German Legitimacy for Sudetenland

[James Connolly]

I don't want to sound like a defender of Nazism or anything, but if the Left really does support National Liberation, what was the issue with the Germans taking the Sudetenland, especially since it was mostly German and it had a referendum saying most Sudetens wanted to join Germany?

Isn't this like saying Ireland deserves Northern Ireland?

Was the Soviet Union only opposed to it because they were allies with Czechoslovakia and against Fascism? Otherwise, the Soviets defended Nationalist movements as long as they were draped in Red. It seems contradictory, and it doesn't take into account a double standard.

[James Connolly]

bump

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't support national liberation.

Besides, we're not going to willingly allow a far-right state to expand its empire are we?

But yes, where the USSR was concerned there was certainly realpolitik at play.

[Igor]

Leftist nationalist liberation would only make sense as a movement when it's anti-imperialist and progressive. How exactly do you think Nazi expansion would fit into this picture?

[James Connolly]

Besides, we're not going to willingly allow a far-right state to expand its empire are we?

I know it was an extreme example, but it certainly had foundations. If Germany was a Socialist state, would it then be alright for Germany to take the Sudetenland? I'm just trying to touch upon a flaw, not to actually apologize for German imperialism.

[James Connolly]

Leftist nationalist liberation would only make sense as a movement when it's anti-imperialist and progressive. How exactly do you think Nazi expansion would fit into this picture?
Why does Left Nationalism sound contradictory? Lenin said Nationalism and Socialism could never work together.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The thing is that Internationalism is an integral part of Socialism. Our goal should be to abolish nation-states.

[Ocean Seal]

A large number of us have a problem with national liberation, and even those that don't recognize that imperialism isn't about ethnicity (we aren't separatists), but rather economics.

[Ostrinski]

Some national liberation movements are to be supported under certain conditions (the decolonization of Africa for instance). National liberation in general should not be dogmatically supported. Both sides of this debate are often dogmatic.

[James Connolly]

Some national liberation movements are to be supported under certain conditions (the decolonization of Africa for instance). National liberation in general should not be dogmatically supported. Both sides of this debate are often dogmatic.
Well from a Liberal view, they're developing the undeveloped.

From a Marxist-Leninist view, they're exploiting the 3rd world, via Imperialism, which creates a Labor Aristocracy in the 1st world.

From a Fascist view, they're reconnecting and expanding the reich.


These are all very legitimate stances which each have large followings, but how do we know what is 'right?' We need to set a precedent for such a thing that isn't contradictory.

For instance, why do so many support Hamas and the PLO against Israel? Obviously because we're anti-Imperialist, but those two groups are about as right-winged nationalist as you can get. The same applies for the IRA, LTTE, PKK, ETA, and etc., whose only relations with the Left seem to be this very vague concept of National Right to Self Determination. It is pretty safe to say that none of those parties are currently occupying themselves with creating a Workers' state that liberates the Proletariat...

[Andropov]

Marx wrote himself on the issue of National Liberation that each context much be critically analysed, for example within the the context Ireland found itself in he saw the National Liberation struggle as being progressive but at the same time opposed certain movements within the Balkans because he saw it as being detrimental to the over arching socio-economic context.
As such each context much by critically analysed, blanket support for National Liberation struggles was something Marx never encouraged.
As such your example there from its material context leftists opposed the Sudetenland becoming part of a greater Germany simply because it strenghtened a massively reactionary regime and within the context of global power play weakened the more progressive states.
As with regards Ireland and partitioning the less said about that the better.

[Prometeo liberado]

As with regards Ireland and partitioning the less said about that the better
No offense, but is this the sum total of the Irish Marxian anlaysis of the Northern Ireland question, "..less said about it the better"?

[Andropov]

No offense, but is this the sum total of the Irish Marxian anlaysis of the Northern Ireland question, "..less said about it the better"?
Well that is a logical assertion.
Isn't it remarkable that the sum total of Irish Marxian thought on Partitioning can be summarised by a random poster in one line.
It is really beyond me how anyone could jump to that ridiculous conclusion from my post.

[Sam_b]

Was the Soviet Union only opposed to it because they were allies with Czechoslovakia and against Fascism?

Just to pick this up, at the point of the Sudetenland question the Soviet Union were not allies with Czechoslovakia, ideological or otherwise.

[Prometeo liberado]

Well that is a logical assertion.
Isn't it remarkable that the sum total of Irish Marxian thought on Partitioning can be summarised by a random poster in one line.
It is really beyond me how anyone could jump to that ridiculous conclusion from my post.

Like I said, no offense, but the question remains. Why bury one's head in the sand in regards to the Northern Ireland partition? Just don't understand "..less said about it the better" type thinking. So whatever conclusion I may be jumping to could you please enlighten me otherwise?

