Remember Stalingrad..

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Today, the second of February, is of course the anniversary of the victory at battle of Stalingrad....

Of course many of us here do not particularly support the USSR during this era, while many of us see it as the closest we have got to a true Socialist state and the liberation of proletariat..; whatever we think of the USSR of the 1940s we should always remember the great sacrifices made by the people who fought, at Stalingrad and elsewhere, against the tide of international Fascism represented by Nazi Germany.

[getfiscal]

Thank you Stalingrad dudes for killing Nazis.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The heroic fighting spirit of the great Soviet peoples in their struggle against the Nazi German beasts who sought to enslave and murder them ought to be remembered with gratitude by all working persons of all countries. That being said, their struggle would have been less costly had the Soviet leadership not engaged in a series of ill-advised policies beginning with an agricultural policy that led to the deaths of millions in a famine caused by poor policy decisions and culminating in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the failure of the Soviet leadership to heed numerous warnings of an imminent German invasion.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Problem Hitler?

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-3/stalin-4.jpg

[NorwegianCommunist]

I would like to thank the Soviet Unions soldier for killing houndreds of thousands of Nazi's.

=)

[Imposter Marxist]

It was a day when fighters of one capitalist country defeated workers from another.
I'm glad nazi's were defeated, but, isn't it the same as say, the battle of the bulge

[dodger]

It was a day when fighters of one capitalist country defeated workers from another.
I'm glad nazi's were defeated, but, isn't it the same as say, the battle of the bulge

you might care to judge after reading the book reviewed below.. How do you get an ageing ex Deputy Commander of the Warsaw Pact or a revered War Poet to meet you and travel with you? I would have to say there is no comparison at all with the Battle of the Bulge. The survivors tell their own story.


This review is from: Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed (Paperback)

Michael K. Jones, an experienced writer on battles, has written a fine account of Stalingrad, the battle that saved the world. It is based on eyewitness testimony, interviews with veterans of the battle, and the 62nd Army's war diary and combat journals.

Stalin's directive number 227, issued on 28 July 1942, said, "Every commander, soldier and political worker must understand that our resources are not unlimited ... To retreat further would mean the ruin of our country and ourselves. Every new scrap of territory we lose will significantly strengthen the enemy and severely weaken our defence of our Motherland. ... Not a Step Back! This must now be our chief slogan. We must defend to the last drop every position, every metre of Soviet territory, to cling to every shred of Soviet earth and defend it to the utmost."

Lieutenant Anatoly Mereshko, a key member of 62nd Army's HQ staff, said, "Order 227 played a vital part in the battle. It opened the eyes of the army and the people, and showed them the truth of the situation facing the country. It led to the famous slogan at Stalingrad: `There is no land for us beyond the Volga.' We were no longer just fighting for a city. It inspired us to fight for every metre of ground, every bush and river, each little piece of land. Order 227 brought an incredible ferocity to our defence of Stalingrad."

Machine gunner Mikhail Kalinykov said, "To be honest with you, there was considerable uncertainty about the fate of the city - whether we could hold it or not. And yet, after Order 227, we felt that we had to hold out at Stalingrad regardless of that uncertainty - somehow, we had to make our stand there. You see, the soil was now precious to us, and we had to defend every metre of it. It was our promise to the Motherland."

As against Anthony Beevor's vicious lies (in his book Stalingrad) about 62nd Army's commander, Lieutenant-General Vasily Chuikov, Jones shows the qualities of Chuikov's leadership - his toughness in command, his distrust of blueprints, his democratic method of work, his trust in the ordinary soldier, his listening to his soldiers, his leadership by example, his courage (his HQ was always in or near the frontline), his decisiveness, his clear and direct orders, his high demands on both himself and his soldiers, and his ability to motivate his troops. Interestingly, Jones claims that on 14 October 1942 Khrushchev briefly sacked Chuikov. Stalin reinstated him at once.

The Nazi lie was that the Soviet Union won only because of its greater numbers of men and munitions. At Stalingrad the opposite was the case. The Red Army was hugely outnumbered and outgunned and the Nazis also had total command of the air. Yet the Nazis lost - because the Red Army had a better strategy, better tactics (especially in street-fighting) and higher morale.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't support the USSR, but you don't need to to appreciate Paul Robeson's wonderful voice.

http://youtu.be/LtU3vUOa2sw

[Tavarisch_Mike]

It was a day when fighters of one capitalist country defeated workers from another.
I'm glad nazi's were defeated, but, isn't it the same as say, the battle of the bulge


If you use a Materialistic analysis on ww2 you will see that its outcome where a victory for the international labour movement through the world, regardless of what you think of the allies theire destruction of fascism did matter. Thats it.

[Imposter Marxist]

If you use a Materialistic analysis on ww2 you will see that its outcome where a victory for the international labour movement through the world, regardless of what you think of the allies theire destruction of fascism did matter. Thats it.


Typical stalinist

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Typical stalinist

ooh you... ^^


Ontopic: Ok, the i feel like i have to ask you the contra-fact question of ... Would the situation for the working class, world wide, have been the same if fascism had seized victory?

[Omsk]

I don't support the USSR


You would not support the USSR in the GPW?

On the topic: Dont remember Stalingrad,its a battlefield,remember the millions who gave their lives in the defence of life,future,and all the generations.We should also remember who led them in their struggle.

[Grenzer]

You would not support the USSR in the GPW?

The fact that they call it the "Patriotic" war is good enough reason not to support it, but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

[Omsk]

Youd disgusting rotten swine idiot!Millions of poor Soviet soldiers died in fight against a strong enemy,and now some pathetic digusting idiot has the gut to call them fascists?

You disgusting idiot!

[Grenzer]

Youd disgusting rotten swine idiot!Millions of poor Soviet soldiers died in fight against a strong enemy,and now some pathetic digusting idiot has the gut to call them fascists?

You disgusting idiot!

Millions of poor Soviet soldiers died, just like the millions of poor peasants died, eh?

Nice double standard. If you're going to become morally outraged at something, do it with consistency; but I guess that is too much to ask of a Stalinist.

[Omsk]

Why are changing subject?(Its not even possible to compare the things you mentioned)

Your post is a horrible insult,i wont even waste any more time on you.
A good way to parrot anti-communist garbage.

[Grenzer]

Why are changing subject?(Its not even possible to compare the things you mentioned)

Your post is a horrible insult,i wont even waste any more time on you.
A good way to parrot anti-communist garbage.

It's not changing the subject, I'm bringing up your hypocritical, unmaterialistic, capitalist supporting ass; which kind of makes your point entirely irrelevant.

[ColonelCossack]

but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

Ha Ha you're such a materialist

How was the USSR fascist?


Also to echo what Omsk said, that is hugely disrespectful to the tens of millions of soviet citizens that died fighting against fascism (i.e. 85%+ of the Nazi divisions). Many, many more soviet citizens were killed by nazis than were killed by the CPSU. Or do you actually believe that EVEL STALINZ killed 20 million? That's almost laughable. Oh yes, and he ate babies too... :rolleyes:

[Omsk]

It's not changing the subject, I'm bringing up your hypocritical, unmaterialistic, capitalist supporting ass; which kind of makes your point entirely irrelevant.

Dont try to bail out now that you spew some of the worst poison i'v ever seen on RevLeft!

Were you absolutely serious when you said: but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

[GoddessCleoLover]

We ought to honor the brave soldiers of the Soviet army who brought about a great victory over the Germans at Stalingrad, the battle that was the beginning of the end for Hitler and his Nazi Reich. To my mind, the leadership that ought to be credited is the military leadership provided by Marshal Zhukov and General Chuikov. Stalin may have given the "not one step back" order, but others did the difficult and bloody work of winning the war. If I am to give Stalin leadership credit for the Stalingrad victory, honesty in the face of history compels me to point out that had he provided better leadership in 1941 the victory over the Germans would have come sooner and with a lower Soviet casualty count.

