Battle on the Volga - Soviet documentary about the Battle of Stalingrad

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyctUgMIFlw&feature=youtu.be
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPLneId5908&feature=youtu.be
part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e32hMeXQUc&feature=youtu.be
part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakoagvU3rE&feature=youtu.be

if you dont cry youre probably a nazi
jus sayin

[Bostana]

if you dont cry youre probably a nazi
jus sayin

I feel so greatful,
that so many Soviet Soldiers gave their lives to protect the world from a fascist regime.

[La Guaneña]

Thanks for the links, love to watch stuff from WWII.

[Geiseric]

Holy shit thanks man

[Misanthrope]

I feel so greatful,
that so many Soviet Soldiers gave their lives to protect the world from a fascist regime.

WWII was an imperialist conflict all the way around.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yeah those imperialist soviets defending themselves from nazi invasion!

[Geiseric]

I don't think the USSR was involved in WW2 for imperialism. The bureaucracy didn't want to do anything that would threaten their position, so in all honesty they did everything they could to appease whoever could have threatened them, in attempts to stay out of the war.

In fact, Zhukov (my favorite WW2 military leader) told Stalin about a year before the invasion that the Germans were mobilizing for a sneak attack, and if a manouver went through southen poland the Red Army could reach as far as Berlin if them did a pre-emptive strike against the Fascists, but this was refused.

[Grenzer]

The amount of Russian jingoism in this thread is palpable.

Stalin was smart to refuse that. The Red Army simply wasn't ready yet, they probably would have been open to a devastating counter-attack if they had moved out before they were ready.

Unsurprising that we see folks praising Russian imperialism once again, as their victory resulted in the Russian bourgeoisie fucking over the workers of more than a dozen countries(so much for "national liberation"); but then again all they care about is whether there was a portrait of that bourgeois dictator, Stalin, hanging in the Town Hall, not whether the workers were actually in charge.

Thanks for the link by the way, I love World War 2 documentaries. It is difficult not to feel a bit bad for all the lads who sacrificed their lives on all sides to feed the hunger of global capital.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

regardless of whether the soviet union was capitalist or not, this was not about imperialism. it's completely anachronistic to analyse history by its future outcomes. it's totally illogical to say that they defended themselves from nazi invasion in order to extend the geopolitical reach of soviet capital.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I'm going to have a great night thanks to you. Looking forward to watching this documentary.

[Ocean Seal]

WWII was an imperialist conflict all the way around.
Yeah, I imagine all those countries which were invaded by Nazi Germany were all imperialists. Yep makes perfect sense. Don't question, don't put a scientific analysis on it, just repeat after me.

Stalin ate babies. The USSR was the evil empire. Its okay not to take sides against the fascist war machine.



Unsurprising that we see folks praising Russian imperialism once again,
Unsurprising that we see a very meaningless definition of imperialism being thrown about.


as their victory resulted in the Russian bourgeoisie
Who?


fucking over the workers of more than a dozen countries(so much for "national liberation"); but then again all they care about is whether there was a portrait of that bourgeois dictator, Stalin, hanging in the Town Hall, not whether the workers were actually in charge.
Because they were so much better off before becoming Warsaw states.



Thanks for the link by the way, I love World War 2 documentaries. It is difficult not to feel a bit bad for all the lads who sacrificed their lives on all sides to feed the hunger of global capital.
As a humanist you should feel bad for those who died, but as a materialist you should try to understand that there was a side bent on genocide of the Jewish,Romani,Slavic races and would stop at nothing to get there. In order to stop them, their troops had to be stopped, and to stop the troops they had to be killed.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Everyone who thinks that pride in the Soviet Union for being the nation that truly defeated the fascist threat to humanity is support for Russian jingoism, get the fuck out. How dare you call yourselves true revolutionary leftists. It was not an all around imperialist war; stop being historical revisionist assholes. Next time a nation takes over an entire continent and kills millions of people, I will make sure to tell any nation that tries to defeat that nation that doing so is imperialist and should not be done.

Fuck you.

[Art Vandelay]

Everyone who thinks that pride in the Soviet Union for being the nation that truly defeated the fascist threat to humanity is support for Russian jingoism, get the fuck out. How dare you call yourselves true revolutionary leftists. It was not an all around imperialist war; stop being historical revisionist assholes. Next time a nation takes over an entire continent and kills millions of people, I will make sure to tell any nation that tries to defeat that nation that doing so is imperialist and should not be done.

Fuck you.

No wonder no one takes you seriously when you have childish outbursts like this all the time. Basically you post amounts to: If you do not agree with me, fuck you, you are not a revolutionary leftist.

As far as WWII, I do not see how anyone other than Marxist-Leninists or Trotskyists could possibly claim that the war was not an imperialist conquest to fulfill the global hunger for capital and simultaneously claim to be a materialist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

No wonder no one takes you seriously when you have childish outbursts like this all the time. Basically you post amounts to: If you do not agree with me, fuck you, you are not a revolutionary leftist.

As far as WWII, I do not see how anyone other than Marxist-Leninists or Trotskyists could possibly claim that the war was not an imperialist conquest to fulfill the global hunger for capital and simultaneously claim to be a materialist.

You seem to not understand something about me. I am not an attention seeker. If I tell the truth and people do not pay attention to me, that's not my problem and I am not going to cry about it.

Also, would you mind showing me some evidence that supports your theory that the war was "imperialist"? I am perfectly willing to hear the other side of the argument.

[Art Vandelay]

You seem to not understand something about me. I am not an attention seeker. If I tell the truth and people do not pay attention to me, that's not my problem and I am not going to cry about it.

Also, would you mind showing me some evidence that supports your theory that the war was "imperialist"? I am perfectly willing to hear the other side of the argument.

Never claimed that you were an attention seeker, just that you do not need to tell everyone to fuck off cause they have a different opinion than you do. Truthfully you have shown no evidence of being able to have an actual debate, so not sure why I would waste my time forming an argument, when expletives would most likely be the response received.

[dodger]

No wonder no one takes you seriously when you have childish outbursts like this all the time. Basically you post amounts to: If you do not agree with me, fuck you, you are not a revolutionary leftist.

As far as WWII, I do not see how anyone other than Marxist-Leninists or Trotskyists could possibly claim that the war was not an imperialist conquest to fulfill the global hunger for capital and simultaneously claim to be a materialist.

