Re: Might makes right
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2026 1:52 pm
"
There was a political edge to the attacks on Macmillan, who represented the left-wing of the Conservative Party, the so-called "one nation conservatism".[43] The "one nation conservatives" such as Macmillan were often disparaged as the "wets" by the so-called "drys" who represented the right-wing of the Conservative Party. In November 1984, Macmillan gave a much publicized speech in which he called the privatization plans of the Thatcher government “selling off the family silver”, which made him into a hate figure for the "dry" Conservatives.[43] Additionally, many people on the right-wing of the Conservative Party were passionately opposed to British membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) as the European Union (EU) was then called. Through Britain did not join the EEC until 1973, it was Macmillan who as a prime minister first applied to have Britain join the EEC in July 1961, which was ended in January 1963 when President de Gaulle of France vetoed the British application. For many people on the British right, Macmillan is viewed as something alike to a traitor because of the 1961 application to join the EEC. In 1986, the Federation of Conservative Students in their magazine published a cover story with a photo of Macmillan from 1945 with the question "Guilty of War Crimes?"[48] The question was rhetorical as the article accepted Tolstoy's charges against Macmillan and sought to link his "one nation conservatism" with a policy of weakness towards the Soviet Union.”[48]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tolstoy
"
Tolstoy has written of the forced repatriation of Soviet citizens and others during and after the Second World War. As a result, he was called by the defence as an expert witness at the 1986–88 trial of John Demjanjuk in Iz. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph (21 April 1988), Tolstoy said the trial and the court's procedures struck "at the most vital principles of natural justice". He condemned the use of especially bussed-in audiences, who were repeatedly permitted by Judge Levin, the judge of the trial, to boo and hiss at appropriate moments. He called Levin's conduct "an appalling travesty of every principle of equity", and said that it was "a show trial in every sense of the word", even being conducted in a theatre.[9]
In 1989 Lord Aldington, previously a British officer (chief-of-staff to General Charles Keightley), and a former chairman of the Conservative Party and of the Sun Alliance insurance company, commenced a libel action over allegations of war crimes made by Tolstoy in a pamphlet distributed by Nigel Watts, a man in dispute with Sun Alliance on an insurance matter,[10] entitled "War Crimes and the Wardenship of Winchester College".[11] Although Tolstoy was not the initial target of the libel action, he insisted in joining Watts as defendant because, Tolstoy later wrote, Watts was not a historian and so would have been unable to defend himself.[12] Tolstoy lost and was ordered to pay £2 million to Lord Aldington (£1.5 million in damages and £0.5 million in costs). This sum was over three times any previous award for libel.[13]
According to the historian Bob Moore, although the repatriations did occur, Tolstoy's intention was to minimise the culpability of the Cossacks for having sided with the Nazis, and in doing so he had undertaken manipulation of the sources and made "outrageous claims" that were exposed during the trial.[14]
Tolstoy delayed payment by appealing to fifteen courts in Britain and Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the size of the penalty violated his right to freedom of expression.[15] Documents subsequently obtained from the Ministry of Defence suggested that, under Government instructions, files that could have had a bearing on the defence case might have been withdrawn from the Public Record Office and retained by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office throughout the run-up to the trial and the trial itself.[16]
Tolstoy sought to appeal on the basis of new evidence which he claimed proved Aldington had perjured himself over the date of his departure from Austria in May 1945. This was ruled inadmissible at a hearing in the High Courts of Justice, from which the press and public were barred, and his application for an appeal was rejected.[17]
In July 1995 the European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously that the British government had violated Tolstoy's rights in respect of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. It ordered the government to pay Tolstoy compensation of 40,000 Swiss francs and £70,000.[18] This decision referred only to the amount of the damages for libel awarded against him and did not overturn the verdict of the libel action. The Times commented:
"In its judgment yesterday in the case of Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in important respects, finding that the award of £1.5 million levelled against the Count by a jury in 1989 amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. Parliament will find the implications of this decision difficult to ignore."[19]
Tolstoy refused to pay any libel damages while Lord Aldington was alive. It was not until 9 December 2000, two days after Aldington's death, that Tolstoy, under court order, was forced to pay £57,000 to Aldington's estate.[20]
A committed monarchist, Tolstoy is Chancellor of the International Monarchist League. In 1978 he was guest-of-honour at the Eldon League (founded by Neil Hamilton while a student at Cambridge), and appeared to respond to the Russian Tsarist toast "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism" (also a motto of the League).[21] He was also chairman of the London-based Russian Monarchist League, and chaired their annual dinner on 6 March 1986, when the guest-of-honour was the MP John Biggs-Davison. He was also in the chair for their Summer Dinner on 4 June 1987, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall.
Tolstoy was a founding committee member (January 1989) of the now established War and Peace Ball, held annually in London, which raises funds for White Russian charities.[22] A member of the Royal Stuart Society since 1954, he is presently one of the vice-presidents.[23]
In October 1987 he was presented with the International Freedom Award by the United States Industrial Council Educational Foundation: "for his courageous search for the truth about the victims of totalitarianism and deceit."[3] In October 1991, Tolstoy joined a Conservative Monday Club delegation,[24] under the auspices of the club's Foreign Affairs Committee, and travelled to observe the war between Serbia and Croatia, the first British political delegation to observe that conflict.
The Conservative MPs Andrew Hunter, and Roger Knapman, then a junior minister in the Conservative government (and from 2002 to 2006 leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party), were also part of the delegation which, after going to the front lines in the Sisak region, was entertained by President Franjo Tuđman and the Croatian government in Zagreb.