[ColonelCossack]

unmaterialistic

You preach materialism yet you call the USSR fasicst and compare deaths ander Stalin to deaths under the Nazis. Looool.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Pretty cool to think that I owned a rifle that could have participated in that battle

[Rafiq]

Why are changing subject?(Its not even possible to compare the things you mentioned)

Your post is a horrible insult,i wont even waste any more time on you.
A good way to parrot anti-communist garbage.

The Muhajs in the middle east are comparable to Fascists, so does that mean we support a coalition of Bourgeois states against them?

WW1 was a horrific war. That doesn't mean it's in the interest of the proletarian class to support their class enemy.

WW2 wasn't any different: It was a war between various bourgeois states.

If you want to get emotional about such topics perhaps you should stop pretending to be a Marxist and conform to bourgeois romanticism.

[Rafiq]

The war was fought to satisfy the hunger of capital. To call it a war against Fascism is probably the ultimate embodiment of Idealist-analysis in regards to the war. It wasn't a battle of Ideas.

[Omsk]

WW2 was a war for survival,how many times must i point that out to you people?

"Interest of the proleterian class"

Pff.

It was either victory against Nazi vermin or the end.

And its hard for not to get emotinal about that.

[ColonelCossack]

It wasn't a battle of Ideas.

Even so, I would rather live in a liberal democracy or the USSR than Nazi Germany.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The war was fought to satisfy the hunger of capital. To call it a war against Fascism is probably the ultimate embodiment of Idealist-analysis in regards to the war. It wasn't a battle of Ideas.

While I think this thread should be moved, I don't agree with the suggestion of a "Soviet bourgeoisie" or of "Soviet imperialism."

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that it is ahistorical to use terms like "Soviet imperialism" in conjunction with the Battle of Stalingrad. Use of the term "Soviet bourgeoisie" is less troubling because the historical truth is that the gallant and heroic struggle of the Soviet peoples was actually carried out under the banner of patriotism rather than proletarian internationalism. Stalin had eradicated the vestiges of proletarian internationalism when he purged the veterans of the Spanish Civil War.

[Brosip Tito]

This thread is irrelevant.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Why is this thread irrelevant?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a History thread at best.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I see your point. Perhaps a mod make the change.

[ellipsis]

moved to history.

[Rafiq]

WW2 was a war for survival,how many times must i point that out to you people?

"Interest of the proleterian class"

Pff.

It was either victory against Nazi vermin or the end.

And its hard for not to get emotinal about that.

Oh don't get me wrong, the various partisan struggles against the Nazis and Italian Fascists was nothing less than admirable... That doesn't mean we have to dillusion ourselves in regards to the several motives of the allied and axis powers.

The ussr doesn't have a moral authority in this case over Britian and the United States. If you're going to drape yourself in the rhetoric of the GPW, you best be doing the same in regards to Britian and the United States.

[Omsk]

What i always point out,is that while in the case of a Nazi victory,for an example,the French would not have been exterminated,as a people,while the Slavs would have been exterminated.(And were exterminated.)

That's all.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Omsk is absolutely correct about the racialist policies and exterminationist goals of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

What i always point out,is that while in the case of a Nazi victory,for an example,the French would not have been exterminated,as a people,while the Slavs would have been exterminated.(And were exterminated.)

That's all.

This is so important to remember and allways worth to point out!

In the west we are to unaware of the hughe amount of the horrors done on the eastern front by the nazis. The death squads (Einzatsgups) exterminated god knows how many civilians in order to conquer the area and later repopulate it with "aryans". Its often forgot that this was the plan. Kill, what? 2/3s? of the 'slavs' and keep the rest as slaves.

I got a mate from Cuba, who also likes history very much. Since he grew up on the other side of the berlin wall (so to speak) we have had very different teachings in our schools about ww2. While he never heard anything about that the red army didnt support the Warzaw uprising in order to make themselves look like the real liberators, i wasnt teach about this. History is politics.

[Rafiq]

What i always point out,is that while in the case of a Nazi victory,for an example,the French would not have been exterminated,as a people,while the Slavs would have been exterminated.(And were exterminated.)

That's all.

So, because the USSR was more threatened, that puts it on a pedestal over the United States and Britian?

[dodger]

The fact that they call it the "Patriotic" war is good enough reason not to support it, but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

Appalled at your mean comment, Grenzer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We ought to honor the brave soldiers of the Soviet army who brought about a great victory over the Germans at Stalingrad, the battle that was the beginning of the end for Hitler and his Nazi Reich. To my mind, the leadership that ought to be credited is the military leadership provided by Marshal Zhukov and General Chuikov. Stalin may have given the "not one step back" order, but others did the difficult and bloody work of winning the war. If I am to give Stalin leadership credit for the Stalingrad victory, honesty in the face of history compels me to point out that had he provided better leadership in 1941 the victory over the Germans would have come sooner and with a lower Soviet casualty count.

Now that this thread has been moved, Stalin personally (after 1941) had a greater positive role in the Battle of Stalingrad and the Great Patriotic War as a whole than is usually acknowledged. At key moments, the marshals were all for aggressive action, while Stalin urged restraint.


The ussr doesn't have a moral authority in this case over Britian and the United States. If you're going to drape yourself in the rhetoric of the GPW, you best be doing the same in regards to Britian and the United States.

The trade agreements following the Non-Aggression Pact (as opposed to the pact itself) were/are inexcusable and reprehensible, for sure.



Note for a couple of left-leaning posters who might be curious about my posts here: Outside of revolutionary periods for the working class, there is such a thing as class-strugglist defencism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Didn't Stalin personally issue the "Not One Step Back" order? I would agree that Stalin had greatly improved as a supreme commander by the time of the Stalingrad battle. Stalin seemed to be one who had to learn his lessons the hard way, though. Prior to the "restrained" Stalin of Stalingrad, he had ordered several offensives in the spring of 1942 that fell victim to German counter-offensives and cost the Soviet military dearly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, the restraint of Stalin became more prominent after the Battle of Stalingrad. I would go as far as to say that he deserves more credit for the tide-turning Battle of Kursk than Zhukov or the other marshals.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Wait! The battle of Kursk was the biggest tank battle in history. In that time it was one of the more modern forms of warfare and Zhukov had master this startegic in his defence of the PR of Mongolia and against the japanees intervention of Manchuria. So to say that Stalin deserves the credit for the success in Kursk isnt to accurate.

[dodger]

Didn't Stalin personally issue the "Not One Step Back" order? I would agree that Stalin had greatly improved as a supreme commander by the time of the Stalingrad battle. Stalin seemed to be one who had to learn his lessons the hard way, though. Prior to the "restrained" Stalin of Stalingrad, he had ordered several offensives in the spring of 1942 that fell victim to German counter-offensives and cost the Soviet military dearly.

Both armies learned the hard way. Gramsci. Blitzkrieg was already a threadbare doctrine, before Moscow in fact. 2/5 of the attacking force with copious amounts of equipment already spent. The Soviets needed to do just one thing and one thing only , survive the initial onslaught. The end of Cold War and opening of archives along with access to people who were there has enabled many fine military historians both Brit and American to provide us with a clearer picture.


Stalin keys to victory.
(Stackpole Military History): The Rebirth of the Red Army in WW II (Paperback) pick it up for a fiver 2nd hand. American historian Walter S. Dunn has written a fascinating study of the keys to the Red Army's victory in World War II.

[Grenzer]

Ha Ha you're such a materialist

How was the USSR fascist?


