[Matthijs]

Quote:

National liberation does not necessarily have to be of a revolutionary socialist character. In this context, national liberation is more about resistance to foreign occupation e.g Joan of Arc rather than the revolutionary transformation of society e.g G.A Nasser. While some may perceive Ferdinand and Isabelle to be oppressive, they still are to be applauded for liberating the Spanish people from the tyranny of the Arab imperialism.

In that case:



William of Orange, led Dutch national uprising against the Spanish until he was murdered.

[SpetsNaz]

Quote:

William of Orange, led Dutch national uprising against the Spanish until he was murdered.

That guy was amazing. He reformed the dutch army from a undisciplined horde into one of europe's most powerful armies.

[Matthijs]

Yeah. Sadly, the orange-white-blue flag that he flew is now commonly associated with fascism and irredentism, because the NSB flew it.

[Diving Carrot]

Quote:

Please do not distort the conflict as one of Russian aggression because the Polish started the war when they unleashed aggression upon Soviet Ukraine in April 1920 with the Kiev Offensive.

What do you mean by the Polish agression? Poland was trying to reborn after more than a century of unexistance on the European map. Soviet Russia didn't see that right, because what Tzar conquered was supposed remain soviet property. Do no tell me about the agression on Ukrainian, Belarussian SSR like they were independent countries. It was the war with the Soviet Russia. Be remind that Ukrainian leader Petlura was fighting with soviets too.

Quote:

And don't present the conflict as being a one-sided victory for Poland when in fact it was a stalemate. The Poles did not defeat the Russians any more than the Russians defeated themselves with strategic mistakes.

Of course, Poland didn't really defeat Russians, only Russians did few mistakes, and finally made a strategic retreat by fleeding back to their soil. The fact is that Poland gained lands which soviets didn't want to give away before. I do not know how you call it, but I call it victory.

Quote:

Previously the Poles had unleashed aggression upon the Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR in 1919. In February 1920 before Polish aggression the Bolshevik press stated: "... Source:EH Carr"

This is the private opinion of some journalist, and nothing by that. Carr who was kind of hobbiest in researching the nature of Russia could have his private opinion, but it doesn't make him right.

[Jacob Peters]

Quote:

What do you mean by the Polish agression? Poland was trying to reborn after more than a century of unexistance on the European map.

That is not a valid argument. Poland as a separate, restored state had already existed at the time of the Kiev Offensive in April 1920. Poland was not trying restore its country but was rather trying to restore its empire by conquering Ukraine, Belorussia, Vilnius, and even Smolensk.

Quote:

This is the private opinion of some journalist, and nothing by that. Carr who was kind of hobbiest in researching the nature of Russia could have his private opinion, but it doesn't make him right.

Are you joking? E.H Carr was one of the best scholars on Soviet history particularly with concern to economics. I did not cite an opinion from Carr. The text in my post taken from Carr's book is a quotation of what the Bolshevik press said:

Quote:

But our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Russian Soviet Government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of Russian Red Army men. A communist order is possible only where the vast majority of the working people are penetrated with the idea of creating it by their own strength. Only then can it be solid; for only then can communist policy strike deep roots in a country. The communists of Russia are at present striving only to defend their own soil, their own constructive work; they are not striving, and cannot strive, to plant communism by force in other countries.” Source:EH Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, volume 3, p.165, London

[Glorious Leader]

Quote:

Are you joking? E.H Carr was one of the best scholars on Soviet history particularly with concern to economics.

Peters does not lie. Carr's volume 2 of the Bolshevik Revolution goes into great details of the economic theory and development of the USSR.
Hobbiest indeed...

[Methods]

Vo Nguyen Giap - liberated Vietnam from French and American imperialism.

[Ossi]

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin.

[Carius]

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, leader of Finnish government forces in the Finnish Civil War and Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Army during World War II.

