Was World War Two a "good war"

[FinnMacCool]

I have heard little to no criticism about World War II so I was wondering if you all think World War II was a justified war.

[YKTMX]

In the final analysis, it was a war that had to be fought.

However, this should not disguise the motives of the leaders and generals involved in conducting it on the Allied side.

Churchill was certainly not an anti-fascist:


if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism."

That's him speaking about Mussolini.

The war was fought to defend the British Empire, and the Americans also feared a German ruled Europe.

But, in the end, there's no point in being nihilistic about it. Bourgeois democracy is infinitely preferrable to fascism.

[emma_goldman]

I didn&#39;t really know what we could of done instead but that&#39;s not to say war was the best option. I do know the only reason we got involved was because Hitler threatened to attack us and not because we&#39;re some great humanitarian country. Secondly, the way in which we fought was completely uncalled for. Horrible atrocities. Look at the Nuremberg trials. Lastly, well, we didn&#39;t even defeat the Germans, that was the Russians so why does the United States pat their back so much on it? <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:48 PM
Horrible atrocities. Look at the Nuremberg trials.
What have you got against trying nazis for the atrocities that they committed?

[Raubleaux]

World War II was more than a "good war." It was the greatest triumph of the international proletariat to date -- the defeat of fascism. Even though the working class was on the defensive, it was a just and glorious cause that the (primarily Soviet) working class won.

As for the motivations of the bourgeois "democracies," of course they had no particular aversion to fascism. That is not news to any of us. However, as the comrade pointed out, there can be no compromise at all with fascism/slavery.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jun 15 2006, 09:55 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jun 15 2006, 09:55 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 09:48 PM
Horrible atrocities. Look at the Nuremberg trials.
What have you got against trying nazis for the atrocities that they committed? [/b]
He is saying the Nazis revealed American war crimes at the Nuremberg trials - even revealing that they got some of their inspiration from the United States.

[emma_goldman]

Thank you, that is exactly what I meant. But ahem, it is she. ;)

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:48 PM
Lastly, well, we didn&#39;t even defeat the Germans, that was the Russians so why does the United States pat their back so much on it? <_<
The United States and its allies on the Western Front may not have captured Berlin, but they certainly did greatly contribute to the defeat of the Nazis. They forced the Germans to fight a two front war, something no Army wants to do (Hitler made the mistake of initiating one, which may have ultimately brought about his defeat). You shouldn&#39;t discredit the retaking of "Fortress Europe".

[Janus]

I feel that it was a necessary war as it helped to defeat Hitler and the Nazis as well as Japanese imperialism in Europe and Asia. However, there wasn&#39;t much to look forward to besides that as it also helped to initiate the Cold War.

[kaaos_af]

It was an imperialist war. The Germans and the Allies, apart fom the Soviets, were imperialists. The Soviets were a deformed worker&#39;s state (not state-capitalist or social imperialist as some would suggest).

Think of it this way-

-the US and UK only laned at Normandy to prevent the USSR liberating all Europe.

-The US and UK bombed Dresden to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands in oder to intimidate the German people into not uprising against the government, as they did in World War I.

We all know about the Third Reich&#39;s atrocities against the proletariat, so I&#39;ll talk about the Allies- UK USA USSR

The US, UK and Third Reich were all anti-proletarian. The USSR was moderately better, but when the Soviet and Eastern European working class had sufficiently recovered for the first time since 1917 (having suffered dozens and dozens of defeats, including the crushing of the revolutions in the 10&#39;s, 20&#39;s and 30&#39;s, the rise of fascism and other such vulture regimes, such as the ones in pre-war Poland and Yugoslavia, World Wars I and II, the Crimean War and the Russian Civil War), and rose in places like Chersassk, East Germany, Hungary and Prague, the Soviets were quite prepared to use force to crush the working class&#39; attempts to take state power and establish true socialist republics. Should this have happened, the Soviet people themselves would begin to question the socialist character of their own government. Naturally this could not happen, so the Stalinist Moscow bureaucracy was quite prepared to crush the proletariat to efend its own interests, thus prving the USSR government&#39;s anti-proletarian nature as well.

While the deformed worker&#39;s states of Eastern Europe were better off under Stalinism in the 80&#39;s than they are today, the Stalinist and USA/UK joint efforts prevented a Europe-wide revolution that would most likely have broken out, in much the same fashion as it did following the First World War. While it is true that Yugoslavia managed to liberate itself successfully and establish a socialist government, the character of the vanguard party that led this revolution was extremely Stalinist, thus preventing a true socialist people&#39;s republic to be founded. The Yugoslav communist party, of course, was founded by the Soviet controlled Third International- again proving the anti-proletarian nature of the Soviet Union&#39;s government.