Omsk has really given up the right to be taken seriously. Everything he says tends to be bullshit narrowly tailored to advance the political interests of his rotten corpse of an ideology. It's also incredibly ironic that a Marxist-Leninist would claim to be a materialist. Notions such as revisionism are purely idealistic in conception.

The USSR was capitalist: it had a bourgeoisie, private property, and exploitation of the surplus values of the workers. The bourgeoisie exercised their control of the means of the production through the state, and the workers had no say in the use of the value of their labor. It seems delusional to say that the USSR had any kind of democracy that could actually be representative of the desires of the workers; and indeed, there is no proof at all that such a thing existed. This is, as Marx established, capitalism.

Now that it has been established that the USSR was capitalist, we can examine some of its other traits. It had a brutal repressive apparatus that rivaled the Gestapo, an authoritarian dictator, heavy nationalism, and single party system. It would be more correct to say that it was a fascist-like capitalist regime.

You people really do sicken me. You're a disgrace to the memories of all the people that died. The lives of the people that died don't really really mean anything to you: the only reason they're relevant is because they died for the glory of the your beloved bourgeois dictator, Stalin; and serve your aim of justifying that grotesque parody of socialism. The sacrifice made by other anti-fascists across the world not only go unappreciated, but even ridiculed by your sort.

Millions of peasants starve to death? Unfortunate necessity. Millions of people murdered by the Soviet regime? They were traitors. But when millions die for the glory of Stalin, then you cry about it. This is entirely relevant because it shows that you are not only ethically bankrupt, but intellectually as well. So when you mass murdering, capitalist thugs actually have the audacity to claim the legacy of the sacrifice of millions to your benefit, then you can be damn sure some one will take you to task for it.

The truth is Stalin obsessed fanboys really have no place in the revolutionary movement. You're like the senile old man of the family, sitting in the corner occasionally making highly inappropriate comments much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the sane people in the room. The movement as a whole would greatly benefit if we just disavowed and disassociated ourselves with the sham of Stalinism. It's an understatement to characterize your politics as leading to capitalism: your politics are capitalism.

You have no credibility outside the group of other rats that have escaped the sinking ship that was the USSR. So please, spare us the self serving, hypocritical, sanctimonious bullshit.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I find that young Stalinists often mature and leave behind the bollocks that is Stalinism. Look at Mike Klonsky and Carl Davidson for example. They went from the leadership of the highly Stalinist CPUSA (M-L) to being basically part of the non-sectarian American Left.

I wouldn't read any honest Leftist our of the movement, but I would encourage them to study more broadly and develop organic ties to the working class. The working class had left Stalinism far behind. I am old enough to remember when Stalinist parties enjoyed some level of mass support in some parties, but that day is long past. Stalinism today is a dying ideology that has been decisively rejected by the international working class. It may have some residual influence here on RevLeft, but in the R/W is has none.

[moulinrouge]

I find that young Stalinists often mature and leave behind the bollocks that is Stalinism. Look at Mike Klonsky and Carl Davidson for example. They went from the leadership of the highly Stalinist CPUSA (M-L) to being basically part of the non-sectarian American Left.

I wouldn't read any honest Leftist our of the movement, but I would encourage them to study more broadly and develop organic ties to the working class. The working class had left Stalinism far behind. I am old enough to remember when Stalinist parties enjoyed some level of mass support in some parties, but that day is long past. Stalinism today is a dying ideology that has been decisively rejected by the international working class. It may have some residual influence here on RevLeft, but in the R/W is has none.

Stalinism is more a tactic and a style of representation(lots of flags and tough language) then an ideology.

[Omsk]

Despite Grenzers attempts to provoke me,and turn this thread into one of the many that already exist,i hope this discussion wont derail into something like that.

To Rafiq: Not the state of the USSR,but the people of the USSR,they simply needed the victory,(Im not saying the proleteriat of the West didn't) in order to survive.


the only reason they're relevant is because they died for the glory of the your beloved bourgeois dictator, Stalin;

Digusting.Completely disgusting.Like your coment that Stalingrad was something to like,and generally: a thing to like!

[Rafiq]

Well, Omsk, that's why I support the various partisan struggles against the Nazis.

[Omsk]

Most of these partisan struggles were either [as was the case on the territory of the USSR - organized by the CPSU ie the state in rationalist terms],or - they were led by Communist parties,who later,[as was the case in Albania,Yugoslavia,etc etc] got to the head of the state.

The partisan struggle was of great importance,but it was also a great sacrifice.

Now,just in case,before any people rush in to say that the partisans in WW2 [East] were "Horrible Stalinists" i want to add that one of the main reasons for the people joining the partisans,was not purely from ideological reasons,but also because it was the only way to survive. [An example - Nazis are spoted some 10km before the village,the men who could fight,young,would escape,run to the forest (This was just a synonym for going to the partisans) - by the time the major battles on the East happened,the Nazis were horribly brutal,the rule was : for 1 German soldier,100 of the locals/partisans.In short,the war on the East was beyong a nightmare. ]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both armies learned the hard way. Gramsci. Blitzkrieg was already a threadbare doctrine, before Moscow in fact. 2/5 of the attacking force with copious amounts of equipment already spent. The Soviets needed to do just one thing and one thing only , survive the initial onslaught. The end of Cold War and opening of archives along with access to people who were there has enabled many fine military historians both Brit and American to provide us with a clearer picture.

Indeed, my assessment of Stalin comes right out of the book Stalin's Wars.

On a side note, blitzkrieg is not as "threadbare" a doctrine as you've asserted. The key to its success is in its application as a pincer. The problem with Barbarossa was that it was not applied as such; the offense spread out instead. At the most basic level, the very existence of Army Group North, Army Group Center, and Army Group South went against the doctrine.

Compare that to the Soviet counteroffensive, geographically speaking. Various forces were spread out over vast spreads of territory (north, center, and south), but then at the end of the day they converge.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Communism had relatively little to do with the Russian victory. The peoples of the Soviet Union were fighting for their very survival as a race against those who sought to exterminate them. Stalin made very little effort to appeal to the Soviet peoples to fight on behalf of Communism, rather the slogan was to fight for the Motherland and Stalin. Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church, gave speeches recalling the glories of ancient Russian heroes such as Dimitri Donskoi and Alexander Nevsky, and generally appealed to the people to resist Hitler as they had resisted Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Realistically, WWII didn't present a revolutionary period to the working class. What's your underlying point?

[Bronco]

The war was tragic, Stalingrad was tragic. For all sides. It's pretty fucking stupid to post stuff like "thanks for killing Nazis" as though it's really something to celebrate and glorify, and as though every single German soldier was an evil Nazi hell bent on slaughtering all Communists and Jews

[GoddessCleoLover]

My underlying point is that in the wake of the horrors of Stalinism the only popular basis upon which the Russian people could be rallied was in defense of their motherland. The Second World War ought to have presented the international working class with an opportunity for revolution, but the Soviet model was so discredited as to make popular uprisings unlikely. Riddle me this, Die Neue Zeit, how did the First World War present a revolutionary period to the working class but not the Second? What is the distinction between the two?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because one situation had mass worker-class movements organized into real political parties, and said parties commanded majority political support from the working class (pre-WWI SPD, inter-war USPD, Bolsheviks). Also, internal confidence in state organs was more absent then.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Well put, although Italy would seem to be the exception, since internal confidence in state organs was at an extremely low point in late Fascist era, the Salo period in particular. Without the Stalinist legacy it seems at least possible that a revolution might have occurred at least in northern Italy.

[Bostana]

It was the turning point in the War, not just for the Soviet Union, but for the whole Allied force.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Correct. The Germans never really recovered from their capitulation at Stalingrad, and Kursk spelled the inevitable doom for the German military and the Nazi regime.

