The Soviet-Nazi pact

[robbo203]

From an article in Socialist Standard September 1939 (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org))



THE London newspapers on Tuesday, August 22nd (except the Communist Daily
Worker, which was busy ringing up Moscow) reported with astonishment the
announcement from Berlin that Germany and Russia had negotiated a non-aggression
pact, and that Herr von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, was flying at
once to Moscow for the formal signature of the Treaty. This announcement, which
came immediately after the completion of a trade agreement between the two
Governments, was confirmed by the official Russian Tass News Agency in the
following terms : —


After the conclusion of the Soviet-German trade and credit agreement there
arose the problem of im¬proving political relations between Germany and the
U.S.S.R.

An exchange of views on this subject, which took place between the
Government of Germany and the U.S.S.R., established that both parties desire to
relieve the tension in their political relations, eliminate the war menace, and
conclude a non-aggression pact.

Consequently, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop, will
arrive in Moscow in a few" days for corresponding negotiations. —(Evening
Standard, August 22nd, 1939.)



The Pact was duly signed in Moscow on August 23rd, thus realising a possibility
suggested in these columns more than once.

That the capitalist Press was, for the most part, genuinely surprised is
undoubtedly true — though this betrays some simplicity on their part and
remarkably short memories. They had reasoned on the basis that Russia and
Germany were fundamentally divided over the issue of Communism and that,
consequently, Russia could be counted on to help British capitalism in its
difficulties with Germany, Italy and Japan, the three principal members of the
Anti-Comintern Pact. The reasoning was superficial in the extreme and overlooked
the ease with which Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini had arranged pacts of
friendship on earlier occasions, for example, the Russo-Italian "Pact of
Friendship, Non-Aggression and Neutrality" of September 2nd, 1933, and the
ratification and continuation on May 5th, 1933, of a German-Russian Agreement of
earlier date. Though Hitler was then in power and was ferociously crushing
Communists in Germany, the Russian Government could put its signature to an
agreement which affirmed that the two Governments, by prolonging the Berlin 1926
treaty of neutrality and non-aggression, " intend to continue the existing
friendly relations between the Soviet Union and Germany."

The Press should also have remembered Stalin's speech of March 10th, 1939, in
which he made it very plain that Russia had no intention of falling a victim to
what he declared was British - French policy, the policy of enmeshing Russia in
war with Germany and Japan.

Yet when all these facts have been allowed for, it cannot be denied that, for
Stalin to choose this moment, when a German army waits on the Polish border, to
enter into a new 10-year Pact with Hitler represented a staggering affront to
all those people who had believed that the Russian Government was above the
disreputable ways of traditional diplomacy and that for that Government
opposition to Fascism and aggression was a matter of principle. As Mr. Lloyd
George — a supporter of the policy of alliance with Russia, who has been much
praised by the Communists — says, the German - Russian Pact "is a stunning blow
to Britain's Peace Front " (News Chronicle, August 22nd). It was so regarded by
supporters of the " Peace Front " in Britain and other countries and, according
to Press accounts, was received with jubilation in official circles in Germany
and Italy.

Sordid Pacts Secretly Arrived At

The method by which the Stalin-Hitler Pact was reached merits a little
attention, if only to expose the Communist hypocrisy of denouncing " secret
diplomacy." Without being so naive as the Evening News (August 22nd), which says
that the Pact " appears to have, been arranged without the (British) Foreign
Office having the slightest inkling of what was going on," it is unquestionable
that Germany and Russia must have been negotiating secretly for some
considerable time, simultaneously with public declarations by Russia that all
they wanted was the Peace Pact with Britain and France against aggression. The
Daily Herald (August 22nd) reports from Berlin that, according to German
accounts, the secret negotiations began in June, though the Evening News thinks
they probably began even earlier, in April, when the Anglo-German Naval Treaty
was denounced by Germany. Here we have an example of the cynical indifference of
the Nazi and Bolshevik rulers to the views of the masses, so cynical that they
can arrange in secret a Pact which must shock millions of simple-minded Germans
and Russians alike. These rulers will, however, live to regret their action, for
it will have repercussions as yet undreamt of by them.

Taking a long view, this is the outstandingly important feature of the
Russo-German Pact, in spite of the fact that at no distant date both signatories
to the Pact, having served their immediate purpose, may seek to explain it away
as of no particular significance. The fact remains that Hitler, who built
himself up on the slogan of protecting Germany against Bolshevism, and Stalin,
who built himself up on the slogan of anti-Fascism, will have exposed themselves
to their own sincere followers as being prepared to shake hands with their
allegedly implacable foes, and to compromise with what they have denounced as
the worst of all evils. From this realisation may flow the progressive
demoralisation of both the dictatorships, with resulting revived hopes for
democracy and Socialism.