Japanese imperialism, however, is a different matter. As most of Asia at that stage was not industrialised, the Asian proletariat was still tiny and not capable of taking on Japanese imperialism in an organised fashion (although the Chinese and Koreans were doing an admirable job with the resources that they did have). I haven&#39;t done a great deal of study into this subject, but to me the Allied intervention was a double edged sword. Japan as determined to establish a corporate empire, and was rapidly extending into the UK/USA spere of influence, having already overun former US, French and UK territories like the Phillipines, Indochina and Singapore and putting still others, like Papua and India at risk. Australia was not in danger is has come out, despite some small skirmishes at Sydney Harbour, Darwin etc.
The Allies did play a progressive role in the overturning of Japanese imperialism, but it instantly destroyed these progressive gains when it dropped atom bombs on the Japanese people (pobably fearing a Soviet invasion of Japan), destroyed the capital city of the Phillipines deliberately to place he Phillipines back under US control, and occupied the Phillipines, Japan and South Korea. These takeovers eventually led to further outbreaks of violence between imperialism and the Asian proletariat in the future, such as the ongoing national liberation struggle in the Philipines, the Korean War and so on and so forth.

[EwokUtopia]

There is no such thing as a good war. Fascism was born in the first war, brewed in the depression, then exploded into the most terrifying episode of hatred and violence that has even ingulfed the world. Japan was almost as bad, but never really had the ability to pose such a threat as Germany did. Nazi Germany had to be defeated, but that doesnt make the war a good thing. World War II was a conflagration brought about with the horrors of world war I. It had to be put out, but it is a shame it happened in the first place, if people steered clear of the first world war, the second never would have happened.

[Raubleaux]

-the US and UK only laned at Normandy to prevent the USSR liberating all Europe.

Had it not been for the second front, even more Soviet citizens would have been slaughtered -- more than the 24-29 million who actually died. More dead communists would have undoubtedly warmed the heart of Trotskyists, but those who really supported Soviet power welcomed the second front.


-The US and UK bombed Dresden to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands in oder to intimidate the German people into not uprising against the government, as they did in World War I.

The UK bombed Dresden because it was an important part of the Nazi war machine. The Soviet Union had specifically requested that Dresden be bombed. And the death toll was 20-25 thousand, not anywhere near "hundreds of thousands." Your figures are based on Nazi war propaganda. The notion that Dresden was bombed "to intimidate the German people into not uprising" is ludicrous. There was no prospect for a broad-based German uprising against the Nazis.


The Allies did play a progressive role in the overturning of Japanese imperialism, but it instantly destroyed these progressive gains when it dropped atom bombs on the Japanese people (pobably fearing a Soviet invasion of Japan)

What? The Soviets did go to war with Japan. And Japanese imperialism would have never been overthown if not for the atomic bombs.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:03 AM
What? The Soviets did go to war with Japan. And Japanese imperialism would have never been overthown if not for the atomic bombs.
This "we needed to drop the bombs to win the war" shit is highly disputed.........

Many have said that Japan surrended well before any nuked were dropped.

[peaccenicked]

WW2 was a product of shifts in global power. To begin with Hitler was a champion of imperialism against communism albeit that bastardised version that arose in the USSR. In the UK for instance much of the aristocracy supported him. Our first premise should be that Imperialism creates its own Frankenstein monsters.

This makes the idea of it being a good war ridiculous, creating a monster that has to by slain by god almighty force is just plain barbarism.

The question has to be who created this monster and why. If we look at the question who benefited. The answer has to be US imperialism. There are many claims that Wall St financed Hitler. It could be a case of what you choose to believe. and I do not believe Hitler came to power without the complicity of big money and its global strategies.

[Free Left]

How can you say WWII was a good war? How can you say any war was a good war?

In the context of WWII, it created a another war(Cold War), it reinforced imperialism, it killed millions, it wrecked Japan&#39;s and Europe&#39;s economy meaning that the US had control of the West, it lead to Eastern Europe becominga collection of vassal states to the USSR meaning that they were oppressed and sucked dry of their wealth and production, it pushed scientists to create weapons rather than inventions or concepts to benifit humanity, it created a hatred of Germans, Russians, Americans, British, Japenese and Chinese that still influences people today, it created new Russian and American empires and it caused an unprecendented level of desruction around the world.

NO war can be justified because no war is like a "crusade" against evil. War is carried out to serve a powers needs; Britian went to war with Germany because it was in her interests that a balance of power remained in Europe so she could concentrate on her vast Empire, France went to war because it knew sooner or later Nazi eyes would turn west, the US went to war because the Nazis were threatening her position of superpower, Russia went to war because it was invaded.

Yes, Hitler and the Japenese high command were threatening the freedom of millions but the powers of the world do not go to war unless it is profitable or they themselves are threatened.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:15 PM
In the final analysis, it was a war that had to be fought.


Only as the Nazis came to power. Had the outcome of the end of WW1 been different, there would&#39;ve been the mass strike and a revolution. Then there would have been no war.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You know, I&#39;m more than willing to support anti-Imperialist forces that are struggling for National Liberation, but when it comes to Inter-Imperialist Wars, I think Lenin&#39;s slogan remains valid. That slogan, of course, being "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war&#33;" Of course, that&#39;s not to say that I "object" in any way to the Allied victory, rather, it just means that in practical terms, if I was around back then, I would say the communist position on this shouldn&#39;t have been to support the "democratic camp"....certainly not in the manner that many self-described communist/socialist groups did.

