Are Imperialist alliances justifiable in a revolution?

[A.R.Amistad]

When we look back on revolutions in history, and I am referring to ones that escalated into violence here, there is a sort of pattern of the revolutionaries being militarily allied with the military of a foreign imperial power that is hostile to the state that the revolutionaries are overthrowing. In the 1776 American Revolution, the war could probably not have been won without the support of the Imperialist French forces in the Americas fighting the British. On the flip side of that coin, there was a lot of political fraternization that occurred between American Revolutionary leaders and soldiers with the French military, which was one of the key factors of inspiration for the later French Revolution when those soldier returned home. Now, don't get me wrong, I despise Theodore Roosevelt and the U.S. intervention in Cuba, but during the Spanish-American War, the Cuban nationalists allied with the United States and successfully overthrew the Spanish imperialists. The downside to that was the Platt Amendment, of course. In the socialist realm of revolutions, Lenin was sent back to Russia on a German Train in 1917 as a sort of "war tactic" to put Russia in dissaray, but of course the Grmans changed their stance on Lenin when they tried to destroy the Soviet Republic in 1919. The socialist revolution in Yugoslavia against the Axis powers was made possible by allied help from the U.S. and Great Britain because the USSR was bogged down with Operation Barbarossa. So my question is this: say that a socialist/workers'/communist/anarchist/whatever revolution happened in your country, any country. And say that the revolution escalated into a Civil War, and a foriegn Imperialist power offered to aid you in the war effort because they were hostile toward the state you were fighting against. Would this be unnacceptable because it is an imperialist force and is a threat to workers' democracy? Or is it a temporary military necessity, as well as a chance to propagate revolution to the soldier of the said allied countries so that they might lead a revolution in their country too?

[Jimmie Higgins]

If an imperialist power was stupid enough to aid us with no strings attached, then sure as long as there's no way for us to become dependent or indebted to them.

But overall I doubt any would do this even for short-term gain if they felt like a legitimate worker's revolution was happening or about to happen. I think the examples you gave only happened because the feudal and capitalist powers did not actually believe that a revolution would actually do anything beyond hurt their rivals. All feudal and catholic countries were violently hostile and opposed to the French Revolution because they did perceive a real threat to their order. After the Russian Revolution, I think any worker uprisings would cause the imperialist powers to close ranks just as the European powers did to Russia after the Revolution and WWI.

[A.R.Amistad]

What about the possibility of fraternizing and spreading propaganda to the proletarian troops of the said allied Imperialist force o that they might revolt too. Thats how it happened between France and America.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What about the possibility of fraternizing and spreading propaganda to the proletarian troops of the said allied Imperialist force o that they might revolt too. Thats how it happened between France and America.

Sure. I think even an attacking imperialist army would probably propagandized too - the grunts that is. In a lot of popular revolutions and national liberation movements the grunts of the imperialist army had leaflets dropped on them that argue that the revolutionaries had no desire to fight them and that they have a common enemy. The Vietnamese did this to the Americans, the Russians did this during the Revolution, the Paris commune did this, etc.

At best it could cause revolutionary sentiment in the attacking imperialist army or even in their country - at worst it could cause some demoralization among the lower-ranking soldiers.

Edit: Actually at worst it could achieve nothing, but it's still worth they attempt.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Whatever advances the possibility of revolution and the cause of the exploited.

As said above, as long as it does not empower the imperialists, we can trick them into alliances all day long;)

[A.R.Amistad]

Whatever advances the possibility of revolution and the cause of the exploited.

As said above, as long as it does not empower the imperialists, we can trick them into alliances all day longhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif
http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1613863)

I'm sorry but this seems to simple of an answer for me. I think we need a revolutionary program that deals with such alliances. I'm not saying we should abandon these alliances altogether, but I am saying we need to be careful and we need a plan. I wouldn't want anything like what happened in the Cuban Revolution/Spanish-American War in 1898 with the Platt agreement and half a century of imperialist domination under the illusion of national self determination.