[Omsk]

Well,to counter some of the claims above,- the Russian people (I would like to use the word - Soviet,as there were many nationalities involved in the war,and these days,nationalists are trying to draw the borders on national levels.) fought because of many reasons - there were many communists,and they all fought in what they saw as the conflict that could result in the end of socialism,and they fought for the Soviet Union,and 'for communism' - than,there were the groups of esentially poor people - who fought for their survival,and had no other option - than,there were those who fought for their families,and friends,their cities.At first,people thought it would be a war - conventional,but bloody.By the time it became clear that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to exterminate 'untermensch' - and when they carried outh the horrible genocide,(which completely destroyed the occuppied areas,in the end,the horrible cost was:,some 1710 towns and townships destroyed, 70,000 villages burned to the ground ,32,000 factories destroyed, 65,000 kilometers of railway track destroyed,100,000 collective farms destroyed, 25 million homeless people.And more than 20 million people who died in the war) every man felt the need to go to the front,too much was at stake.

I don't think that there was a single 'important point' on the Eastern Front - every moment was important,every second important,every battle was important.

[Comrade Samuel]

I thought this thread was for remember the millinons who gave their lives stopping the nazis, its not about Stalin, the U.S.S.R or our own personal biases it's about the fact we would be speaking German or rotting in a camp right now if it weren't for THE PEOPLE who fought.

[ColonelCossack]

Omsk has really given up the right to be taken seriously. Everything he says tends to be bullshit narrowly tailored to advance the political interests of his rotten corpse of an ideology. It's also incredibly ironic that a Marxist-Leninist would claim to be a materialist. Notions such as revisionism are purely idealistic in conception.

The USSR was capitalist: it had a bourgeoisie, private property, and exploitation of the surplus values of the workers. The bourgeoisie exercised their control of the means of the production through the state, and the workers had no say in the use of the value of their labor. It seems delusional to say that the USSR had any kind of democracy that could actually be representative of the desires of the workers; and indeed, there is no proof at all that such a thing existed. This is, as Marx established, capitalism.

Now that it has been established that the USSR was capitalist, we can examine some of its other traits. It had a brutal repressive apparatus that rivaled the Gestapo, an authoritarian dictator, heavy nationalism, and single party system. It would be more correct to say that it was a fascist-like capitalist regime.

You people really do sicken me. You're a disgrace to the memories of all the people that died. The lives of the people that died don't really really mean anything to you: the only reason they're relevant is because they died for the glory of the your beloved bourgeois dictator, Stalin; and serve your aim of justifying that grotesque parody of socialism. The sacrifice made by other anti-fascists across the world not only go unappreciated, but even ridiculed by your sort.

Millions of peasants starve to death? Unfortunate necessity. Millions of people murdered by the Soviet regime? They were traitors. But when millions die for the glory of Stalin, then you cry about it. This is entirely relevant because it shows that you are not only ethically bankrupt, but intellectually as well. So when you mass murdering, capitalist thugs actually have the audacity to claim the legacy of the sacrifice of millions to your benefit, then you can be damn sure some one will take you to task for it.

The truth is Stalin obsessed fanboys really have no place in the revolutionary movement. You're like the senile old man of the family, sitting in the corner occasionally making highly inappropriate comments much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the sane people in the room. The movement as a whole would greatly benefit if we just disavowed and disassociated ourselves with the sham of Stalinism. It's an understatement to characterize your politics as leading to capitalism: your politics are capitalism.

You have no credibility outside the group of other rats that have escaped the sinking ship that was the USSR. So please, spare us the self serving, hypocritical, sanctimonious bullshit.

Calm down.

Whatever the USSR was, it certainly wasn't fascist. I think even leftists who call the USSR state capitalist would agree, because calling the USSR fascist isn't really a very materialistic analysis. So stop being a hypocrite yerself.

It's also worth noting that most revolutionary groups around the world happen to be M-List...

Also, this "your politics are capitalism" thing has me confused. I want to do away with capital, Therefore I am a capitalist. Da fok?

Btw, how many do you actually think Stalin killed?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I thought this thread was for remember the millinons who gave their lives stopping the nazis, its not about Stalin, the U.S.S.R or our own personal biases it's about the fact we would be speaking German or rotting in a camp right now if it weren't for THE PEOPLE who fought.

I like how you compare the two plaussible examples :laugh:


No but seriously i agree.

[Ostrinski]

calling the USSR fascist isn't really a very materialistic analysisIt actually doesn't have anything to do with materialism, it is simply the misuse of a term.


It's also worth noting that most revolutionary groups around the world happen to be M-List...That's actually not worth noting at all. I mean it is, if 1) you think those groups are legitimate and 2) you think tendencies should be evaluated along the lines of who's blowing the most shit up. Most ML groups are just nationalist groups who are looking for an alternative to being submissive the global market hegemones. This, of course, has nothing to do with class struggle.


I want to do away with capitalYou don't, though. At least not if you think the USSR under Stalin was the correct representation of socialism. The economy of the USSR thrived on capital accumulation.

[Dr Doom]

it never ceases to amaze me when so called socialists support the biggest blood bath in human history all in the name of 'anti-fascism'. the war wasnt about democracy v fascism, it was an inter-imperialist war and as such the working class where sent to butcher each other in the interests of their stalinist, democratic or fascist bosses.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Don't you think that the peoples of the Soviet Union were fighting for their very survival against their would-be exterminators?

[Omsk]

it never ceases to amaze me when so called socialists support the biggest blood bath in human history all in the name of 'anti-fascism'. the war wasnt about democracy v fascism, it was an inter-imperialist war and as such the working class where sent to butcher each other in the interests of their stalinist, democratic or fascist bosses.



How many times must i repeat what i say every single time to types such as you?

WW2 was a war for survival for some people.

But i guess it's no use to repeat that to every single user who comes into this thread.

[Bronco]

Any soldier in any war is fighting for their survival

[Omsk]

We are not talking about soldiers only,but about civilians,actually - every human being in the USSR [or anyone who the Nazis considered an 'untermensch' - in the case of a defeat,they would either be turned to slaves/exterminated.

[GoddessCleoLover]

True, Bronco, but in WW2 the very survival of the Slavic peoples was threatened by Hitler's exterminationist New Order.

[ColonelCossack]

You don't, though. At least not if you think the USSR under Stalin was the correct representation of socialism.

I don't think any M-L thinks that the SU at that time was a full and complete representation of socialism; in Leninist terms, I suppose it would be labelled as the transitional phase between the revolution and socialism, as described by Lenin in the State and Revolution. However, after that period, I, and every other M-L, of course wants to get rid of Capital.

But this thread isn't for this kind of argument. It's about remembering those that died in Stalingrad.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Be careful Colonel Cossack; what you just posted is close to Bukharinism or even, God forbid, Trotskyism. Seriously, it is good to see a Marxist-Leninist who does not buy the SIOC propaganda of the Stalin era hook, line, and sinker.

[ColonelCossack]

Be careful Colonel Cossack; what you just posted is close to Bukharinism or even, God forbid, Trotskyism.

Huh? The fact that there's a transitional phase between capitalism and socialism, and then a lower stage of communism before full communism, is one of the central tenets of Leninism. So it's quite obvious that the USSR during Stalin's time wasn't fully and entirely communist, and wasn't supposed to be fully and entirely communist, in the strictest sense of the word. I thought that was also the general concensus among M-Ls...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Seem to recall that by the mid 1930s Soviet socialism was proclaimed to be so far advanced that the DoP had been supplanted by "the state of the whole people".

[Bostana]

The Red Army's inspiration:
1wEexEHZWH0

Some of you might not like Call of Duty but you have to admit this scene is kool.

