The Great Patriotic War

[MarxSchmarx]

When all is said and done, does the "Great Patriotic War" waged by the USSR against fascism and Nazism basically illustrate the triumph of leftist ideology (internationalism, socialism, and egalitarianism) over right-wing nationalism, capitalism and racism?

I am not fan of Leninism much less Stalisnism. But the materialist argument for why fascism was defeated in Europe by an essentially socialist, if supremely inadequate variant of the liberatory ideology envisioned by Marx, more or less succeeded in repressing the right-wing reactionaries where liberal democracy had failed.

That is where I wonder how relevant the example of Spain is. In essence, in Spain, bourgeois liberal democracy fought against fascism alone and despite leftist involvement failed to emerge victorious.

I am wondering how non-Leninist and anti-Stalinist leftists view the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany by the USSR. If this wasn't a victory of one social system over another, how do consistent materialists account for what happened?

[synthesis]

It was an inter-imperialist conflict that has led people to believe that ideology is more relevant than the machinations of global capital.

[Igor]

the term alone should reveal you how much of a triumph it was for the cause of internationalism

[Popular Front of Judea]

Hmm it was less that one social system triumphed than that one clearly failed. A great what-if is if the Nazis were able to dial their racialist ideology back when it came to their Eastern march. It really didn't help them when they treated the Ukrainians and other Slavs as untermenschen, suitable only for forced labor. The Nazis thanks to their ideology also were less able to mobilize their country, declining to fully use the labor of women and refusing to put them in uniform for example.

[Vireya]

It had less to do with ideology than that the USSR had more resources at its disposal than did Germany. Out of the three primary Axis nations, only Germany was somewhat rich in material resources, both Italy and Japan were lacking in that department. None of them had a native source of petroleum, which both the USSR and the USA had.

[A.J.]

the term alone should reveal you how much of a triumph it was for the cause of internationalism

It was Moscow-aligned Communists who provided the backbone for resistance movements in just about every occupied country in Europe during the Anti-fascist Peoples Liberation Struggle(1941 to 1945).

Even including the Channel Islands....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Communist_Party

[Popular Front of Judea]

Of course there is the small matter of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. A little hard to shoehorn into the 'anti-fascist' narrative.

No arguing with the role that Communists played in resistance movements in areas well to the west of the Eastern Front.

[A.J.]

Of course there is the small matter of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. A little hard to shoehorn into the 'anti-fascist' narrative.


It was the very violation of the non-aggression pact - namely the fascist invasion of the Soviet Union - that marked the qualitative transformation of the conflict from being a reactionary inter-imperialist war to having a progressive anti-fascist character.

Prior to June 1941 the conflict had no progressive content.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That one military machine defeated the other =/= one social system, or ideology, defeated the other.

Indeed, the USSR nearly lost the war before it began. It mainly won the war, in the end, because of:

a) luck. The harsh, harsh winter set in before the Germans could capture the whole of the USSR.
b) German incompetence. The germans were so centrally commanded by Hitler, to the detriment of their ability to keep up their 'blitzkreig' war effort over a period of months/years. Also, Hitler's decision to effectively 'make Leningrad scream' might have been disastrous for the people of that particular city, but was just a waste of time when he could have taken it and moved on. Wasted a shit load of soldiers.
c) The allies, in particular the US, entering the war in the early 1940s meant the Germans were fighting on two fronts on the ground, and were being bombed from all directions. It would have been virtually impossible for them to do anything other than lose, in the end, faced with united Soviet-ally opposition, amid the collapse of the Italians as well.

Of course, the Soviets did eventually get their act together, but they'd have probably lost the war without a fight if the trinity of the cold winter, german incompetence and allied intervention didn't set in.

[Blake's Baby]

It was the very violation of the non-aggression pact - namely the fascist invasion of the Soviet Union - that marked the qualitative transformation of the conflict from being a reactionary inter-imperialist war to having a progressive anti-fascist character.