Thieves Falling Out

Behind these negotiations are intrigues involving all of the Great Powers, an
all in game of international blackmail. It is easy enough to reconstruct what
has been going on, with reasonable confidence of substantial accuracy. The
British and French capitalists, with interests in Europe, but with great
interests in and on the way to the East, have long been vulnerable to an attack
in both quarters at once. How, then, to gain the greatest measure of security?
Equally the game of the German and Italian capitalists was to mass as many
allies and potential allies as possible to keep the ring for their expansion.
Russia's rulers, on the other hand, have feared that both groups might settle at
the expense of Russian territory when various small nations had been gobbled up.
After Munich, and the disappearance of Czecho-Slovakia, British policy veered
towards a Russian alliance (though this still did not prevent private and "
unofficial " conversations between the Secretary of the Overseas Trade
Department, Mr. Hudson, and Herr Wohltat, Economic Adviser to General Goering,
about possible economic assistance and a loan to Germany, these discussions
being suddenly brought to light towards the end of July. Nevertheless, British
capitalist interests in and about China necessitated some action against, or
compromise with Japan. Russia not desiring to be isolated, has retaliated with
the Russo-German Pact, intended no doubt as a final warning to the British
Government of a real Russo-German alliance unless the British Government would
line up definitely with Russia and against the German-Japanese group. But in the
international scramble every new alignment of forces provokes further jostling
for position, so now Japan will have an increased fear of herself being isolated
through loss of German backing, and the Japanese capitalists will have to ask
themselves whether to crusade under the banner " Asia for the Asiatics," line up
still closer in the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany against Russia, or revert
to the British alliance, and divide the Chinese market with the British Empire.
Germany, having used the Russian Pact to try to bring Japan to heel, may drop it
as quickly as it was taken up, in which case Russia, Britain and France may yet
be forced into a close alliance. At the moment this still seems the most likely
outcome, with, as a minor phase, a further attempt by Britain and France to
detach Italy and Spain from the Axis. That the Pact is supposed to endure for 10
years will not disturb either party for 10 minutes if they want to break it.

One feature of the situation which has received less attention than it deserves
is the trade agreement which preceded the German-Russian Pact. The Manchester
Guardian's Moscow Correspondent (August 22nd) states that the trade agreement,
under which Germany advances Russia a trade credit of £16,000,000, was delayed
because Russia insisted on being supplied by Germany with "equipment of a
strictly military nature " in return for Russian exports to Germany. The
Guardian's Berlin correspondent states that, according to German accounts, the
agreement arose out of Russia's great need of industrial machinery, which
Germany can supply," and out of Germany's need for Russian exports. It may well
be that economic difficulties in both countries are forcing the two Governments
to revise their policies of recent years and, indeed, one German newspaper
states that the Russian Government has recently decided to reorganise its
foreign trade and aim at expanding it. (Quoted in Daily Express, August 22nd.)

In the meantime, the rights and wrongs of Danzig and Poland fall into their true
perspective as mere counters in the sordid international scramble of the
capitalist Powers — not omitting the Bolsheviks. One thing at least should be
gained, a growing refusal by the workers to be influenced by the shoddy
propaganda alike of " big-business democrats " and Nazi-Bolshevik believers in
totalitarian capitalism.

The Apologies of the Communist Party

After their first reaction — one of utter consternation — the British Communist
Party Central Committee published a .remarkable statement in the Daily Worker
(August 23rd). Its claims were so amazing and the evidence on which they were
based is so negligible that the statement is no less amazing than if the
Communist Party had decided to deny everything and declare the whole affair to
be an invention of the capitalist Press. (They might just as well have taken
this line for all the effect their apologetics seem to have had on most of their
followers.)

During recent weeks the News Chronicle has several times reported statements
that the German Government was making approaches to Russia for a Pact. Each time
the Daily Worker has ridiculed the suggestion and put it down to pro-Nazi
influences in Great Britain. Now, when it transpires that the statements were
correct, and the Russian Government had secretly been negotiating such a Pact,
the Daily Worker (August 23rd) blares forth in great headlines that the
German-Russian talks are a " Victory for Peace and Socialism," a " Blow to
Fascist War Plans and the Policy of Chamberlain." In brief, the argument is that
Mr. Chamberlain's policy was that " of endeavouring to strengthen Germany to
attack the U.S.S.R., and to refuse the Peace Front," and that " the action of
the Soviet Union in its present negotiations with Germany has spiked the guns of
the pro-Fascist intrigues of Chamberlain and has strengthened the hands of the
British people in their fight for the Anglo-Soviet Pact. Now is the time and the
hour to develop the mass movement for the immediate signing of the Anglo-Soviet
Pact."

The statement further declares that it represents a climb-down and defeat for
Hitler, and that the Pact is fully in line with past declarations of Russian
foreign policy. To show this the statements made by Stalin in March last are
quoted. One in particular will show the hollowness of the Communist Party's
defence. Stalin is quoted as having said : —


We stand for the support of nations which are the victims of aggression and
are fighting for the independence of their country.



To justify the present attitude Stalin should have added, " We also stand for
Pacts of Non-Aggression with the aggressor State (Germany)." He did not do so,
but that is what the Communists are now seeking lamely to defend.

If, as the Communist Party say, the Pact means defeat and "capitulation," of
Hitler and the Axis Powers, they signally fail to explain why, in their own
words, " the Berlin papers spread the news in the largest of type across their
front pages. "

Altogether, the whole of the Communist Party's explanation fails to explain away
the glaring impossibility of reconciling the action of the Russian Government
with the propaganda of the Communist Party.

One true statement— but only half the truth— is this : —

What kind of discussions are proceeding to-day in German factories,
shipyards and mines ? What a strengthening of the mass opposition to the Hitler
regime the negotiations will present ? What an exposure of Hitler they
represent.


For the other half of the truth read " Russia " for German and " Stalin " for
Hitler, for it will be just as disconcerting in Russia as in Germany.

[Andropov]

No doubt a retreat in Soviet International Policy, just as with the NEP in Domestic Economic Policy.
But with the benefit of hindsight a wholey justified move in that it did give Stalin and the USSR time to industrialise to a sufficient level and crush the NAZI war machine.

[lombas]

Interesting read for those who understand Dutch: "Het Pact" by Lieven Soete.

http://www.epo.be/uitgeverij/boekinfo_boek.php?isbn=9789064457258

€5: don't hesitate...

:)

[Holden Caulfield]

Not really gonna add to the discussion just wanna make a brief point for the newbies...

