USSR Gulag Camp System
History needs to document and remember the infamous Marxist USSR Gulag camp system set up by the Liberal Communist-Marxist V.I. Lenin.
I found some great short films and a feature film being made now about it:
https://indiegogo.com/projects/gulag-barashevo
Clip of the film talking about how the Marxist USSR was against the Family.
https://vimeo.com/108938008
Very interesting. No wonder Marxist Hollywood won't touch the historical subject of the USSR Gulags.
It's been touched-on...
You mean an in-depth drama about one camp?
There's The Way Back, from 2010, with Colin Farrell and Ed Harris, escaping from a Siberian gulag. It's frontloaded with political overtones, then eases-into survivalist soliloquies.
And guys like Solzhenitsyn don't wanna 'sell out' to Hollywood for a quick buck. Their suffering has to have a meaning greater than themselves.
If it's not a documentary, you've gotta draw an audience in with a story.
It is still going on in Socialist Paradise of North Korea, ah Socialism is glorious. isn't it strange how liberals try to explain that socialism and communism is two different things when the name of the USSR was "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or that every communist party in the world identifies as socialist?
Drawings from escaped concentration camp survivors.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2013%2F12%2Fscan_a.jpg%3Fw%3D620&hash=d83397e9737f5ec9296e9ca714f07777b1da9abe)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeijingcream.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2FNorth-Korea-concentration-camp-drawing-3.jpeg&hash=d3c836e1e992767ee8ef0d6a1ce10ce213d1acd9)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fall-of-the-methods-of-torture-are-appalling-but-some-are-more-disturbing-than-others.png&hash=0db705a5441d5ce8f858866245330dd5c96669a6)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fformer-prisoners-say-conditions-are-so-bad-that-20-to-25-percent-of-the-prison-population-dies-every-year.jpg&hash=6926a59862a5ac54dfd1c5109b72d737fdf3a1b6)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fand-women-arent-afforded-any-leniency.jpg&hash=21442ad2291f46c127a774645269b17045d28de3)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fpregnancy-is-strictly-forbidden.png&hash=896a0ad2f9043652c3571d65c563e026ecacfc0f)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fthey-often-terrorize-and-torture-their-captives-sometimes-just-for-fun-according-to-escapees.png&hash=704c3a7d828571e3ea76e68ae44a8bc6e9abe0a6)
Probably one of the best histories of the Soviet Gulags is still Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. It's at once compelling and pathetic ... pathetic, because its more than 40 years old!
As for a compelling story, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich would be pretty suitable for Hollyweird, but for their generally Leftist-Marxist bias. Ad it's more than 50 years old.
China, NoKo, and Vietnam all have their "reeducation" camps, and there are survivors' stories in print. Hollyweird just doesn't want to "go there".
Quote from: SVPete on October 18, 2014, 11:11:53 AM
Probably one of the best histories of the Soviet Gulags is still Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. It's at once compelling and pathetic ... pathetic, because its more than 40 years old!
As for a compelling story, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich would be pretty suitable for Hollyweird, but for their generally Leftist-Marxist bias. Ad it's more than 50 years old.
China, NoKo, and Vietnam all have their "reeducation" camps, and there are survivors' stories in print. Hollyweird just doesn't want to "go there".
The sad part is, you, I and millions of people remember it like yesterday, but to libs it's ancient history, and that man has suddenly evolved beyond evil.
Quote from: kit saginaw on October 18, 2014, 01:45:54 AM
It's been touched-on...
You mean an in-depth drama about one camp?
There's The Way Back, from 2010, with Colin Farrell and Ed Harris, escaping from a Siberian gulag. It's frontloaded with political overtones, then eases-into survivalist soliloquies.
And guys like Solzhenitsyn don't wanna 'sell out' to Hollywood for a quick buck. Their suffering has to have a meaning greater than themselves.
If it's not a documentary, you've gotta draw an audience in with a story.