WELL 9mm, Churchill for one did not want European war. He strove to keep peace in Europe. Not a warlike people, Britons shared his vision, on this subject. Who exactly are you saying desired war 9mm? Apart from Hitler who along with Mussolini and Japanese were hell bent on conquest and plunder, that is. Can you give me a clearer picture? Thanks.

[Comrade Samuel]

Thank you for posting this! I'm always looking for documentarys that show the war through most if not all actually footage but for the eastern fron at least they are very difficult to come by.

If your into WWII documentaries about the soviet union I strongly recommend the documentary "soviet storm" it focused more on the strategy, tactics and some short anylsis of weapons, technology and leaders for both sides, in addition it also covered the entire war from the innitial invasion to the fall of Berlin. It's worth noting each of the 8 parts take approx. 45 minutes to an hour so I hope you've got some time on your hands.

Part 1 (operation barbarosa) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aneXa3RzNko&nomobile=1

Part 2: (Moscow) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alINyfrftus&nomobile=1

Part 3: (siege of Leningrad) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmylHWPwHs&nomobile=1

Part 4: (battle of Stalingrad) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziIjIysoEu0&nomobile=1

Part 5: (Kursk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI5yrF-D9hs&nomobile=1

Part 6: (Operation bagration) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuV_wUHRv9s&nomobile=1

Part 7: (Liberation of Ukraine) http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=80fHkM-dLQU

Part 8: (Berlin) http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=8a1DAxHCSN8

Hope this is of help!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Never claimed that you were an attention seeker, just that you do not need to tell everyone to fuck off cause they have a different opinion than you do. Truthfully you have shown no evidence of being able to have an actual debate, so not sure why I would waste my time forming an argument, when expletives would most likely be the response received.

Well, I said that I was not an attention seeker because it sounded like you were trying to make me feel bad when you said people do not take me seriously. And, by the way, check my posting history to see how many times I have used profanity in arguments. This was a unique case in which I purposefully used vulgar language, because it is truly outrageous how some people can sit from their computer desks and call the millions of Red Army soldiers who died for the world's liberty imperialists. Anyways, you simply do not want to converse because you have no evidence for your claim and because you are a craven.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, I said that I was not an attention seeker because it sounded like you were trying to make me feel bad when you said people do not take me seriously. And, by the way, check my posting history to see how many times I have used profanity in arguments. This was a unique case in which I purposefully used vulgar language, because it is truly outrageous how some people can sit from their computer desks and call the millions of Red Army soldiers who died for the world's liberty imperialists. Anyways, you simply do not want to converse because you have no evidence for your claim and because you are a craven.

Any reason for calling me a coward?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Any reason for calling me a coward?

Because you refuse to show me evidence for your claims.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

World War II Was an imperialist war. All capitalist wars are fought for capital. Here is a great movie on the german side of the imperialist aggression of Germany.

Through Hell for Hitler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP-JUBAQMPI&list=UUuheZcRX5c9ntMzejI0afrA&index=1&feature=plcp

[Comrade Samuel]

Sorry about the muck up there with the links on my previous post but I resolved that, just inform me if there happens to be an issue with it.

Oh and have fun you two g'night!

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

All I am saying is that the Soviet side was definitely not imperialist. Everyone else, particularly the Axis alliance, was.

[Art Vandelay]

WELL 9mm, Churchill for one did not want European war. He strove to keep peace in Europe. Not a warlike people, Britons shared his vision, on this subject. Who exactly are you saying desired war 9mm? Apart from Hitler who along with Mussolini and Japanese were hell bent on conquest and plunder, that is. Can you give me a clearer picture? Thanks.

From a materialist perspective, the class basis of all sides in the conflict was bourgeois. It did not matter that one side was fascist and taking an anti-fascist stance in the situation is like choosing between two different shades of grey. Capital is to be opposed at all times and the only acceptable position for a revolutionary leftist to take is support for the working class. With a materialist analysis its pretty easy to see that the class nature of all the regimes was bourgeois and that they were working to satisfy the global hunger for capital.

[Art Vandelay]

Because you refuse to show me evidence for your claims.

Perhaps your confused as to how a debate works, but that would require you putting forth some evidence as well. You do not just get to swear and call other people cowards. So could you maybe spell out some of your own arguments? Or will you just continue with child like rants, expletives and ad hominems. For someone who claims to be a student of Marxism, you sure do not seem to be much of a materialist. It strikes me that so many can claim to be communists without even a basic grasp on one of its fundamental principles.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Perhaps your confused as to how a debate works, but that would require you putting forth some evidence as well. You do not just get to swear and call other people cowards. So could you maybe spell out some of your own arguments? Or will you just continue with child like rants, expletives and ad hominems. For someone who claims to be a student of Marxism, you sure do not seem to be much of a materialist. It strikes me that so many can claim to be communists without even a basic grasp on one of its fundamental principles.

That's nice. Come back here tomorrow and you'll get your argument. Right now it is late where I live .

[dodger]

Thank you, 9mm, BORN IN 1947, my recollections are of people with no taste for war, who never the less fought to destroy Hitler. The lessons from the "1st war" fresh in every ones mind. NEVER AGAIN was the slogan, it was heartfelt, those who returned from the trenches painted a grim picture. Frustrated by Chamberlains refusal to make a Grand Alliance and war declared there still was no enthusiasm for war. It made no sense. The C.P. General Secretary was kicked out by the members for supporting the war. Reinstated after the attack on USSR. Only with Churchill and the USSR as an ally did people really put their backs into fighting Hitler. The 1st victory was the Battle of Britain.Other victories came with unpronounceable names and generals. One Battle loomed large in peoples imagination....Stalingrad...the maps that graced many back parlours and public houses had the red drawing pins moved to the left. Pictures of hapless columns of Germans Italians Romanians trudging through the blizzards, produced winks" they wont get far". There was no love for Germans only the sight of a ship sinking brought sympathy. "poor blighters". The bombing of Germany was greeted with satisfaction, they got back a taste of their own medicine. That some profited from the war cannot be denied. From bacon to arms contracts. There was an agenda and that was to defeat Hitler....secondary agendas abounded. Not least amongst British workers. Not revolution.....that was for others....but we liked some of the things others had. We did admire the Red Army as it was called....and Stalingrad as any school boy could tell you turned the tide.