On 13 October the group held a Press Conference at the Hotel Intercontinental in Zagreb, which apart from the media, was also attended by delegates from the French government. A report on the conflict was agreed and handed in to 10 Downing Street by Andrew Hunter.[citation needed]
Tolstoy has stood unsuccessfully for the Eurosceptic and populist United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) as a parliamentary candidate in four British general elections, having first been asked by UKIP founder Alan Sked in November 1996.[25] Tolstoy was subsequently UKIP's candidate for the Barnsley East by-election in 1996; where he received 2.1% of the vote,[26] and for Wantage in the 1997 (0.8%),[27] 2001 (1.9%)[27] and 2005 general elections (1.5%).[27] Tolstoy stood for UKIP in Witney at the 2010 general election – against David Cameron – and received 3.5% of the vote.[28]
In 2024 Tolstoy accepted Patronage of the Peel Club, a private member's group in Pall Mall, London.[29]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy ... ationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Europeanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
"
The main drivers of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state,[7][8] that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency,[7][8] that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful,[7][9][10] that it encourages high levels of immigration,[7] or perceptions that it is a neoliberal organisation serving the big business elite at the expense of the working class,[11] that it is responsible for austerity,[7] and drives privatization.[12]
Euroscepticism is found in groups across the political spectrum, both left-wing and right-wing, and is often found in populist parties.[13][7] Although they criticise the EU for many of the same reasons, Eurosceptic left-wing populists focus more on economic issues, such as the Euro area crisis and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,[12][14][15][16] while Eurosceptic right-wing populists focus more on nationalism and immigration, such as the 2015 European migrant crisis.[17] The rise in radical-right parties since the 2000s is strongly linked to a rise in Euroscepticism.[18]
Eurobarometer surveys of EU citizens show that trust in the EU and its institutions declined strongly from 2007 to 2015.[19] In that period, it was consistently below 50%.[20] A 2009 survey showed that support for EU membership was lowest in the United Kingdom (UK), Latvia, and Hungary.[21] By 2016, the countries viewing the EU most unfavourably were the UK, Greece, France, and Spain.[22] The 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum resulted in a 51.9% vote in favour of leaving the EU (Brexit), a decision that came into effect on 31 January 2020.
Since 2015, trust in the EU has risen in most EU countries as a result of falling unemployment rates and the end of the migrant crisis.[23] A post-2019 election Eurobarometer survey showed that 68% of citizens support the EU, the highest level since 1983; however, sentiment that things are not going in the right direction in the EU had increased to 50%.[24] Trust in the EU had increased significantly at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic with levels varying across member states.[25][26]
In March 2025, support for the European Union reached an all-time high among citizens of EU members states.[27] A Eurobarometer poll conducted in January and February found that 74% of EU citizens believe their country’s membership in the bloc is beneficial, the highest level recorded since the question was first introduced in 1983.[28] The decline in Euroscepticism has been attributed to growing security concerns amid ongoing geopolitical instability, including the continuation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and renewed transatlantic tensions under Donald Trump, who has been critical of NATO and the European Union.[27][29]
"
"
The main reasons for Euroscepticism include beliefs that:
integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state;[7][8]
the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency;[7][8]
the EU is too bureaucratic and wasteful;[7][9][10]
it encourages high levels of immigration;[7]
it is a neoliberal organisation serving the big business elite at the expense of the working class;[11]
the EU is responsible for austerity;[7]
the EU is responsible for driving privatization.[12]
"
https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... ureaucrats
"
u/Wise_Picture_4552 avatar
Wise_Picture_4552
•
2y ago
MEPs dont vote for the EU president thought. Thats the point.
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president.
It is not democratic.
American system based on electoral college votes the president based on the mandate the people voted for (eg. if the election result for a state shows the people voted for Biden then the electoral delegates vote for Biden, they never go rogue and vote for a banker or oil company executive who was never voted for by any citizen)
1
u/Bunny_Stats avatar
Bunny_Stats
•
2y ago
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president. It is not democratic.
First, the European Council is formed of delegates picked by the democratically elected governments in each country, and they only get to nominate an EU President, they then require a require a majority of the democratically elected MEPs to vote for them.
In every instance you bring up, when you follow the chain you find a democratically elected person making the decision, so you're talking absolute nonsense with claiming it isn't democratic. If you want to say it'd be a better system if the EU President was directly elected, then sure, that's a valid argument, but this whole "it's not democratic" is categorically bullshit, so I'm done pretending you have anything valid to say.
2
1
u/Bunny_Stats avatar
Bunny_Stats
•
2y ago
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president. It is not democratic.
First, the European Council is formed of delegates picked by the democratically elected governments in each country, and they only get to nominate an EU President, they then require a require a majority of the democratically elected MEPs to vote for them.
In every instance you bring up, when you follow the chain you find a democratically elected person making the decision, so you're talking absolute nonsense with claiming it isn't democratic. If you want to say it'd be a better system if the EU President was directly elected, then sure, that's a valid argument, but this whole "it's not democratic" is categorically bullshit, so I'm done pretending you have anything valid to say.