In the interview Colin Farrell made on the DVD, he said he never knew of the millions killed in the Communist genocide, that it was a shock to him. From what I've seen of that movie I linked to, it seems like a love story in there somewhere.
Quote from: SVPete on October 18, 2014, 11:11:53 AM
Probably one of the best histories of the Soviet Gulags is still Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. It's at once compelling and pathetic ... pathetic, because its more than 40 years old!
As for a compelling story, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich would be pretty suitable for Hollyweird, but for their generally Leftist-Marxist bias. Ad it's more than 50 years old.
China, NoKo, and Vietnam all have their "reeducation" camps, and there are survivors' stories in print. Hollyweird just doesn't want to "go there".
Good points.
After checking out Indiegogo site I found the other sites for the film.
I found these graphics on the film's website.
http://gulagbarashevomovie.com/ (http://gulagbarashevomovie.com/)
http://www.celtic-films.com/ (http://www.celtic-films.com/)
Evidently bringing the young generation back to life.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celtic-films.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FPROMOTIONAL-POSTER-NO-PRICE-2.jpg&hash=375289e8bb4da5e98a5e803de6598b4fa98c44b2)
Looks like a love story of sorts.
At least it will bring the horrors of Marxism to the next generation.
Quote from: Solar on October 18, 2014, 11:26:21 AM
The sad part is, you, I and millions of people remember it like yesterday, but to libs it's ancient history, and that man has suddenly evolved beyond evil.
Yes, Liberals want to think there is a Workers' Utopia and don't want to remember that the last time that occurred tens of millions of people were murdered in Gulag death camps.
http://gulagbarashevomovie.com/ (http://gulagbarashevomovie.com/)
Nobel Prize winner Solzhenitsyn is relegated to secondary status in Liberal media.
But word is spreading and they can't stop it now.
https://www.facebook.com/GulagBarashevo (https://www.facebook.com/GulagBarashevo)
In every communist country I have been in and I've been in a few, the absense of a belief in a God produces an alternative belief, whether that's leader hero worship, money or power - there is no atheism. It's no coincidence that the worst atrocities in the 20th century were perpetuated in regimes that denied the existence of God and every communist country bar none also includes a dictatorship.
People concentrate on the poverty and human rights abuses in these places, but the over riding feeling when entering a country with 'People's' or 'socialist' in its description title is a feeling of a country without a soul, a sort of emptiness or a vacuum that's difficult to describe.
Quote from: The Observer on October 26, 2014, 03:23:26 AM
In every communist country I have been in and I've been in a few, the absense of a belief in a God produces an alternative belief, whether that's leader hero worship, money or power - there is no atheism. It's no coincidence that the worst atrocities in the 20th century were perpetuated in regimes that denied the existence of God and every communist country bar none also includes a dictatorship.
People concentrate on the poverty and human rights abuses in these places, but the over riding feeling when entering a country with 'People's' or 'socialist' in its description title is a feeling of a country without a soul, a sort of emptiness or a vacuum that's difficult to describe.
Some very perceptive comments!
I've not traveled as you have, so I do not speak from experience. But just reading the histories of places like Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Mao's China (which I have, some) shows that at most totalitarian regimes and their LEADER at most pay lip service to some sort of god. Citizens' entire loyalty, to the the point of and into worship, must be given to the state and, in the cases of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, to the LEADER. With the deaths of those personality cult figures, their successors were not cult-figures, but the state still acted pretty much the same. Totalitarian regimes will not tolerate citizens having a loyalty that is higher/greater than - or even equal to - the state and of course, when/where applicable, the LEADER. Theistic religions (most religions are) direct believers' ultimate loyalty to their God. Most theistic and non-theistic religions (e.g. Buddhism, Falun Gong) also lead and teach adherents to a sense of self-worth and personal spiritual progress that is apart and at least potentially divergent from loyalty to the state and its ideology.
Christianity, being a world-wide international religion, has gotten much of the brunt of totalitarians' persecution. Islam also has, to some degree, in China and the USSR. Buddhism and Falun Gong are non-theistic, but are persecuted in varying degrees in China because their philosophy/teachings claim the loyalty of its adherents and can lead adherents to diverge from the state's ideologies.