[Art Vandelay]

Thank you, 9mm, BORN IN 1947, my recollections are of people with no taste for war, who never the less fought to destroy Hitler. The lessons from the "1st war" fresh in every ones mind. NEVER AGAIN was the slogan, it was heartfelt, those who returned from the trenches painted a grim picture. Frustrated by Chamberlains refusal to make a Grand Alliance and war declared there still was no enthusiasm for war. It made no sense. The C.P. General Secretary was kicked out by the members for supporting the war. Reinstated after the attack on USSR. Only with Churchill and the USSR as an ally did people really put their backs into fighting Hitler. The 1st victory was the Battle of Britain.Other victories came with unpronounceable names and generals. One Battle loomed large in peoples imagination....Stalingrad...the maps that graced many back parlours and public houses had the red drawing pins moved to the left. Pictures of hapless columns of Germans Italians Romanians trudging through the blizzards, produced winks" they wont get far". There was no love for Germans only the sight of a ship sinking brought sympathy. "poor blighters". The bombing of Germany was greeted with satisfaction, they got back a taste of their own medicine. That some profited from the war cannot be denied. From bacon to arms contracts. There was an agenda and that was to defeat Hitler....secondary agendas abounded. Not least amongst British workers. Not revolution.....that was for others....but we liked some of the things others had. We did admire the Red Army as it was called....and Stalingrad as any school boy could tell you turned the tide.

While I can appreciate your ability to converse in a constructive manner, I cannot accept this analysis as materialist. You mentioned earlier, as proof that it was not an imperialist war, that Churchill, among others, did not want war. It has nothing to do with whether or not the respective heads of states "wanted" war or not, history is not made by great men but by material conditions. Stalin and Churchill very well may not have wanted war, but they were fulfilling the needs of capital.

[Art Vandelay]

Thank you, 9mm, BORN IN 1947, my recollections are of people with no taste for war, who never the less fought to destroy Hitler. The lessons from the "1st war" fresh in every ones mind. NEVER AGAIN was the slogan, it was heartfelt, those who returned from the trenches painted a grim picture. Frustrated by Chamberlains refusal to make a Grand Alliance and war declared there still was no enthusiasm for war. It made no sense. The C.P. General Secretary was kicked out by the members for supporting the war. Reinstated after the attack on USSR. Only with Churchill and the USSR as an ally did people really put their backs into fighting Hitler. The 1st victory was the Battle of Britain.Other victories came with unpronounceable names and generals. One Battle loomed large in peoples imagination....Stalingrad...the maps that graced many back parlours and public houses had the red drawing pins moved to the left. Pictures of hapless columns of Germans Italians Romanians trudging through the blizzards, produced winks" they wont get far". There was no love for Germans only the sight of a ship sinking brought sympathy. "poor blighters". The bombing of Germany was greeted with satisfaction, they got back a taste of their own medicine. That some profited from the war cannot be denied. From bacon to arms contracts. There was an agenda and that was to defeat Hitler....secondary agendas abounded. Not least amongst British workers. Not revolution.....that was for others....but we liked some of the things others had. We did admire the Red Army as it was called....and Stalingrad as any school boy could tell you turned the tide.

This is an unacceptable statement from a communist. Your allegiance should of been to the workers of the world, who have no country, not taking sides in bourgeois quarrels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a totally unrelated note I just wanted to add that your style of writing, strangely reminded me of a cut up.

[dodger]

This is an unacceptable statement from a communist. Your allegiance should of been to the workers of the world, who have no country, not taking sides in bourgeois quarrels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a totally unrelated note I just wanted to add that your style of writing, strangely reminded me of a cut up.

not familiar with the term(cut up) an urban dictionary was helpful "old whore"....Well I have been called worse. A lot worse in fact.
Oh just found another"class clown" from Pittsburgh. I'm too Kool FOR SCHOOL but nicer than old whore!

Crikey another..."INCISIVE"....no too much of an old wind bag.

In the dark here can you add light? Cut up????????? thanks!

[Art Vandelay]

A cut up is a literary and writing technique discovered (or created) by Byron Gynsin and heavily developed by William S. Burroughs, the notable beat. Generally a piece of writing is literally cut up and rearranged giving the work new meaning. Cut ups generally give the prose a very choppy flow and a non-linear time sequence.

[the last donut of the night]

yeah those imperialist soviets defending themselves from nazi invasion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

pesky poles huh

[Omsk]

The MR pact has been explained a number of times to the likes of you,so i won't even bother.

[Misanthrope]

yeah those imperialist soviets defending themselves from nazi invasion!

My comment was in reference to this:



I feel so greatful,
that so many Soviet Soldiers gave their lives to protect the world from a fascist regime.

That's blatant jingoism. If he said the same thing about American soldiers he would be ostracized.


Yeah, I imagine all those countries which were invaded by Nazi Germany were all imperialists. Yep makes perfect sense. Don't question, don't put a scientific analysis on it, just repeat after me.

Stalin ate babies. The USSR was the evil empire. Its okay not to take sides against the fascist war machine.

You're straw man is falling over. :rolleyes: WWII was a battle for land. Yes it perpetrated by Nazi Germany but it was a struggle among capitalist states for 'ownership' of land. Am I saying that the Soviet soldiers were not in the right defending their homeland? Of course not but that does not change the fact of the matter.

and it's not a sports match, I'm not going to "take a side" of the belligerents because frankly they were all capitalist states. The proletariat was the victim of WWII. Not the Soviet state nor any other European states.



All I am saying is that the Soviet side was definitely not imperialist. Everyone else, particularly the Axis alliance, was.

....and what's your rationale behind that?

[Art Vandelay]

....and what's your rationale behind that?

I would not expect a response, he is not interested in any meaningful exchanges; just ad hominems and when he's called out, like I did above, he claims he will be "back" and does not respond. :rolleyes:

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I prefer not to respond. Anything I would say would be ignored, anyways.

Also, I honestly do not care to talk to a bunch of people who still assert that everyone in WWII was imperialist, but do not even give any alternatives that could have worked better against fascist expansionism.

And I also do not like talking to people who blabber on about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, while conveniently overlooking the Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance proposed by Stalin in 1939.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/152863?uid=3739864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698864453097

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93German_relations_before_1941


In April 1939, Litvinov launched the tripartite alliance negotiations with the new British and French ambassadors, (William Seeds, assisted by William Strang, and Paul-Emile Naggiar), in an attempt to contain Germany. However, for one reason or another, they were constantly dragged out and proceeded with major delays.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

bump

[Art Vandelay]

I prefer not to respond. Anything I would say would be ignored, anyways.

