Were the allies wrong to invade europe in WW2?

[Dr Mindbender]

This thread is a response to attacks that have been made on my position regarding the allied invasion in Europe during the early 1940's.

People here have been arguing that as an imperialist force, the allied nations were somehow wrong to take on the Germans, and that workers should have, rather than join the state forces of their own nations, set up their 'own armies' as if this was somehow practical considering all of the munitions and resources were comandered by their governments.

As a socialist, i believe in government intervention, but more specifically, i believe there are 2 types of government intervention- Negative, and postitive. Negative would pertain to activities that actually damage working class interests, such as job cuts, charging of previously free amenities or tax rises that have little interest for the tax payers. At the more serious end of the spectrum, negative intervention also pertains to engaging in imperialist wars.

However- there is also positive as ive already said- this would include introduction of more welfare, greater pay etc, or lower rent charges. Because the purpose of the allied coalition was to remove the threat of a horrendus regime that looked to be in a postition of taking over, i propose it could be argued that in the unique case of the world war 2, the allied campaign was an example of 'positive government intervention', not imperialism. The people of Europe had no say over the presence of the nazis, so it cannot be argued that the British and American armies were there undemocratically.

BTW. Please note i use this specifically in reference to this campaign, not the case of Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland which i regard as negative, imperialist activities.

[Poppytry]

The organisation of a working class "Army" especially during the 40's would have been near impossible. It would not have been co-ordinated and just be spontaneous uprisings.

I'm very skeptical of American politics, but they were right to intervene. At least the Brits and Yanks left in the end. As for Stalin. His imperialist actions were disgraceful and because of such actions the left is now tarred with the same brush as him. Instead of forcibly making the Eastern European nations joining the USSR he should have helped them just as America had done to western Europe. However the fact that America got filthy rich as a consequence of the Marshall plans and stuff after the war is just proof that America never intervenes on the morale beliefs which it always says it does.

[Random Precision]

As a socialist, i believe in government intervention, but more specifically, i believe there are 2 types of government intervention- Negative, and postitive. Negative would pertain to activities that actually damage working class interests, such as job cuts, charging of previously free amenities or tax rises that have little interest for the tax payers. At the more serious end of the spectrum, negative intervention also pertains to engaging in imperialist wars.

You must be a pretty confused sort of socialist then.

As for the question, it's a bit ludicrous. We're socialists, we don't care about who is morally "right" or "wrong" in a conflict, we look instead at the material reality of the conflict. And it's clear if you take a look at WW2 that it was an inter-imperialist conflict, and that British and American troops entered the continent to preserve/expand their imperialist sphere of domination against another imperialist power.

Therefore, if we remain internationalists (which all to few socialists did) the only socialist position is to staunchly oppose both interventions and call on the working class to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against their own ruling class.

[Dr Mindbender]

Therefore, if we remain internationalists (which all to few socialists did) the only socialist position is to staunchly oppose both interventions and call on the working class to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against their own ruling class.

I totally agree, but under the material conditions of the day, how likely was this to happen on either side?

Secondly would an individual worker be wrong in joining the british army in order to fight the fascists?

[Sam_b]

We can't assume how likely or probable and outcome would be when the tactic itself wasn't tried.

Also this question is overly simplistic, and dare I say it, wrong in this instance. First of all, right or wrong by whose terms: that of the ruling or working classes? Secondly, are we looking at this from a basis of what could have or what should have happened?

[JimmyJazz]

You must be a pretty confused sort of socialist then.

As for the question, it's a bit ludicrous. We're socialists, we don't care about who is morally "right" or "wrong" in a conflict, we look instead at the material reality of the conflict. And it's clear if you take a look at WW2 that it was an inter-imperialist conflict, and that British and American troops entered the continent to preserve/expand their imperialist sphere of domination against another imperialist power.

Therefore, if we remain internationalists (which all to few socialists did) the only socialist position is to staunchly oppose both interventions and call on the working class to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against their own ruling class.

Great. So, since destroying Bolshevism was arguably Hitler's #1 priority in the war from the very start (even they (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=587993&page=2&highlight=hitler%27s+europe) admit it), what do you think he would have done to an England in which the workers had taken over?

I am not about to sit here and apologize for a war that took 50 million lives, but the alternative has to be practical. How do you think hastily-organized workers' militias would have fared against the Luftwaffe?

I would love to understand the position that many on Revleft call the "internationalist" one, but sometimes it just seems like a knee-jerk reaction against the gross patriotism that permeated the conflict in reality (and still permeates the mainstream memory of it), and totally detached from what were the real possibilities at the time. I don't have an answer, just questions.