Blech! What a messy post this is!
Quote from: SVPete on October 26, 2014, 06:39:24 AM
Some very perceptive comments!
I've not traveled as you have, so I do not speak from experience. But just reading the histories of places like Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Mao's China (which I have, some) shows that at most totalitarian regimes and their LEADER at most pay lip service to some sort of god. Citizens' entire loyalty, to the the point of and into worship, must be given to the state and, in the cases of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, to the LEADER. With the deaths of those personality cult figures, their successors were not cult-figures, but the state still acted pretty much the same. Totalitarian regimes will not tolerate citizens having a loyalty that is higher/greater than - or even equal to - the state and of course, when/where applicable, the LEADER. Theistic religions (most religions are) direct believers' ultimate loyalty to their God. Most theistic and non-theistic religions (e.g. Buddhism, Falun Gong) also lead and teach adherents to a sense of self-worth and personal spiritual progress that is apart and at least potentially divergent from loyalty to the state and its ideology.
Christianity, being a world-wide international religion, has gotten much of the brunt of totalitarians' persecution. Islam also has, to some degree, in China and the USSR. Buddhism and Falun Gong are non-theistic, but are persecuted in varying degrees in China because their philosophy/teachings claim the loyalty of its adherents and can lead adherents to diverge from the state's ideologies.
Blech! What a messy post this is!
I had the opportunity to visit St. Petersburg, Russia pre-Putin and I can relate to The Observer's comments. It seemed the folks over 40 were totally lost with their newly found freedoms. The young people seemed to be embracing the better way of life (freedom). The older generations were miserable under communism but apparently had reached a comfort level with it. Later I visited Estonia which was controlled by the Soviets for over forty years, but they had not fallen into the previously mentioned comfort level. In fact, they despised the Russian occupiers. I feel this resentment was a motivator to not give up on freedom. I had the same feeling about the Poles when I visited there.
Quote from: The Observer on October 26, 2014, 03:23:26 AM
In every communist country I have been in and I've been in a few, the absense of a belief in a God produces an alternative belief, whether that's leader hero worship, money or power - there is no atheism. It's no coincidence that the worst atrocities in the 20th century were perpetuated in regimes that denied the existence of God and every communist country bar none also includes a dictatorship.
People concentrate on the poverty and human rights abuses in these places, but the over riding feeling when entering a country with 'People's' or 'socialist' in its description title is a feeling of a country without a soul, a sort of emptiness or a vacuum that's difficult to describe.
Well said and ohhh sooo true...
Many of us saw the future. My father having been born in 1916, and my grand parents running from communists, gave me quite the civics lesson growing up, it's why my grand mother on her death bed, whispered to my father, that we were Jooos, then dies.
Yeah, that left me with far more questions than answers, but an understanding, that no matter the belief, if it's not in the State, then you're the enemy.
The "Communist Goals 1963" listed in our library, are nearly fulfilled, and religion was the main target of commies, in order to destroy our culture.
And people wonder why we hate RINO, it was they, who allowed the enemy into the city.
Quote from: Solar on October 26, 2014, 08:02:32 AM
Many of us saw the future. My father having been born in 1916, and my grand parents running from communists, gave me quite the civics lesson growing up, it's why my grand mother on her death bed, whispered to my father, that we were Jooos, then dies.
Interesting coincidence. My paternal grandparents were Volga Germans who left Russia in 1904, knowing what was coming (it almost came 12 years earlier than it did, there having been a failed revolution in 1905-1906). Their oldest daughter was born in Russia, but my father and the rest of his siblings in the US (near Yolo and Woodland). My grandmother had two or more (I don't know how many) brothers who were serving in the Russian army, in the Czar's bodyguard, and who did not leave. They ceased responding to letters some time in the 1920s.