Hardly but okay.


Also, I honestly do not care to talk to a bunch of people who still assert that everyone in WWII was imperialist, but do not even give any alternatives that could have worked better against fascist expansionism.

The war should of been treated like WWI. Inter-Imperialist wars are situations that the working class needs to take advantage of. What would have helped stop fascist expansionism? Socialist revolution.


And I also do not like talking to people who blabber on about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, while conveniently overlooking the Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance proposed by Stalin in 1939.

Never once mentioned it and do not claim to know all that much about it, history is not my strong suit.

[kashkin]

The USSR was not imperialist, which is why they installed puppet regimes all across eastern Europe?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The USSR was not imperialist, which is why they installed puppet regimes all across eastern Europe?

Yeah, like Yugoslavia and Albania. Both these countries totally obeyed everything the Soviet Union told them to do. Total neo-colonies.

[Drosophila]

I'm somewhat surprised that we can't even agree on the fact that the Great Patriotic War was necessary in stopping Nazism.

[kashkin]

Yeah, like Yugoslavia and Albania. Both these countries totally obeyed everything the Soviet Union told them to do. Total neo-colonies.

Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany.


I'm somewhat surprised that we can't even agree on the fact that the Great Patriotic War was necessary in stopping Nazism.
No I agree with this.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm somewhat surprised that we can't even agree on the fact that the Great Patriotic War was necessary in stopping Nazism.

Capital is to be opposed at all times, regardless of the form it takes; liberal democracies, fascism, state capitalism. The only acceptable position for a socialist is to support the workers of the world, who have no countries. In WWI did the Bolsheviks take side in bourgeois conflicts, no, they agitated and helped spark a revolution. You know what could of stopped capital in all its forms? Proletarian revolution.

[Drosophila]

Capital is to be opposed at all times, regardless of the form it takes; liberal democracies, fascism, state capitalism. The only acceptable position for a socialist is to support the workers of the world, who have no countries. In WWI did the Bolsheviks take side in bourgeois conflicts, no, they agitated and helped spark a revolution. You know what could of stopped capital in all its forms? Proletarian revolution.

The USSR was being invaded by the most reactionary government that has ever existed on this planet. I don't care about what the economic structure of the USSR was at the time. They did what they could to stop the Nazis, and if they didn't, the war could have been lost and the Nazis would have control over Europe.

[Grenzer]

However, if the Soviet Union was capitalist, then supporting the Soviet Union against Germany wouldn't really be any different than supporting the Democrats against the Republicans. It's not the job of communists to side with a faction of capital, its our job to destroy capital in totality in whichever form it takes whether it is fascist, social-democratic, or "socialist" like Cuba and North Korea. When you start assigning gradients of opposition to different factions of capital, you are already on the road to reformism.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

However, if the Soviet Union was capitalist, then supporting the Soviet Union against Germany wouldn't really be any different than supporting the Democrats against the Republicans. It's not the job of communists to side with a faction of capital, its our job to destroy capital in totality in whichever form it takes whether it is fascist, social-democratic, or "socialist" like Cuba and North Korea. When you start assigning gradients of opposition to different factions of capital, you are already on the road to reformism.

Then I might as well start supporting Nazi Germany if it really is as simple as both nations being two different sides of the same coin, right? Thank you for the enlightenment, Comrade Enver Broxha. I also think supporting Nazi Germany over the Soviet Union is just as bad as supporting the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, so I guess it is ok for people to start doing the former.

[Grenzer]

Then I might as well start supporting Nazi Germany if it really is as simple as both nations being two different sides of the same coin, right? Thank you for the enlightenment, Comrade Enver Broxha. I also think supporting Nazi Germany over the Soviet Union is just as bad as supporting the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, so I guess it is ok for people to start doing the former.

This is the attitude of a reformist. What you are proposing is class collaboration and that the class interest of the proletariat can and should be suspended in order to work with the bourgeoisie for some end. The interesting thing is that even the Soviet policy makers would disagree with you, if you recall the policy of Social-Fascism which indeed stated that fascism and social-democracy were both factions of capital that were essentially no better or worse than each other.

However, you Stalinists typically like to have it both ways with your doublethink. So either the policy of social-fascism was correct, in which case Germany wasn't "the biggest threat the world had ever known" and there is nothing particularly special to praise Russia for; or the policy of social-fascism was wrong in which case the Soviet Union may well have been responsible for the rise of Hitler to begin with. So which is it? Both can't be correct.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

This is the attitude of a reformist. What you are proposing is class collaboration and that the class interest of the proletariat can and should be suspended in order to work with the bourgeoisie for some end. The interesting thing is that even the Soviet policy makers would disagree with you, if you recall the policy of Social-Fascism which indeed stated that fascism and social-democracy were both factions of capital that were essentially no better or worse than each other.

However, you Stalinists typically like to have it both ways with your doublethink. So either the policy of social-fascism was correct, in which case Germany wasn't "the biggest threat the world had ever known" and there is nothing particularly special to praise Russia for; or the policy of social-fascism was wrong in which case the Soviet Union may well have been responsible for the rise of Hitler to begin with. So which is it? Both can't be correct.

First of all, what the fuck are you talking about? I was being sarcastic. And about the part I bolded, that is not a valid argument because the Soviet Union was not social-democratic. That is only what ultra-leftists like you think, but it does not reflect on reality.

[Grenzer]

First of all, what the fuck are you talking about? I was being sarcastic. And about the part I bolded, that is not a valid argument because the Soviet Union was not social-democratic. That is only what ultra-leftists like you think, but it does not reflect on reality.

The problem is that I said..


However, if the Soviet Union was capitalist, then supporting the Soviet Union...

So essentially what you are arguing here is that Russia as a capitalist state would be worth supporting in an inter-imperialist war. I don't think this is what you intended to argue, which makes your typical display of childish theatrics here quite beside the point; unless you do mean to argue that capitalist countries are worth supporting, in which case I rest my point.

It also seems like you are trying to cowardly evade answering the question about the issue of Social-Fascism. Was it correct, or wasn't it; and why?

[Art Vandelay]

The problem is that I said..



So essentially what you are arguing here is that Russia as a capitalist state would be worth supporting in an inter-imperialist war. I don't think this is what you intended to argue, which makes your typical display of childish theatrics here quite beside the point; unless you do mean to argue that capitalist countries are worth supporting, in which case I rest my point.