This issue is, funnily enough, one of the few issues on which I, more or less, agree with the International Communist Current. Though, from what I&#39;ve read, I don&#39;t agree with certain parts of their analysis on WWII. Still, though, one would have thought that other self-proclaimed revolutionaries would refrain from siding with their own Imperialist bourgeois. But, that doesn&#39;t appear to be the case.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)In the final analysis, it was a war that had to be fought.[/b]

So you approve of the efforts of the CPGB to help recruit workers for the British Empire? And, for that matter, do you approve of the support the Labour Party and other "workers" groups gave with regards the attempts to undermine workers struggles during wartime? I think it was Clement Attlee who said the closest Britain came to socialism was during WWII; agree with that?

You know Trotsky, despite his many faults, at least attempted to propose a class line on the upcoming coflict....in the Proletarian Military Policy if memory serves me correctly. You just seem content to point out that the Allies had their own Imperial interests and then simply shrug it off....going on to tactically support those Imperial ventures. Do you have no shame?


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Bourgeois democracy is infinitely preferrable to fascism.[/b]

Indeed; but there are two things worth discussing here.

Firstly, if a similar situation arose again, we now know that fascism is somewhat of a temporary phenomena....the communists back then didn&#39;t. Which, in fairness, gives them a somewhat plausible excuse with regards giving support to one side of an Imperialist conflict. After all, they thought that fascism may "last forever"....so they can, perhaps, be excused for backing the British Empire.

Secondly, whether something is "preferrable" is pretty much irrelevant from the perspective we should be looking through....the perspective, of course, being revolutionaries who want workers power. The "window dressing" of capitalism, shouldn&#39;t be especially important to us....and you can&#39;t even make the point that bourgeois "democracy" leaves gives us more room to organise, because, as we should know, a fascist State signals that the working class have been comprehensively beaten. So, in the immediate future, it&#39;s not as if there is much left to organise around.


Originally posted by emma_goldman
I do know the only reason we got involved was because Hitler threatened to attack us and not because we&#39;re some great humanitarian country.

I don&#39;t know who "we" refers to in this context, but I rather doubt that "we" got involved for either reasons of a humanitarian nature or reasons of fear. The only (major) country you could say was legitimately involved for reasons of "fear", was the old USSR....everyone else got involved in order to satisfy their own Imperial interests.


[email protected]
It was the greatest triumph of the international proletariat to date -- the defeat of fascism.

There was no "triumph". The international proletariat had been comprehensively beaten by around 1936....and it didn&#39;t drag itself off the canvas until around the mid-sixties. WWII was, essentially, a "triumph" for the interests of American Imperialism....and somewhat of a disaster for German, French and British Imperialism. Of course, Russia ended up "triumphing" in, admittedly, a peculiar sense....but that was somewhat of a twist of fate.


Raubleaux
However, as the comrade pointed out, there can be no compromise at all with fascism/slavery.

Yet acting as a lackey of the British Empire is "a-ok" with you?

[YKTMX]

So you approve of the efforts of the CPGB to help recruit workers for the British Empire?

What d&#39;you mean "for the British Empire"? I don&#39;t understand the question.


And, for that matter, do you approve of the support the Labour Party and other "workers" groups gave with regards the attempts to undermine workers struggles during wartime?

No, of couse not. And the reason the British working class won so many gains after the war was because the ruling class knew that people simply weren&#39;t prepared to go off and die for nothing again, like they had done in the first world war.


I think it was Clement Attlee who said the closest Britain came to socialism was during WWII; agree with that?


I think I&#39;d disagree with Attlee as to what socialism means.


You just seem content to point out that the Allies had their own Imperial interests and then simply shrug it off....going on to tactically support those Imperial ventures. Do you have no shame?


I made it clear that I see NO moral equivalence between fascism and bourgeois democracy. Simply surrendering India to the Nazis because we oppose the British Empire would have been wholly and completely stupid. For one, the Indians would have had much less chance of freedom and democracy had they not fought on the Allied side - as some of them didn&#39;t.


Secondly, whether something is "preferrable" is pretty much irrelevant from the perspective we should be looking through....the perspective, of course, being revolutionaries who want workers power.

Don&#39;t be so silly.

When Marx backed the North in American Civil War, do you not think he was deciding what system was preferrable? Do you think he was endorsing the Northern bourgeoisie and their despicable practices by supporting them? No, of course not. But when you compare it to chattel slavery, the "choice" is easy.

For someone who favours a "materialist analysis" like yourself, this position of yours is quite unbelievable. You say it&#39;s "idealistic" to argue for workers power NOW, and then you&#39;re lecturing me, and the communists of the time, for not "arguing" for it in the face of the untold slaughter and carnage of the second world war.

Fool.


and you can&#39;t even make the point that bourgeois "democracy" leaves gives us more room to organise, because, as we should know, a fascist State signals that the working class have been comprehensively beaten.

The German working class was certainly not beaten in late &#39;32. The Nazi victory signals the beginnings of a terrible defeat, but it was by no means inevitable. If the Stalinists had, at the last moment, found sanity, and the SPD had found their guts, he could probably still have been beaten.

Your "point" about organizing is a bit fatuous to say the least.