If you ever get a hysterical history teacher/parent/douchebag screaming 'soviet-nazi pact, soviets are nazis!!!' at you simply respond thusly...

What was appeasement about again? And the failure to act on the non intervention pact made for the spanish civil war?

I'm not a defender of stalin in any way but the pact is something dumb fucks love to drag up to slag of 'communism'

[Invader Zim]

What was appeasement about again?

Preserving peace at best and postponing war at worst?

[Holden Caulfield]

[/I]Preserving peace at best and postponing war at worst?

Nice choice of words, preserving peace. :rolleyes:
Tell that to the Czechs.

EDIT: or the Irish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ&feature=related), Indians etc etc for that matter

[Wanted Man]

Interesting read for those who understand Dutch: "Het Pact" by Lieven Soete.

http://www.epo.be/uitgeverij/boekinfo_boek.php?isbn=9789064457258

€5: don't hesitate...

:)

It's a good one, and it can also be read online: http://www.katardat.org/4pact/index.html

[Invader Zim]

Tell that to the Czechs.

I was refering to war between Britain and Germany, naturally. I don't think you grasp the position that the British believed that they were in in 1938. They believed that should they go to war with Germany they would lose, and if postponing or preventing that conflict meant leaving the Czechs out in the cold then that was hard luck for them. Retrospectively we now know that Germany was actually far weaker than British intelligence assessments had suggested, but they didn't know that in the 1930s.



EDIT: or the Irish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasU9U7i3JQ&feature=related),

An impressive argument for Irish neurtality (we just have to ignore Valera's ommission of what would have happened to Britain's jews, leftists, etc, had Britain lost the war), but it doesn't support your argument. Until 1939 when the IRA declared war on Britain and began the S-Plan (and then sided with the Nazis) Ireland was not at war, with the exception of infighting. Furthermore this has little to do with your initial, and rather bizarre, argument that the appeasement policy was akin to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Did Britain, by telling the Czechs that they would be alone if they stood against Germany, stand to carve up Eastern Europe between themselves and the Germans? Not the last time I checked.

[Ismail]

Two good reads on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Bill%20Bland/german%20soviet%20pact.htm
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

[Andropov]

An impressive argument for Irish neurtality (we just have to ignore Valera's ommission of what would have happened to Britain's jews, leftists, etc, had Britain lost the war), but it doesn't support your argument. Until 1939 when the IRA declared war on Britain and began the S-Plan (and then sided with the Nazis) Ireland was not at war, with the exception of infighting.
De Valera was unquestionably one of the most reactionary figures in Irish History, who is fully to blame for the theocratic state which Ireland did turn into.
But to then mention the likes of Russell and his engagement with the NAZI's and failing it address the context the IRA and the wider anti-treaty forces found themselves in is slightly misconstruing the truth.
There was a certain reactionary element within the IRA but it certainly wasnt NAZI-sympathizing, yes some made the old mantra of my enemys enemy is my friend but let us not forget that the Blueshirts were formed as a reactioanry defence against the IRA and it was the Blueshirts led by O'Duffy who indeed fought for Franco in Spain. And yet quite a sizeable amount of IRA both serving and former members fought for the Republicans in Spain.
Whether Ireland was at war or not is debateable, it is debateable because the IRA were still at war with Britain and British Imperialism in the North of Ireland, all be it in a much more reduced capacity. The Free State was at peace with Britain but the Free State was at war with the IRA, the likes of De Valera and his former IRA ilke enacted laws against the IRA which the Brits would have been proud of. It may be deamed as "infighting" as you put it but others could quite rightly define it as war. Also the very usage of the term "infighting" slightly distorts the political and historical context of Ireland at the time. That being that the very first sizeable open opposition to the Treaty was indeed the Communists. Would their anti-Treaty struggle be defined as "infighting", I certainly wouldnt classify it as such.

Furthermore this has little to do with your initial, and rather bizarre, argument that the appeasement policy was akin to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Did Britain, by telling the Czechs that they would be alone if they stood against Germany, stand to carve up Eastern Europe between themselves and the Germans? Not the last time I checked.
Ok yet again we must analyse the historical context in which this politicking was made.
Firstly Britain was an ailing Empire by this time, it was merely attempting to hold onto its colonial gains and would have been happy to do so.
Britain saw a war with Germany as detrimental to is Empire and its grasp on colonial power worldwide as a world war would significantly weaken the power of the Empire and find it even more difficult to combat the rising National Consciousness of its colonys if its Army was slugging it out with the military might of the Wehrmacht.
Thus they were willing to carve up Europe to appease the NAZI's Imperial desires all be it in a different guise to the British version of Imperialism.
Anything to avert a World War which would only further increase the disintigration of the British Empire.
So granted Zim they were not carving up Europe for their territorial gain within Europe, how ever they were carving up Europe to maintain their Imperial remininants around the globe.
So in that way Holdens comparison was quite apt.

[Invader Zim]

Britain saw a war with Germany as detrimental to is Empire and its grasp on colonial power worldwide as a world war would significantly weaken the power of the Empire and find it even more difficult to combat the rising National Consciousness of its colonys if its Army was slugging it out with the military might of the Wehrmacht.

Yes and no. While fear of losing empire was indeed a part of the appeasement policy, particularly when it came to Japan and Italy both of whom were a direct threat to British imperial interests, the main fear when it came to Nazi Germany was far more immidiate, specifically the threat of Nazi Germany to the British mainland itself.