2
"
Constant argumentativeness online.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopi ... back-hard/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuky%C5%AB-ha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_Reform
"
Initiated by the Guangxu Emperor, it was led by reform-minded scholars, including Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao. Over a period of roughly 100 days, the Guangxu Emperor enacted a series of imperial edicts with various goals in mind. These mandates aimed to restructure government organization, reform the civil service examination system, modernize the army, promote industrial and education progress, and adopt elements of constitutional governance.[1]
Some of these measures were implemented, such as the establishment of the Imperial University of Peking (now Peking University). However, most faced resistance from conservative factions. While Empress Dowager Cixi[2] supported principles of the reform, she feared that sudden implementation, without bureaucratic support, would be disruptive and that the Japanese and other foreign powers would take advantage of any weakness.[3] Thus, on September 21, 1898, Empress Dowager Cixi with her allies staged a coup d’état, forcing the emperor under house arrest and further executing six of the leading reformers. She later backed the late Qing reforms after the invasions of the Eight-Nation Alliance.
On September 21 (August 6) at dawn, Empress Dowager Cixi took control of state affairs, declared martial law, halted railway traffic, placed the emperor under house arrest in Hanyuan Hall, abolished the reform decrees, and ordered the arrest of reformers. She then issued an edict in the emperor’s name, declaring that the emperor, unable to cope with burdensome government affairs, had requested Cixi to resume the regency.
Imperial Edict, August 6, Guangxu 24 (1898):
The Empire is being beset with grave difficulties, and manifold affairs require diligent attention. I (The Emperor) have labored unceasingly day and night, attending to the myriad duties of state with utmost caution and devotion. Yet, despite my vigilance, I am still often troubled by the excessive burdens.
Recollecting that since the Tongzhi (the former emperor) reign, the Empress Dowager Cixi twice assumed the regency and administered the government, guiding the realm through critical times with perfection and without fault. Considering the supreme importance of the ancestral dynasty, I have repeatedly and earnestly implored the Dowager to resume the direction of affairs. Graciously, She has condescended to accede to my request. This is indeed the great fortune of all subjects nationwide.
From this day forth, state business shall be conducted in the side hall under the Dowager’s direction. On the 8th day of this (lunar) month, I shall lead the princes and ministers to the Qinzheng Hall to perform the prescribed rites. All relevant offices are hereby ordered to prepare reverently and with due propriety. Respect this.
That day, the Commander of the Metropolitan Guards surrounded the South Seas Guildhall to arrest Kang Youwei, but did not find him; instead they captured his brother Kang Guangren and disciples Cheng Dazhang and Qian Weiji. Later they searched the residence of Guangdong official Zhang Yinhuan, arrested him but did not find Kang.
On September 24 (August 9), Imperial Commissioner Gangyi began arresting reformers. Yang Rui and Lin Xu were seized that day, while Liu Guangdi surrendered himself. Yang Shenxiu, after questioning Cixi about deposing the emperor, was arrested at the Wenxi Guildhall.
On September 25 (August 10), Tan Sitong was captured at the Liuyang Guildhall. On the same day, Cixi issued another edict in the emperor’s name claiming that Guangxu was ill, laying the groundwork for both the regency and plans to depose him, while summoning doctors to the palace.
Imperial Edict to the Grand Council:
Since the fourth month of this year, I (The Emperor) have repeatedly suffered indisposition. Despite prolonged treatment, little improvement has been seen. If there are men of proven skill in medicine, whether within or outside the capital, officials are to recommend them sincerely for my treatment. Those residing in the provinces are to be dispatched immediately to the capital, without the slightest delay. Respect this.
This aroused the concern of Britain, Japan, and other powers, who questioned the truth of the emperor’s illness and suspected danger to his life. They demanded access to treat him. Afterwards, a French legation doctor examined Guangxu and publicly concluded that his ailments stemmed from weakness, exposing Cixi’s fabrication.
On September 28 (August 13), the court issued an edict condemning six reform leaders—Tan Sitong, Yang Rui, Lin Xu, Liu Guangdi, Yang Shenxiu, and Kang Guangren—to immediate execution without trial. They were executed by beheading the same day and became known as the "Six Gentlemen" of the Reform. As ordered, Gangyi supervised the execution.
Imperial Edict, August 13, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Kang Youwei, harboring treacherous designs, has gathered factions and formed unlawful associations. His crimes are most heinous and admit of no pardon. Kang Guangren, Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi have conspired together, assisting one another in their wickedness; their guilt is manifest and cannot be excused.
Except for Zhang Yinhuan, who is not of Kang’s faction and shall be held in custody awaiting further disposition, and Xu Zhijing, who shall remain under guard pending interrogation, all the aforementioned six—Kang Guangren, Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi—are hereby sentenced to immediate execution. Gangyi is commanded to supervise the execution, and the Metropolitan Commandant Chongli is ordered to deploy sufficient troops to maintain order.
Let this decree be known and obeyed. Respect this.
Earlier that day, court official Yi Gu submitted a memorial urging immediate punishment of the reformers, which scholars believe triggered the execution of the Six Gentlemen.
Memorial by Yi Gu, Assistant Director of the Imperial Academy, August 13, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Since the rebel Kang Youwei and his followers rely on foreign support, the law must act swiftly lest leniency embolden them. It is most urgent that sentence be rendered without delay, thereby upholding the majesty of the law and forestalling foreign interference. Prolonged deliberation would only provide opportunity for external powers to intercede, leaving the law powerless and the state dishonored. I therefore most earnestly implore a prompt and resolute judgment, so that the conspiracy may be extinguished and discipline restored.