Ask the socialists and trade unionists who starved to death or were gassed in the deaths camps under which system "organisation" is easier.

[Raubleaux]

What should the "Stalinists" have done, YKTMX?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:36 PM
What should the "Stalinists" have done, YKTMX?
United with SPD to beat the fascists, obviously.

[Edelweiss]

The US and UK bombed Dresden to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands in oder to intimidate the German people into not uprising against the government, as they did in World War I.

Which Trot guru told you that??? Ridiculous thesis tha lacks of any logic.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:41 PM

The US and UK bombed Dresden to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands in oder to intimidate the German people into not uprising against the government, as they did in World War I.

Which Trot guru told you that???
Do you really have to sound like a sectarian moron?

[Raubleaux]

WWII was, essentially, a "triumph" for the interests of American Imperialism....and somewhat of a disaster for German, French and British Imperialism.

The millions who were liberated and had their lives saved from Nazi tyranny would disagree with you. Of course American imperialism greatly benefitted from the outcome of the war, but fascism had to be defeated.

And the war didn&#39;t simply extend American imperialism -- it also extended socialism into Eastern Europe and around the world (by helping to wrest former colonies from the old Western European empires).


Yet acting as a lackey of the British Empire is "a-ok" with you?

There is an enormous difference between "acting as a lackey" and participating in a strategic alliance. Fascism had to be defeated.

[Raubleaux]

United with SPD to beat the fascists, obviously.

The SPD preferred the fascists to the communists, especially the leadership who were really social fascists. This never would have worked. What do you mean by "united"? An electoral alliance? Military alliance?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)What d&#39;you mean "for the British Empire"? I don&#39;t understand the question.[/b]

Would have though it was fairly obvious myself. They were encouraging workers to join the Armed Forces....that is, sign up for the British Empire.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)No, of couse not.[/b]

But, hang on, that represents a conflict in your position. After all, how can you argue that we should support the War and that we should support strikes which make it harder for the British bourgeois to acquire the weapons necessary for War? Would you have had a banner which read Bomb Germany With Breadsticks&#33;....???


Originally posted by YKTMX
Simply surrendering India to the Nazis because we oppose the British Empire would have been wholly and completely stupid.

So you&#39;d have another banner that read Keep the Colonies&#33;....???


Originally posted by YKTMX
When Marx backed the North in American Civil War, do you not think he was deciding what system was preferrable?

No. He was supporting the system that was historically progressive. You know, the triumph of capitalist social relations over pre-capitalist social relations and all that.


[email protected]
You say it&#39;s "idealistic" to argue for workers power NOW....

Where have I said that?


Raubleaux
There is an enormous difference between "acting as a lackey" and participating in a strategic alliance.

Indeed. But the CPGB, for instance, acted as lackeys.

[YKTMX]

They were encouraging workers to join the Armed Forces....that is, sign up for the British Empire.


Yes, to fight against fascism. I would have signed up anyway.

What&#39;s your position? You can only fight the Nazis if the British dissolve their Empire first?


After all, how can you argue that we should support the War and that we should support strikes which make it harder for the British bourgeois to acquire the weapons necessary for War? Would you have had a banner which read Bomb Germany With Breadsticks&#33;....???


I support workers who struggle to better their pay and conditions. Indeed, a wartime situation is the perfect time to strike. But the workers who struggled were not objecting to the war or their part in it, but rather the conditions under which they were labouring. If strikes cause a temporary suspension in production in this context then it&#39;s entirely the fault of the people prosecuting the war, not the workers.


So you&#39;d have another banner that read Keep the Colonies&#33;....???

No, "No Pasaran" always sufficed.


He was supporting the system that was historically progressive. You know, the triumph of capitalist social relations over pre-capitalist social relations and all that.


Exactly. And fascism is a wholly reactionary and historically regressive system.

Where have I said that?


You&#39;ve continually asserted that "socialism" is not on the cards because capitalism still has a progressive role to play and that "Trotskyists" have been at fault for arguing for socialism when the material circumstances did not warrant it.

Now you&#39;re contending that workers&#39; power was possible in wartime Britain. Either that, or you simply favour "workers power" as a rhetorical flourish.

Either way, it&#39;s facile.

[Raubleaux]

Exactly -- I would have signed up to fight with any country that was fighting the fascists, including America.

What would you have British soldiers do, Armchair? Lay down their arms and refuse to "fight for the British empire," thus giving the Nazis a greater free hand to slaughter Soviets and possibly win the whole war?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)What&#39;s your position?[/b]

I already stated it...."Turn the imperialist war into a civil war&#33;"

Of course, it&#39;s nice to know that you&#39;ll abandon revolutionary socialism for British patriotism when the time comes, but that&#39;s your choice I suppose. And, to be honest, I&#39;m not surprised you&#39;d rather side with Her Majesty and the bourgeois over the working class when push comes to shove....after all, that&#39;s what the majority of the Trotskyist movement actually did during WWII.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Indeed, a wartime situation is the perfect time to strike.[/b]

But what if it significantly hinders the War effort? Come on now, your in the trenches and you learn that the people making bullets have gone on strike; are you going to support that strike? Even if it means you don&#39;t get any bullets?