So yes the British were aware that war would probably lead to the destruction of the Empire, particularly because Mussolini threatened British interests in the Med. and Japan in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. However that was, with Germany only a sea away, was a far less pressing fear than the very real fear of the Werhmacht marching up the Mall, or cities being turned to dust by the Luftwaffe.

[Andropov]

Yes and no. While fear of losing empire was indeed a part of the appeasement policy, particularly when it came to Japan and Italy both of whom were a direct threat to British imperial interests, the main fear when it came to Nazi Germany was far more immidiate, specifically the threat of Nazi Germany to the British mainland itself.

So yes the British were aware that war would probably lead to the destruction of the Empire, particularly because Mussolini threatened British interests in the Med. and Japan in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. However that was, with Germany only a sea away, was a far less pressing fear than the very real fear of the Werhmacht marching up the Mall, or cities being turned to dust by the Luftwaffe.
Ya, pretty much spot on there Invader.

[Dave B]

Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941;


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/nazsov.asp

[KC]

Edit

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

It was a non-agression pact that had to be made to save some time for the USSR to massively increase arms production and prepare for an inevitable war.
The western powers had in the years before agreed on almost everything Hitler did, and refused all attempts Stalin made to ally with them against the reich.

[Invader Zim]

...The western powers had in the years before agreed on almost everything Hitler did, and refused all attempts Stalin made to ally with them against the reich.

'Agreed on almost everything Hitler did'?

Source(s)? While certainly the Western Powers, fearful of German productive potential and behind (or so they believed anyway) in the arms race, refused to resort to hostilities to prevent Hitler's expansionist foreign policy (until 1939 of course) it strikes me as manifestly false to presume that they argree with the policy. Rather they were shit scared by it and its implications.


and refused all attempts Stalin made to ally with them against the reich.

Chamberlain, et al. can be castigated for a great many things but refusing to ally with Stalin, after he had purged the majority of his veteran officers, and effectively cut the head from the Red Army, isn't one that immidiately springs to mind.

[KC]

Edit

[Invader Zim]

Clearly not enough to implement any trade restrictions. Nazi Germany was built on British and French capital.

You forget the USA, the USSR, the rest of the world generally, and slavery. And as it happens in 1937 the British began to considerably reign in their economic dealings with Nazi Germany; for example the Treasury requested the banks bar granting credit (which they did in the early stages of 1938) to Germany. That is more than can be said of the USSR that actually increased its trade with Germany in the years immidiately before Barbarossa.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not really gonna add to the discussion just wanna make a brief point for the newbies...

If you ever get a hysterical history teacher/parent/douchebag screaming 'soviet-nazi pact, soviets are nazis!!!' at you simply respond thusly...

What was appeasement about again? And the failure to act on the non intervention pact made for the spanish civil war?

I'm not a defender of stalin in any way but the pact is something dumb fucks love to drag up to slag of 'communism'
Very good point. And another argument you can use against idiots like that is the following:

If the Soviets having a non-aggression pact with the Nazis for two years is proof that communism = fascism, then, by the same logic, the five year alliance between the Soviets and the Western Allies proves that communism = capitalism. Wonderful! You've just proven that fascism = communism = capitalism. Congrats, idiot.

[pranabjyoti]

That is more than can be said of the USSR that actually increased its trade with Germany in the years immidiately before Barbarossa.
Simply, because the imperialist powers like the USA and UK always want to stall the advancement of USSR, so USSR had nothing to do but to go on and increase business relationship with Germany. At least, it hadn't supplied capital to Germany like UK and France.

[Kayser_Soso]

You forget the USA, the USSR, the rest of the world generally, and slavery. And as it happens in 1937 the British began to considerably reign in their economic dealings with Nazi Germany; for example the Treasury requested the banks bar granting credit (which they did in the early stages of 1938) to Germany. That is more than can be said of the USSR that actually increased its trade with Germany in the years immidiately before Barbarossa.


Still, the British had made rearmament possible. The UK was the first nation to sign a treaty with Nazi Germany; a naval treaty allowing them to rebuild their shattered navy. Poland also had direct dealings with Germany as a result of its non-aggression pact with that nation; they grabbed a piece of Slovakia during the invasion of Czechoslovakia. In the course of their dealings with Nazi Germany, they unwittingly showed their desires and weaknesses, which the Germans took advantage of. The Slovaks promptly joined the 1939 invasion along with Germany, and took back their land.

Britain's banks' actions may have had a lot more to do with the dodgy state of Nazi Germany's economy, which was basically a paper tiger built up on that MeFO bill scheme.

[Andropov]

That is more than can be said of the USSR that actually increased its trade with Germany in the years immidiately before Barbarossa.
Yes they did but you must look at the content of the said trade agreements.
In this agreement the USSR almost exqluisvely seeked military equipment from the NAZI's in exchange for raw materials.
As you can see it was just another step in the USSR's military build up and accumulation for when the inevitable would occur.

[KC]

Edit

[Coggeh]

Yes they did but you must look at the content of the said trade agreements.
In this agreement the USSR almost exqluisvely seeked military equipment from the NAZI's in exchange for raw materials.
As you can see it was just another step in the USSR's military build up and accumulation for when the inevitable would occur.
The point about the USSR's dealings with nazi Germany behind closed doors to the west which facilitated the military build up of Germany holds another key important point about the USSR at that time in which is shows the flaws of Stalins policy of Socialism in one country which effectively forced the USSR to supply and arm a fascist regime which lead to (which must have been obvious to the soviets) a war against the Soviet union.