[Ostrinski]

Huh? The fact that there's a transitional phase between capitalism and socialism, and then a lower stage of communism before full communism, is one of the central tenets of Leninism. So it's quite obvious that the USSR during Stalin's time wasn't fully and entirely communist, and wasn't supposed to be fully and entirely communist, in the strictest sense of the word. I thought that was also the general concensus among M-Ls...I've yet to see one ML didn't consider the USSR during the Stalin years socialist. But you're right. This is OT.

[Zulu]

Seem to recall that by the mid 1930s Soviet socialism was proclaimed to be so far advanced that the DoP had been supplanted by "the state of the whole people".

Not exactly. In the "Stalin" Constitution of 1936 the USSR was proclaimed a "socialist state of workers and peasants". Only the "Brezhnev" Constitution of 1977 said it was a "socialist all-people's state".

Stalin said socialism in the USSR was "basic", or built "in the main" (referring to the socialization of the most of the means of production and the successes of collectivization and industrialization campaigns). However, at the same time Stalin said that the class struggle was intensifying and taking new forms.

It was not until late Khrushchev years that the "highly developed socialism" rhetoric entered the newspapers (while it reality it was sliding back to capitalism form the the "basic" hights it had achieved in Stalin's period). The idea that the class struggle can exist in the USSR was dropped, which meant the anti-socialist elements (including those in the CPSU itself) were practically scot-free to go about with their counterrevolutionary activities.



Anyway, on topic, to commemorate those who fought in the Red Army:

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1677/pianon.jpg (http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1677/pianon.jpg)

[gorillafuck]

The fact that they call it the "Patriotic" war is good enough reason not to support it, but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?not even the mosyt adrent anti-capitalist opponents of the USSR consider it fascist. that's liberal garbage.

[dodger]

Indeed, my assessment of Stalin comes right out of the book Stalin's Wars.

On a side note, blitzkrieg is not as "threadbare" a doctrine as you've asserted. The key to its success is in its application as a pincer. The problem with Barbarossa was that it was not applied as such; the offense spread out instead. At the most basic level, the very existence of Army Group North, Army Group Center, and Army Group South went against the doctrine.

Compare that to the Soviet counteroffensive, geographically speaking. Various forces were spread out over vast spreads of territory (north, center, and south), but then at the end of the day they converge.

Indeed DNZ I was taking liberties with English ...I meant threadbare as for the Nazis. It smashed forever as it the myth of invincibility. The flaws were obvious as we look back in time, as you point out.

[dodger]

At the end of January 1943, the German armies that had tried to smash the Soviet Union’s third-largest industrial centre surrendered in ignominy…

Stalingrad: the battle that saved the world

WORKERS, JANUARY 2010 ISSUE

Sixty-seven years ago, the most momentous battle in modern history was fought out in a city on the Volga River – Stalingrad. On its outcome rested the fate of the world.

It was not the first time the city had been the site of a pivotal battle. In June 1918, during the intervention following the Russian Revolution, the city, known as Tsaritsyn, formed a wedge between anti-Bolshevik forces in the east and the south. After these forces, the greatest threat to the young revolution was hunger. Beyond Tsaritsyn lay the grain to feed Moscow. Stalin was despatched to organise its defence, and the rest is history.

Along with Kliment Voroshilov, Stalin rallied the local workers’ organisations, forged the first regular units of the Red Army and, by August, despite great odds, had crushed the advancing force of General Denikin. The Soviet Republic was saved from starvation and collapse. Those who had defended Tsaritsyn renamed it Stalingrad.


10 January 1943: the battle for Stalingrad rages, but the Nazi army is doomed.
By 1940, Stalingrad was the third-largest industrial centre in the Soviet Union, with a rapidly growing population of over half a million. It had become a “showpiece” city, the largest port on the Volga with the biggest tractor factory in the world.

Spirit of the people

Any city is more than just brick and cement, steel and glass. A city is and as with Madrid in 1936, it was the people who gave the city of Stalingrad its particular political complexion.

Adolf Hitler’s Nazis knew this well. In 20th century warfare, with its emphasis on mechanisation and speed, a siege was already something of an anachronism. Yet that was the tactic they opted for when attacking both Stalingrad and Leningrad. They could not afford to bypass either city and leave its spirit intact.

And so a siege was laid with the aim of starving and bombarding the defenders into submission, thereby dealing a blow to the morale of a whole nation.

With the outbreak of war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in June 1941, Stalingrad – as in 1918 – assumed a special strategic importance. Launching an attack on 23 August, the armies of Von Bock and Von Paulus knew they had four months in which to take the city before winter set in. Through a combination of guerrilla raids, of fortifications manned by a workers’ militia and a simple refusal to give ground, the Germans were kept at bay.

The workers were always having to stop work to bolster the regular units. Once in mid-September the Nazis broke through to the tractor repair shop. The workers there, in what has become a well documented act of bravery, jumped straight into the tanks they had just finished repairing and took them into battle.

They were joined by a battalion of workers’ infantry commanded by a dean of the Mechanics Institute in one of the city’s five universities. This particular battle lasted for two days, until the Nazis were pushed back. Such events contributed to what became known as the spirit of Stalingrad.

Despite the deliberate pessimism of such newspapers as the Daily Mail, every factory canteen and every pub in Britain was the centre of a discussion of the tide of battle, workers everywhere showing their support for the Red Army.

By October the time of the major battle was approaching. Hitler had ordered the capture of Stalingrad “regardless of cost”. Stalin ordered “not a step back”. The city was fought for street by street, house by house.

Encircling

With winter setting in, the armies of Soviet generals Zhukov and Rokossovsky began an encircling manoeuvre which formed the basis of a general offensive on 15 November, an attack that turned the tables. The lengthy defence of the city had bought important time for the Soviet Union to bring in fresh, crack troops, skilled in winter combat.

More than 330,000 German prisoners were taken as successive battalions of Nazi troops were caught in pincer movements. The last battle of the campaign was fought, ironically, under the heights of Mamaer Kurgan – the same spot where the Bolsheviks had secured Tsaritsyn in 1918.

By 31 January 1943 Von Paulus, along with the armies of 15 other Nazi generals, surrendered.

Two years and three months later, the Red Army entered Berlin. It was because of that momentous battle, which workers worldwide now acclaimed as the decisive victory over Hitler, that Red Army soldiers could carve with pride on the central column of the Reichstag, Germany’s wrecked parliament, “We come here from Stalingrad.”

[dodger]

The epic story of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in southern Angola in 1987/89 is little known in Britain. But the events leading up to it show how small yet decisive actions by workers can bring about massive changes in the world…

Cuito Cuanavale – the story behind the battle that became Africa’s Stalingrad

WORKERS, JULY 2010 ISSUE

You could argue that the battle of Cuito Cuanavale all started with the actions of Cuban workers through their trade unions, that led first to the Cuban revolution of 1959, and then through their crucial role in Africa to the establishment of independent Guinea Bissau, Angola, Mozambique and Namibia, handing a decisive defeat to Portuguese and US imperialism in Africa and contributing to the victory against apartheid in South Africa.

Without the Cuban revolution, one Jorge Risquet would not have led an armed column to Congo Brazzaville in 1965 at the request of the newly independent Congolese government. Here contact was made with the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) who were fighting for independence from Portugal.

Neither would one Ernesto Che Guevara have led another column to Eastern Zaire via Guinea where he talked with Amilcar Cabril, the leader of the independence movement for neighbouring Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde (PAIGC) that was conducting armed struggle against the Portuguese colonialists and who were considered to be the best organised liberation movement in Africa.

The consequences of these engagements were very significant. Cuba sent to Guinea Bissau 31 volunteers – 11 mortar experts, 8 drivers, 1 mechanic, 10 doctors and an intelligence officer, all of them black to be unnoticed and all in time for a battle to take the Portuguese fortified camp at Madina de Boe.