[maciek1905]

jez, first Pilsudski then Mannerheim, now as we can see the 'national-liberation' is wide category

Quote:

Bogdan Khmelnytsky: led the Ukrainian people to liberation from Polish szlachta and Jewish arendators. Outcome was the reunification of Russia and Ukraine in 1654.

First of all I do agree that Khmelnytsky was leading national-liberation movement with strong social issues. But neither allying with Russians, neither Poland or Turkey was good for ukrainian nation. The Polish regime was opressing towards them, but Turkey will also be. What was Russia to the ukrainian cossacks, shows as Catherina liquidates
autonomy of Zaporozhian Host. So from the rain to the water:P

Quote:

Be remind that Ukrainian leader Petlura was fighting with soviets too.

Saying that someone in that times was 'ukrainian leader' is not true Ukraine was during the civil war and polish-bolshevik war was as wild west, where operated many militias with their leaders. The purposes of these militias were different, from political, as communist, nationalist as Petlura, anarchist as Machno or just without ideology to rob.
The problems started when these militia's leader's started to negotiate with different states. So calling bolshevik leaders, nationalist or others as 'ukrainian leader' is wrong for me.

My types:

Theobald Wolfe Tone -Irleand- didn't succed unfortunately

Romuald Traugutt - leader of polish uprise in 1863

Edward Dembowski - ideolog and one of prominent activists of Cracov Revolution

Tecumseh - Shawnee leader

Patrice Lummumba - everyone knows

Bhagata Singha - indian communist more here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzveq_AFoUs

You can see more of anticolonialist and national liberation leaders here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoloniza ... st_leaders

[Crimson Flag]

Quote:

Ferdinand II of Aragon

You forgot about his queen Isabella, he could not have done it without her.

[ActionJeans]

Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson Some national pride here to start with as this guy lead a Peasant Peoples war against the Evil Kalmar Union and its technocrat Eric of Pomeroy. I think this was sadly the last time we saw anything like this in Sweden (and im not talking about Evil Federations.)



Nelson Mandela The downfall of Apartheid was the most important event in Africa in modern history and one of the most important in the world. Honorary mention goes out to Khadafi, Castro, Mugabe and others
who aided this struggle. And i find it funny how the white "fan me with palm leafs n*gger!" crowd in SA today bleat and whine about criminality like its the ANC'S fault while looking at the Apartheid governments blatant violations of all possible freedoms and the Vulture Death Squads as something neat.


Mao Tse Tung No doubt China is one of the worlds most important places culturally, medicinally, philosophical and otherwise. And tough many a brave man had tried before it fell upon this man to finally rid it of imperialism forever (well almost.)

[TongZhi]

Mao Zedong 毛泽东

Kim Ilsung 金日成

Hồ Chí Minh 胡志明

Sun yatsen

Дамдин Сyхбаатар mongolian revolutionary defeated nationalist chinese with soviet backing. I guess hes not all bad he appeared on a stamp in china i think.

[redkuze]

One very important name is missing from this list

John Brown Fighter for Black National Liberation, and the only white amerikan hero I know of in history.

He Will Make the Gallows Glorious Like the Cross

by John Brown’s Ghost (monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

“I believe that to have interfered as I have done as I have always freely admitted I have done in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit; so let it be done!” — John Brown’s statement after he was convicted.

Today, Dec. 2 2008, is the 149th anniversary of Comrade John Brown’s lynching by the United $nakes.

In 1859 John Brown led a small handful of men to raid the armoury at Harper’s Ferry in Virginia. With the weapons they would take, they would launch a people’s war against the United $nakes and create a new Black state. They would retreat into the mountains, and with their breech loading Sharps rifles they would ride onto the nearby plantations, liberate the slaves, recruit those who could fight — picking up more and more in a snowball effect, and send the rest to freedom on the underground railroad. With this they would destroy the United $nakes slaveocracy, and deal a serious blow to the U$ empire.

Sadly, Comrade Brown failed. He was surrounded in the armoury by local white oppressors. And when he tried to surrender, the Racist comment removed-171 shot and killed those waving the white flag, one of whom was Brown’s son.