Originally posted by YKTMX
But the workers who struggled were not objecting to the war or their part in it....

I&#39;ve not read the personal diaries of every striking worker myself, so I&#39;ll take your word on this. But still, it is well documented that "socialists" like yourself, during the war, cooperated with the bourgeois to undermine said strikes. And if you retain this outlook, then when/if there is another Inter-Imperialist War, I can certainly see you siding with the ruling class over the working class.


Originally posted by YKTMX
And fascism is a wholly reactionary and historically regressive system.

No, it&#39;s a form of bourgeois dictatorship. A particularly brutal one, granted, but it is is in no way comparable to feudal counter-revolution.

But, basically, you advocate the taking of sides in an Inter-Imperialist War....and no matter how much moral indignation you spout, your capitulation to your ruling class still apparent.


Originally posted by YKTMX
You&#39;ve continually asserted that "socialism" is not on the cards because capitalism still has a progressive role to play....

Where have I said this? And in what place was I saying that "socialism is not on the cards because capitalism still has a progressive role to play"? Come on, surely you&#39;ll be able to find plenty of quotes if this is the case.


[email protected]
Now you&#39;re contending that workers&#39; power was possible in wartime Britain.

Actually, I&#39;m contending that communists back then didn&#39;t have the benefit of hindsight....which means that, as far as they were concerned, workers power was possible. And therefore, their capitulation to their own bourgeois and their cooperation in the undermining of workers struggles is utterly contemptible. Of course, not all communists did this....and those that didn&#39;t, deserve our upmost respect.


Raubleaux
What would you have British soldiers do, Armchair?

What would I of advocated? Mutiny.

That is, I would have advocated that the working class overthrew the bourgeois and then, if required, defend themselves. I certainly wouldn&#39;t have undermined class struggle by siding with my own ruling class and undermining workers struggles.

[YKTMX]

I already stated it...."Turn the imperialist war into a civil war&#33;"


And of the Holocaust and occupied Europe?

Any ideas?


No, it&#39;s a form of bourgeois dictatorship. A particularly brutal one, granted, but it is is in no way comparable to feudal counter-revolution.


Haha, there&#39;s that good old vulgar Stalinism again. Fascism is "merely" bourgeois reaction. False.

The main basis of the fascist movement in both France and Germany was not, at least initially, the ruling class or the old aristocracy, but the middle class and the lumpen sections of the working class. It was a particular type of reaction, that aims to create "imagined national communities" under great leaders. The economic system is largely irrelevant to fascist leaders. As long as the bosses reated his war machines, Hitler didn&#39;t really care about the German economy. Indeed, he drove it into the ground in the end, with massive public spending and "job creation". Hardly an archetypal "bourgeois dictatorship". The whole project was irrational from start to finish.


Where have I said this? And in what place was I saying that "socialism is not on the cards because capitalism still has a progressive role to play"? Come on, surely you&#39;ll be able to find plenty of quotes if this is the case.


I&#39;m in a rush (I&#39;m going out), but try this for starters from the activist people of colour thread.


Now, you, of course, are free to dismiss my hypothesis that the objective material environment sets the "limits" for what kind of political struggle can take place; instead you can continue to assert that, in your own words, waging [an] idealistic "battle of ideas" is what will bring about proletarian revolution....but, quite frankly, it seems to me that your approach will only lead you to be disappointed and disillusioned with politics

In other words:

the material circumstances don&#39;t exist (capitalism is working), so arguing for socialism is idealistic and utopian...

Any questions?

Oh yeah, unless you&#39;re under attack by the fascist hoardes, don&#39;t forget that.


Of course, not all communists did this....and those that didn&#39;t, deserve our upmost respect.


Anyone who was "ambivalent" about the outcome of the second world war deserves to be shot :)

[Andy Bowden]

During WW2 several members of the US SWP were arrested for sedition - the most famous being James P Cannon, who provided a courtroom testimony.

Thought it might be interesting to see his ideas on what they would do to fight Hitler, and their viewpoint towards the US being in the war.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/wor...ialism/ch02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/ch02.htm)

Q: What method does the party propose for the defeat of Hitler?

A: If the workers formed the government I spoke of, if the workers’ form of government were in power, we would propose two things:

One, that we issue a declaration to the German people, a solemn promise, that we are not going to impose another Versailles peace on them; that we are not going to cripple the German people, or take away their shipping facilities, or take away their milk cows, as was done in the horrible Treaty of Versailles, starving German babies at their mothers’ breasts, and filling the German people with such hatred and such demand for revenge that it made it possible for a monster like Hitler to rally them with the slogan of revenge against this terrible Treaty of Versailles. We would say to them:

“We promise you that we will not impose any of those things upon the German people. On the contrary, we propose to you a reorganisation of the world on a fair socialist basis, where the German people, with all their recognised ability and their genius and labor, can participate equally with us.” That would be our party’s first proposal to them.