The doctors were to go to the liberated areas and the mortar experts were sent to instruct on the use of artillery that Cuba would send along with trucks, munitions, olive uniforms, medicines and, of course, cigars and brown sugar! Cuba also trained 31 students from the Cape Verde islands in guerrilla war tactics and returned them to fight with PAIGC. By 1967 there were 60 Cubans in Guinea Bissau.

In 1969, US Ambassador Dean Brown reported from Dakar “The war in Portuguese Guinea has gone from bad to worse for the Portuguese during the past three years despite increased Portuguese troop strength from 20,000 to 25,000. PAIGC controls 60 per cent of the country”. In November 1970 the Portuguese resorted to attacking the capital of neighbouring Guinea hoping to overthrow that government and so end its backing for the PAIGC’s anti-colonial struggle.

The attack was a fiasco and the writing was now on the wall. With Portugal about to lose Guinea Bissau to PAIGC and fighting the MPLA in Angola and Frelimo in Mozambique its army was set to mutiny. On 25 April 1974, revolution overthrew the fascist dictatorship in Portugal, whose troops were withdrawn from Guinea Bissau by November.

In 1975, Portugal was set to hand over power to Frelimo in Mozambique and to a combination of three independence movements in Angola: the MPLA; the FNLA funded by the CIA and Mobutu’s Zaire; and Unita, backed by apartheid South Africa. In July 1975, the US agreed secretly to fund both the FNLA and Unita.

Double invasion

Fighting broke out in 1975 between the deeply unpopular but well armed FNLA, whose Zairian leader had not stepped foot in Angola since 1956, and the MPLA. At the same time Zairian troops entered Angola from the north and South African forces from the south to support Unita. Eventually the MPLA would take control of the whole of Luanda, the huge capital city, where it had mass support.


Angolans bid farewell to Cuban troops in 1989.
As Independence Day approached in November 1975, the MPLA appealed to Cuba for military instructors, weapons, clothing and food as Zairian and South African forces headed towards the capital.

Cuba sent 480 instructors who would create four training centres that opened in October 1975. They also sent weapons, clothing and food and were set to train 5,300 Angolans in three to six months. However, as the South Africans and Zairians advanced, they found themselves having to go into action themselves to defend their training camps.

Cubans were queuing up to volunteer to go to Angola, but the USA did not find out about this until weeks after the first Cubans arrived. It was described as the world’s best kept secret – only eight million Cubans knew about it! They crossed the Atlantic on old Britannia planes dressed as tourists, with weapons in their suitcases and in the hold of the planes. They went by ship as well. Jorge Risquet was politically in charge of the military and civilian Cuban missions.

As the South Unita and Zairians/FNLA closed in, all seemed lost. But with the MPLA fighting on their own turf, Soviet military equipment arriving and Cubans going into action straight from their plane, Independence Day came with the MPLA in control of Luanda and the joint Cuban/Angolan forces pushing back the South Africans and Zairians. Victory was sealed after a few months. However, FNLA and Unita continued a slash and burn war.

Cubans began to help Angola build health and education services, carrying out vaccination and anti illiteracy campaigns and training the Angolan Air Force and Army (FAPLA). Whilst Cuban and Angolan forces still had to battle with Unita and FNLA, the South West African Peoples Organisation (SWAPO), fighting for Namibian independence from South Africa, set up bases in southern Angola with Cuban and Angolan support.

The South African Defence Force (SADF) set up what it called the 32nd Battalion, comprising ex-FNLA soldiers who had fled to occupied Namibia plus other black mercenaries under white SADF officers, who murdered and sowed terror in Angola. South African bombers frequently attacked Angolan towns, cities and Namibian refugee camps. Invasions of southern Angola were frequent.

Eventually, after another South African invasion of southern Angola in 1987, the combined forces of Cuba, Angola and SWAPO forced the South Africans back to the Namibian border taking the strategic Angolan town of Cuito Cuanavale. The South Africans responded with airpower and tanks and tried to retake the town, knowing its strategic importance. Cuba sent reinforcements, tanks plus Cuban and Angolan MiGs.

As Jorge Risquet said, “There were negotiations going on between Angola and the US, who was after all behind the South African government. In southern Angola, the SADF responded with aircraft and stopped the FAPLA offensive. FAPLA withdrew to Cuito Cuanavale where elite Angolan troops were gathered. The SADF laid siege to Cuito Cuanavale aiming to liquidate the Angolan troops in the midst of negotiations. If they won they would have demanded Angola’s full surrender.

“The US had refused to allow Cuba to participate in the negotiations and Cuba had said that it was prepared to stay in Angola until apartheid was defeated, but would only stay as long as Angola wanted them to. However, the SADF launched an attack on Cuito Cuanavale on January 13 1988. By then Cuban reinforcements had arrived and Cuba’s best pilots were flying sorties against the SADF inflicting heavy casualties. The South African attack was defeated. This changed the balance of forces and the US agreed by the end of January to the participation of Cuba in the negotiations.

“In March another meeting was held between Angola, Cuba and the US after the South Africans suffered another defeat in their second attack on Cuito Cuanavale in February. Five attempts to take Cuito Cuanavale were made by the SADF and all failed. We built an airstrip in record time and our planes could now reach SADF bases in northern Namibia and this forced South Africa to accept the first four-party negotiations in May. It was time for the US to stop serving as a messenger between Angola and Cuba on the one hand and South Africa on the other. It was time to seat the declared enemy at the table and seek a negotiated settlement.

Decisive

“So Cuito Cuanavale was decisive. The negotiations came later. The battle of Stalingrad took place three years before the fall of Berlin, but it was at Stalingrad that the outcome of World War II was decided. The South Africans arrogantly used delaying tactics but the die was cast after two more defeats at nearby Tchipa and Calueque. They realised that a frontal war in southern Angola and Northern Namibia would be the swan song for apartheid. So they were forced to negotiate.”

The result was full independence for Namibia, no further South African or US support for Unita, withdrawal of all SADF forces to within South Africa’s borders and withdrawal of Cuban troops. The SADF was broken and so was apartheid.

In April that year, Nelson Mandela was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison from Robben Island and in December to Victor Verster Prison to negotiate the end of apartheid, followed by his release on 11th February 1990. In 1994, the first democratic elections were held in South Africa sweeping Mandela and the ANC to power.

No wonder so many ANC activists and trade unionists said at the time that those elections were made possible by not only their struggle but by the Cubans at Cuito Cuanavale.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Uh yeah guys, i originally started this thread as a piss take of your Stalin kiddy melodrama. Sorry.

[dodger]

Uh yeah guys, i originally started this thread as a piss take of your Stalin kiddy melodrama. Sorry.

and?

[GallowsBird]

your Stalin kiddy melodrama. Sorry.

Why can Revlefters never make up their mind to whether M-Ls are old ostalgies or young tankies? :confused:

Seems to change whenever a non-M-L's feels the need to make the facts fit the theory. All I can take from their view is that most M-Ls are not usually between their 20s and 40s but as the ages between those benefit most and the members make up the vanguard of the bourgeois classes does it matter?

At least most M-Ls are consitant and generally know most other ideologies are filled with scenester teens who act like children. Our teens are better than your teens! :tt2:

As for this thread; a lot of nonsense has been spoken like someone implying that the war against Nazi Germany shouldn't have been fought; firstly Eastern Europe was invaded by Nazis; including many Einzgruppen that used to roam the country killing as many "untermensch" as possible (as opposed to in Western Europe where they mostly took over key installations and did not have the mass killing campaigns). If the USSR didn't fight they would have been conquered and the populace enslaved and then killed, with many being killed at the begining (to create "Lebensraum" for the "aryan" peoples (actually not "Aryan" as that means "Iranian" or "Indo-Aryan" but I digress...)).

