Support for the Allied war effort in World War II II

[The pizza crazed Anarchist]

Could support for the Allied war effort during War World II be justified, from a revolutionary leftist perspective?

[RevSpetsnaz]

Of course, it was a fight against fascism.

[Prometeo liberado]

Good topic. On one side you had the call to fight fascism and come to the defense of the Soviet Union. On the other hand the call for all workers to stand down and let the capitalist fight it out warrants a look. Without going into a dissertation here I would have to say fight. To much to lose and with the partisans clearly on the side of the workers what better way to advance socialism.IMO.

[Ostrinski]

Just don't look at it from a revolutionary perspective. The end justified the means.

[blake 3:17]

Ernest Mandel identified the second world war as five wars -- some just, some unjust. I'd certainly support the USSR against the Nazis and the Chinese against the Japanese.

If the Allies had given a shit about the Holocaust they would've opened their borders and bombed the rail lines to Auschwitz. Bot of course they didn't.

The war was over territory and control of the colonies. The colonies bit back.

A great article by Mandel: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1976/xx/trots-ww2.htm

[Omsk]

If we are talking about the GPW,of course i would support the USSR,it was fight or die on the Eastern Front.There was no future for the East if the Nazis won.Hitler would not take Poland,a bit of the USSR and remove Stalin or something,he would have turned the USSR into a gigantic concentration camp,remove cities,slaughter millions,the population in the East would have been used as slaves,and they would probably end up "removed" the so the Nazis could go to the new areas.

This should not even be a question.

[blake 3:17]

Almost 60 years ago in the United States, in 1941, there took place in Minneapolis, in the mid-western state of Minnesota, the most famous political trial of the wartime period. Twenty-eight socialist and union activists were charged with plotting the violent overthrow of the US government.

Most of those indicted were members of the US Trotskyist organisation, the Socialist Workers Party, including its national secretary, James P. Cannon. The party had a long history of militant and effective work in the Minneapolis labor movement. It used its positions there to conduct a forceful campaign against the war drive of US imperialism. Through the trial, the government aimed to silence the most radical and determined antiwar voice.

The Minneapolis “sedition” trial and the SWP’s heroic struggle against it contain some enduring lessons for socialists, which speak to us across the decades. This book brings together a number of materials relating to this episode and the general question of defending civil liberties against government and rightist attacks.

“Socialism on Trial”, Cannon’s verbatim courtroom testimony, is a clear and inspiring exposition of the Marxist view of capitalism, war and revolution—all the more remarkable for the circumstances in which it was given. “Defence Policy in the Minneapolis Trial” contains Cannon’s subsequent defence of the party’s line during the trial against the ultraleft criticisms of exiled Spanish Trotskyist Grandizo Munis. It is a masterful explanation of how socialists struggle to win mass support for radical social change. The third contemporary document here is Cannon’s powerful 1943 farewell “Speech on the Way to Prison”.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/index.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

Could support for the Allied war effort during War World II be justified, from a revolutionary leftist perspective?
No.
Support for the war amounted to support for one imperialist camp over another, at the expense of class struggle and clarity in seeing the way that imperialist slaughter can be prevented - by social revolution.


On one side you had the call to fight fascism and come to the defense of the Soviet Union.
Not only the USSR, but democracy as well, since it seems your memory is a bit selective.

[blake 3:17]

Support for the war amounted to support for one imperialist camp over another, at the expense of class struggle and clarity in seeing the way that imperialist slaughter can be prevented - by social revolution.

It was more than one war. It`s clear that forces which threatened social revolution were closer to the Allies than the Axis.

There was a very interesting Black movement in the US which called it self the Double Victory campaign -- defeat for racist fascism abroad, defeat for racist fascism at home. Hard not to be sympathetic.

I only learnt of it a few years ago via Alan Wald`s history of the American Left and literature of the period.

http://hennessyhistory.wikispaces.com/Double+Victory+Campaign-1

[Grenzer]

Could support for the Allied war effort during War World II be justified, from a revolutionary leftist perspective?


No, I don't think so. Imperialists fighting imperialists.. the best solution is to advocate revolution, not pick a side. I think I would agree with Menocchio that at the end of the day, picking one side would just result in a lot of dead workers without being any closer to overthrowing capitalism.

Also, what's so important about defending the USSR? It was a capitalist shit hole.


It was more than one war. It`s clear that forces which threatened social revolution were closer to the Allies than the Axis.

There was a very interesting Black movement in the US which called it self the Double Victory campaign -- defeat for racist fascism abroad, defeat for racist fascism at home. Hard not to be sympathetic.


Interesting, I hadn't heard about that before. Thanks for the link.

[Ostrinski]

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/08/letter10.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/07/letter04.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/ww2.htm

[Psy]

Ernest Mandel identified the second world war as five wars -- some just, some unjust. I'd certainly support the USSR against the Nazis and the Chinese against the Japanese.

I agree supporting the fight against Nazi Germany but Japan was fighting against Nationalist China, Britain, French and USA. Sure Mao but his forces was so in-land he was never really threatened by Japan was more threatened by Nationalist China.

Also there was a stronger Marxist movement in Japan at the time then in Germany, as the Japanese military just jailed the Marxists then let them out in return for co-operating with the military, for example Mitsuyo Seo that went to prison for being part of the Proletarian Film League of Japan and was released from prison to work propaganda films for imperial Japan (where the Nazis killed off Marxists it found).

What Japan really needed was a revolution to break its Marxists out of jail and stop Marxists co-operating with the imperialist state and get on with the task of building a Japanese workers state.

Also if the USSR was able to fuel armed revolution in Japan it would probably also have helped fuel revolution in Germany and Italy and the USSR would have won WWII without actually having to go to war with Germany, as the revolution would have just spread so Hitler would be too busy fighting a civil-war in Germany to invade the USSR.

[Invader Zim]

If the Allies had given a shit about the Holocaust they would've opened their borders and bombed the rail lines to Auschwitz. Bot of course they didn't.



Bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz would not have prevented the holocaust, saved lives or defeated the German war machine. All it would have done is cause a brief inconvience.