On September 29 (August 14), an edict was issued under the emperor’s name explaining the crackdown, alleging that reformers plotted to seize the Summer Palace and kidnap Cixi and the emperor. It justified executing the six without trial to avoid wider implication.
Imperial Edict, August 14, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Recently, the Court has sought diligently to strengthen the state and to pursue reform, all for the preservation of the dynasty and the welfare of the people. Day and night I (The Emperor) have been anxious and vigilant. Unexpectedly, the junior official Kang Youwei has propagated pernicious doctrines, deceiving the populace and gathering a faction of disloyal followers. Under the pretext of reform, they have harbored rebellious intent.
It has even come to pass that these conspirators plotted to surround the Summer Palace and to seize and coerce the Empress Dowager and myself. Fortunately, the plot was uncovered and foiled. Furthermore, they established the so-called “Protect the Nation Society,” declaring loyalty to China but not to the Dynasty, a doctrine most disloyal and outrageous.
Kang Youwei, the principal instigator, is at large. All governors-general and governors are commanded to pursue him with utmost rigor. Liang Qichao, his accomplice, is likewise to be apprehended and punished. His brother Kang Guangren, with Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi, conspired in these seditious designs. Their crimes are grave beyond pardon. After full consideration, I decreed yesterday that these six be executed forthwith, lest delay bring untoward consequences and wider implication.
This affair being of extraordinary seriousness, it is necessary to proclaim to the realm. Kang Youwei’s guilt is boundless and he shall not escape retribution. Those who were misled into temporary complicity shall not be pursued further, to manifest my clemency. Henceforth, all officials must take warning from this case, uphold orthodoxy, and assist in overcoming the crisis.
All measures of self-strengthening that benefit the people and the state must not be abandoned. Those already enacted shall be firmly carried out; those not yet begun shall be progressively advanced. Upon this I place my high expectations. Respect this.
The coup ended the "Hundred Days’ Reform" after only 103 days. All new policies were repealed except the founding of Peking University. The immediate cause was linked to the so-called "secret edict" affair attributed to Kang Youwei. With her legitimacy questioned, Cixi soon sought to depose the emperor and install a new heir in the "Ji-hai succession" of 1899.
Among the reformers, Kang Youwei had already fled, Liang Qichao escaped into the Japanese legation, while dozens were arrested. In addition to the Six Gentlemen executed in Beijing, Xu Zhijing was sentenced to life imprisonment (released after the Boxer Rebellion), and Zhang Yinhuan was exiled to Xinjiang, where he was executed in 1900.
Historians note that Cixi had intelligence on the reformers’ plans even while at the Summer Palace. The key informant who betrayed the emperor’s faction was most likely Yang Chongyi, whereas Yuan Shikai merely acted to protect himself, not as the decisive betrayer.
Scholar Yun Yuding in his Records of the Chongling analyzed the coup as follows—
After the loss of Liaodong in the Sino-Japanese War, the emperor, indignant at foreign aggression, sought to reform governance to make the nation strong. Yet senior ministers were cowardly and incompetent. Kang Youwei, having memorialized the throne repeatedly, was known to the emperor. In April 1898, after officials Zhang Baixi and Xu Zhijing recommended him, Kang was summoned and spoke of Japan’s reforms, delighting the emperor. … He promoted reformers Tan Sitong, Yang Rui, Liu Guangdi, and Lin Xu as "the Four Talents," but rumors spread. Censors Yang Chongyi and Pang Hongshu secretly memorialized Prince Qing, requesting Cixi to resume power. On August 4, the emperor visited the palace gates to pay respects, but Cixi had already entered Beijing by a side gate. She seized memorials, confronted the emperor, and declared him unfit. She announced she would govern again due to his illness, reversing all reforms.
The executions of Tan, Yang, Liu, Lin, and Kang Guangren were hastened by censor Huang Guijin, who memorialized that their crimes were evident and needed no trial, allegedly to prevent the emperor’s involvement being exposed. Thereafter officials feared reform like a tiger and avoided it.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Dowager_Cixi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sheikh_Hasina
"
His judgement ruled:[53]
[Hasina's conduct] demonstrates a persistent corruption mindset rooted in entitlement, unchecked power, and a greedy eye for public property. Treating public land as a private asset, she directed her greedy eye toward state resources and manipulated official procedures to benefit herself and her close relatives.
Hasina criticized the interim government of Muhammed Yunus by saying Hindus were allegedly being attacked, as well as criticizing alleged judicial impartiality. She issued a statement that read:[71] "They are biased and politically motivated. In their distasteful call for the death penalty, they reveal the brazen and murderous intent of extremist figures within the interim government to remove Bangladesh's last elected prime minister, and to nullify the Awami League as a political force." Her Awami League called for a countrywide shutdown that day.[72]
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Salahuddin Ahmed spoke from DU and said that the punishment was "less than the gravity of the crimes" and that the "judgment proves that no matter how powerful a fascist or autocrat becomes, they will one day have to stand in the dock," while calling for other related cases to also result in such judgments."[5]
"
She is a Hindutva plant.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/3 ... ional-vote
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crybully
Added in 10 hours 18 minutes 14 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samnite_Wars
The winners are almost always glorified but are also usually not preferable, from my assessment at least.
I almost always, if not always, associate myself and link much more to the groups that supposedly end up facing against the ones which seem to get the most press.