This result is also derived from the CP's policy in the 30's before hitler came to power and that not calling for an alliance with the SD's and instead calling for the downfall of the SD government which could have only been replaced at that time by a fascist one . If this shows anything it is that the flaws of stalinism throughout the 30's brought about the need for a "nazi-soviet pact"

[Kayser_Soso]

The point about the USSR's dealings with nazi Germany behind closed doors to the west which facilitated the military build up of Germany holds another key important point about the USSR at that time in which is shows the flaws of Stalins policy of Socialism in one country which effectively forced the USSR to supply and arm a fascist regime which lead to (which must have been obvious to the soviets) a war against the Soviet union.

Actually Germany had done most of its rearming between 1933 and 1939- the non-aggression pact was signed in late August. Thank the British and the French for allowing that, and the Swiss who manufactured many of Germany's illegal weapons.



This result is also derived from the CP's policy in the 30's before hitler came to power and that not calling for an alliance with the SD's and instead calling for the downfall of the SD government which could have only been replaced at that time by a fascist one . If this shows anything it is that the flaws of stalinism throughout the 30's brought about the need for a "nazi-soviet pact"

There was good reason to suspect the unreliability of SDs in the 20s and 30s. If you were aware of how Hitler actually came to power, you would see that electoral politics really had little to do with it.

[Andropov]

The point about the USSR's dealings with nazi Germany behind closed doors to the west which facilitated the military build up of Germany holds another key important point about the USSR at that time in which is shows the flaws of Stalins policy of Socialism in one country which effectively forced the USSR to supply and arm a fascist regime which lead to (which must have been obvious to the soviets) a war against the Soviet union.
Im not sure what you are getting at here.
Of course we all accept that the USSR did have a non-aggression pact and did trade with NAZI Germany.
But as I stated before the context of said policy must be fully understood and not be judged in isolation.
The Soviets knew they needed time to re-arm and industrialise the economy for the eventual war.
Hence they bought time with the NAZI's through the non-aggression pact and got vital arms and supplys off the NAZI's in return for raw materials.
Now obviously this was a strategic retreat but with the benefit of hindsight the Soviets were proved right because through their industrialisation efforts of the war economy they were eventually capable of crushing the NAZI's.
Now the Soviets did not Arm the NAZI's indeed as KS said there it was indeed the West.
TBH I dont even understand the premise for this debate because the Soviets were vindicated in their vanquishing of the NAZI's.
Obviously we would all have rathered that Stalin did not formulate the trade and non-aggression agreements and thus keeping the USSR "ideologically pure" but Stalin and the USSR existed in the real world and in the given context such sentiments would hold little value if the USSR was wiped out.

This result is also derived from the CP's policy in the 30's before hitler came to power and that not calling for an alliance with the SD's and instead calling for the downfall of the SD government which could have only been replaced at that time by a fascist one . If this shows anything it is that the flaws of stalinism throughout the 30's brought about the need for a "nazi-soviet pact"
What KS said.
Anyway that whole debate is slightly veering from the topic at hand.

[Coggeh]

Im not sure what you are getting at here.
Of course we all accept that the USSR did have a non-aggression pact and did trade with NAZI Germany.
But as I stated before the context of said policy must be fully understood and not be judged in isolation.
The Soviets knew they needed time to re-arm and industrialise the economy for the eventual war.
Hence they bought time with the NAZI's through the non-aggression pact and got vital arms and supplys off the NAZI's in return for raw materials.
Now obviously this was a strategic retreat but with the benefit of hindsight the Soviets were proved right because through their industrialisation efforts of the war economy they were eventually capable of crushing the NAZI's.
Now the Soviets did not Arm the NAZI's indeed as KS said there it was indeed the West.
TBH I dont even understand the premise for this debate because the Soviets were vindicated in their vanquishing of the NAZI's.
Obviously we would all have rathered that Stalin did not formulate the trade and non-aggression agreements and thus keeping the USSR "ideologically pure" but Stalin and the USSR existed in the real world and in the given context such sentiments would hold little value if the USSR was wiped out.

What KS said.
Anyway that whole debate is slightly veering from the topic at hand.
The points are connected , Stalins failings in the past to deal with the rise of fascism in Germany are what led him to be forced to make a deal with the fascists . He had no choice in making a deal most would have done the same . but he was forced into that choice because of the failure of the stalinist model.

[lombas]

The points are connected , Stalins failings in the past to deal with the rise of fascism in Germany are what led him to be forced to make a deal with the fascists . He had no choice in making a deal most would have done the same . but he was forced into that choice because of the failure of the stalinist model.

Stalin offered the UK and France to carry out a pre-emptive strike on fascist Germany. Both declined, assured that they could outpower Germany easily (and a bit afraid of workers' united fronts on the homefront). They were correct, but waited long enough for Hitler to be forced to make the first move. His army was no where near full strength as he relied to much on long term projects (the German navy, for instance, was a scam).

Also, we cannot stress enough the fact that Poland persistantly denied Stalin access to its territory for the Red Army to attack Germany. Polish nationalism was fierce - beit not without a reason, I understand - and combined with the fact Poland occupied what was in Stalin's opinion "Russian" land (Belorussia, parts of Ukraine). Stalin could not attack Germany while Poland voted against it.

[KC]

Edit

[Andropov]

The points are connected , Stalins failings in the past to deal with the rise of fascism in Germany are what led him to be forced to make a deal with the fascists .
Could you expand a bit more on this?

[Coggeh]

Could you expand a bit more on this?
The KPD didn't call for a united front against fascism in the 30's with the SPD (those who were left of the centrists). On July27th 1931 the Central committee of the KPD sent a letter to members basically stating that the nazi party and the SPD are one and the same . They refused to ally with the SPD on the basis that they were "social fascists" the excuse and refute at the time was the leadershp of the SPD were too far right . Which is a foregone conclusion. A revolutionary party must appeal to the rank and file of the workers in the SPD to support a joint policy against the nazi party.