It also seems like you are trying to cowardly evade answering the question about the issue of Social-Fascism. Was it correct, or wasn't it; and why?

Missed this exchange. Must say I am not surprised to see that no response was given...I would love to see a supporter of both the war and the USSR to answer the question.

[Drosophila]

However, if the Soviet Union was capitalist, then supporting the Soviet Union against Germany wouldn't really be any different than supporting the Democrats against the Republicans. It's not the job of communists to side with a faction of capital, its our job to destroy capital in totality in whichever form it takes whether it is fascist, social-democratic, or "socialist" like Cuba and North Korea. When you start assigning gradients of opposition to different factions of capital, you are already on the road to reformism.

There is a BIG difference between Democrats vs. Republicans and the USSR vs. Nazi Germany. You can question the motives that the USSR took in keeping out the Nazis, but saying that it wouldn't have made a difference if Germany took over the USSR is wrong.

[Art Vandelay]

There is a BIG difference between Democrats vs. Republicans and the USSR vs. Nazi Germany. You can question the motives that the USSR took in keeping out the Nazis, but saying that it wouldn't have made a difference if Germany took over the USSR is wrong.

I do not think that he was arguing that. Obviously there would be a difference, but it is not our place to pick a side in a bourgeois conflict. Supporting any of the sides in the war is class-collaboration and is putting the interests of the proletariat on the back burner.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

go ahead and call me a reformist all you want. but not all capitalism is the same. liberal democracy is better than fascism and soviet state capitalism was better than nazism. to reduce the working class struggle to proper socialism or communism is to say that workers have never won anything ever. which is completely untrue.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Even if the Soviet Union was state captialist or capitalist, which it was not, I would have still supported the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany wholeheartedly. It only makes it better that the Soviet Union was indeed socialist.

[Art Vandelay]

go ahead and call me a reformist all you want. but not all capitalism is the same. liberal democracy is better than fascism and soviet state capitalism was better than nazism. to reduce the working class struggle to proper socialism or communism is to say that workers have never won anything ever. which is completely untrue.

Okay lets try to frame this differently then. Communists need to take advantage of capitalist crises be they economic, war, general uprest, etc. During these times communists need to agitate the working class to take advantage of such situations, so that the working class can take political and economic hegemony.

I think this is a pretty basic statement that all would agree with, an example of it could be the Bolsheviks during WWI. Now taking sides in WWII, unless you hold the USSR to be socialist, is class collaboration. That cannot be argued and class collaboration puts proletariat interests in the back seat, Maoists have shown us that over and over and over.

Now lets put it a different way as well, being an internationalist and a communist, how can you justify hoping for the deaths of the working class of the axis powers, who were most likely without politics? How as a communist can that be justified? In fact I have even heard some on here saying they would celebrate when Germany got bombed. Communists do not take sides in bourgeois conflicts, they agitate for proletarian revolution which would have also stopped the nazis; including capital in all of its manifestations.

[Drosophila]

It happened over 70 years ago. No one is "taking sides". Proletarian revolution didn't happen during WWII, unfortunately. We can't do anything to change that, but we shouldn't completely condemn the USSR's defense of Russia against the Nazis.

[Art Vandelay]

It happened over 70 years ago. No one is "taking sides". Proletarian revolution didn't happen during WWII, unfortunately. We can't do anything to change that, but we shouldn't completely condemn the USSR's defense of Russia against the Nazis.

When I said "taking sides," obviously I meant theoretically. Proletarian revolution did not happen during WWII unfortunately, but maybe it could have if revolutionaries had attempted to agitate during the war rather than supporting differing shades of capital.

Edit: By the way, you a Tairy Greene fan?

[Drosophila]

Yes, and Ok I get ya

[Bostana]

Even if the Soviet Union was state captialist or capitalist, which it was not, I would have still supported the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany wholeheartedly. It only makes it better that the Soviet Union was indeed socialist.

Take it easy Comrade,
They will do anything to demonize the USSR. Even to the extent of supporting a Nazi Invasion

[Art Vandelay]

Take it easy Comrade,
They will do anything to demonize the USSR. Even to the extent of supporting a Nazi Invasion

Thanks for that insightful comment. The grown ups are actually trying to have a productive discussion and you come in with that crap...once again....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay lets try to frame this differently then. Communists need to take advantage of capitalist crises be they economic, war, general uprest, etc. During these times communists need to agitate the working class to take advantage of such situations, so that the working class can take political and economic hegemony.

im not here to blindly and completely defend the ussr's and the comintern's policies during the followup to wwii and during the war itself. i think they did a lot of shit that seriously stymied workers' struggles accross europe in a big way. but i am defending, in principle, the soviet union defending itself from nazi germany.


Now taking sides in WWII, unless you hold the USSR to be socialist, is class collaboration. That cannot be argued and class collaboration puts proletariat interests in the back seat, Maoists have shown us that over and over and over.

no they dont. many legitimate proletarian interests are possible in capitalism. democratic institutions and workers' rights to organize just to cite two examples. these are real proletarian class interests.

[Grenzer]

im not here to blindly and completely defend the ussr's and the comintern's policies during the followup to wwii and during the war itself. i think they did a lot of shit that seriously stymied workers' struggles accross europe in a big way. but i am defending, in principle, the soviet union defending itself from nazi germany.

You have a pretty liberal definition of "defense" when that involves leaving your land, coming into someone else's home, blowing the shit out of their cities, raping the women, and imposing a shitty, oppressive form of government on them against their will. Just sayin'.




no they dont. many legitimate proletarian interests are possible in capitalism. democratic institutions and workers' rights to organize just to cite two examples. these are real proletarian class interests.

More liberal nonsense.

Unless an organization is actively working in the material interests of the proletariat, which by necessity entails the abolition of the present state of things, then they aren't working in the class interests. Democratic fetishism is idealist and bourgeois in nature, something isn't good merely because it's democratic. By workers' rights to organize, you seem to mean in a purely economic, trade unionist sense; since we already have the right to organize politically. While this can have it's uses, it also has severe limitations. Democratic fetishism and economism both at the same time? Reeks of Menshevism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You have a pretty liberal definition of "defense" when that involves leaving your land, coming into someone else's home, blowing the shit out of their cities, raping the women, and imposing a shitty, oppressive form of government on them against their will. Just sayin'.

im not sure what this has to do with liberalism. anyway, this is getting into military history territory. the fact is that the germans did not surrender after they were defeated in russia. for strategic reasons the soviets virtually had no choice but to ally themselves with the allied countries. also defeating the germans rather than simply trying to hold down their borders was a matter of strategy and necessity.