Added in 7 minutes 25 seconds:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... us.tif.jpg
There was a political edge to the attacks on Macmillan, who represented the left-wing of the Conservative Party, the so-called "one nation conservatism".[43] The "one nation conservatives" such as Macmillan were often disparaged as the "wets" by the so-called "drys" who represented the right-wing of the Conservative Party. In November 1984, Macmillan gave a much publicized speech in which he called the privatization plans of the Thatcher government “selling off the family silver”, which made him into a hate figure for the "dry" Conservatives.[43] Additionally, many people on the right-wing of the Conservative Party were passionately opposed to British membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) as the European Union (EU) was then called. Through Britain did not join the EEC until 1973, it was Macmillan who as a prime minister first applied to have Britain join the EEC in July 1961, which was ended in January 1963 when President de Gaulle of France vetoed the British application. For many people on the British right, Macmillan is viewed as something alike to a traitor because of the 1961 application to join the EEC. In 1986, the Federation of Conservative Students in their magazine published a cover story with a photo of Macmillan from 1945 with the question "Guilty of War Crimes?"[48] The question was rhetorical as the article accepted Tolstoy's charges against Macmillan and sought to link his "one nation conservatism" with a policy of weakness towards the Soviet Union.”[48]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tolstoy
"
Tolstoy has written of the forced repatriation of Soviet citizens and others during and after the Second World War. As a result, he was called by the defence as an expert witness at the 1986–88 trial of John Demjanjuk in Iz. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph (21 April 1988), Tolstoy said the trial and the court's procedures struck "at the most vital principles of natural justice". He condemned the use of especially bussed-in audiences, who were repeatedly permitted by Judge Levin, the judge of the trial, to boo and hiss at appropriate moments. He called Levin's conduct "an appalling travesty of every principle of equity", and said that it was "a show trial in every sense of the word", even being conducted in a theatre.[9]
In 1989 Lord Aldington, previously a British officer (chief-of-staff to General Charles Keightley), and a former chairman of the Conservative Party and of the Sun Alliance insurance company, commenced a libel action over allegations of war crimes made by Tolstoy in a pamphlet distributed by Nigel Watts, a man in dispute with Sun Alliance on an insurance matter,[10] entitled "War Crimes and the Wardenship of Winchester College".[11] Although Tolstoy was not the initial target of the libel action, he insisted in joining Watts as defendant because, Tolstoy later wrote, Watts was not a historian and so would have been unable to defend himself.[12] Tolstoy lost and was ordered to pay £2 million to Lord Aldington (£1.5 million in damages and £0.5 million in costs). This sum was over three times any previous award for libel.[13]
According to the historian Bob Moore, although the repatriations did occur, Tolstoy's intention was to minimise the culpability of the Cossacks for having sided with the Nazis, and in doing so he had undertaken manipulation of the sources and made "outrageous claims" that were exposed during the trial.[14]
Tolstoy delayed payment by appealing to fifteen courts in Britain and Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the size of the penalty violated his right to freedom of expression.[15] Documents subsequently obtained from the Ministry of Defence suggested that, under Government instructions, files that could have had a bearing on the defence case might have been withdrawn from the Public Record Office and retained by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office throughout the run-up to the trial and the trial itself.[16]
Tolstoy sought to appeal on the basis of new evidence which he claimed proved Aldington had perjured himself over the date of his departure from Austria in May 1945. This was ruled inadmissible at a hearing in the High Courts of Justice, from which the press and public were barred, and his application for an appeal was rejected.[17]
In July 1995 the European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously that the British government had violated Tolstoy's rights in respect of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. It ordered the government to pay Tolstoy compensation of 40,000 Swiss francs and £70,000.[18] This decision referred only to the amount of the damages for libel awarded against him and did not overturn the verdict of the libel action. The Times commented:
"In its judgment yesterday in the case of Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in important respects, finding that the award of £1.5 million levelled against the Count by a jury in 1989 amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. Parliament will find the implications of this decision difficult to ignore."[19]
Tolstoy refused to pay any libel damages while Lord Aldington was alive. It was not until 9 December 2000, two days after Aldington's death, that Tolstoy, under court order, was forced to pay £57,000 to Aldington's estate.[20]
A committed monarchist, Tolstoy is Chancellor of the International Monarchist League. In 1978 he was guest-of-honour at the Eldon League (founded by Neil Hamilton while a student at Cambridge), and appeared to respond to the Russian Tsarist toast "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism" (also a motto of the League).[21] He was also chairman of the London-based Russian Monarchist League, and chaired their annual dinner on 6 March 1986, when the guest-of-honour was the MP John Biggs-Davison. He was also in the chair for their Summer Dinner on 4 June 1987, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall.
Tolstoy was a founding committee member (January 1989) of the now established War and Peace Ball, held annually in London, which raises funds for White Russian charities.[22] A member of the Royal Stuart Society since 1954, he is presently one of the vice-presidents.[23]
In October 1987 he was presented with the International Freedom Award by the United States Industrial Council Educational Foundation: "for his courageous search for the truth about the victims of totalitarianism and deceit."[3] In October 1991, Tolstoy joined a Conservative Monday Club delegation,[24] under the auspices of the club's Foreign Affairs Committee, and travelled to observe the war between Serbia and Croatia, the first British political delegation to observe that conflict.
The Conservative MPs Andrew Hunter, and Roger Knapman, then a junior minister in the Conservative government (and from 2002 to 2006 leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party), were also part of the delegation which, after going to the front lines in the Sisak region, was entertained by President Franjo Tuđman and the Croatian government in Zagreb.