[Random Precision]

Great. So, since destroying Bolshevism was arguably Hitler's #1 priority in the war from the very start (even they (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=587993&page=2&highlight=hitler%27s+europe) admit it),

I'm not all that convinced of Stormfront's reliability as a historical source to be honest. World War 2 was, like World War 1, an imperialist war to decide which group of powers would dominate the world's markets. Saying Hitler started WW2 to "destroy Bolshevism" is about as far from a Marxist analysis of the conflict as you can get.


what do you think he would have done to an England in which the workers had taken over?

What do you think the workers of Britain gained by going off to the continent and helping their bosses expand their domination there?


I would love to understand the position that many on Revleft call the "internationalist" one, but sometimes it just seems like a knee-jerk reaction against the gross patriotism that permeated the conflict in reality (and still permeates the mainstream memory of it), and totally detached from what were the real possibilities at the time. I don't have an answer, just questions.

I think this underestimates what the "real possibilities of the time" were. The Left Communists in Marseilles, for example, continued their activism under the Nazi puppet government and even alerted the city to what was happening to Jews all over France, at the same time the Allied powers were doing nothing to stop or even alert people to the Holocaust, and of course perpetrating acts of terrible cruelty that excelled the Holocaust in numbers of dead. The Left Communists in Italy conducted resistance to fascism and refused to align themselves with the "democratic bloc". Et cetera.

[redSHARP]

You must be a pretty confused sort of socialist then.

As for the question, it's a bit ludicrous. We're socialists, we don't care about who is morally "right" or "wrong" in a conflict, we look instead at the material reality of the conflict. And it's clear if you take a look at WW2 that it was an inter-imperialist conflict, and that British and American troops entered the continent to preserve/expand their imperialist sphere of domination against another imperialist power.

Therefore, if we remain internationalists (which all to few socialists did) the only socialist position is to staunchly oppose both interventions and call on the working class to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against their own ruling class.


calling for it and applying it are completely different things. though i do not support any war that's not a class war, in a practical sense, no group could have booted the nazis our of the country with out the soviet or western allied intervention.

Tito would have been crushed if the germans were not focused on the soviet forces, the poles were annihlated in 1944, the French were barely holding there own, the Dutch were in no shape to rebel, norway had a militant group but was limited to sabatoge; in conclusion to call for open warfare against an army that is willing to kill a whole village for one german death would be suicide. the only country in WW2 that had a massive partisan/civil war, was Italy. The italian working class was almost annihlated if it wasnt for the western polish forces, commonwealth troops, and US support. though they did not support any imperialist power, would they deny allied tanks from taking out a pillbox because they are not communist?

we can rant and rave about not taking sides, but when the factories and farmland is occupied by fascists, and the working class is suppressed, i would be damned not take any aid or help any liberating force. of course after the war is over, the real work begins. Tito applied this theory and it worked.


the question should be clarified shift the debate has shifted.

[JimmyJazz]

I'm not all that convinced of Stormfront's reliability as a historical source to be honest.

That's actually not the issue. If you read the first two posts in my link, you'll see that one poster cites a Hitler speech from 1933 saying that his twin goals were to destroy Bolshevism and conquer "lebensraum" (historically Germanic territories in Europe). Following this, others contest whether this speech really happened. So it's not actually an issue of Stormfront's historical reliability, because the posters there took both sides on whether Hitler made that speech, so of necessity one of the sides in that thread is right.

Regardless of whether that speech occurred, would you say that hostility to Communism was not one of the defining features of Nazism from its inception?


I'm not all that convinced of World War 2 was, like World War 1, an imperialist war to decide which group of powers would dominate the world's markets. Saying Hitler started WW2 to "destroy Bolshevism" is about as far from a Marxist analysis of the conflict as you can get.

Can you please back this up instead of just repeating it?

If you are going to say that nationalist/racialist ideology, popular anger over the terms of the Versailles Treaty, and middle class fear of communism did not drive Nazism, then you have to demonstrate why this is the case. All the history I've read suggests that those were the main factors.


What do you think the workers of Britain gained by going off to the continent and helping their bosses expand their domination there?

Nothing. Now will you answer my question (to which you only replied with your own)?

BTW, nothing in my post mentioned the invasion of Europe, even if that is what the OP was about. If I heard communists saying that workers should have joined the British army to defend England from a German invasion, but then refused to join in an invasion of Europe, that would be a principled, if not necessarily realistic (how many people are really going to drop out of the army when the invasion phase starts?), suggestion.

But I've never heard that suggested; I've only heard vague denouncements of the war in general, as though Britain and France chose to have the war. I am trying to get some specific suggestions as to what workers should have done when faced with Nazi bombing and a possible, or in many cases actual, Nazi invasion.