Prior to June 1941 the conflict had no progressive content.

Good job Hitler solved your problem for you by invading the Soviet Union. Good old Hitler.

It was an inter-imperialist conflict, and then it was an inter-imperialist conflict with slightly different sides. Or are you seriously claiming that Operation Barbarossa made not only the SU but also France and the UK 'progressive' forces? Or were they still reactionary imperialists, only inconveniently allied to the 'progressive' SU?

[RedCeltic]

Americans like to think of themselves as the sole victors of the war and the liberators of Europe and Asia. The truth is, while leftists like the man in my avatar (Woody Guthrie) howled about the need to put down Fascism, America was complacent in being isolated from the world. That is why it drives me nuts when ultra nationalistic Americans brag about how wonderful the US was in defeating fascism.

I can't help but feel that Soviets were subjects of the same nationalistic bullcrap. The USSR, like the USA were complacent in staying out of the war and letting the fascist war machine roll across Europe. It was only after the Germans crossed the boarder into the Soviet Union did it suddenly become the patriotic duty of every comrade to crush the threat of fascism. Even titling the war "the great patriotic war" is a source of propaganda.

This in no way is meant to diminish the sacrifice the Soviets made in that war, for without them it might have been a much longer war, but I don't think it's fair to call it a triumph of ideology when the true revolutionaries who were howling to put down fascism were largely ignored.

[A.J.]

are you seriously claiming that Operation Barbarossa made not only the SU but also France and the UK 'progressive' forces? Or were they still reactionary imperialists, only inconveniently allied to the 'progressive' SU?

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Here's something to think about, however; Despite being on the winning side Britain was in much a weakened state. So despite everything a blow had been struck against British imperialism.

[Vireya]

Of course there is the small matter of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. A little hard to shoehorn into the 'anti-fascist' narrative.

No arguing with the role that Communists played in resistance movements in areas well to the west of the Eastern Front.

The non-aggression pact was a pragmatic move for both the Nazis and the Soviets. Neither was ready to challenge the other, and they both wanted time to expand their influence, one of them would've eventually broken the pact anyway.

[Red_Banner]

It had less to do with ideology than that the USSR had more resources at its disposal than did Germany. Out of the three primary Axis nations, only Germany was somewhat rich in material resources, both Italy and Japan were lacking in that department. None of them had a native source of petroleum, which both the USSR and the USA had.


The Axis had some oil in Romania, and maybe some in North Africa but evidently it wasn't enough.

[Red_Banner]

Americans like to think of themselves as the sole victors of the war and the liberators of Europe and Asia. The truth is, while leftists like the man in my avatar (Woody Guthrie) howled about the need to put down Fascism, America was complacent in being isolated from the world. That is why it drives me nuts when ultra nationalistic Americans brag about how wonderful the US was in defeating fascism.

I can't help but feel that Soviets were subjects of the same nationalistic bullcrap. The USSR, like the USA were complacent in staying out of the war and letting the fascist war machine roll across Europe. It was only after the Germans crossed the boarder into the Soviet Union did it suddenly become the patriotic duty of every comrade to crush the threat of fascism. Even titling the war "the great patriotic war" is a source of propaganda.

This in no way is meant to diminish the sacrifice the Soviets made in that war, for without them it might have been a much longer war, but I don't think it's fair to call it a triumph of ideology when the true revolutionaries who were howling to put down fascism were largely ignored.

From what I've heard, Stalin wanted to put troops in Czechoslovakia to keep Germany out, but Poland didn't allow the Soviet troops to pass through.

[MarxSchmarx]

I was getting at something more concrete than mere ideology or even diplomacy.

On a basic levels, wars can arguably be won or lost on incredibly mundane matters like logistics, domestic productive capabilities, and the ability to acquire technical supremacy (as in Soviet tank development in WWII or famously the Manhattan project).