Hitler is appropriately infamous for slaughtering Jews in the Holocaust. Less commonly known is that Stalin was about to unleash his own Holocaust when he died in 1953. Thankfully, his plans died with him.
Quote from: SVPete on October 18, 2014, 11:11:53 AM
Probably one of the best histories of the Soviet Gulags is still Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. It's at once compelling and pathetic ... pathetic, because its more than 40 years old!
Pathetic, cos' this bunch of lies got Nobel price for this creep - solzhenitsyn. Well, Obama, Gorbachov, Arafat, Solzhenitsyn... very suitable company,
So, the Soviet government publishes One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and that's truth, but Gulag Archipelago and that's a "bunch of lies" and the author of both, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, is a "creep"? That's a very good example of cognitive dissonance.
Nikita Sergeyevich admitted it. Face the truth, kalash, instead of futilely trying to deny it!
Quote from: SVPete on December 14, 2014, 12:00:27 PM
So, the Soviet government publishes
Nikita Sergeyevich admitted it. Face the truth, kalash, instead of futilely trying to deny it!
Really? Calling commi as witness of your point? :thumbup:
Look at this:
http://sdonline.org/59/grover-furr-khrushchev-lied-kettering-ohio-erythros-press-media-llc-2011/ (http://sdonline.org/59/grover-furr-khrushchev-lied-kettering-ohio-erythros-press-media-llc-2011/)
"...Since the partial opening of some Soviet archives in the early 1990s, a number of hitherto widely accepted "truths" have had to be re-evaluated. This includes the death toll due to repressions during the Stalin era. Formerly some scholars claimed that up to 50 million people perished. We now know from a December 1953 report to Khrushchev that the number of people sentenced to death, plus the number who perished in the GULAG labor camps, amounts to about 1,9 million.1 The story of the "holodomor," or deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian peasants in 1932-33, has also been strongly challenged.
But until now no one had systematically studied the accusations that Khrushchev made in his speech against Stalin and the former NKVD head Lavrentii Beria (dismissed and executed in 1953). The present book changes all this.
Furr identifies 61 allegations in Khrushchev's speech. He concludes that, with only one minor exception, every one of them is demonstrably false. In essence Furr claims to have proven that this "speech of the century" is a fraud from beginning to end.The book is divided into twelve chapters and one lengthy appendix. In the first nine chapters Furr goes carefully through all the 61 accusations made against Stalin (and Beria). Chapter 10 is a review of what Furr calls the "typology of prevarication" – the types of lies that characterize Khrushchev's speech. Chapter 11 reviews the consequences of the speech, and the final chapter deals with its legacy. The very extensive appendix contains various quotations, mostly from primary sources..."
QuoteReally? Calling commi as witness of your point?
It's called an admission against interest: Khrushchev admitted - after Stalin's death - some of what Stalin did, in the hope that doing so would damp down any move toward a more full accounting.
Quote from: SVPete on December 18, 2014, 08:01:23 PM
It's called an admission against interest: Khrushchev admitted - after Stalin's death - some of what Stalin did, in the hope that doing so would damp down any move toward a more full accounting.
That's deep thinking! The world is still waiting in horror, to know, what REAL crime Stalin did... It had to be big and awful, considering, that all garbage, Khruschev throw on Stalin, was just cover operation for something...
But I found couple of days ago interesting document about Trafalgar battle. How french described it in newspapers in 1805, and I remembered your post about Khruschev... :lol:
Read it and you will find out, how real professionals work:
" Le Moniteur"
The Battle of Trafalgar
Head Quarters, Cadiz, Oct.25.
'The operations of the grand naval army second in the Atlantic those of the grand imperial army in Germany.