Second, we would also say to them, “On the other hand, we are going to build the biggest army and navy and air force in the world, to put at your disposal, to help smash Hitler by force of arms on one front, while you revolt against him on the home front”

I think that would be the program, in essence, of our party, which the workers’ and farmers’ government of America would advance so far as Hitler is concerned, and we believe that is the only way Hitlerism will be destroyed. Only when the Great Powers on the other side can successfully prevail upon the German people to rise against Hitler, because we must not forget —

Mr. Schweinhaut: You have answered the question, Mr. Cannon.

And on their opinion of the US being involved in the war,

Q: What is the party’s position on the claim that the war against Hitler is a war of democracy against fascism?

A: We say that is a subterfuge, that the conflict between American imperialism and German imperialism is for the domination of the world. It is absolutely true that Hitler wants to dominate the world, but we think it is equally true that the ruling group of American capitalists has the same idea, and we are not in favor of either of them.

We do not think that the Sixty Families who own America want to wage this war for some sacred principle of democracy. We think they are the greatest enemies of democracy here at home. We think they would only use the opportunity of a war to eliminate all civil liberties at home, to get the best imitation of fascism they can possibly get.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)And of the Holocaust and occupied Europe?[/b]

Could not a German Social Democrat have enquired "and of Russia and the anti-Jewish pogroms"? And, undeniably, we would have a degree of commitment to fellow workers, but, essentially, we are under no moral obligation here. Certainly, the fact that a rival regime is committing tremendous atrocities is absolutely no excuse for us to start singing God save the Queen and go off and fight for the British bourgeois. By this standard, you surely should have signed up to fight in Kosovo.

You can, if you wish, make all manner of moral and ethical arguments for joining the bourgeois and fighting in the interests of British Imperialism....but none of that will cover up the fact that you are perfectly willing to collaborate with British Imperialism. Heck, you&#39;ve just advocated the execution of those who refuse to fight on behalf of British Imperialism....which makes you a lackey in my book.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Haha, there&#39;s that good old vulgar Stalinism again. Fascism is "merely" bourgeois reaction. False.[/b]

So it&#39;s a distinct historical epoch then is it? I am well aware that various classes that supported it, but unless you&#39;re going to propose that it was a different class system to capitalism, my statement that "[fascism is] a form of bourgeois dictatorship" remains valid.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....Hitler didn&#39;t really care about the German economy.

Possibly. Again, though, I&#39;ve not been able to find out his most intimate thoughts. What is clear, is that Hitler was only able to come to power because the bourgeois supported him. Correctly or incorrectly, the German bourgeois saw National Socialism as a valid form of class rule....which it was, for a decade or so.

But, please, do explain what is so "special" about fascism that leads you to abandon all notions of proletarian revolution and instead act as a lackey for the Imperialism of your own ruling class. And, furthermore, does this mean that if, say, Britain decided to go to War with China, you&#39;d consider signing up for the Army? After all, whilst China isn&#39;t fascist, you&#39;ve said that&#39;d you&#39;d happily participate in an Inter-Imperialist War....and if your argument is based along ethical lines, then surely the case could be made that fighting China would be preferable.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....but try this for starters from the activist people of colour thread.

Why you couldn&#39;t link the post is beyond me. Anyway, this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49351&view=findpost&p=1292064699) seems to be the post you got that quote from. And, it&#39;s pretty funny that you chose to overlook this comment: "At the present time, it looks like mass communist consciousness will result from either an Imperialist War or a huge economic crises....maybe even both. Until these events happen, communists will have great difficulty making any impact on the political spectrum."

Now, my position is, essentially, with hindsight we can look back at a particular era and analyse whether or not that period could be considered a "revolutionary period"....but that in the right here and now, we have no way of knowing, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not proletarian revolution is a distinct possibility. Which means, when an opportunity arises, like WWII, we must approach it from the position of it providing a base for a possible proletarian revolution....and not capitulate to the Imperial interests of our own bourgeois. After all, trumpeting British Imperialism, which you wish to do, is hardly the first step towards proletarian revolution.


Andy [email protected]
Thought it might be interesting to see his ideas on what they would do to fight Hitler, and their viewpoint towards the US being in the war.

I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with Cannon&#39;s proposals....certainly, if a proletarian revolution had occurred, I wouldn&#39;t have argued against it providing material and financial support to defeat Hitler. Though the tactic of "Socialism at Gunpoint" (On the other hand, we are going to build the biggest army and navy and air force in the world....) is not one I would advise with hindsight. And Cannon&#39;s mentioning of the "German people" instead of the German working class is interesting....kinda&#39; hints at somewhat of a flawed allegiance in my opinion.

The ICC actually has a half decent criticism of the SWP&#39;s actions....


International Communist Current
The WIL’s active support for the war effort was no aberration but the logical consequence of its enthusiastic adoption of the Proletarian Military Policy developed by the American SWP, which publicly declared that it had no intention of sabotaging the war or obstructing America’s military forces in any way. Put on trial for conspiracy in 1941, the SWP’s leaders, far from denouncing the war or calling for the overthrow of the capitalist state, publicly declared their support for a war against Hitler as long as it was under the leadership of a ‘workers’ and farmers’ government’(8).