I think this underestimates what the "real possibilities of the time" were. The Left Communists in Marseilles, for example, continued their activism under the Nazi puppet government and even alerted the city to what was happening to Jews all over France, at the same time the Allied powers were doing nothing to stop or even alert people to the Holocaust, and of course perpetrating acts of terrible cruelty that excelled the Holocaust in numbers of dead. The Left Communists in Italy conducted resistance to fascism and refused to align themselves with the "democratic bloc". Et cetera.

I'm not talking about workers and/or communists in the fascist and fascist-occupied countries, but in the countries threatened by fascism.

[Rjevan]

I'm very skeptical of American politics, but they were right to intervene. At least the Brits and Yanks left in the end. As for Stalin. His imperialist actions were disgraceful and because of such actions the left is now tarred with the same brush as him. Instead of forcibly making the Eastern European nations joining the USSR he should have helped them just as America had done to western Europe.
Do you really think that the Americans left? No, they didn't. They used Germany as a place for their ideological war with the USSR, refused (to be exactly, Chancellor Adenauer refused but it is out of question that he had Truman's affirmation) an offer by Stalin to reunite Germany if it would be totally neutral like Switzerland, spread their propaganda here, held (and are still holding) military bases, stored their nukes here and allowed Adenauer to build up the Bundeswehr with the help of former Wehrmacht generals. The FRG was one of the most loyal allies of the USA (which may have something to do with being totally dependent on the USA) and finally joined the NATO.
I can't see any difference between that and your accusations of what Stalin did.

And be assured that the Americans did not help Western Europe because they felt the urgent moral need for that, the Marshall plan was a clever move to get the WE states on their side and shout around how bad living conditions in the USSR and the Soviet states were... small wonder, after years of terrible war it's logical that the USSR couldn't help their allies as much as the USA, which didn't had any troops on their territory who destroyed alomst everything and killed millions, no, they just had big profit through the rising weapon industry. And the USSR did help Eastern Europe but as I said, your ability to help is llimited if you yourself have sufferd massively and would need help, too.


and that British and American troops entered the continent to preserve/expand their imperialist sphere of domination against another imperialist power.
I would agree, except that the USSR was not "another imperialist power". Short reminder: the USSR were not the one who attacked, it were the Nazis. And in my opinion defending yourself from fascist troops who invade and destroy your country while slaughtering civilians along the way, fighting them back and work for the destruction of a fascist empire isn't imperialistic.
The UK and the USA did enter the continent because they were afraid of a "Bolshevik Europe" like hell, see the Churchill quote: "We slaughtered the wrong swine", this does mean that Hitler would have been better than Stalin for them and I doubt that he hints at Hitler's great heart and his gentleness in contrast to baby-eating Stalin...


Saying Hitler started WW2 to "destroy Bolshevism" is about as far from a Marxist analysis of the conflict as you can get.

Hitler said that his only aims are to get rid of the Jews, to win new living space in Russia and to destroy Bolshevism through conquering Russia and freeing it from the "inferior Slavs". He even said this in the 20s, when he wrote "Mein Kampf", he repeated this over and over again and he said how relieved he was after the Wehrmacht attack on the USSR because 'now he fights his real enemy, he never wanted to fight with the Western states, only the "Jewish-Boslhevik Russia" was his enemy and he wanted to win new living space for the "Aryans" there'.


I think this underestimates what the "real possibilities of the time" were. The Left Communists in Marseilles, for example, continued their activism under the Nazi puppet government and even alerted the city to what was happening to Jews all over France, at the same time the Allied powers were doing nothing to stop or even alert people to the Holocaust, and of course perpetrating acts of terrible cruelty that excelled the Holocaust in numbers of dead. The Left Communists in Italy conducted resistance to fascism and refused to align themselves with the "democratic bloc". Et cetera.
Yes, absolutely right, there were many groups who fouht against the Nazis and while I definitely admire their brave struggle I have to say that I don't beleive that these groups would have achieved anything without the Germans being attacked on many fronts. The Nazis would have concentrated on them and they would have been nothing more than a little pain in the ass of a Nazi empire.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely prefer if left resistance groups and workers militias could have finished the Nazis without any intervention but that would have never happened. There was the need of the USSR driving the Nazis back and throwing them out of occupied countries, without the closer getting Red Army Tito wouldn't have been able to free Yugoslavia and neither would any other group have been.
The UK and the USA invading France maybe shortened the war but it was totally unnecessary becuase the Wehrmacht was already down and the Soviets would have won anyway, this was just to prevent a red Europe and not becuase of some moral principles.

[Dr Mindbender]

Still no yes votes?

I wonder what happened to Sam b and his 'awful imperialists'.

[Jia]

No. The Allies would have Nuked the left-over parts of Nazi territory and left cities in ruins and wasteland.

[KC]

Still no yes votes?