On 13 October the group held a Press Conference at the Hotel Intercontinental in Zagreb, which apart from the media, was also attended by delegates from the French government. A report on the conflict was agreed and handed in to 10 Downing Street by Andrew Hunter.[citation needed]
Tolstoy has stood unsuccessfully for the Eurosceptic and populist United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) as a parliamentary candidate in four British general elections, having first been asked by UKIP founder Alan Sked in November 1996.[25] Tolstoy was subsequently UKIP's candidate for the Barnsley East by-election in 1996; where he received 2.1% of the vote,[26] and for Wantage in the 1997 (0.8%),[27] 2001 (1.9%)[27] and 2005 general elections (1.5%).[27] Tolstoy stood for UKIP in Witney at the 2010 general election – against David Cameron – and received 3.5% of the vote.[28]
In 2024 Tolstoy accepted Patronage of the Peel Club, a private member's group in Pall Mall, London.[29]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy ... ationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Europeanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
"
The main drivers of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state,[7][8] that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency,[7][8] that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful,[7][9][10] that it encourages high levels of immigration,[7] or perceptions that it is a neoliberal organisation serving the big business elite at the expense of the working class,[11] that it is responsible for austerity,[7] and drives privatization.[12]
Euroscepticism is found in groups across the political spectrum, both left-wing and right-wing, and is often found in populist parties.[13][7] Although they criticise the EU for many of the same reasons, Eurosceptic left-wing populists focus more on economic issues, such as the Euro area crisis and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,[12][14][15][16] while Eurosceptic right-wing populists focus more on nationalism and immigration, such as the 2015 European migrant crisis.[17] The rise in radical-right parties since the 2000s is strongly linked to a rise in Euroscepticism.[18]
Eurobarometer surveys of EU citizens show that trust in the EU and its institutions declined strongly from 2007 to 2015.[19] In that period, it was consistently below 50%.[20] A 2009 survey showed that support for EU membership was lowest in the United Kingdom (UK), Latvia, and Hungary.[21] By 2016, the countries viewing the EU most unfavourably were the UK, Greece, France, and Spain.[22] The 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum resulted in a 51.9% vote in favour of leaving the EU (Brexit), a decision that came into effect on 31 January 2020.
Since 2015, trust in the EU has risen in most EU countries as a result of falling unemployment rates and the end of the migrant crisis.[23] A post-2019 election Eurobarometer survey showed that 68% of citizens support the EU, the highest level since 1983; however, sentiment that things are not going in the right direction in the EU had increased to 50%.[24] Trust in the EU had increased significantly at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic with levels varying across member states.[25][26]
In March 2025, support for the European Union reached an all-time high among citizens of EU members states.[27] A Eurobarometer poll conducted in January and February found that 74% of EU citizens believe their country’s membership in the bloc is beneficial, the highest level recorded since the question was first introduced in 1983.[28] The decline in Euroscepticism has been attributed to growing security concerns amid ongoing geopolitical instability, including the continuation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and renewed transatlantic tensions under Donald Trump, who has been critical of NATO and the European Union.[27][29]
"
"
The main reasons for Euroscepticism include beliefs that:
integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state;[7][8]
the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency;[7][8]
the EU is too bureaucratic and wasteful;[7][9][10]
it encourages high levels of immigration;[7]
it is a neoliberal organisation serving the big business elite at the expense of the working class;[11]
the EU is responsible for austerity;[7]
the EU is responsible for driving privatization.[12]
"
https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... ureaucrats
"
u/Wise_Picture_4552 avatar
Wise_Picture_4552
•
2y ago
MEPs dont vote for the EU president thought. Thats the point.
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president.
It is not democratic.
American system based on electoral college votes the president based on the mandate the people voted for (eg. if the election result for a state shows the people voted for Biden then the electoral delegates vote for Biden, they never go rogue and vote for a banker or oil company executive who was never voted for by any citizen)
1
u/Bunny_Stats avatar
Bunny_Stats
•
2y ago
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president. It is not democratic.
First, the European Council is formed of delegates picked by the democratically elected governments in each country, and they only get to nominate an EU President, they then require a require a majority of the democratically elected MEPs to vote for them.
In every instance you bring up, when you follow the chain you find a democratically elected person making the decision, so you're talking absolute nonsense with claiming it isn't democratic. If you want to say it'd be a better system if the EU President was directly elected, then sure, that's a valid argument, but this whole "it's not democratic" is categorically bullshit, so I'm done pretending you have anything valid to say.
2
1
u/Bunny_Stats avatar
Bunny_Stats
•
2y ago
The EU president gets appointed by the european council (not the european parliament) and the the councilors (EC) which hold executive power, budget control and writes laws gets hired by the EU president. It is not democratic.
First, the European Council is formed of delegates picked by the democratically elected governments in each country, and they only get to nominate an EU President, they then require a require a majority of the democratically elected MEPs to vote for them.
In every instance you bring up, when you follow the chain you find a democratically elected person making the decision, so you're talking absolute nonsense with claiming it isn't democratic. If you want to say it'd be a better system if the EU President was directly elected, then sure, that's a valid argument, but this whole "it's not democratic" is categorically bullshit, so I'm done pretending you have anything valid to say.