This open defence of social patriotic views provoked a reaction from some in the Trotskyist movement, particularly Grandizo Munis of the exiled Spanish section, the Revolutionary Communists of Austria (RKD), and the Greek Trotskyist Agis Stinas (9). At first a minority in the WIL also opposed the new line, criticising it as a concession to defencism, but they soon gave in and the policy was confirmed. The centre and left factions of the RSL opposed it, while the right – closely allied to the WIL - supported it. The RSL criticised the WIL for pandering to chauvinism in the working class, and identified the PMP as a symptom of the degeneration of the Fourth International towards the bourgeoisie (10). But when the RSL and the WIL merged in March 1944 it was on the basis of the latter’s positions, and the new organisation, the Revolutionary Communist Party, overwhelmingly adopted the PMP with the full backing of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International.

Revolutionaries in Britain and the struggle against imperialist war, Part 4: How the Trotskyists enlisted in WW2 (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/271_rev_against_war_04.html)

I don&#39;t agree with the ICC on most things, namely decadence and their, somewhat curious, position on Imperialism....but on WWII, I think they&#39;re analysise are pretty decent. If only for the reasons that, in other pieces, they document how certain "communist" groups helped undermine working class struggle.

[C_Rasmussen]

Well no war is a good war obviously but that one HAD TO BE FOUGHT. Two reasons, one to defeat the Nazis in Germany and to strike back against Japan for the Pearl Harbor incident.

Offhand, exactly why did Japan attack us first?

[peaccenicked]

I think I would I ve escaped the UK and joined the French. Or I could have set up the Glasgow battalion of the new international brigade. All this dreaming of living in the past. MAD ;)

[encephalon]

Offhand, exactly why did Japan attack us first?

The U.S. cut off Japan&#39;s wartime trade, which meant that they would soon face massive shortages. To continue the war, the Japanese had little choice but to attack the U.S.

They actually didn&#39;t think the U.S. would attack back, mainly because americans didn&#39;t have a "warrior culture" like Japan, Europe, etc. But they meant it mainly as a way to cripple the U.S. from blockading Japanese trade in the pacific, not as an invasion.

[YKTMX]

Could not a German Social Democrat have enquired "and of Russia and the anti-Jewish pogroms"?

Pogroms in Soviet Russia?

Maybe, but not state-sanctioned I don&#39;t reckon.


And, undeniably, we would have a degree of commitment to fellow workers, but, essentially, we are under no moral obligation here.

Perhaps not. But even self-interest would have been enough to encourage a worker to defend the British state in war. If the Nazis had won, the socialists and trade unionists not sent to death camps would have seen their organisations destroyed.


Certainly, the fact that a rival regime is committing tremendous atrocities is absolutely no excuse for us to start singing God save the Queen and go off and fight for the British bourgeois.

It&#39;s not a question of what you&#39;re fighting "for", but what you&#39;re fighting against.


By this standard, you surely should have signed up to fight in Kosovo.


How so? The war against Kosovo made the human rights problems there worse. I can hardly see defending bourgeois democracy from fascism made the Holocaust "worse".


Heck, you&#39;ve just advocated the execution of those who refuse to fight on behalf of British Imperialism....which makes you a lackey in my book

Imperialist lackey or fascist lackey - meh, you take what you can get I suppose.


I am well aware that various classes that supported it, but unless you&#39;re going to propose that it was a different class system to capitalism, my statement that "[fascism is] a form of bourgeois dictatorship" remains valid.


It&#39;s too simplistic. The Nazis had a "overlap" of interests and goals with the German ruling class, yes, but they weren&#39;t, in any sense whatsoever, "under control". Indeed, it may be true that the ruling class expected just simple "military-bourgeois" rule, but what they got was something far more dangerous and radical. This is not to suggest the Nazis were "anti-capitalist" in any sense, but neither were they "capitalist". They didn&#39;t have a bourgeois base; they were profoundly anti-liberal; they didn&#39;t favour free trade and, as I said, they increased public spending MASSIVELY once they got into power.


But, please, do explain what is so "special" about fascism that leads you to abandon all notions of proletarian revolution and instead act as a lackey for the Imperialism of your own ruling class.

:rolleyes:


And, furthermore, does this mean that if, say, Britain decided to go to War with China, you&#39;d consider signing up for the Army?

If the Chinese Stalinists invaded Britain, I would defend the British state, yes.


After all, trumpeting British Imperialism, which you wish to do, is hardly the first step towards proletarian revolution.


Oh please, just relax. When did I ever "defend British Imperialism". I said right at the start that although the war was imperialist, or it was fought for imperialist reasons, bourgeois democracy is still preferrable to fascism. You agreed with this statement. So you too are guilty of "trumpeting" bourgeois democracy.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Pogroms in Soviet Russia?[/b]

I wasn&#39;t talking about post-1917 Russia, I was talking about Tsarist Russia. And, essentially, after Tsarist Russia&#39;s entry into the War, a German Social Democrat could very easily have made the case that it would have been in the "self-interest" of German workers to defend the German State and bourgeois "democracy" from Tsarist autocracy; and what possible objection could you raise? None, as far as I can see, which would mean, if you were being consistent here, that you would very happily go off and fight in Inter-Imperialist Wars.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)But even self-interest would have been enough to encourage a worker to defend the British state in war.[/b]

At the expense of fighting for their own interests? I think it was Trotsky, before his demise, that declared that the "battle cry" during WWII should be ARM THE WORKERS&#33; Now, undeniably, I have many problems with the way the various Trotskyist groups acted during WWII; for instance, the actions of the Trotskyist-led shop stewards&#39; committee in the Nottingham Royal Ordnance Factory which, essentially, managed to increase exploitation of the working class. But the difference between calling for the arming of the class and the call to "defend the British state in war" is more than just a semantical difference....it&#39;s a difference in class allegiance.