I think a lot of people are abstaining from voting, due to the fact that the question is inherently flawed, as was pointed out by other posters.

[Dr Mindbender]

No. The Allies would have Nuked the left-over parts of Nazi territory and left cities in ruins and wasteland.
http://allsux.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/wtf-copy.jpg

[Jia]

:closedeyes: Sorry I was a little brief. And will remain to be.

With no allied push into Europe, the Germans could focus more troops on the East (even more then they had, which was most) and the Soviets would have to go into West Germany as well as East Germany. This could have taken as long as early 1946. If Cities like Essen had still been turning out tanks and planes and guns for the German army, and extensive bombing by the allies wasn't working... well, whats the best way to show the Soviets who really is in charge and will have some say in border drawing? Nukes. USA would have certainly used them, maybe instead of Japan. Any territory the Soviets got they would have kept. Even if they did go as far as Paris.

[Dr Mindbender]

:closedeyes: Sorry I was a little brief. And will remain to be.

With no allied push into Europe, the Germans could focus more troops on the East (even more then they had, which was most) and the Soviets would have to go into West Germany as well as East Germany. This could have taken as long as early 1946. If Cities like Essen had still been turning out tanks and planes and guns for the German army, and extensive bombing by the allies wasn't working... well, whats the best way to show the Soviets who really is in charge and will have some say in border drawing? Nukes. USA would have certainly used them, maybe instead of Japan. Any territory the Soviets got they would have kept. Even if they did go as far as Paris.

I think if the nazis had completed their conquest of europe and britain, the soviets would have been the last thing on the american's minds. Late into the war, the nazis were already designing transatlantic bombers and missiles that could hit america. Without the british in the way, i think the east coast of america would have become the western front of the war.

They also had ambitions of making their own A bomb.

[Jia]

I think if the nazis had completed their conquest of europe and britain, the soviets would have been the last thing on the american's minds. Late into the war, the nazis were already designing transatlantic bombers and missiles that could hit america.

We are not talking about if the Nazi's had taken the British Isles though are we?

If the D-day landings had not happened, the V2 rockets were already killing London fast. Another few months of that (with increase in production) would have forced them into submission very fast. Or at least knocked out their production for a long time!

As for your edit, it was found after the war that thanks to plans in Norway the Nazi's were far behind and a long way to developing their A-bomb. A long, long way.

[Leo]

I think a lot of people are abstaining from voting, due to the fact that the question is inherently flawed, as was pointed out by other posters.

Yes, very true. Communists do not judge whether the actions of imperialist powers are "right" or "wrong" to begin with.


Great. So, since destroying Bolshevism was arguably Hitler's #1 priority in the war from the very start

Bolshevism was already destroyed before the war started. In fact the counter-revolution had already triumphed in Germany before Hitler came to power.


I totally agree, but under the material conditions of the day, how likely was this to happen on either side?

How likely did it seem that it was going to happen on either side in 1914?


the USSR was not "another imperialist power". Short reminder: the USSR were not the one who attacked

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_occupations


And in my opinion defending yourself from fascist troops who invade and destroy your country while slaughtering civilians along the way, fighting them back and work for the destruction of a fascist empire isn't imperialistic.

And neither is occupying half of Europe afterwards, right?

[Dr Mindbender]

We are not talking about if the Nazi's had taken the British Isles though are we?
that would have been the outcome of non involvement by the allies in europe, hitler wasnt content with destroying britain, he wanted it for himself.




As for your edit, it was found after the war that thanks to plans in Norway the Nazi's were far behind and a long way to developing their A-bomb. A long, long way.
thats true, but with europe to themselves they would have had time to work on it, and their total control over space technology would have given them a big advantage in a hypothetical arms race with america.

Dont forget, it was Germany that the Americans and Russians got their rocket technology from.

[reddevil]

Yes i think it was wrong. Britain had originally hoped to see a nazi-soviet war that would take care of both our enemies. I cannot for the life of me understand why we declared war on Germany when it was so clear they had no intention to invade us and were more interested in moving eastwards towards a war with the soviet union. I also don't understand how it actually was of benefit to anybody; even the british ruling class. After all, following the war an empire was lost and a socialist party brought to power.
I'm afraid i can never see the allies as the "good guys", given how much blood was on the hands of Churchill and Stalin. What makes the gassing of the jews any worse than the gassing of the kurds, what makes the starvation of the three million poles any worse than the starvation of four million indians?
Not to mention Hitler had not originally planned genocide of Europe's jewish population, or the slavs and roma. Originally he had atttempted to organise a mass deportation but the war made it impractical. No war:= no holocaust.
That does not mean to say however, that we cannot applaud those who resisted imperialism in China, France, Yugoslavia or the USSR. regardless of their questionable leadership. these movements are to be applauded.