Unless an organization is actively working in the material interests of the proletariat, which by necessity entails the abolition of the present state of things, then they aren't working in the class interests. Democratic fetishism is idealist and bourgeois in nature, something isn't good merely because it's democratic.

i didnt say that. liberal democracy is better than authoritarian forms of capitalist regimes. democratic institutions in bourgeois societies in many ways serve workers' interests as opposed to what preceded them or other bourgeois alternatives.


By workers' rights to organize, you seem to mean in a purely economic, trade unionist sense; since we already have the right to organize politically.

who is "we"? many workers do not. and those who do had to fight for it. a struggle that you apparently think is worthless. workers in nazi germany did not have the right to organize freely and independently for instance.


While this can have it's uses, it also has severe limitations. Democratic fetishism and economism both at the same time? Reeks of Menshevism.

of course it has limitations. democratic reforms and rights for workers under capitalism are obviously not ultimate solutions. i am not glorifying or fetishising them in any way. but they are legitimate interests of workers and things that we have a duty to stand by and defend as socialists. of course no amount of reforms will ever substitute revolution as the path to socialism.

[Art Vandelay]

im not sure what this has to do with liberalism. anyway, this is getting into military history territory. the fact is that the germans did not surrender after they were defeated in russia. for strategic reasons the soviets virtually had no choice but to ally themselves with the allied countries. also defeating the germans rather than simply trying to hold down their borders was a matter of strategy and necessity.



i didnt say that. liberal democracy is better than authoritarian forms of capitalist regimes. democratic institutions in bourgeois societies in many ways serve workers' interests as opposed to what preceded them or other bourgeois alternatives.



who is "we"? many workers do not. and those who do had to fight for it. a struggle that you apparently think is worthless. workers in nazi germany did not have the right to organize freely and independently for instance.



of course it has limitations. democratic reforms and rights for workers under capitalism are obviously not ultimate solutions. i am not glorifying or fetishising them in any way. but they are legitimate interests of workers and things that we have a duty to stand by and defend as socialists. of course no amount of reforms will ever substitute revolution as the path to socialism.

So based off of this, I would be safe to assume that you think it is acceptable to engage in class collaboration and to, at times, place proletarian interests behind bourgeois ones?

[dodger]

So based off of this, I would be safe to assume that you think it is acceptable to engage in class collaboration and to, at times, place proletarian interests behind bourgeois ones?

With a bayonet at your throat? 9mm


http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOperati on_Unthinkable&ei=19GLT8jsM4WciAL7nOD_Cw&usg=AFQjCNErWO-3S4acqHKh8kIP0F3WACLnPA

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Far ticle-1209041%2FOperation-unthinkable-How-Churchill-wanted-recruit-defeated-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html&ei=19GLT8jsM4WciAL7nOD_Cw&usg=AFQjCNGBjf8I39ljRnJVgMkR1SwbdzTMtg

[Art Vandelay]

So based off of this, I would be safe to assume that you think it is acceptable to engage in class collaboration and to, at times, place proletarian interests behind bourgeois ones?

With a bayonet at your throat? 9mm


http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOperati on_Unthinkable&ei=19GLT8jsM4WciAL7nOD_Cw&usg=AFQjCNErWO-3S4acqHKh8kIP0F3WACLnPA

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Far ticle-1209041%2FOperation-unthinkable-How-Churchill-wanted-recruit-defeated-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html&ei=19GLT8jsM4WciAL7nOD_Cw&usg=AFQjCNGBjf8I39ljRnJVgMkR1SwbdzTMtg

Can you elaborate, I am not sure exactly what you meant by this?

[Omsk]

You people are unbelievable.Proletarian interests? I think the Soviet people in 1942 were mainly concerned about the Nazis defeating the USSR and starting the largest genocide in the history of man.The main interest of the Soviet people was the victory over Nazis and Hitler's hordes.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Another documentary I really like is on the History channel, called; Soviet Storm.
Its a series split in 1 hour episodes. Episode 2 & 3 is about Stalingrad and Leningrad.

Very helpfull about how the Soviet citizens lived during the invasion. Much about their food rations etc.

[dodger]

Can you elaborate, I am not sure exactly what you meant by this?

Well Omsk just took the words out of my mouth. I am not a clever person I do not know how to juggle 3/4/5 balls in the air. and fight a war. To my mind Stalin played the cards well enough. An Atomic bomb had been detonated. What would that mean? Even with the benefit of hindsight it is no easy task to unravel.

Class collaboration can take on an hysterical air. Whatever next! Leave Central Europe to once again become the playground of Nobles and Colonels with Great Power connivance. Another springboard for invasion and plunder, perhaps. What was left, progressive, after a decade of Nazism? What assets human and material were there? What more could have been done, what was best not done are all valid questions. Maybe we can learn from it. Ebb and flow? Before I set myself up as a harsh judge, and I can be, would be best that I know with some certainty what needed doing. I don't!

[Bostana]

Thanks for that insightful comment. The grown ups are actually trying to have a productive discussion and you come in with that crap...once again....

Productive?

What is so productive about a desperate attempt to demonize the USSR during WW2? I mean seriously? Imperialist Conflict? What was so Imperialist about defending their country from fascists?

Why don't you tell me how 'productive' have we become with your anti-USSR comments?

[dodger]

it cannot be so difficult to imagine a class set on destruction of Hitler steam rolling over any underhand or treacherous attempts at revolution. An attempt to disrupt their war effort would have been put down with the utmost severity. Nazis were jailed, what do you imagine would have been your fate? The Nazis with ruling class connections barely escaped one was even hanged. Let's have no more silly talk of insurrections or the like. The people had made their decision to fight the Hitler menace, they along with the Soviets and American and commonwealth put an end to fascism. ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSED US CAME TO A STICKY END.

I would not want to see you hanging from a rope, 9mm, one von Brickendrop is quite sufficient.

[Art Vandelay]

Productive?

What is so productive about a desperate attempt to demonize the USSR during WW2? I mean seriously? Imperialist Conflict? What was so Imperialist about defending their country from fascists?