Also even if we are talking about the Western Allies then I disagree with the view they shouldn't have had a war with Nazi Germany; I am not a pacifist (as much as I dislike war) as I know sometimes even an imperialist nation can do something valuable with their military (even if for selfish reasons) against other imperialist nations. I am not an idealist and can see when one capitalist/imperialist system is worse than another and Nazi Germany was worse than many other imperialist/capitalist countries; to say otherwise is nonsense and idealism.

[Grenzer]

not even the mosyt adrent anti-capitalist opponents of the USSR consider it fascist. that's liberal garbage.

I guess some people don't quite understand sarcasm. In my initial post, I was joking a bit. If you bothered to read my third, you'd realize that I said the USSR was a capitalist regime that shared similarities with fascism. If you honestly believe that I think the USSR was fascist, you'd be mistaken: it was just plain capitalist.

The Stalinists don't really have any right to be bragging about their anti fascist cred. It was their collaboration with the Nazis that partially enabled to Hitler to become the threat he did with the non aggression pact. In the past they have collaborated with fascists, and we see it now again in Greece with the KKE. Really pathetic in my opinion, but unsurprising.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am going to add this to the discussion.

Wether or not the USSR was capitalist, state capitalist, socialist paradise....or whatever.

The alternative would have been a Fascist and Nazi victory in Russia...which would have arguably have led to a stalemate in Europe and perhaps even a Nazi victory.

This would have spelled nothing good to the slavic population in Russia which would have eventually become nothing more than mere dehumanized slave labour starved to death.

Not to mention the fact that there would be no room for us, jews, roma, homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, feminism etc.

I think the victory and the bravery exhibited under really, really tough and often incredible circumstances by the red army in Stalingrad needs to be remembered.

It is hard to ignore the subsequent failure of the USSR. But for the time it existed it undeniably put a lot of stress and strain on the western capitalist countries. It is no coincidence that after the fall of the USSR the whole of Europe started to liquidate their social welfare states....something which we still experience today and that international free market systems and neo-liberalism grew exponentially.

Wether the system in the USSR was flawed or not (IMO it was severely flawed) it DID present an alternative to western capitalism. Something which is now absent. And this is noticeable in todays socio/economic political climate.

Now there is merit in debating the USSR and disect what went wrong and how we can learn lessons from this for our respective organisations, groups or lack of them...and the way we execute and direct our activism....but the defeat of the Third Reich is something that started in Russia and would have not been possible without USSR resistance.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would hope that all of us at RevLeft could find common AntiFa ground and give due credit to the brave Soviet soldiers who defeated the German Nazis at Stalingrad and other battlefields during their Great Patriotic War.

[dodger]

Thank you Gramsci, that needed to be said, I wholeheartedly endorse your position.

[Rooster]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but.... I'm sure the German army consisted of proletarians too. So... yay... for proletarians killing proletarians....

[dodger]

The fact that they call it the "Patriotic" war is good enough reason not to support it, but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSF1iTNHk2FsTwioTUCQmxQqYq7GqyJP _L0EW6t9lRLfEscSS4P

[GoddessCleoLover]

Rooster, I sincerely wish that German soldiers had refused to fight for Hitler, but the historical facts are what they are, and it is possible to to support the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad without taking any pleasure in the deaths of German foot soldiers who had been conscripted into the German Army. In any event, there were two sides to that conflict, and I choose the Allied side over the Axis side.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I would hope that all of us at RevLeft could find common AntiFa ground and give due credit to the brave Soviet soldiers who defeated the German Nazis at Stalingrad and other battlefields during their Great Patriotic War.

The USSR against the Nazis, definitely. Everyone else, not so much. The Soviet army is what heroically and decisively smashed the German military. And while I understand that you capitalized the name, I always feel a little ill when it is referred to as the GPW. :crying:

[Omsk]

Hello,Lev

This is actually an interesting surprise for me,i must say some things are not as they always seem,who knows,you might even change your views?;)




, I always feel a little ill when it is referred to as the GPW.

Why?

[Rooster]

Rooster, I sincerely wish that German soldiers had refused to fight for Hitler, but the historical facts are what they are, and it is possible to to support the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad without taking any pleasure in the deaths of German foot soldiers who had been conscripted into the German Army. In any event, there were two sides to that conflict, and I choose the Allied side over the Axis side.

Fine, but I don't remember seeing a post here lamenting the death of German proletarians in this. And it's cool just to look at the battle and say that this is when the tide turned, but that's to take the whole thing out of context of a capitalist war; the holocaust, the killing of German communists, the deaths of Slavs under the Nazis, the deaths of German soldiers after the battle, the mass rapes of Germans, the suppression of people in the Eastern bloc, the police state in East Germany... The rest of the posts saying that it would mean the complete liquidation of slavs or the whole of Europe being under the heel of fascism is just speculation.

[Omsk]

The rest of the posts saying that it would mean the complete liquidation of slavs or the whole of Europe being under the heel of fascism is just speculation.

I never suggested that it would mean the liquidation of the whole of Europe,but the extermination of Slavs is far from speculation,it happened,and in the case of a Nazi victory,Slavs would have been exterminated.




the deaths of German soldiers after the battle


The Nazis?

And you forgot to add many things,many horrors,and dont try to even out the sides,they are not even.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Hitler's plans to subjugate and enslave the Slavic peoples were not a great secret, even at the time of WW2. For this reason many of us have seen Nazism as something much worse than run-of-the-mill imperialism. Nazism involved schemes of land conquest and racial genocide. The Holocaust was only one part of the Nazi master place to claim the lands of the Slavic peoples for Germanic settlement. With respect to the crimes of Stalinism, the Stalinists must answer for themselves, but I have posted in opposition to Stalinism on many different threads.

[dodger]

The USSR against the Nazis, definitely. Everyone else, not so much. The Soviet army is what heroically and decisively smashed the German military. And while I understand that you capitalized the name, I always feel a little ill when it is referred to as the GPW. :crying:

Lev, just my take, born in '47 English......all I came across over the years who were part of the war effort, including Ma, had this to say. " It was necessary" to remove Hitler, Mussolini and Japanese militarists. They had seen the slaughter of the Great War, after all. They were dammed happy when it was all over.++++they wasted no time to rid themselves of Churchill, after all.

[GallowsBird]

The rest of the posts saying that it would mean the complete liquidation of slavs or the whole of Europe being under the heel of fascism is just speculation.

Are you trying to imply that (most if not all) Slavs were not considered "untermensch" by the Nazis and that there were plans to enslave and eventually deport (original idea) or exterminate (later policy and most likely; look at the Jews and Roma and what happened) the majority of the population to make room for the "ubermensch" to live (Lebensraum)? Are you likewise implying that there were no extermination orders and no Einzgruppen activities that targeted the civilian population of the West and East Slavic countries?

The Nazis, also, did indeed want to unite Europe under their direct rule or under puppet governments.

Rooster I think you should probably pick up a book, read online, or, at least watch a documentary about the Nazis and Eastern Europe in WW2.

[Rooster]

Hitler's plans to subjugate and enslave the Slavic peoples were not a great secret, even at the time of WW2. For this reason many of us have seen Nazism as something much worse than run-of-the-mill imperialism. Nazism involved schemes of land conquest and racial genocide. The Holocaust was only one part of the Nazi master place to claim the lands of the Slavic peoples for Germanic settlement. With respect to the crimes of Stalinism, the Stalinists must answer for themselves, but I have posted in opposition to Stalinism on many different threads.

Yeah? And? You're still assuming a lot there. I don't really care about alternate realities and what if situations to be honest.