These things don't happen within a vaccuum, and ultimately reflect the societies in which they are implemented. I think the casualty figures on the German side speak to the limitations of the two front theory, at least as it concerns raw military capabilities.

The issues of ideology, I believe, are secondary. Yes there were tremendously nationalistic appeals that undoubtedly kept many individual soviet soldiers fighting that had little to do with internationalism and workers solidarity and so on (although as some have pointed out, the Nazi's brutality did not help). But I suspect at the end of the day it wasn't nationalism so much as protecting one's immediate community (family, friends, so on) that motivated most people. Whatever the source of the strong sentiments of Soviet soldiers, these sentiments were insufficient, for instance, in helping Japan win the war in the Pacific.

Thus, the failure of the liberal democracies to conclusively defeat Hitler, despite his copious mistakes, does make one wonder whether there was something more systemic about the Soviet victory. A materialist account of WWII cannot merely point to the superior natural resources the USSR commanded. It must, it still seems to me (although I continue to ask for reasons not believe this), be supportive of the argument, on some level, of the basic superiority of a planned economy.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It must, it still seems to me (although I continue to ask for reasons not believe this), be supportive of the argument, on some level, of the basic superiority of a planned economy.

Who would argue against it? All the major countries Allied and Axis had to embrace planning for the duration of the war. That includes the United States. Their economies wwere rationalized for war production. Consumer demands came last. Planned economies do well when it comes to war. After the war, filling the demands of a peacetime consumer economy ... not so much

[dodger]

From what I've heard, Stalin wanted to put troops in Czechoslovakia to keep Germany out, but Poland didn't allow the Soviet troops to pass through.

Poland Joined Hitler in Dismembering Czechoslovakia. Poland had been first to share in the spoils. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia had ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) – an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people." So you heard right Red Banner and all too clear Polish reluctance to assist her neighbour.

[DarkPast]

That one military machine defeated the other =/= one social system, or ideology, defeated the other.

Indeed, the USSR nearly lost the war before it began. It mainly won the war, in the end, because of:

a) luck. The harsh, harsh winter set in before the Germans could capture the whole of the USSR.

Lol, they were a long, *long* way from capturing the "whole USSR". Thing is, the USSR was *huge* and its infrastructure was severely lacking compared to Western Europe. Blitzkrieg might work in Poland or France, but the USSR is a different story. Not to mention the logistical nightmare the Germans had to face.

So this has less to do with luck, and more with bad planning.


b) German incompetence. The germans were so centrally commanded by Hitler, to the detriment of their ability to keep up their 'blitzkreig' war effort over a period of months/years. Also, Hitler's decision to effectively 'make Leningrad scream' might have been disastrous for the people of that particular city, but was just a waste of time when he could have taken it and moved on. Wasted a shit load of soldiers.There is some truth in this, but one should keep in mind that German incompetence was balanced by an equal amount of Soviet incompetence - the fact that Barbarossa eliminated some three million Soviet troops with little effort was largely due to Soviet incompetence - slow command response, troops were left without ammunition, many weren't even given the order to engage etc. And that's not even going into lower-level stuff like having commissars shoot soldiers who showed cowardice, entire tank companies having only one radio etc.

Also, the Red Army was very "top-heavy" in the way it was commanded too.

You're putting too much weight on German incompetence, and too little on the ability and willingness of the Red Army to learn from its mistakes and adapt its tactics, not to mention the way their factories worked tirelessly to put out new material, while the Germans still refused to implement a wartime economy. Not to mention that many Soviets - being threatened by physical extermination if they lose - were willing to die fighting rather than surrender, and their resistance movement was huge and well organized.


c) The allies, in particular the US, entering the war in the early 1940s meant the Germans were fighting on two fronts on the ground, and were being bombed from all directions. It would have been virtually impossible for them to do anything other than lose, in the end, faced with united Soviet-ally opposition, amid the collapse of the Italians as well.This is a common myth, but cold hard facts state that the German armed forces lost around 75-80% of their men in the USSR. Add to that the fact that all the best German divisions were deployed in the East all the way up to the last German offensive in the Ardennes (when, incidentally, the grossly under-supplied Germans nonetheless managed to push back the Allies for a short time). Also, this doesn't count the many other Axis countries who sent their troops to the East.