[Dr Mindbender]

^
i think the danger with this theory is that we're assuming that the germans would have leave us be if britain hadnt declared war. Remember, Hitler began the invasions against his neighbours before the war started.

[reddevil]

^
i think the danger with this theory is that we're assuming that the germans would have leave us be if britain hadnt declared war. Remember, Hitler began the invasions against his neighbours before the war started.
Hitler was a great admirer of the British empire and wanted to make a deal with us to divide Europe into seperate spheres; germany ahving hegemony over the land of the continent and britain controlling the seas. he invaded his neighbours for the purpose of acquiring land germany had lost after WW1. He wasn't intending to build an empire in the west.

[Agrippa]

World War II was not merely a war waged between rival imperialist powers. It was a three-sided war between the fascist bourgeoisie, the anti-fascist bourgeoisie, and the communist/libertarian resistance.

When Ulster Socialist says "that workers should have [...] set up their 'own armies'", he/she is (unintentionally or not) perpetuating historical disinformation by implying that the workers didn't "set up their 'own armies'" during WWII. If anyone honestly believes this to be true, I suggest the educate themselves on the workers' movement during WWII immediately. I especially reccomend Ingrid Strobl's Partisanas (offered in English by AK Press) which documents the extensive role women in France, mostly anarchist/left-communist, mostly prostitutes and other "lumpenproletariat", and mostly Jews and East European immigrants, played in the fascist resistance. They were not fighting for De Gaulle or the Communist Party bureaucrats but they were fighting to defend their homes and familes against the anti-Semitic rapists of the German army.

Furthermore, "the purpose of the allied coalition" was not, as Ulster Socialist claims, "to remove the threat of a horrendus regime". As any 13-year-old who has read Zinn will tell you, a proposal for the U.S. to officially denounce the anti-Semitic atrocities of the 3rd Reich was buried in congress and denounced as extremist by the Roosevelt administration. The allies did nothing to target the infastructure the Nazis used to exterminate millions of Jews - in fact, the allies themselves participated in the mass-murder of German Jews by intentionally targeting working-class German cities in air raids, (naturally with large Jewish populations) making every effort to slaughter as many German civilians as possible, and ignoring military targets in order to do so. (More info (http://gci-icg.org/english/communism.htm)) Similarly, the US imperialists massacred tens of thousands of Japanese proles (using weapons they knew caused birth defects and poisoned the land) after the Japanese imperialists were preparing to surrender to their Soviet counterparts. The sole reason for this historically unprecedented act of slaughter was to prevent the Soviets from occupying Japan, thus giving the US the upper-hand...

In short, it's no surprise a self-described "technocrat" would sympathize with the allied anti-fascist bourgeoisie

[Devrim]

I think that the OP looks at the question in completely the wrong way. I am not sure who is arguing that "workers should have, rather than join the state forces of their own nations, set up their 'own armies' ", or whether the OP has just misunderstood the argument presented.

The working class was in no position to 'set up its own armies' at the start of the Second World War. It hadn't been in that position in 1914, so after the defeat of the revolutionary wave after the First World War, the rise of fascism, and the economic crisis of the 30s it was even less likely to have been able to.



Therefore, if we remain internationalists (which all to few socialists did) the only socialist position is to staunchly oppose both interventions and call on the working class to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against their own ruling class. I totally agree, but under the material conditions of the day, how likely was this to happen on either side?

In 1914 you could have got all of the internationalists in Europe into a railway carriage. The fact that the revolutionaries were isolated once again, and the working class was marching off enthusiastically to die on behalf of various imperialisms did not mean that the revolution couldn't rise again from the war.

The ruling classes were very aware of this:


I would also have the fear that as a result of the war, there will be only one real victor—Mr. Trotsky.”


Of course what Coulandre expressed here was the bourgeoisie's fear of the spectre of communism. Even in the darkest days for the working class it was still haunting Europe.


Of course, the bourgeoisie had learnt its lessons from 1917. Following the war the defeated countries were occupied precisely to prevent any revolutionary upsurge. The potential was there though as was was shown by the strikes in Italy in 1943.


Those who supported the Second World War betrayed the working class just as the Social Democracy had done in 1914.


Perhaps some of the Trotskyists arguing, in my opinion correctly, that the working class should not take sides in imperialist wars need to take a closer look at their own tradition. The vast majority of the Trotskyists supporting the Western imperialists in WWII was not a mere error, but has much deeper roots.


Devrim

[Sam_b]

Still no yes votes?

I wonder what happened to Sam b and his 'awful imperialists'.

For reasons explained by myself and KC above, I can't answer the question as the question itself is flawed, deliberately vague and communicates a complete lack of understanding.