– The English fleet is annihilated! – Nelson is no more! – Indignant at being inactive in port, whilst our brave brethren in arms were gaining laurels in Germany, Admirals Villeneuve and Gravina resolved to put to sea, and give the English battle. They were superior in number, forty-five to our thirty-three; but what is superiority in numbers to men determined to conquer? – Admiral Nelson did every thing to avoid a battle; he attempted to get into the Mediterranean, but we pursued, and came up with him off Trafalgar. The French and Spaniards vied with each other who should first get into action. Admirals Villeneuve and Gravina were both anxious to lay their Ships alongside the Victory, the English Admiral's Ship. Fortune, so constant always to the Emperor, did not favour either of them – the Santissima Trinidada was the fortunate Ship. In vain did the English Admiral try to evade an action: the Spanish Admiral Oliva prevented his escape, and lashed his Vessel to the British Admiral. The English Ship was one of 136 guns; the Santissima Trinidada was but a 74. – Lord Nelson adopted a new system: afraid of combatting us in the old way, in which he knows we have a superiority of skill, as was proved by our victory over Sir Robert Calder, he attempted a new mode of fighting. For a short time they disconcerted us; but what can long disconcert his Imperial Majesty's arms? We fought yard-arm to yard-arm, gun to gun. Three hours did we fight in this manner: the English began to be dismayed – they found it impossible to resist us; but our brave sailors were tired of this slow means of gaining a victory; they wished to board; the cry was, "à la bordage!" Their impetuosity was irresistible. At that moment two Ships, one French and one Spanish, boarded the Temeraire: the English fell back in astonishment and affright – we rushed to the flag-staff – struck the colours – and all were so anxious to be the bearer of the intelligence to their own Ship, that they jumped overboard; and the English ship, by this unfortunate impetuosity of our brave sailors and allies, was able, by the assistance of two more Ships that came to her assistance, to make her escape in a sinking state.
Meanwhile Nelson still resisted us. It was now who should first board, and have the honour of taking him, French or Spaniard – two Admirals on each side disputed the honour – they boarded his Ship at the same moment – Villeneuve flew to the quarterdeck – with the usual generosity of the French, he carried a brace of pistols in his hands, for he knew the Admiral had lost his arm, and could not use his sword – he offered one to Nelson: they fought, and at the second fire Nelson fell; he was immediately carried below. Oliva, Gravina, and Villeneuve, attended him with the accustomed French humanity. – Meanwhile, fifteen of the English Ships of the line had stuck – four more were obliged to follow their example – another blew up. –
Our victory was now complete, and we prepared to take possession of our prizes; but the elements were this time unfavourable to us; a dreadful storm came on – Gravina made his escape to his own Ship at the beginning of it – the Commander in Chief, Villeneuve, and a Spanish Admiral, were unable, and remained on board the Victory – The storm was long and dreadful; our Ships being so well manœuvered, rode out the gale; the English being so much more damaged, were driven ashore and many of them wrecked. At length, when the gale abated, thirteen sail of the French and Spanish line got safe to Cadiz; – the other twenty have, no doubt, gone to some other port, and will soon be heard of. We shall repair our damages as speedily as possible, go again in pursuit of the enemy, and afford them another proof of our determination to wrest from them the empire of the seas, and to comply with his Imperial Majesty's demand of Ships, Colonies, and Commerce.
Our loss was trifling, that of the English was immense. We have, however, to lament the absence of Admiral Villeneuve, whose ardour carried him beyond the strict bounds of prudence, and, by compelling him to board the English Admiral's Ship, prevented him from returning to his own. After having acquired so decisive a victory, we wait with impatience the Emperor's order to sail to the enemy's shore, annihilate the rest of his navy, and thus complete the triumphant work we have so brilliantly begun."
Quote from: kalash on December 22, 2014, 10:55:50 AM
That's deep thinking! The world is still waiting in horror, to know, what REAL crime Stalin did... It had to be big and awful, considering, that all garbage, Khruschev throw on Stalin, was just cover operation for something...
But I found couple of days ago interesting document about Trafalgar battle. How french described it in newspapers in 1805, and I remembered your post about Khruschev... :lol:
Read it and you will find out, how real professionals work:
" Le Moniteur"
The Battle of Trafalgar
Head Quarters, Cadiz, Oct.25.