All the major Soviet victories were won *before* the Italy landing, let alone Normany. Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad and Kursk all happened before Western Allied troops even set foot on mainland Europe.

The bombing was important, yes, but again it didn't do that much damage until later in 1943 (and this was a factor in why the Germans finally decided to implement a full war economy).

If anything, the most important contribution of the Western Allies was Lend Lease, which gave the Soviets much in the way of supplies, and even more importantly - a huge number of trucks, which allowed them to make their supply lines much more efficient.


Of course, the Soviets did eventually get their act together, but they'd have probably lost the war without a fight if the trinity of the cold winter, german incompetence and allied intervention didn't set in.I don't know if you've done this on purpose, but it's interesting how you basically don't give the Soviets any credit - or even agency - whatsoever. The Westerners are active, the Easterners are passive, no? It reeks of first world-chauvinism and Orientalism, comrade. You'd do well to read some Edward Said.

Alas I'm not surprised. Cold War propaganda painting the Soviets as some sort of "Asiatic Red horde with guns" has survived to this day - and the Americans are the only true heroes, as usual.


All that said, I agree the war isn't proof that "socialism" is superior to fascism, but more that fascism is inherently a self-destructive ideology. The Soviets were mobilized more along the lines of patriotism (hence the name of the war), self-preservation (the Germans planned to exterminate or enslave all the Slavs, except a few who were judged to have "Aryan blood") and perhaps the idea to "pay back" the Germans for centuries of semi-colonial exploitation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When all is said and done, does the "Great Patriotic War" waged by the USSR against fascism and Nazism basically illustrate the triumph of leftist ideology (internationalism, socialism, and egalitarianism) over right-wing nationalism, capitalism and racism?

I am not fan of Leninism much less Stalisnism. But the materialist argument for why fascism was defeated in Europe by an essentially socialist, if supremely inadequate variant of the liberatory ideology envisioned by Marx, more or less succeeded in repressing the right-wing reactionaries where liberal democracy had failed.
[QUOTE]

Hmm, in post-war US, the ideological argument was that democratic pluralism triumphed over NAZIism (pluralism unless you were US and from Japaneese ancestory). That argument was more of a Keynsian post-war progressive view and now generally it's cast as "american induvidual freedom" triumphed over "totalitarianism" so that the cold war and defeat of the USSR could be included with WWII as part of a larger neoliberal-era myth. At any rate, I'd say that for the allies liberation was more rehtoric, it did help mobilize people - but jingoism can do that to an extent too and both the US and USSR had a lot of "patriotic-duty" rhetoric along with the liberation-talk.

While it seems likely that Russia really did the brunt of breaking the back of the NAZIs, both Russia and the US posed as liberating forces and hyped up how they were aiding organic liberation movements - and for the most part (I'm not that well read on WWII history in terms of specific conflicts and whatnot) it seems like both forces actually tried to control and manage popular resistance movements against the NAZIs from above. For example the US kicked the antifas out and put middling NAZIs back into administrative positions; all the allies tried to control or remove national liberation efforts that arose in responce to and in the wake of the war.

[QUOTE]That is where I wonder how relevant the example of Spain is. In essence, in Spain, bourgeois liberal democracy fought against fascism alone and despite leftist involvement failed to emerge victorious.I'd say that Spain is totally relevant in why a liberation movement is necissary to defeat the advance of fascist rule from within. The liberal Popular Front was ready to throw in the towell - it was the revolutionary anarchists along with some Marxist forces which armed the cities and stopped Franco from taking over in an immediate coup. It was the taking over of rural areas and worker control and de-facto rule of the cities that gave the inspiration and motivation to resist.