[Andropov]

Like I said, no offense, but the question remains. Why bury one's head in the sand in regards to the Northern Ireland partition? Just don't understand "..less said about it the better" type thinking. So whatever conclusion I may be jumping to could you please enlighten me otherwise?
There have been more than enough threads here throughout the years where I have explicitly stated my analysis of partitioning within Ireland, its not something I have avoided on here.
By stating "..the less said about it the better" it was in reference to the original posters comment

Isn't this like saying Ireland deserves Northern Ireland?
Which I interpret as deeply flawed.
I merely made that remark because if I did give my analysis on this topic it would have derailed the debate at hand regarding to the Sudetenland.
Hence why, the less said about it the better.

[James Connolly]

Just to pick this up, at the point of the Sudetenland question the Soviet Union were not allies with Czechoslovakia, ideological or otherwise.
What about the pact for mutual assistance? Surely that should be regarded as a Defensive alliance.

[Prometeo liberado]

There have been more than enough threads here throughout the years where I have explicitly stated my analysis of partitioning within Ireland, its not something I have avoided on here.
By stating "..the less said about it the better" it was in reference to the original posters comment

Which I interpret as deeply flawed.
I merely made that remark because if I did give my analysis on this topic it would have derailed the debate at hand regarding to the Sudetenland.
Hence why, the less said about it the better.

Fair enough.

[Peoples' War]

Whose interests would it be in for this to occur? Workers or bourgeois/petty-bourgeois nationalists?

You have to ask yourself this.

[Sam_b]

What about the pact for mutual assistance? Surely that should be regarded as a Defensive alliance.

What pact for mutual assistance? Czechoslovakia joined the Comecon in 1949 and the Warsaw Pact in 1955, after becoming 'officially' communist in 1948. The occupation of the Sudetenland was in 1938, a full ten years before this.

[James Connolly]

What pact for mutual assistance? Czechoslovakia joined the Comecon in 1949 and the Warsaw Pact in 1955, after becoming 'officially' communist in 1948. The occupation of the Sudetenland was in 1938, a full ten years before this.
I was talking about the Soviet-Czechoslovakia mutual assistance agreement of 1935.



"The fact of Germano-Japanese hostility to the USSR needs no demonstration; the archives of the State and Navy Departments of Washington can bear witness that more than once in 1932 and 1933 war between the USSR and Japan hung literally by a thread, and Hitler, from “Mein Kampf” to his speech at Nuremberg last September, from Nuremberg to the present day, has made no secret of his determination that Germany should atone for defeat in the World War by "eastward expansion" at the expense of the USSR. Hitler’s own position, however, was not consolidated until 1933, and three more years were to elapse before he could feel that the German war machine was ready for a major struggle. In the meantime Japanese aggressiveness had been somewhat checked by American recognition of the USSR and was now directed toward China, in which it has gradually found itself more and more deeply involved. Second, there were signed pacts of mutual assistance between the USSR and Czechoslovakia and the USSR and France, which were regarded as tantamount to defensive alliances."
(Curt Riess. They Were There: The Story of World War II and How It Came About)

[Sam_b]

Oh, riiiiight. I always thought that it was never a real pact as much as a tokenistic gesture done at the behest of the League of Nations. But when the Soviet Union had it's own territorial ambitions and would readily wheel and deal with the Nazi state, what would you expect?

You'll note the pact is actually pretty vague as well, note article one where it speaks of 'immediate consultation as regards the measures to be taken' rather than commitment to any military defence (full text here) (http://ungarisches-institut.de/dokumente/pdf/19350516-1.pdf)

Ultimately, the pact was pretty much null and void anyway, seeing as "it had a reservation, included upon the initiative of the Czechoslovak government, to the effect that the obligations of the USSR and Czechoslovakia to provide assistance to one another would remain valid only in case of assistance from France as well to the USSR and Czechoslovakia in the event of aggression" (link (http://leninist.biz/en/1982/DBBW313/1.3.5-Treaty.of.Mutual.Assistance)), to which the French did not agree, and therefore the treaty was dead in the water and non-binding.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The problem i have with the question whether Sudetenland should be part of Germany or Prussia, or Königsberg (which were all part of the Weimar Republic, the borders of 1937 are said to be the "correct" german state..) is that we talk as if we got the choice. I mean, if germany has a socialist revolution, it would be invaded if not defeated by domestic forces. So when foreign countries invade, every yard that we push them back is precious and the areas that were traditionally part of a German union and where people still speak german, would be claimed. I mean, the reason Hitler occupied the western part of the Czech Republic was because it was the most advanced, industrial area of the region, ripe for his cronies profits. One also has to take culture into account, Austria would be a lot easily integrated into german society contrary to Czechrepublic or today's Poland (yesterdays "Germany").

[Sam_b]

I mean, the reason Hitler occupied the western part of the Czech Republic was because it was the most advanced, industrial area of the region, ripe for his cronies profits

I think this is a good point. That area encompassed the historic Škoda Works, the largest industrial plant in Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and was producing armaments of a high quality - which were to be vital for the Wehrmacht campaigns in France, Poland and less successfully in the Soviet Union. Given the geographic nature of the region as well, being high on hills, would provide excellent cover for bases and was an area that could be effectively shielded from attack. The fortune of having a German population there allowed for (at the time) a 'reasonable' and populist excuse for occupation.