think we should meet without preconditions.  Saying McCain said we can't meet with Spain, a NATO ally.

McCain: "Kissinger never said that the President could meet with Ahmadinejad."  "Obama doesn't understand that without precondition ... you legitimize those comments [against Israel]. ... It's dangerous."  Talking about North Koreans breaking everything they've ever said they'd do.

Obama: McCain keeps saying that I'll meet with somebody without preparing - this isn't true.  "We do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks."  The Bush administration realized this doesn't work.  "The notion that we'd meet with Ahmadinejad as he spews his comments is" wrong.

McCain: Kissinger would not say "that Presidential, top level" communications should be made without preconditions.

The two are going back and forth, and ratings are dropping a lot.

Lehrer: How do you see the relationship with Russia?

Obama: "Our entire Russian approach needs to be reevaluated. ... Actions in Georgia were unacceptable and unwarranted."  They need to get out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  The Democrats really aren't liking what he's saying here.  The Inds are rating him higher than Dems are.  We can't go back to a Cold War status with Russia.  We need to deal with loose nuclear weapons when it comes to Russia.  "Deal with Russia based on [our] national security interests."

McCain: Obama doesn't understand that Russia committed aggression against Georgia when he said that both sides need to back down a bit.  He's compared Putin to the KGB.  We can't go back to the Cold War.  The Georgian War "had everything to do with energy."  McCain's rating a bit better than Obama, but neither are performing well right now with the audience.  "The Russians ought to understand that we'll support ... the inclusion of Georgia, and Ukraine ... into inclusion of NATO."  The Russians violated their cease fire agreement.  Saying that Russian intentions toward Georgia - just waiting to cease the opportunity.  Expecting Russians to behave as a country who will respect boundaries.  And he's right - Russia can't be left to keep doing what it's been doing.  It HAS to respect the sovereignty of other countries.  McCain rating pretty decent now, compared to an average rating before.

Obama: McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues.  Says he disagrees with McCain a bit on Georgia.  I don't think the Dems liked that - Obama is doing a decent amount worse than McCain was doing.  Talking about Russian peace keepers in Georgia not making sense and that we needed international peace keepers there, and that might have avoided the situation.  And Obama is right there.  Talking about energy.  We need to increase offshore drilling.  "We can't drill our way out of the problem."  Talking about needing wind, solar, and nuclear.  And now he's rating higher than McCain was at the end of McCain's last statement.  Saying McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times.

McCain: Saying that Obama is really against nuclear, and that offshore drilling would help more than Obama says it would.  McCain is getting pretty low ratings now, especially from Dems.

Obama: I have never said that I object to nuclear waste, but I'd store it safely.

McCain: I've always been for alternative energy.

Lehrer: What do you think the likelihood is of another 9/11 attack?

McCain: Much less than the day after 9/11, but we're not safe yet.  Talking about working across the aisle to establish the investigation commission.  Saying we need interrogators who won't use torture.  Saying that we are safer now.

Obama: We need to do more in terms of securing transit and ports.  Biggest issue is not missiles coming over skies, but from a suitcase.  Spending billions on missile defense, which we need because of Iran/Korea, but we need more for other areas as well.  Ratings are pretty high for him here.  We need more cooperation with allies.  "The way we are perceived in the world" will affect the cooperation we get.  He's right here.  We have slipped in terms of how we're viewed by the world.  McCain has a good stance on terror.  And the ratings right there are the highest they've been at any time during the debate, even Reps rated him decently high.

McCain: If we fail in Iraq, Al Qaeda will establish a base in Iraq.  McCain isn't rating too good right now, especially with Inds and Dems.  We can't have specific dates for withdrawal.  We've had great success, but it's fragile.

Obama: Saying that this administration has been solely focused on Iraq, and we haven't captured bin Laden.  Talking about borrowing from China, and they've been active around the world, while we've been focused on Iraq.  We're spending so much money, we can't invest in health care or science/technology.  "We've never seen a nation who has a failing economy but maintains military strength, so this is a national security issue."  The next President has to have better strategy for all the challenges we face.  Pretty good ratings there

McCain: Saying he's been around involved in challenges.  Saying Obama doesn't have  experience, but he does.  Talking about Obama failing to admit the success of the surge.  McCain is right here.  Obama is just being stubborn.  Saying that he'll take care of veterans, that he has right judgment to keep nation safe and secure.  "I don't need any on the job training.  I'm ready to go right now."

Obama: Talking about his father being from Kenya, and that there's not nation like America, where you can become so successful.  "Part of what we need to do ... is to send a message to the world that we'll invest in issues like education ... how ordinary people can live out there dreams."

McCain: Talking about coming home from prison and seeing veterans treated poorly, and working on bipartisan bills to see our veterans treated better.  I know how to deal with our adversaries and how to deal with our friends.

Lehrer: We're done.  "Thank you and good night."

McCain/Obama: "Good job."

And there you have it - the wives are coming out and kissing each other.  A little more than the 90 minutes scheduled, but that's ok.

OK, so who won?  Both Obama and McCain had some pretty good moments, but I don't think there was a clear cut winner here.  I think both performed pretty much on the same level.  I'm not saying that the two were identical in debating, but I don't think one did better than the other.  I absolutely hate saying this, because I love objectivity and clear cut answers, but I really do think it was a tie.

I'd love to go on more and more, but my hands are just killing me right now (hey - it was a lot of typing), so I think I've said most all of what I wanted to say.

By the way - a big thanks to my roommate who helped with correcting quotes and what was said.  It's hard to keep up with typing and trying to listen, so a huge thanks to him for helping me out with this!