The USSR on the other hand, didn't initially have much influence, but then the Spanish version of the CP armed Madrid which gave them some credibility, the USSR offered weapons which gave them political clout as well, but the CP (dominated by middle class people, and with USSR influence which was more interested in securing imperialist allies against Germany in England and France than in the revolution of Spain) then fought to restore property rights, remove worker occupied and run factories and so on and then turned the gun on the "trozkyite" anarchists and the actual (marxist) trotskyists! There's a famous annecdote about fascists shouting to the Popular Front forces "what will the Republic give you" that illustrates how people would fight for revolution and their own liberation, but not for the old status quo, and so the revolution was destroyed within and without.

[Fred]

That one military machine defeated the other =/= one social system, or ideology, defeated the other.

Indeed, the USSR nearly lost the war before it began. It mainly won the war, in the end, because of:

a) luck. The harsh, harsh winter set in before the Germans could capture the whole of the USSR.
b) German incompetence. The germans were so centrally commanded by Hitler, to the detriment of their ability to keep up their 'blitzkreig' war effort over a period of months/years. Also, Hitler's decision to effectively 'make Leningrad scream' might have been disastrous for the people of that particular city, but was just a waste of time when he could have taken it and moved on. Wasted a shit load of soldiers.
c) The allies, in particular the US, entering the war in the early 1940s meant the Germans were fighting on two fronts on the ground, and were being bombed from all directions. It would have been virtually impossible for them to do anything other than lose, in the end, faced with united Soviet-ally opposition, amid the collapse of the Italians as well.

Of course, the Soviets did eventually get their act together, but they'd have probably lost the war without a fight if the trinity of the cold winter, german incompetence and allied intervention didn't set in.

You are leaving out the immense advantage the USSR had in espionage. They had people inside the German General Staff. This is not surprising when you think about it. The CI had loyal members with revolutionary appetites in almost every country. They were natives to the given countries, spoke the language and knew the customs. Also, they were good human material, not opportunist dirtbags looking for money.

So at the time of the battle of Stalingrad, when the German army of nearly 800K men was surrounded, the Germans planned to fight their way out. The Soviet commander arranged a meeting with the German commander. The Soviets had more detailed maps of the German position and resources than the Germans had. The German commander immediately surrendered.

I think in the service of your own anti-sovietism, you underestimate the job done by the Soviet Military. A job done IN SPITE OF Stalinist mismanagement.

The only "side" to defend in WWII was the USSR.

[Popular Front of Judea]

You are leaving out the immense advantage the USSR had in espionage. They had people inside the German General Staff. This is not surprising when you think about it. The CI had loyal members with revolutionary appetites in almost every country. They were natives to the given countries, spoke the language and knew the customs. Also, they were good human material, not opportunist dirtbags looking for money.

Unfortunately this advantage was totally wasted. Warnings about the coming German invasion poured into the Kremlin right up to the moment the Panzers rolled. Stalin would not listen. He denounced the warnings as provocations and sent the messengers to the Gulag.


Barbarossa Hitler Stalin: War warnings Stalin ignored
By Patrick Jackson
BBC News 21 June 2011

Russia and other parts of the former USSR commemorate one of the darkest days of their history on Wednesday, the 70th anniversary of Hitler's invasion.
It has long been known that Stalin received warnings of an impending attack, prompting one of the great questions of military history: why were Soviet forces, despite their impressive numbers, so ill-prepared to withstand the Nazi blitzkrieg?
Some accounts of the war have sought to play down the amount of intelligence the Kremlin had to go on, but this week a wealth of damning detail has emerged in the Russian media.

In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, Russian military historian Arsen Martirosyan revealed that Soviet intelligence had named the exact, or almost exact, date of the invasion 47 times in the 10 days before Germany struck.