[ev]

History X
The only reason why the US and Britain invaded Nazi occupied Europe was so that Stalin wouldn't take Europe for himself and establish soviet puppet governments in the countries the Red army took from the axis powers.

It's sickening too when you look at how Americans perceive WWII history with movies like Saving Private Ryan, they pretty much think that they landed on France, and liberated Europe and defeated the Germans single handedly when

A) there were more British and Canadian forces than US ones, and;
B) the soviet was tanking the Germans and the Brits and US stole the kill like cheap little *****es then to shit on WWII history even more they simply said "we liberated Europe" FURTHERMORE a condition of receiving US aid money was for the governments to promote pro-American propaganda which led to the establishment of NATO (with the soviet hate propaganda); also the USSR wanted to join NATO as well but wasn't allowed, then they made the Warsaw pact so if they got invaded by NATO they would have MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) insurance, that of course led to the arms race and the communism is evil propaganda. Take a look at the CIA's involvement in foreign governments throughout the years in undermining the sovereignty of foreign governments it's disgusting, democracy is a universal notion of the will & power of the majority and if they opted for a communist government then they should have got it, however the CIA (aka) tool of American imperialism (known for making US friendly markets) undermined such countries sovereignty and funded motherfuckers like Augusto Pinochet who killed thousands of people who valued communist ideals of equality and such and created propaganda that communists were bad etc. etc.

It's fucking horrible, I think Stalin stained the name of communism and western governments now say communism = stalinism, national Bolshevism etc. and tarnished true communist ideals. But i do wonder if history were different and Stalin was a saint who upheld true communist ideals and was progressive, how would history have turned out..

Oh well it probably set back mankind back a few hundred years or so in progressive sociological engineering.. :rolleyes:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A one way confrontation between Stalin and Hitler would have almost certainly meant a German-controlled USSR.

[STJ]

No the fascist threat needed to be stoped.

[generation why]

I whole-heartedly agree with the Allies' decision to invade Germany. While both sides were wrong, the Germans were the more evil and therefore must be stopped. They forced an unnecessary genocide against the Jews.

[STJ]

World War II was not merely a war waged between rival imperialist powers. It was a three-sided war between the fascist bourgeoisie, the anti-fascist bourgeoisie, and the communist/libertarian resistance.

When Ulster Socialist says "that workers should have [...] set up their 'own armies'", he/she is (unintentionally or not) perpetuating historical disinformation by implying that the workers didn't "set up their 'own armies'" during WWII. If anyone honestly believes this to be true, I suggest the educate themselves on the workers' movement during WWII immediately. I especially reccomend Ingrid Strobl's Partisanas (offered in English by AK Press) which documents the extensive role women in France, mostly anarchist/left-communist, mostly prostitutes and other "lumpenproletariat", and mostly Jews and East European immigrants, played in the fascist resistance. They were not fighting for De Gaulle or the Communist Party bureaucrats but they were fighting to defend their homes and familes against the anti-Semitic rapists of the German army.

Furthermore, "the purpose of the allied coalition" was not, as Ulster Socialist claims, "to remove the threat of a horrendus regime". As any 13-year-old who has read Zinn will tell you, a proposal for the U.S. to officially denounce the anti-Semitic atrocities of the 3rd Reich was buried in congress and denounced as extremist by the Roosevelt administration. The allies did nothing to target the infastructure the Nazis used to exterminate millions of Jews - in fact, the allies themselves participated in the mass-murder of German Jews by intentionally targeting working-class German cities in air raids, (naturally with large Jewish populations) making every effort to slaughter as many German civilians as possible, and ignoring military targets in order to do so. (More info (http://gci-icg.org/english/communism.htm)) Similarly, the US imperialists massacred tens of thousands of Japanese proles (using weapons they knew caused birth defects and poisoned the land) after the Japanese imperialists were preparing to surrender to their Soviet counterparts. The sole reason for this historically unprecedented act of slaughter was to prevent the Soviets from occupying Japan, thus giving the US the upper-hand...

In short, it's no surprise a self-described "technocrat" would sympathize with the allied anti-fascist bourgeoisie

Do you want to provide some proof of your statements about Japan wanting to surrender to the Soviets? Cuz i am an American and World War 2 history buff and i have never read this.

[JimmyJazz]

Do you want to provide some proof of your statements about Japan wanting to surrender to the Soviets? Cuz i am an American and World War 2 history buff and i have never read this.


"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki

[Sam_b]

I don't understand why so many 'socialists' on here think its alright to pick and choose when and when not to support imperialism and the wshes of the ruling class.

[STJ]

http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki
Thanks for that.

[Comrade Anarchist]

if they hadnt invaded then hitler would have probably won the war and fascism would have taken control of the majority of europe. no militias could make any dent in the nazi war machine

[Agrippa]

Decentralized militias and clandestine cells have a tactical advantage over Clauswitzian armies, though....