2
"
Constant argumentativeness online.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopi ... back-hard/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuky%C5%AB-ha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_Reform
"
Initiated by the Guangxu Emperor, it was led by reform-minded scholars, including Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao. Over a period of roughly 100 days, the Guangxu Emperor enacted a series of imperial edicts with various goals in mind. These mandates aimed to restructure government organization, reform the civil service examination system, modernize the army, promote industrial and education progress, and adopt elements of constitutional governance.[1]
Some of these measures were implemented, such as the establishment of the Imperial University of Peking (now Peking University). However, most faced resistance from conservative factions. While Empress Dowager Cixi[2] supported principles of the reform, she feared that sudden implementation, without bureaucratic support, would be disruptive and that the Japanese and other foreign powers would take advantage of any weakness.[3] Thus, on September 21, 1898, Empress Dowager Cixi with her allies staged a coup d’état, forcing the emperor under house arrest and further executing six of the leading reformers. She later backed the late Qing reforms after the invasions of the Eight-Nation Alliance.
On September 21 (August 6) at dawn, Empress Dowager Cixi took control of state affairs, declared martial law, halted railway traffic, placed the emperor under house arrest in Hanyuan Hall, abolished the reform decrees, and ordered the arrest of reformers. She then issued an edict in the emperor’s name, declaring that the emperor, unable to cope with burdensome government affairs, had requested Cixi to resume the regency.
Imperial Edict, August 6, Guangxu 24 (1898):
The Empire is being beset with grave difficulties, and manifold affairs require diligent attention. I (The Emperor) have labored unceasingly day and night, attending to the myriad duties of state with utmost caution and devotion. Yet, despite my vigilance, I am still often troubled by the excessive burdens.
Recollecting that since the Tongzhi (the former emperor) reign, the Empress Dowager Cixi twice assumed the regency and administered the government, guiding the realm through critical times with perfection and without fault. Considering the supreme importance of the ancestral dynasty, I have repeatedly and earnestly implored the Dowager to resume the direction of affairs. Graciously, She has condescended to accede to my request. This is indeed the great fortune of all subjects nationwide.
From this day forth, state business shall be conducted in the side hall under the Dowager’s direction. On the 8th day of this (lunar) month, I shall lead the princes and ministers to the Qinzheng Hall to perform the prescribed rites. All relevant offices are hereby ordered to prepare reverently and with due propriety. Respect this.
That day, the Commander of the Metropolitan Guards surrounded the South Seas Guildhall to arrest Kang Youwei, but did not find him; instead they captured his brother Kang Guangren and disciples Cheng Dazhang and Qian Weiji. Later they searched the residence of Guangdong official Zhang Yinhuan, arrested him but did not find Kang.
On September 24 (August 9), Imperial Commissioner Gangyi began arresting reformers. Yang Rui and Lin Xu were seized that day, while Liu Guangdi surrendered himself. Yang Shenxiu, after questioning Cixi about deposing the emperor, was arrested at the Wenxi Guildhall.
On September 25 (August 10), Tan Sitong was captured at the Liuyang Guildhall. On the same day, Cixi issued another edict in the emperor’s name claiming that Guangxu was ill, laying the groundwork for both the regency and plans to depose him, while summoning doctors to the palace.
Imperial Edict to the Grand Council:
Since the fourth month of this year, I (The Emperor) have repeatedly suffered indisposition. Despite prolonged treatment, little improvement has been seen. If there are men of proven skill in medicine, whether within or outside the capital, officials are to recommend them sincerely for my treatment. Those residing in the provinces are to be dispatched immediately to the capital, without the slightest delay. Respect this.
This aroused the concern of Britain, Japan, and other powers, who questioned the truth of the emperor’s illness and suspected danger to his life. They demanded access to treat him. Afterwards, a French legation doctor examined Guangxu and publicly concluded that his ailments stemmed from weakness, exposing Cixi’s fabrication.
On September 28 (August 13), the court issued an edict condemning six reform leaders—Tan Sitong, Yang Rui, Lin Xu, Liu Guangdi, Yang Shenxiu, and Kang Guangren—to immediate execution without trial. They were executed by beheading the same day and became known as the "Six Gentlemen" of the Reform. As ordered, Gangyi supervised the execution.
Imperial Edict, August 13, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Kang Youwei, harboring treacherous designs, has gathered factions and formed unlawful associations. His crimes are most heinous and admit of no pardon. Kang Guangren, Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi have conspired together, assisting one another in their wickedness; their guilt is manifest and cannot be excused.
Except for Zhang Yinhuan, who is not of Kang’s faction and shall be held in custody awaiting further disposition, and Xu Zhijing, who shall remain under guard pending interrogation, all the aforementioned six—Kang Guangren, Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi—are hereby sentenced to immediate execution. Gangyi is commanded to supervise the execution, and the Metropolitan Commandant Chongli is ordered to deploy sufficient troops to maintain order.
Let this decree be known and obeyed. Respect this.
Earlier that day, court official Yi Gu submitted a memorial urging immediate punishment of the reformers, which scholars believe triggered the execution of the Six Gentlemen.
Memorial by Yi Gu, Assistant Director of the Imperial Academy, August 13, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Since the rebel Kang Youwei and his followers rely on foreign support, the law must act swiftly lest leniency embolden them. It is most urgent that sentence be rendered without delay, thereby upholding the majesty of the law and forestalling foreign interference. Prolonged deliberation would only provide opportunity for external powers to intercede, leaving the law powerless and the state dishonored. I therefore most earnestly implore a prompt and resolute judgment, so that the conspiracy may be extinguished and discipline restored.