Moscow knew of Nazi invasion plans from 1935, the historian argues, and was aware as early as 1936 of an attack plan called the Eastern Campaign.
It seems that Hitler himself all but let the cat out of the bag in May 1941, when he sent a letter to Stalin, who at the time was still a nominally friendly leader under the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact.

According to Martirosyan, the Fuehrer notified the Vozhd of his plans to "redeploy his troops from the German-Soviet frontier to the west between 15 and 20 June approximately". Substitute "east" for "west", and you get the picture...

Border reports

Ordinary Soviet border guards passed on most of the warnings of the coming invasion, Martirosyan said.

Between 1 and 10 June, they captured 108 enemy spies and saboteurs, he told Komsomolskaya Pravda, and a further 200 or so in the final 12 days before the invasion.

On 14 June, guards on the Belarusian section of the border relayed back to Moscow the correct date of the planned invasion, learnt from two captured saboteurs. The same date was revealed by saboteurs captured on 18 June.
Border guard agents operating on the German-controlled side of the border also confirmed the date repeatedly, Martirosyan found, as did local civilians.

Most poignantly, perhaps, were the Polish women who gathered on the opposite bank of one frontier river on 15 June, cupping their hands around their mouths to shout warnings, in broken Russian, to the Soviet guards facing them.

"Soviets, Soviets, the war is coming!" they were recorded as saying. "Soviets, the war will start in one week!"

Only on 18 June did Stalin order aerial reconnaissance missions to be conducted along the USSR's western borders.

Flying 400km (250 miles) from south to north, one pilot, Air Maj-Gen Georgy Zakharov, reported seeing "frontier regions west of the state border packed with troops... tanks, armoured cars and guns poorly concealed or not concealed at all... roads criss-crossed by motorcycles and what appeared to be staff cars".

Barbarossa, as the Nazis code-named the invasion, was just days away, and with it the start of a devastating new phase of World War II which claimed more than 20 million Soviet lives.

Stalin's leadership

Martirosyan argues that Stalin held back because of a lack of reliable evidence of the coming attack, and had legitimate concerns about deliberate misinformation by German intelligence.

Indeed, the historian is known for seeking to defend Stalin's war record.

A former agent in the KGB's foreign intelligence service, he is author of such works as Two Hundred Myths About Stalin, and The Marshals' Plot - British Intelligence Against The USSR.

Yet his latest research suggests a catalogue of missed opportunities by the Soviet high command, and revives questions about Stalin's competence as a military leader, at least in the early stages of the war on the Eastern Front.

The old debate about whether the USSR prevailed against Hitler because of the dictator's leadership, or in spite of it, refuses to go away.

[Fred]

Unfortunately this advantage was totally wasted. Warnings about the coming German invasion poured into the Kremlin right up to the moment the Panzers rolled. Stalin would not listen. He denounced the warnings as provocations and sent the messengers to the Gulag.

Yes, that is absolutely true -- the USSR prevailed in spite of gross misleadership at the hands of Stalin. A tremendous loss of lives could have been averted if Stalin just listened to what the comrades were reporting. But their espionage is also what ultimately saved them. Stalin did not continue to deny the reports he was getting. I recommend a book, The Red Orchestra, for further information abou this.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I would strongly suggest reading The Red Orchestra. It's engrossing. It's valuable for its behind the scenes look at a real -- not fictional -- clandestine network.

I would note that an increasing amount of intelligence that the Orchestra passed on, once the tide of the war turned, was from sources positioning themselves for a Russian dominated postwar future.


Yes, that is absolutely true -- the USSR prevailed in spite of gross misleadership at the hands of Stalin. A tremendous loss of lives could have been averted if Stalin just listened to what the comrades were reporting. But their espionage is also what ultimately saved them. Stalin did not continue to deny the reports he was getting. I recommend a book, The Red Orchestra, for further information about this.

[Blake's Baby]

An enemy of my enemy is my friend...

The social-democrats in Germany were responsible for killing communists. So, the Nazis were your friends?