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

A. E. Joseph Stalin was such kind of man who was not interested in other people’s lives.  He was very selfish one.  Only what he said must be true.  The same was in the case of Vavilov.  Stalin just destroyed him.  Vavilov was very good agriculturist, he knew a lot about Kazakhstan, about Kazakh land, but what he knew didn’t make sense to Stalin.

By the way, I think that politics of Joseph Stalin wasn’t good for Kazakh people because he destroyed the culture of this nation.  As we all know, Kazakh have a very strong culture and destroying was very critical for Kazakh people.

And what about living conditions, if he [Stalin] had not been ruling for 30 years, in my point of view, the living conditions would be better.  Because the time of Stalin control stopped the spread of globalization in USSR, which is not very good for people as for economy of the country.

In conclusion, I want to say that life could be better.

R. A. – There are a lot of contradictable opinions about Joseph Stalin.  Some people would say that he was very cruel leader and that his regime killed too many innocent people.  But we the citizens of post-Soviet countries shouldn’t forget about Great Patriotic War and his contribution to victory of Soviet people over Fascist invaders.  Maybe, if he [Stalin] hadn’t such an enormous power, Soviet people wouldn’t be so united and wouldn’t have won the war.

A. I. In the totalitarian world, of course, he was the best as the ruler.  But he was like an Evil for the people.  He had an absolutely power in that regime and all Soviet people had to some kind of worship him.  Anyway everybody thought that they couldn’t survive without him.  He was like a God in USSR.

A. B: I think Joseph Stalin was brutal tyrant.  He had only military ideas in his mind and he would stop at nothing in order to reach his goal.  He was rather bad for KZ.  We would have a better life.

Z. S. My personal opinion about Stalin changed when I was 17.  Before that I always thought that he was a very strong, powerful and just leader, during whose ruling life in the USSR was controlled but calm, people were not afraid of robbery or murder, everyone could get a job and etc.  Only when I was 17 and I was in the U.S. and further when I came back and talked to many historians both at our university and other KZ universities, I found out the truth.  The fact that at those times life was calm and determined it was the consequences of all the horrible things he had done like collectivization, famine, repressions and many more things.  Only he himself killed so many people which only a war could do.

I understand older people still wish he was alive and we were living under communist regime, but this is only one side looking to issue, maybe because they haven’t seen another style of living and even if they did (current KZ, where everything such as wealth is in the hands of a few people), they did not like it.

A. T: Generally Stalin was not as perfect for KZ citizens, on the other hand, the policy which was provided was not so bad, I mean the policy of concentration citizens of cities or “auls” (villages).  It is not a secret that Kazakhs at the beginning of the century was without any education and towns and villages make the education possible.  But the ideas of the policy was “killed” by their realization.  Repressions killed a lot of Kazakh peoples, who can’t live in an urban area.  I think that without Soviet policy, it was a chance that KZ now could be like a Mongolia or Kyrgyzstan, fully nomadic or non developed or even developing country.  Soviet policy make a good base of developing for KZ now.

K. V. I think that Stalin was strictive man.  All those bad things that he did were done by thinking.  He killed many people that did not deserve death.  And without Stalin and his strong character USSR wouldn’t won the WWII.  As someone said in the class, when Stalin died, many people were crying, because they felt strength of Stalin, and when he gone they frightened, because they didn’t imagine life without “this cruel man.” There are many people who hate Stalin and they have their own reasons.

Y. K. – Joseph Stalin was not the best ruler of people, USSR, he made a lot of bad things, killed a lot of people, however, USSR won the World War II, and one of the main reason of that was that the ruler was Stalin, psychologists think that only he could win Hitler.  So if Stalin had not been a ruler, we might not sit in this class now.  Sure, after the war, it was really hard to rebirth the country, all economy production, and a lot of people died as victims, but who knows, if it was another ruler would it be better or not?

Stalin was very smart, but as we know, authority spoils everyone.  People loved him, they were really happy that they were ruled by him.  So I cannot say whether my life could be better or worse, it is simply could be no me and not my family now.

(1) Limiting the freedom musicians is bad.

(2) The Soviet Union limited the freedom of Shostakovich, a musician.

(3) The Soviet Union was bad.

However, if this were what people really had in mind, I'd expect to see a lot more stories of the following form: "X's music sucked.  Experts today agree: it was pretty shitty.  The Soviet union banned it saying it was too shitty to allow.  But, still, banning music is bad, no matter the quality of the music."

But what I generally hear is stuff like: "Shostakovich's music was super sweet.  Pravda didn't really get it, so they banned it."  Which suggests the following syllogism:

(1) Shostakovich's music is sweet.

(2) The Soviet Union didn't think so.

(3) The Soviet Union lacked taste.

Now the big question, why is it illegal in the US? Well if you remember the big crisis back in the 60's, where the world's number one enemy at that time was communist, Cuba posed a big threat to the United States. Cuba was being USSR's best friend and both saw US as threat to their ambition of turning the whole world into a communist planet. So, to choke Cuba, US decided to do an economic sanction. All goods from Cuba are not allowed to enter the US, this included the cigars.

Well, drugs are illegal too in the US and you can still get them. The same is with the Cuban cigar. Since its an illegal product, the price is expensive. How do you know the Cuban cigar you purchase illegally are genuine? Only an experience smoker can tell you.

The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following agreement:

Article I

Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other either individually or jointly with other powers.

Article II

Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third power.

Article III

The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV

Neither of the two High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V

Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI

The present treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not denounce it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII

The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

Done in duplicate, in the German and Russian languages.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government

of the German Reich: With full power of the

Government of the U.S.S.R.:

v. Ribbentrop V. Molotov

Secret Additional Protocol

On the occasion of the signature of the Nonaggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:

1. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilnius area is recognized by each party.

2. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Govern