After his capture, Comrade Brown was put on trial for murder, conspiring with slaves to rebel, and treason against the state of Virginia. John Brown was found guilty on all three counts and was hanged on this day in 1859.

Today, John Brown is a hero to all Maoist-Third Worldists and all those fighting U$ imperialism. John Brown is a hero not just because he led a revolution against white amerika, he is a hero because he was of white amerika. Comrade Brown had no material interest in seeing slavery end or not. He just knew it was wrong. He knew “good-willed” white amerikans were never going to sacrifice what was necessary to end national oppression. He knew that only a handful of nation-traitors would join the cause, and the rest was up to the Black Nation itself.

Today on the day of his death, we should celebrate his life and his just cause. Of “Old Brown,” the poet William Dead Howells wrote:

Death kills not. In a later time,

(O, slow but all-accomplishing!)

Thy shouted name abroad shall ring,

Wherever right makes war sublime (1)

Notes.

1. http://www.trans-video.net/~rwillisa/jbpoems.htm

Cool video on Comrade John Brown

[TheRussianLord]

In order for him to be a hero of national liberation, we need two conditions. We need a nation for him to liberate. And we need people to consider him a hero. Modern blacks in American are not a nation in their own right, and do not give a shit about Brown.

[Mabool]

I don't know if he was brought up already, but -

Joseph Stalin: Liberated effectively all of Eastern Europe from the Nazis (and was considered a hero until de-Stalinization)

[thekraken]

I think you're all forgeting Fidel and Che.

[chaz171]

RedKuze wrote:

Quote:

Sadly, Comrade Brown failed. He was surrounded in the armoury by local white oppressors. And when he tried to surrender, the crackers shot and killed those waving the white flag, one of whom was Brown’s son.

So you say you are not a racist?

I think you are.

Quote:

3. You are prohibited from transmitting through the forums and services any hateful or racially, sexually or ethnically objectionable material. (This includes Holocaust Denial) As a guide: You should not attack groups or individuals on the basis of prejudices or stereotypes but only on the basis of their demonstrated actions or beliefs. The following are the consequences for violating this rule:

1st infraction-written warning accompanied by Red Card (one week suspension)

2nd infraction-unperson (permanent suspension of your account)

I catch this again and you will be banned.

[Greg A. Young]

Russian Lord wrote:

In order for him to be a hero of national liberation, we need two conditions. We need a nation for him to liberate. And we need people to consider him a hero. Modern blacks in American are not a nation in their own right, and do not give a shit about Brown.

As usual, your reasoning is totally incoherent. Lets grant your two criteria for being a hero of national liberation, since they seem reasonable enough. But even if "modern blacks" are not a "nation in their own right", what does that have to with John Brown, who lived over 150 years ago? Your idea of nationhood seems to be based on an mystical and unchanging ideal, but in fact nations are historical entities, arising from material conditions, and as such, are perfectly capable of going in and out of existence.

Moreover, national liberation struggles can be led on behalf of nations that do not necessarily exist. To speak with more precision, national liberation struggles are often catalysts for nations that are in the process of coming into existence. The most cursory examination of history yields the examples of: Garibaldi and Italy, Ataturk and Turkey, Bolivar and the constituent nations within Gran Colombia, et cetera.

As far as "modern blacks" not caring about John Brown, this is just a transparent supposition based on ignorance of the facts, so nothing needs to be said on my part about that.

At any rate, the orthodox Marxist-Leninist position, as elucidated by Stalin and others, is that there is a Black nation within the United States in the modern day, but that is an entirely separate discussion.

[TheRussianLord]

Please put forth the definition of nation you are using, and then demonstrate (using that definition) that African Americans were a nation at the time of John Brown. Then please prove that people who belong to that nation considered him a hero. Until you can prove both of those points, we can't consider him a hero of national liberation. The burden on proof is on you since you are the one who wishes to claim a point.