To take Trotsky's words this should have been the approach to the SPD in the 30's :


It is Not a Question of the Workers Who Have Already Left the Social Democracy, But of Those Who Still Remain With It

The thousands upon thousands of Noskes, Welses, and Hilferdings prefer, in the last analysis, fascism to Communism. [3] But for that they must once and for all tear themselves loose from the workers. Today this is not yet the case. Today the Social Democracy as a whole, with all its internal antagonisms, is forced into sharp conflict with the fascists. It is our task to take advantage of this conflict and not to unite the antagonists against us.


The front must now be directed against fascism. And this common front of direct struggle against fascism, embracing the entire proletariat, must be utilized in the struggle against the Social Democracy, directed as a flank attack, but no less effective for all that.


It is necessary to show by deeds a complete readiness to make a bloc with the Social Democrats against the fascists in all cases in which they will accept a bloc. To say to the Social Democratic workers: “Cast your leaders aside and join our “nonparty” united front” means to add just one more hollow phrase to a thousand others. We must understand how to tear the workers away from their leaders in reality. But reality today is-the struggle against fascism. here also :



The trouble is that in the Central Committee of the Communist Party there are many frightened opportunists. They have heard that opportunism consists of a love for blocs, and that is why they are against blocs. They do not understand the difference between, let us say, a parliamentary agreement and an ever-so-modest agreement for struggle in a strike or in defense of workers’ printshops against fascist bands.


Election agreements, parliamentary compromises concluded between the revolutionary party and the Social Democracy serve, as a rule, to the advantage of the Social Democracy. Practical agreements for mass action, for purposes of struggle, are always useful to the revolutionary party. The Anglo-Russian Committee was an impermissible type of bloc of two leaderships on one common political platform, vague, deceptive, binding no one to any action at all. The maintenance of this bloc at the time of the British General Strike, when the General Council assumed the role of strikebreaker, signified, on the part of the Stalinists, a policy of betrayal. [4]


No common platform with the Social Democracy, or with the leaders of the German trade unions, no common publications, banners, placards! March separately, but strike together! Agree only how to strike, whom to strike, and when to strike! Such an agreement can be concluded even with the devil himself, with his grandmother, and even with Noske and Grezesinsky. [5] On one condition, not to bind one’s hands.
link : http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm

Sorry for the long quotes and stuff and for kind of derailing the thread.To round up, Stalins actions in trading with Germany were of course necessary at the time but would never have been if they have followed the correct approach to dealing with the nazi party in the first place .

[Kayser_Soso]

Aside from the issue of hindsight, the KPD had many reasons to believe that the social democrats were no better than the Nazis. Many social democrat officials sided with the Nazis against the Communists from time to time. Most of this is irrelevant though- the Nazis lost seats in the 1932 election and Hitler became Chancellor thanks to von Papen.

[Coggeh]

Aside from the issue of hindsight, the KPD had many reasons to believe that the social democrats were no better than the Nazis. Many social democrat officials sided with the Nazis against the Communists from time to time. Most of this is irrelevant though- the Nazis lost seats in the 1932 election and Hitler became Chancellor thanks to von Papen.
A united front between the KPD and the SPD could have easily have prevented Von Papen handing power to Hitler. And in late 1932 and early 1933 the nazi party won both elections.The left was in pieces because of internal conflict and inability to source a real analysis of what needs to be done with regards to preventing the nazis gaining power. It was Thalmanns and Stalins Ultra leftism during these years that lead this to happen.And it took them till 1935 to finally realise their mistakes when they called for a popular front between communists "socialists" social democrates liberals and even conservatives to oppose hitler; needless to say this was a pathetic failure.

Had the militant wings of the SPD and KPD fought the nazis united and not fought each other history class would be very different for many people.

[Kayser_Soso]

A united front between the KPD and the SPD could have easily have prevented Von Papen handing power to Hitler. And in late 1932 and early 1933 the nazi party won both elections.The left was in pieces because of internal conflict and inability to source a real analysis of what needs to be done with regards to preventing the nazis gaining power. It was Thalmanns and Stalins Ultra leftism during these years that lead this to happen.And it took them till 1935 to finally realise their mistakes when they called for a popular front between communists "socialists" social democrates liberals and even conservatives to oppose hitler; needless to say this was a pathetic failure.

Had the militant wings of the SPD and KPD fought the nazis united and not fought each other history class would be very different for many people.

Idle speculation. I find it funny that most of the time Trotskyites find Stalin not left enough, save for when it is convenient. I could just as easily speculate that had Stalin recommended an alliance with the SPD, the Trots of the world would have been screaming about reformism.

You also forget that Von Papen didn't just pick Hitler because of Nazi electoral power but because of class reasons, which is the same reason why Hitler was funded in the first place, and why he managed to get something like three months jail(where he gets to dictate a book to Rudolf Hess) for the petty crime of trying to overthrow the national government by force. With so much hinging on victory, and as close as it would have been, there was no way in hell people like Von Papen, the people he represented, and the ruling class in general were going to allow Communists united with Social Democrats victory by election. Or do modern Trots support socialism through the ballot box now?

[Wanted Man]

A united front between the KPD and the SPD could have easily have prevented Von Papen handing power to Hitler.
What makes you say that?


And in late 1932 and early 1933 the nazi party won both elections.What, you mean they "won" in November 1932, when they lost 2 million votes? Or their "victory" in early 1933, when Hitler was already Chancellor, and socialist and communist electoral campaigns were constantly broken up by the police and SA? The nazis never won an absolute majority, until they banned the KPD and took their seats. But I guess some people will shamelessly repeat the myth of how "Hitler won democratically, fair and square" in order to promote a very specific view of history.