See the Vietnam war

"fascism would have taken control of the majority of europe"

So? Bourgeois democracy and Stalinist socialism took control of the majority of Europe. Big difference.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Decentralized militias and clandestine cells have a tactical advantage over Clauswitzian armies, though....

See the Vietnam war

"fascism would have taken control of the majority of europe"

So? Bourgeois democracy and Stalinist socialism took control of the majority of Europe. Big difference.

The difference is that we were going through the known territory while in Vietnam we were blind.

i know that Nazism was just replaced by different types of it but the people of western Europe would probably live under a somewhat democratic country then under Hitlers rule but obviously stalinism is just plain fascism.

[Rjevan]

"fascism would have taken control of the majority of europe"

So? Bourgeois democracy and Stalinist socialism took control of the majority of Europe. Big difference.
Good lord, believe me, there is a big difference between fascism and burgeois democracy and "Stalinist socialism"! I would prefer living in a burgeois democracy everyday, not to mention living in a socialist society than living in NS Third Reich under Hitler or his successors! The current system is shit and must be overthrown, we all agree with that but believe me, it's almost like paradise compared to what a "Endsieg" Nazi society would have looked like!


but obviously stalinism is just plain fascism.
No comment...

[Rjevan]

In my book, Truman, Stalin, and Hitler are all equally socialist.

As for your claim that the Third Reich makes our current society look like a "paradise", what, exactly, would compel you to say that? There are many important differences between a fascist regime and a democratic one but to suggest that one is better than the other is to suggest that the workers' struggle is less important in one than the other....
No, absolutely not. It's just suggesting that one society, fascism, is even worse than then current one, because of racism in an unknown stage, actively fueled by the state and culminating in the holocaust, every form of opposition eliminated and all parties and unions forbidden, a state founded on racism, the SS, the Gestapo and ruled by lunatics who see it as their holy mission to get rid of all "inferior races" and conquer the world for the "Aryans". Not to speak of pro-militarism, -capitalism, (often) -religion and extremely homophobe, xenopob and sexist structures.

While our capitalist socety holds many of these points, too, they are not that extreme and you still have certain rights which you could only dream of in a fascits society. This doesn't mean that we should say "Ah, well, so we're living in the lesser evil, why fight for the revolution then, it could be much worse after all.".

So would you really see no difference between living in the NS Germany under Hitler and let's say the FRG under Merkel now? I hate Merkel and of course I would support class struggle but if I would have to chose where to struggle, in the 3rd Reich or in the FRG, I wouldn't have to think very long about my answer.

[Rjevan]

Well, that's true indeed but a fascist society is that extreme during peace times, too, the Nazis didn't start their crimes at that moment the war started, they just hid them better the years before. And though you're right that states become more oppressive during war, in my opinion it was still better to live in Churchill's UK or Roosevelt's USA, although they were imperialistic and capitalistic nations, than in Hitler's Germany.

[Agrippa]

but a fascist society is that extreme during peace times, too, the Nazis didn't start their crimes at that moment the war started

Yeah, but Nazi Deutschland was always on the verge of an impending crisis.


they just hid them better the years before.

Their atrocities were always common knowlege. People just chose to ignore it.


And though you're right that states become more oppressive during war, in my opinion it was still better to live in Churchill's UK or Roosevelt's USA, although they were imperialistic and capitalistic nations, than in Hitler's Germany.

The point I'm making though is that even though the UK and the USA were at were, they were not on the verge of violent, sudden collapse, as the German empire was at the time. There's no telling what the Roosevelt and Churchill regimes would have done if they were in a situation of similar duress. The democratic imperialists have never shown reluctance to commit mass-murder, indiscriminate political suppression, ethnic cleansing, etc. when necessary, so I wouldn't see why would choose not to engage in these actions if it was their last card to play.

The Nazi regime failed to sustain itself for even 14 years. The US regime, on the other hand, has sustained itself for hundreds of years...

[Brother No. 1]

obviously stalinism is just plain fascism.

Very intolerant to say this. Even if you are a Anarchist-Communist your "oppion" on "Stalinism" is flase foe now your saying Marxist-Leninist,Hoxhaists, and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are Facists for alot of poeple put them under the "Stalinism ideal."




In my book, Truman, Stalin, and Hitler are all equally socialist.


So what does your book say that makes Truman and Hitler "equally Socialist" comrade?


The Nazi regime failed to sustain itself for even 14 years. The US regime, on the other hand, has sustained itself for hundreds of years...