On September 29 (August 14), an edict was issued under the emperor’s name explaining the crackdown, alleging that reformers plotted to seize the Summer Palace and kidnap Cixi and the emperor. It justified executing the six without trial to avoid wider implication.
Imperial Edict, August 14, Guangxu 24 (1898):
Recently, the Court has sought diligently to strengthen the state and to pursue reform, all for the preservation of the dynasty and the welfare of the people. Day and night I (The Emperor) have been anxious and vigilant. Unexpectedly, the junior official Kang Youwei has propagated pernicious doctrines, deceiving the populace and gathering a faction of disloyal followers. Under the pretext of reform, they have harbored rebellious intent.
It has even come to pass that these conspirators plotted to surround the Summer Palace and to seize and coerce the Empress Dowager and myself. Fortunately, the plot was uncovered and foiled. Furthermore, they established the so-called “Protect the Nation Society,” declaring loyalty to China but not to the Dynasty, a doctrine most disloyal and outrageous.
Kang Youwei, the principal instigator, is at large. All governors-general and governors are commanded to pursue him with utmost rigor. Liang Qichao, his accomplice, is likewise to be apprehended and punished. His brother Kang Guangren, with Yang Shenxiu, Tan Sitong, Lin Xu, Yang Rui, and Liu Guangdi, conspired in these seditious designs. Their crimes are grave beyond pardon. After full consideration, I decreed yesterday that these six be executed forthwith, lest delay bring untoward consequences and wider implication.
This affair being of extraordinary seriousness, it is necessary to proclaim to the realm. Kang Youwei’s guilt is boundless and he shall not escape retribution. Those who were misled into temporary complicity shall not be pursued further, to manifest my clemency. Henceforth, all officials must take warning from this case, uphold orthodoxy, and assist in overcoming the crisis.
All measures of self-strengthening that benefit the people and the state must not be abandoned. Those already enacted shall be firmly carried out; those not yet begun shall be progressively advanced. Upon this I place my high expectations. Respect this.
The coup ended the "Hundred Days’ Reform" after only 103 days. All new policies were repealed except the founding of Peking University. The immediate cause was linked to the so-called "secret edict" affair attributed to Kang Youwei. With her legitimacy questioned, Cixi soon sought to depose the emperor and install a new heir in the "Ji-hai succession" of 1899.
Among the reformers, Kang Youwei had already fled, Liang Qichao escaped into the Japanese legation, while dozens were arrested. In addition to the Six Gentlemen executed in Beijing, Xu Zhijing was sentenced to life imprisonment (released after the Boxer Rebellion), and Zhang Yinhuan was exiled to Xinjiang, where he was executed in 1900.
Historians note that Cixi had intelligence on the reformers’ plans even while at the Summer Palace. The key informant who betrayed the emperor’s faction was most likely Yang Chongyi, whereas Yuan Shikai merely acted to protect himself, not as the decisive betrayer.
Scholar Yun Yuding in his Records of the Chongling analyzed the coup as follows—
After the loss of Liaodong in the Sino-Japanese War, the emperor, indignant at foreign aggression, sought to reform governance to make the nation strong. Yet senior ministers were cowardly and incompetent. Kang Youwei, having memorialized the throne repeatedly, was known to the emperor. In April 1898, after officials Zhang Baixi and Xu Zhijing recommended him, Kang was summoned and spoke of Japan’s reforms, delighting the emperor. … He promoted reformers Tan Sitong, Yang Rui, Liu Guangdi, and Lin Xu as "the Four Talents," but rumors spread. Censors Yang Chongyi and Pang Hongshu secretly memorialized Prince Qing, requesting Cixi to resume power. On August 4, the emperor visited the palace gates to pay respects, but Cixi had already entered Beijing by a side gate. She seized memorials, confronted the emperor, and declared him unfit. She announced she would govern again due to his illness, reversing all reforms.
The executions of Tan, Yang, Liu, Lin, and Kang Guangren were hastened by censor Huang Guijin, who memorialized that their crimes were evident and needed no trial, allegedly to prevent the emperor’s involvement being exposed. Thereafter officials feared reform like a tiger and avoided it.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Dowager_Cixi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sheikh_Hasina
"
His judgement ruled:[53]
[Hasina's conduct] demonstrates a persistent corruption mindset rooted in entitlement, unchecked power, and a greedy eye for public property. Treating public land as a private asset, she directed her greedy eye toward state resources and manipulated official procedures to benefit herself and her close relatives.
Hasina criticized the interim government of Muhammed Yunus by saying Hindus were allegedly being attacked, as well as criticizing alleged judicial impartiality. She issued a statement that read:[71] "They are biased and politically motivated. In their distasteful call for the death penalty, they reveal the brazen and murderous intent of extremist figures within the interim government to remove Bangladesh's last elected prime minister, and to nullify the Awami League as a political force." Her Awami League called for a countrywide shutdown that day.[72]
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Salahuddin Ahmed spoke from DU and said that the punishment was "less than the gravity of the crimes" and that the "judgment proves that no matter how powerful a fascist or autocrat becomes, they will one day have to stand in the dock," while calling for other related cases to also result in such judgments."[5]
"
She is a Hindutva plant.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/3 ... ional-vote
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crybully
Added in 10 hours 18 minutes 14 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samnite_Wars
The winners are almost always glorified but are also usually not preferable, from my assessment at least.
I almost always, if not always, associate myself and link much more to the groups that supposedly end up facing against the ones which seem to get the most press.
Added in 7 minutes 25 seconds:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... us.tif.jpg