What you conveniently forget is that, in July 1932, when Von Papen launched a putsch against the Prussian social-democrats, communist and socialist militants planned a general strike to stop them, just like during Kapp's putsch of 1923. But the SPD leadership refused, and only called for the people to vote SPD in the next election in that same month (in which Hitler earned the result of 37.4%, his highest before his November loss and early 1933 win). The SPD were rewarded for their lack of spine with a minor electoral defeat.

Now, you just said that a united front "could have easily have prevented Von Papen handing power to Hitler". Are you referring to this event? If so, you can hardly point at Stalin and Thälmann (yes, because as we all know, history is made by the machinations of leaders at the top, especially when they have either "good" or "bad" ideas, err, "ultra-leftism" :rolleyes:).


Had the militant wings of the SPD and KPD fought the nazis united and not fought each other history class would be very different for many people.
Perhaps. But this kind of alternate history stuff would still be spouted by the same people with zero evidence.

[Invader Zim]

Yes they did but you must look at the content of the said trade agreements.

But, apparently we don't need to do the same of the USA, France, Britain and the rest of the world generally?

[Andropov]

But, apparently we don't need to do the same of the USA, France, Britain and the rest of the world generally?
Totally different contexts that really are not comparable when you analyse the foreign policys of the likes of the west to the USSR.
As was stated earlier the NAZI's majority of rearmament was done in the period of 1933-1939 and done with the backing of the France and Britain who duely supplied the NAZI's.
Not only this but they also catered to the policy of appeasment so that Hitler would not move west but would satisfy his Imperialist hunger by hopefully moving east.
Now Stalin wanted to crush Hitler before he became too strong but this flew in the face of appeasement of the west.
Thus the USSR was required to make provisions for a major war in the given context they found themselves in because of the west appeasement of Hitler and the west's rearmament of Hitler.

[Invader Zim]

Totally different contexts that really are not comparable when you analyse the foreign policys of the likes of the west to the USSR.
As was stated earlier the NAZI's majority of rearmament was done in the period of 1933-1939 and done with the backing of the France and Britain who duely supplied the NAZI's.
Not only this but they also catered to the policy of appeasment so that Hitler would not move west but would satisfy his Imperialist hunger by hopefully moving east.
Now Stalin wanted to crush Hitler before he became too strong but this flew in the face of appeasement of the west.
Thus the USSR was required to make provisions for a major war in the given context they found themselves in because of the west appeasement of Hitler and the west's rearmament of Hitler.




As was stated earlier the NAZI's majority of rearmament was done in the period of 1933-1939 and done with the backing of the France and Britain who duely supplied the NAZI's

And that statement is false in two places. Firstly that German rearmament was done with the backing of Britain and France. Both France and Britain, after German Rearmament was made public in 1935, began to rearm rapidly themselves. In the case of the British, and probably the French as well, it was to discourage further German rearmament. This formed part of Britain's general appeasement policy that was designed to prevent, and failing that postpone, another war akin to 1914-1918, and it existed in two parts. Firstly by offering concessions, and secondly to offer deterrence; and that was one of the main factors in Britain's rearmament in 1935 onwards. As for suppling the Nazis, what is your source? In 1936 Hitler charged Goering with the task of making Germany able to fight a war in four years on a self-sufficent basis. That meant distancing Germany from the global economy, and as noted Britain in particular cut its dealings with Germany at the height of German rearmament. Of course complete independece was impossible, as the Nazis well knew because of Germany's relative lack in specific raw materials, so the bulk of German trade was conducted with states within the german sphere of influence; primarily those in the south-east of Europe.


Not only this but they also catered to the policy of appeasment so that Hitler would not move west but would satisfy his Imperialist hunger by hopefully moving east.

Where does Britain and France's responce to the German invasion of Poland fit into that? Similary what of the British warnings of the impending invasion of the USSR?


Now Stalin wanted to crush Hitler before he became too strong but this flew in the face of appeasement of the west.

The reason that Britian and France didn't entertain the notion of an aggressive military pact with the USSR is simple, Stalin had purged the military and British and French intelligence assessments concluded that the USSR wouldn't be able to effectively mout a war outside of its own borders (and given the thrashing the Red Army recieved at the hands of Finland a little later it seems that is one of the few things British intelligence got right in the 1930s). Combined with the fact that Britian, at that stage, didn't think it was capable of successfuly fighting a war against Germany without a considerable period of rearmament, the notion of forming an aggressive alliance with a militarily decapitated Soviet Union and prematurely engaging in war with Germany, unsupprisingly, was not jumped upon.


Thus the USSR was required to make provisions for a major war in the given context they found themselves in

And where in ol' Uncle joe's provisions for a major war does purging the Red Army fit?



and the west's rearmament of Hitler.

As noted earlier, the bulk of German trade dealings, were not in fact, with any of the Great powers, and where do nazi-soviet trade relations fit nto this?

[ReggaeCat]

you could search about tokayef and buharin and what relations they had with trotsky ...it was like 3 days before tokayef atempt a Coup d'etat in the soviet union...acoording always to buharin confess at the court before he was shot ...so it was not unfair the whole purge..

about the pact....it was an non aggression pact wich means that stalin sent nazis in france and bought time...like he couldn't see that the allies were trying to send the nazis in the east..

[Coggeh]

Idle speculation. I find it funny that most of the time Trotskyites find Stalin not left enough, save for when it is convenient. I could just as easily speculate that had Stalin recommended an alliance with the SPD, the Trots of the world would have been screaming about reformism.