Its because the US regime has never been invaded and has never had a World War when everone opposed it. Nazi germany came from the ashes of the Wehmier Repubic, which was already failing, so they thought this "National Socialist german workers party" would bring the "pride,honor, and respect" German "had" as the 2nd Deuschland Reich. Though all of it was simply Nationalist lies told by someone who has a good tone for speeches.

[Agrippa]

So what does your book say that makes Truman and Hitler "equally Socialist" comrade?

Truman was an apostle of FDR, who developed the welfare state, social security, "official" labor unions, etc. He did this for the specific purpose of giving the poor "half a loaf of bread", rather than having the whole loaf taken from the rich man via revolution. Although Hitler made the mistake of not allowing trade unions, many of his actions were had a similar nature and purpose. (state regulation of the economy, etc.)

[Bilbo Baggins]

Do you really think that the Americans left? No, they didn't. They used Germany as a place for their ideological war with the USSR, refused (to be exactly, Chancellor Adenauer refused but it is out of question that he had Truman's affirmation) an offer by Stalin to reunite Germany if it would be totally neutral like Switzerland, spread their propaganda here, held (and are still holding) military bases, stored their nukes here and allowed Adenauer to build up the Bundeswehr with the help of former Wehrmacht generals. The FRG was one of the most loyal allies of the USA (which may have something to do with being totally dependent on the USA) and finally joined the NATO.
I can't see any difference between that and your accusations of what Stalin did.

And be assured that the Americans did not help Western Europe because they felt the urgent moral need for that, the Marshall plan was a clever move to get the WE states on their side and shout around how bad living conditions in the USSR and the Soviet states were... small wonder, after years of terrible war it's logical that the USSR couldn't help their allies as much as the USA, which didn't had any troops on their territory who destroyed alomst everything and killed millions, no, they just had big profit through the rising weapon industry. And the USSR did help Eastern Europe but as I said, your ability to help is llimited if you yourself have sufferd massively and would need help, too.


I would agree, except that the USSR was not "another imperialist power". Short reminder: the USSR were not the one who attacked, it were the Nazis. And in my opinion defending yourself from fascist troops who invade and destroy your country while slaughtering civilians along the way, fighting them back and work for the destruction of a fascist empire isn't imperialistic.
The UK and the USA did enter the continent because they were afraid of a "Bolshevik Europe" like hell, see the Churchill quote: "We slaughtered the wrong swine", this does mean that Hitler would have been better than Stalin for them and I doubt that he hints at Hitler's great heart and his gentleness in contrast to baby-eating Stalin...


Hitler said that his only aims are to get rid of the Jews, to win new living space in Russia and to destroy Bolshevism through conquering Russia and freeing it from the "inferior Slavs". He even said this in the 20s, when he wrote "Mein Kampf", he repeated this over and over again and he said how relieved he was after the Wehrmacht attack on the USSR because 'now he fights his real enemy, he never wanted to fight with the Western states, only the "Jewish-Boslhevik Russia" was his enemy and he wanted to win new living space for the "Aryans" there'.


Yes, absolutely right, there were many groups who fouht against the Nazis and while I definitely admire their brave struggle I have to say that I don't beleive that these groups would have achieved anything without the Germans being attacked on many fronts. The Nazis would have concentrated on them and they would have been nothing more than a little pain in the ass of a Nazi empire.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely prefer if left resistance groups and workers militias could have finished the Nazis without any intervention but that would have never happened. There was the need of the USSR driving the Nazis back and throwing them out of occupied countries, without the closer getting Red Army Tito wouldn't have been able to free Yugoslavia and neither would any other group have been.
The UK and the USA invading France maybe shortened the war but it was totally unnecessary becuase the Wehrmacht was already down and the Soviets would have won anyway, this was just to prevent a red Europe and not becuase of some moral principles.

At least 80% of German losses sustained in the war were sustained on the Eastern Front, which helps to confirm your assertion that Soviet Russia was Hitler's main target/enemy.(sorry-can't post the link, haven't reached my 25 post quota yet)

[Brother No. 1]

At least 80% of German losses sustained in the war were sustained on the Eastern Front,

Thats because with a failed operation "Barbossa" on the USSR the Germans had sealed with doom on the eastern front. When Stalingrad,Leningrad,ect were taken back in the Soviet Union the Soviets were now going to push them out of Eastern Eruope. The Soviets were angry on what they did to Stalingrad and wanted the germans to pay and suffer as the germans did to them.




which helps to confirm your assertion that Soviet Russia was Hitler's main target/enemy.

Well its wasnt Soviet Russia for that was one of the 15 republics. He main enemy was the Soviet Union, so I agree with your statement, for since Barbaorssa failed Hitler, with his over-confident mind and over pride mind, thought that the Soviets couldnt be able to take out the germans. So the Red Army and the Wehrmacht fought many battles in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe was one of the most bloodiest batttle fields in World War 2.