'The operations of the grand naval army second in the Atlantic those of the grand imperial army in Germany. – The English fleet is annihilated! – Nelson is no more! – Indignant at being inactive in port, whilst our brave brethren in arms were gaining laurels in Germany, Admirals Villeneuve and Gravina resolved to put to sea, and give the English battle. They were superior in number, forty-five to our thirty-three; but what is superiority in numbers to men determined to conquer? – Admiral Nelson did every thing to avoid a battle; he attempted to get into the Mediterranean, but we pursued, and came up with him off Trafalgar. The French and Spaniards vied with each other who should first get into action. Admirals Villeneuve and Gravina were both anxious to lay their Ships alongside the Victory, the English Admiral's Ship. Fortune, so constant always to the Emperor, did not favour either of them – the Santissima Trinidada was the fortunate Ship. In vain did the English Admiral try to evade an action: the Spanish Admiral Oliva prevented his escape, and lashed his Vessel to the British Admiral. The English Ship was one of 136 guns; the Santissima Trinidada was but a 74. – Lord Nelson adopted a new system: afraid of combatting us in the old way, in which he knows we have a superiority of skill, as was proved by our victory over Sir Robert Calder, he attempted a new mode of fighting. For a short time they disconcerted us; but what can long disconcert his Imperial Majesty's arms? We fought yard-arm to yard-arm, gun to gun. Three hours did we fight in this manner: the English began to be dismayed – they found it impossible to resist us; but our brave sailors were tired of this slow means of gaining a victory; they wished to board; the cry was, "à la bordage!" Their impetuosity was irresistible. At that moment two Ships, one French and one Spanish, boarded the Temeraire: the English fell back in astonishment and affright – we rushed to the flag-staff – struck the colours – and all were so anxious to be the bearer of the intelligence to their own Ship, that they jumped overboard; and the English ship, by this unfortunate impetuosity of our brave sailors and allies, was able, by the assistance of two more Ships that came to her assistance, to make her escape in a sinking state. Meanwhile Nelson still resisted us. It was now who should first board, and have the honour of taking him, French or Spaniard – two Admirals on each side disputed the honour – they boarded his Ship at the same moment – Villeneuve flew to the quarterdeck – with the usual generosity of the French, he carried a brace of pistols in his hands, for he knew the Admiral had lost his arm, and could not use his sword – he offered one to Nelson: they fought, and at the second fire Nelson fell; he was immediately carried below. Oliva, Gravina, and Villeneuve, attended him with the accustomed French humanity. – Meanwhile, fifteen of the English Ships of the line had stuck – four more were obliged to follow their example – another blew up. – Our victory was now complete, and we prepared to take possession of our prizes; but the elements were this time unfavourable to us; a dreadful storm came on – Gravina made his escape to his own Ship at the beginning of it – the Commander in Chief, Villeneuve, and a Spanish Admiral, were unable, and remained on board the Victory – The storm was long and dreadful; our Ships being so well manœuvered, rode out the gale; the English being so much more damaged, were driven ashore and many of them wrecked. At length, when the gale abated, thirteen sail of the French and Spanish line got safe to Cadiz; – the other twenty have, no doubt, gone to some other port, and will soon be heard of. We shall repair our damages as speedily as possible, go again in pursuit of the enemy, and afford them another proof of our determination to wrest from them the empire of the seas, and to comply with his Imperial Majesty's demand of Ships, Colonies, and Commerce. Our loss was trifling, that of the English was immense. We have, however, to lament the absence of Admiral Villeneuve, whose ardour carried him beyond the strict bounds of prudence, and, by compelling him to board the English Admiral's Ship, prevented him from returning to his own. After having acquired so decisive a victory, we wait with impatience the Emperor's order to sail to the enemy's shore, annihilate the rest of his navy, and thus complete the triumphant work we have so brilliantly begun."
LINK Required!
http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/facts/faqs/royal-navy-and-battles/who-really-won-the-battle-of-trafalgar (http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/facts/faqs/royal-navy-and-battles/who-really-won-the-battle-of-trafalgar)