You also forget that Von Papen didn't just pick Hitler because of Nazi electoral power but because of class reasons, which is the same reason why Hitler was funded in the first place, and why he managed to get something like three months jail(where he gets to dictate a book to Rudolf Hess) for the petty crime of trying to overthrow the national government by force. With so much hinging on victory, and as close as it would have been, there was no way in hell people like Von Papen, the people he represented, and the ruling class in general were going to allow Communists united with Social Democrats victory by election. Or do modern Trots support socialism through the ballot box now?
Excuse me but where did i mention anything about elections? I meant a united force against fascism not an electoral coalition . We have maybe cross party united fronts against fascism . It would serve to combat fascism in the spreads , break up their meetings, unite politically against them in calling for unity (same way socialists parties work against the bnp for example) instead the SDP and the KDP literally fought each other and realising the immense threat Hitlers nazi party posed for the German people.

[Coggeh]

What makes you say that? the SDP and the KDP collectivly had the backing of the entire force of workers organisations in Germany. Their is no stronger force in society than an organised working class.



What, you mean they "won" in November 1932, when they lost 2 million votes? Or their "victory" in early 1933, when Hitler was already Chancellor, and socialist and communist electoral campaigns were constantly broken up by the police and SA? The nazis never won an absolute majority, until they banned the KPD and took their seats. But I guess some people will shamelessly repeat the myth of how "Hitler won democratically, fair and square" in order to promote a very specific view of history.I think your jumping the gun a bit on my post ( not sure if its on purpose to try and ridicule it but anyway) I said the nazis won both the Nov and March 33' elections . They did win them. I already agreed about Von papens role in getting hitler into power. I don't think its even accepted in most bourgeois circles that Hitler was elected " democratically".Look at the first line you quoted from me ? Would someone who thinks Hitler walked into power from elections say that ?

KDP and SDP meetings were also broke up with each other I might add.

Also i didn't say the word victory so why are you quoting it? for drama?



What you conveniently forget is that, in July 1932, when Von Papen launched a putsch against the Prussian social-democrats, communist and socialist militants planned a general strike to stop them, just like during Kapp's putsch of 1923. But the SPD leadership refused, and only called for the people to vote SPD in the next election in that same month (in which Hitler earned the result of 37.4%, his highest before his November loss and early 1933 win). The SPD were rewarded for their lack of spine with a minor electoral defeat.The SDP like most social democratic parties were led by right wing beureucrats doesn't take a genius to know this they were never going to agree to the KDPs calls for a general strike unless their was huge pressure from the rank and file to do so (like what occurs with SD parties and most trade unions these days). The failings of the rank and file to call for a general strike like with the failings of the KDP to analyse firstly : (1)the role of a social democratic party and secondly (2)the political conciousness of workers within such a party.

1: The Social Democracy supports the bourgeois regime, not for the profits of the coal, steel, and other magnates, but for the sake of those gains which it itself can obtain as a party, in the shape of its numerically great and powerful apparatus. To be sure, fascism in no way threatens the bourgeois regime, for the defense of which the Social Democracy exists. But fascism endangers that role which the Social Democracy fulfills in the bourgeois regime and the income which the Social Democracy derives from playing its role. Even though the Stalinists forget this side of the matter, the Social Democracy itself does not for one moment lose sight of the mortal danger with which a victory of fascism threatens it – not the bourgeoisie, but it – the Social Democracy.

2: The perspective of the workers inside the SD who seek a reformed gradual approach from capitalism to "socialism".Since they know that the Communists stand for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, the Social Democratic workers ask: “Do you sincerely propose the united front to us?” To this the KDP replies: “Naturally, sincerely, for with us it is a question of overthrowing the whole capitalist system.”

Taken from :http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1932/onlyroad1.htm#s3

With the "principled" approach to a united front by the KDP came the nail in the coffin by july 1932 of agreeing on a general strike with the SDP. They took no iniative to build a broad anti fascist movement but instead their frightened oppurtunistic minds got the best of them and only those whose political criteria was acceptable were accepted members of a united front. Their demands for a strike with the SDP was a result of their realisations that without the SDP their could be no victory over fascism. They took no iniative prior to this and were punished because of it.



Now, you just said that a united front "could have easily have prevented Von Papen handing power to Hitler". Are you referring to this event? If so, you can hardly point at Stalin and Thälmann (yes, because as we all know, history is made by the machinations of leaders at the top, especially when they have either "good" or "bad" ideas, err, "ultra-leftism" :rolleyes:).Are you seriously trying to say that Stalin and Thalmann could not be blamed because history is not made by single individuals etc?

What you have to realise is Thalmann was the leader of the vanguard in Germany the actions of the leadership of such a vanguard have a huge effect on what happened. When workers are in organisations that have poor leadership or poor ideas it generally affects the outcome.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think Coggy was referring to the failed policy dictated to German communists by the ComIntern that led to the rise of the Nazis.


"Social fascism" is too complex a policy to dismiss as an allegedly "ultra-left" sham:

1) Social corporatism (to recall Mussolini on fascism and corporatism) exists today, like NuLabour.
2) The united front proposed by Trotsky would have failed anyway, because the only front possible was between the SPD and some non-communist but socialist workers party like the inter-war USPD (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-vs-kpd-t103415/index.html).
3) There was a left wing within the Nazi party which gained more support from workers and which the German communists failed to consider separately (as if the entire Nazi party were ideologically homogenous).

[KC]

Edit

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just because I linked Third Period politics to Lassalle doesn't mean his informal "senior partner," the right-populist Bismarck, was a fascist.