[Bronco]

My main issue is with this black and white portrayal of the war where it's reduced to USSR soliders = good, German soldiers = bad. And implying that the latter deserved to die, and even celebrating in this, despite the fact that the vast majority of German troops were workers just as the Russians were, there fighting without any choice on the orders and in the interests of others.

[Ocean Seal]

The fact that they call it the "Patriotic" war is good enough reason not to support it, but of course we love Stalingrad. Fascists killing fascists, what's not to like?

How dare you call the soldiers who gave their lives at Stalingrad fascists. You coward, I would like to see you on a battlefield fighting Nazis. You know that the Soviet soldiers were fighting for their homes, their lives and were facing off against the most powerful war machine in world history. Have you ever even seen the decimation of the Soviet Union because of the Nazi invasion. Tens of millions of civilians died, many of these soldiers lost their entire families.

Say what you want about Stalin, the Soviet Union, or whoever else you feel like criticizing, but these troops pulled themselves from the dirt to fight to fight against the complete annihilation of their people.

Second of all, you are a sick fuck if you like the idea of millions of people killing each other in a war as if it were some kind of theater for you. Its like saying that you like the Americans being at war with the Taliban. After all they are both reactionary right? It doesn't work that way.

Third of all, learn what a fascist is.

[dodger]

My main issue is with this black and white portrayal of the war where it's reduced to USSR soliders = good, German soldiers = bad. And implying that the latter deserved to die, and even celebrating in this, despite the fact that the vast majority of German troops were workers just as the Russians were, there fighting without any choice on the orders and in the interests of others.

I have seen and heard enough of my own people to know their innermost thoughts and reactions. People who fought some wounded or afflicted...all who suffered hardship. The sight of a Nazi ship going to the bottom was a cause for comments like "poor blighters!". We as children cheered like dervishes. We were admonished, but mostly we were shielded from the harsh truths. Bronco dear chap, we all have our own values, don't always assume the worst . Even on Revleft. What is more we are not sheep nor do we require lectures from any, on humanity. We did not suffer what many under occupation did. After the war, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland expelled Germans. Mazower observes, "the idea that the Powers could turn expulsions on and off at will takes little account of the real driving force behind them - the immense popular hatred towards the Germans that existed in the regions they had occupied as the war came to an end." To spell it out they gotta dose of their own medicine ....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Empire-Nazi-Occupied-Europe/dp/0141011920/ref=cm_rdp_product

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah? And? You're still assuming a lot there. I don't really care about alternate realities and what if situations to be honest.

I am going to say that historic facts contradict your accusation of assumption.

Not only did the Nazi's actively write theoretic volumes about the Slavs being extermination worthy after being exhausted as a slave labour group....But the policy and theory was actively implemented.

6 million Polish people were exterminated....on top of the Polish people of Jewish descent because of this.

In the USSR the active policy was to kill Russian POW if possible. Hundreds of thousands of them were send to extermination camps like Auschwitz where there were litterally worked and starved to death...in a matter of weeks. So much so....that of 5 million reported Soviet POWs only 930.000 were alive in 1945 in German hands. The second largest group of victims of the Nazi holocaust after the Jews were the Soviet POWs.

In the USSR there was a strict policy of eradicating whole villages at even the merest sign of trouble or uncooperation....killing everybody. 13 million Soviet citizens lost their lives as a direct result of acts of agression.

This is the second highest population loss besides Poland. A lot is a direct result of the policy of the Nazi's and their active implementation of the untermensch policy.

So this is NOT mere speculation. It is historical fact.

[PhoenixAsh]

My main issue is with this black and white portrayal of the war where it's reduced to USSR soliders = good, German soldiers = bad. And implying that the latter deserved to die, and even celebrating in this, despite the fact that the vast majority of German troops were workers just as the Russians were, there fighting without any choice on the orders and in the interests of others.

Yes you are right,

Unfortunately they were employed for fascism and send to invade a foreign country and were active and instrumental in implementing the Nazi ideology and executing that ideology which led directly to the destruction of millions because of their ethnic origin, religious convictions or political ideology.

Make no mistake...the Wehrmacht was NOT an innocent actor in this. From the lowest ranks to the highest rank the Wehrmacht was very active in implementing this ideology. It was not simply an army of workers vs another army of workers. It was an army of workers actively working to implement an ideology based on extermination of others....especially in Poland and the USSR. I would advice you to read O. Bartov on this. So it is a crying shame the workers were put up to this forced into this. It is a crying shame that these workers failed to organise and revolt. I mourn the fact that so many workers did not get to be class conscious.

Yet I am pretty fucking glad that enough of them died so that the political ideology which they fought for did not gain supremacy and victory....that is the harsh reality. If you want a side to lose in war...the capability and will to fight needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately that means killing enough of the enemy soldiers. I am pretty fucking sure a lot of American workers died in Vietnam. I know Austalian workers died in Vietnam. It was a crying fucking shame. Yet I am still very happy the US lost....and they lost because casualties were considered too damned high and that broke the moral of the population to continue to fight. It took 10 years for that to happen....and 58.000 workers to die. Offcourse at the expense of the 2 million Vietnamese victims...

Class analysis states workers fought workers. This is the nature of capitalism. This is the nature of war. The rich wage it and send the poor to fight it. We do not take sides in capitalist or imperialist wars.
But when such a war involves fascism...when it involves Nazi's....yeah...then fuck them. Workingclass or not. The war gets an extra dimension....which goes beyond class. Beyond not taking sides in capitalists and imperialists fighting each other. To illustrate...many Nazi's are working class. I would have NO scruples for cheering their deaths. Nor do I feel I betrayed my class. Such is the priority of preventing fascists from gaining polictical supremacy. For if it gains that supremacy all hope will in fact be lost for the working class... Now I am not under the illusion most soldiers in the Wehrmacht were not active Nazi's and most of them would probably have been pretty decent folks. But the fact remains they fought for an ideology which actively tried to exterminate others. I can feel very little remorse for the victims.

I am aware there was a draft. I am aware of the fact that people had no choice in serving. But the Wehrmacht went way beyond serving and fighting. The war went way beyond a mere clash of economic interests...

[El Chuncho]

it never ceases to amaze me when so called socialists support the biggest blood bath in human history all in the name of 'anti-fascism'. the war wasnt about democracy v fascism, it was an inter-imperialist war and as such the working class where sent to butcher each other in the interests of their stalinist, democratic or fascist bosses.

Yeah, because people should have just sat back and let the Nazi party exterminate most of Eastern Europe and much of Western Europe... :rolleyes:

Oh nos, the Nazi party was defeated and their soldiers killed during their invasions (and occupation) of places like the USSR and France.

http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd439/taemin-fangirl/random%20korean%20gifs/2d8616f4.gif

No one is celebrating the deaths of members of the working class, they are celebrating the fact that Nazism was defeated - pretty valid celebration if we are to celebrate anything. The fact that you cannot seem to distinguish between the two is rather sad. :closedeyes:

[Omsk]

There were few German soldiers who refused to shoot civilians,or massacre people.
Please don't accept the well-known lie that somehow,Hitler was 'bad' and the Wermacht was 'good' and was tricked to follow his orders or something,- its a hideous Nazi lie.

[Bostana]

There were few German soldiers who refused to shoot civilians,or massacre people.
Please don't accept the well-known lie that somehow,Hitler was 'bad' and the Wermacht was 'good' and was tricked to follow his orders or something,- its a hideous Nazi lie.

Omsk has a point.

Germany has a history of racist fascism.
Karl Marx's dad, who was a son of a Rabbi, converted form Judaism to Lutheranism so he could practice law because in Germany it was illegal for a Jew to practice Law.

In fact the majority of the German parliament knew what was going on and did nothing about it.