Why don't you tell me how 'productive' have we become with your anti-USSR comments?

I have never seen you contribute anything on here except meaningless rhetoric and one liners. Every time you post you only show your ignorance. Me and Dodger, despite opposing view points, at least can have a discussion; if you have nothing to add other than flame bait then do not post.

[Art Vandelay]

it cannot be so difficult to imagine a class set on destruction of Hitler steam rolling over any underhand or treacherous attempts at revolution. An attempt to disrupt their war effort would have been put down with the utmost severity. Nazis were jailed, what do you imagine would have been your fate? The Nazis with ruling class connections barely escaped one was even hanged. Let's have no more silly talk of insurrections or the like. The people had made their decision to fight the Hitler menace, they along with the Soviets and American and commonwealth put an end to fascism. ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSED US CAME TO A STICKY END.

So the moral is revolution is not likely and (news flash) is dangerous, so we should not try? Dream the impossible.


I would not want to see you hanging from a rope, 9mm, one von Brickendrop is quite sufficient.

Well Dodger this world fucking sucks as it is, so if global revolution is not to succeed, then yeah I might as well be hanging from a rope.

"If I fail to win my case, there is nothing for us to do (the proletarian class and myself) but to slit our throats." - Proudhon.

[Bostana]

I have never seen you contribute anything on here except meaningless rhetoric and one liners. Every time you post you only show your ignorance. Me and Dodger, despite opposing view points, at least can have a discussion; if you have nothing to add other than flame bait then do not post.

You want to talk about ignorance? Have you even read my posts? And if you have, just because you disagree with them doesn't mean I don't contribute.

Now answer me this. What is so Imperialist about a nation defending itself? Just because you don't like the USSR doesn't mean you have to demonize it at every turning point. Where do you get off as the USSR being Imperialist during a Nazi Invasion? It makes no sense

[Art Vandelay]

You want to talk about ignorance? Have you even read my posts? And if you have, just because you disagree with them doesn't mean I don't contribute.

Yes I have read your posts and like anyone else who has (even your m-l buddies) I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is blatantly obvious; you talking politics is the equivalent of Steve Carroll talking about sex in the beginning of the 40 year old virgin.


Now answer me this. What is so Imperialist about a nation defending itself? Just because you don't like the USSR doesn't mean you have to demonize it at every turning point. Where do you get off as the USSR being Imperialist during a Nazi Invasion? It makes no sense

Frankly I have no interest in even wasting my time trying to explain anything to you. Its not my job to end your ignorance.

[Bostana]

I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Based on opinion. Because we disagree that means you hate me. Good Job!



Frankly I have no interest in even wasting my time trying to explain anything to you. Its not my job to end your ignorance.
Great Job backing your opinion.

[Art Vandelay]

Based on opinion. Because we disagree that means you hate me. Good Job!

Just thought I would make this clear: there are plenty of people with opposing view points that I enjoy on the site. Dodger would be one, Ismail is a good poster as well, even Commistar is someone who is clearly interested in learning about politics and seems genuinely dedicated to doing so.

You however have some of the worst politics I have ever seen, if you can even be considered to have politics. You attempt to make it seem like you know a lot more than you do (its okay to say you have no idea, you know). You jump around from tendencies without ever even grasping the basics and probably worst of all you seem to love to stir shit up.

Maybe if you did not act like a pompous 14 year old who is talking out of his ass, then more people would take you seriously.

[Bostana]

Just thought I would make this clear: there are plenty of people with opposing view points that I enjoy on the site. Dodger would be one, Ismail is a good poster as well, even Commistar is someone who is clearly interested in learning about politics and seems genuinely dedicated to doing so.

You however have some of the worst politics I have ever seen, if you can even be considered to have politics. You attempt to make it seem like you know a lot more than you do (its okay to say you have no idea, you know). You jump around from tendencies without ever even grasping the basics and probably worst of all you seem to love to stir shit up.

Maybe if you did not act like a pompous 14 year old who is talking out of his ass, then more people would take you seriously.

I jump around tendencies because I made a I went from Marxism-Leninsm to Maoism. Not to big y'know. Do you think I did it just cause? I am not stupid I do my studies. Which I am sure you do as well, respect me and I respect you.

Now instead of bashing me are you gonna answer my questions or keep flaming?

[Art Vandelay]

I jump around tendencies because I made a I went from Marxism-Leninsm to Maoism. Not to big y'know. Do you think I did it just cause? I am not stupid I do my studies. Which I am sure you do as well, respect me and I respect you.

Now instead of bashing me are you gonna answer my questions or keep flaming?

What is your question?

[Bostana]

What is your question?

Thank You.

My question is,
How does the defense of the USSR form the Germans come off as Imperialist to you?

[Art Vandelay]

Thank You.

My question is,
How does the defense of the USSR form the Germans come off as Imperialist to you?

I think that Los Lobos de Paris pretty much summed up the war pretty well:


You're straw man is falling over. WWII was a battle for land. Yes it perpetrated by Nazi Germany but it was a struggle among capitalist states for 'ownership' of land. Am I saying that the Soviet soldiers were not in the right defending their homeland? Of course not but that does not change the fact of the matter.

and it's not a sports match, I'm not going to "take a side" of the belligerents because frankly they were all capitalist states. The proletariat was the victim of WWII. Not the Soviet state nor any other European states.

Instead of taking sides in bourgeois quarrels, pro-revolutionaries should have been agitating to try and spark a revolution (much like the Bolsheviks during WWI). I have nothing against the individual soldiers, most of whom probably were not interested in politics and just wanted to get home to their families, on all sides.

Can I ask you a question now?

If you are a communist, which entails being an internationalist, then how can you support the working class being used as pawns on the bourgeois international chessboard to feed the global hunger of capital? How can a communist celebrate the death of a worker? Oh its okay because they happened to be born in a different set of imaginary lines?

[Bostana]

Can I ask you a question now?

It is true War is a terrible thing and should never have to happen. I am not celebrating the death of Soviet Soldiers, which would be terrible, but rather thanking their great sacrifice to defend the world from a Fascist regime. I hope that didn't come across the wrong way. Not celebrating their death but thanking their sacrifice.

Second Question, I don't see how the Soviet Union was on a war for the gain of land? If you are saying this because the Soviet Union claimed all the land that they liberated then I might understand.

Third Question, what is a strawman?

[Art Vandelay]

It is true War is a terrible thing and should never have to happen. I am not celebrating the death of Soviet Soldiers, which would be terrible, but rather thanking their great sacrifice to defend the world from a Fascist regime. I hope that didn't come across the wrong way. Not celebrating their death but thanking their sacrifice.

I was referring to Dodger's post earlier in the thread when he stated that they would celebrate when Germany was bombed. I was stating that it is unacceptable for a communist and internationalist to celebrate the deaths of the working class simply because they are on a differing side in a bourgeois fight. I realize that you were not celebrating the deaths of soviet soldiers and were being thankful for their sacrifices.


Second Question, I don't see how the Soviet Union was on a war for the gain of land? If you are saying this because the Soviet Union claimed all the land that they liberated then I might understand.

Yes that is part of it, however given that the class nature of all sides in the conflict were bourgeois, it would follow that the war (like all wars) was fought for capital.


Third Question, what is a strawman?

A strawman, also known as an ad hominem, is a debate tactic where you build up a false perception of the other persons argument only to then attack it. In the quote I posted above, ignore the mention of the strawman, it was not directed at you.

[dodger]

So the moral is revolution is not likely and (news flash) is dangerous, so we should not try? Dream the impossible.



Well Dodger this world fucking sucks as it is, so if global revolution is not to succeed, then yeah I might as well be hanging from a rope.

"If I fail to win my case, there is nothing for us to do (the proletarian class and myself) but to slit our throats." - Proudhon.

I avoid moralizing as I always have hopes of others doing. Communists opposed the war until USSR attacked. Three, I think shop stewards were at Old Bailey prosecuted for actions during wartime. A black shop steward had been victimized. The entry of Soviets in war saw them freed. I said the primary aim the destruction of Nazism. Throughout the war there had been another secondary agenda. Labour shortage had opened opportunities, workers grabbed with both hands. There was debate what world they wanted accelerated by German destruction, the debate moved forward. In the armed forces debate was raucous. The soldiers could see their betters bled just like them. Some were competent others less so. One thing stood out they did not want another war or return to the 20/30's. Class privilege. Indian people told them "WE LOVE YOU English We want you to go...now" TO which the stock reply was...we want to go home tooooh! The communist party did not want revolution. Yikes! They were terrified of the factory work-place branches that now thrived. Breeding ground for subversive ideas. Ideas that the "professional revolutionists" ie full time officials could not monitor or control.

So not time to buy rope 9mm exactly. A BUBBLING UP OF IDEAS. Not revolution, not Churchill ...social democracy. A chance for real and permanent gains. Oh dear. After you with the rope. The gains were real enough. Gained through struggle. Many still had faith in Labour PARTY. THEY WOULD GET THE JOB DONE. The communist party never far from the shirt tail concurred. Grandiloquence but precious little real thinking beyond a parliamentary road, bloodless and the mass involved under sufferance. Revolution with all its complexities was a job for professionals.

Stalingrad? Yes one more crack in Nazi invincibility, the biggest yet. If they could be beaten once, why not again, and yet again.

[Art Vandelay]

I avoid moralizing as I always have hopes of others doing. Communists opposed the war until USSR attacked. Three, I think shop stewards were at Old Bailey prosecuted for actions during wartime. A black shop steward had been victimized. The entry of Soviets in war saw them freed. I said the primary aim the destruction of Nazism. Throughout the war there had been another secondary agenda. Labour shortage had opened opportunities, workers grabbed with both hands. There was debate what world they wanted accelerated by German destruction, the debate moved forward. In the armed forces debate was raucous. The soldiers could see their betters bled just like them. Some were competent others less so. One thing stood out they did not want another war or return to the 20/30's. Class privilege. Indian people told them "WE LOVE YOU English We want you to go...now" TO which the stock reply was...we want to go home tooooh! The communist party did not want revolution. Yikes! They were terrified of the factory work-place branches that now thrived. Breeding ground for subversive ideas. Ideas that the "professional revolutionists" ie full time officials could not monitor or control.

So not time to buy rope 9mm exactly. A BUBBLING UP OF IDEAS. Not revolution, not Churchill ...social democracy. A chance for real and permanent gains. Oh dear. After you with the rope. The gains were real enough. Gained through struggle. Many still had faith in Labour PARTY. THEY WOULD GET THE JOB DONE. The communist party never far from the shirt tail concurred. Grandiloquence but precious little real thinking beyond a parliamentary road, bloodless and the mass involved under sufferance. Revolution with all its complexities was a job for professionals.

Stalingrad? Yes one more crack in Nazi invincibility, the biggest yet. If they could be beaten once, why not again, and yet again.

So what you are saying is that revolution was tied to the war? Either that or you are saying that there were many progressive gains made in overthrowing the nazis, so class collaboration is justified?

I just want to make sure I know what you are trying to say, because if I understood you correctly, then I would say you might as well go out and vote for the dems/labor party/any left wing of capital.

[dodger]

So what you are saying is that revolution was tied to the war? Either that or you are saying that there were many progressive gains made in overthrowing the nazis, so class collaboration is justified?

I just want to make sure I know what you are trying to say, because if I understood you correctly, then I would say you might as well go out and vote for the dems/labor party/any left wing of capital.

9mm Faith in the ballot box, which is all to obvious, whoever gets in, 'they' always get in, was not clear. Now all too obvious. After 6 yrs of war there was clear need to demobilize and get on to constructing the peace. The colonies were a deadweight. A HEALTH SERVICE had mushroomed it needed expansion defending. Women had come to the fore, they were not content to return to outdated roles. All these things were perceived as possible within capitalism..These gains were made in struggle. Each agreement was but a prelude for another tussle. Transport was nationalized, leaving out the powerful private haulage firms. Free education was won,right through to university. Books lodgings. A national plan to tear down slums. State housing. It was war. Class war, but not revolution. A way of living within the system.

The limitations of that thinking are all too obvious now. The ballot box. Corruption of parliament, surely the stench has even reached your shores. Our thinking was plain wrong. No one to blame but ourselves. Surely a lack of confidence, figured, we were nothing. They had everything, endured. The division of roles in parties between thinkers and doers only compounded this negativity. It was a reflection of an outside world that was distorted."I'm paid t' do t' tinkin'!" was common heard, inside a workers party it spelled death. Why else would Lenin telling Brit communists what tactic made sense in 1920 be deemed fit 20 OR 40 OR HELLS TEETH 90 YRS LATER.