You see, your proposition calls on the working class to fight and die for the benefit of the bourgeois....which is no different from the calls of the various Social Democrats during WWI. Where as the call I advocate and, it would seem, the call the American SWP advocated, was one where the working class practiced intransigent opposition to all of its class enemies....in the words of Karl Liebknecht, The enemy is in your own country&#33;


Originally posted by YKTMX
If the Nazis had won, the socialists and trade unionists not sent to death camps would have seen their organisations destroyed.

In America, at least, even those "communist" groups that fervently supported America&#39;s War efforts, found themselves the victim of ruthless persecution post-WWII. Not Nazi-esque persecution, granted, but even those who acted as the most wondrous mouthpieces of the bourgeois (for instance, if I remember correctly, the CPUSA both supported internment and booted out their Japanese members) still got fucked over afterwards....and in the long run, that probably did enough to effectively destroy these organisations aspirations of being revolutionary organs.

You know, just because the "normal" bourgeois use more subtle methods of destruction, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;ll refrain from trying to destroy you. Which makes pandering to their "good side" in the hop of gaining some kind of "reprieve", an exercise in futility. After all, the "Marxist-Leninists" happily helped run the Joint Production Committees....but that sure didn&#39;t stop the State from attacking them at later dates.


Originally posted by YKTMX
It&#39;s not a question of what you&#39;re fighting "for", but what you&#39;re fighting against.

So how come you raised such a fuss about the destruction of Religious buildings by fascist forces? After all, surely, you can&#39;t have moaned about the fascist part because, based on this statement, it doesn&#39;t matter.

Additionally, of course, what&#39;s to stop you fighting against military action in Darfur? After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what that intervention would be "for" (Imperialism), what matters is what the intervention would be "against" (mass murder). And, for that matter, we could all agree that the Hussein regime was not a "nice" regime, so what&#39;s stopping you from supporting the Iraq War? At least in its initial stages. After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what the "Coalition Forces" were fighting "for" (Imperialist gain), what matters is what the invasion would be "against" (a reasonably brutal regime).

I could, if I wished, go on all day; but the above two examples are sufficient to show the bankruptcy of your approach. Indeed, I think that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to bring up this statement every time you take a stand on particularly controversial issue. Heck, this kind of logic could easily be used to make the case for supporting the Nazi&#39;s....after all, it&#39;s not what they were fighting "for" (fascism), it&#39;s what they were fighting "against" (initially, British and French Imperialism).

Indeed, given this revelation, you yourself have rubbished all your original arguments about fighting "for" bourgeois "democracy" and fighting "for" the defence of the British State. That stuff, after all, doesn&#39;t matter anymore.


Originally posted by YKTMX
How so? The war against Kosovo made the human rights problems there worse.

It&#39;s not a question of what you&#39;re fighting "for", but what you&#39;re fighting against.

Though, it must be said, that you can say that with hindsight....at the time of the War in Kosovo, we could merely speculate whether or not the War would "make the human rights problems there worse". And, again, it&#39;s not what your fighting "for" (Imperialism), it&#39;s what you&#39;re fighting against (various atrocities)....and given that, you should have, if your were being consistent, supported the War all the way.

Indeed, as I&#39;ve mentioned, your stance on Iraq is thoroughly hypocritical. After all, bourgeois "democracy" is more "preferable" when compared to the Hussein regime, so you should be trumpeting the "cause of the Coalition".


Originally posted by YKTMX
I can hardly see defending bourgeois democracy from fascism made the Holocaust "worse".

And I can&#39;t see why the Holocaust is relevant here. After all, as I&#39;ve said, we&#39;re under no moral and/or ethical obligation to stop that, because once you start supporting Imperialism here or there for "humanitarian" reasons, you really do start down a slippery slope. I mean, of course there&#39;s nothing comparable to the Holocaust happening right now, that I know of anyway, but there are plenty of States that most definitely are committing brutal atrocities against their populaces. So why don&#39;t you support Imperialist intervention in these places?

Iran, by all accounts, is not the most pleasant place in the world. There&#39;s routine oppression of women there, the Iranian regime has killed numerous communists and other, unaligned, lefties, so why aren&#39;t you calling for intervention there? You could, I suppose, point out that Iran is not an Imperialist country, but that so far has not entered into your arguments. And if you did point out that you "only" supported Imperialist intervention in places where the other country is also Imperialist and has a particularly brutal regime, then I don&#39;t quite understand why you ain&#39;t "banging the war drum" for intervention in China.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Imperialist lackey or fascist lackey - meh, you take what you can get I suppose.

Logical fallacy.

Was Rosa Luxemburg a lackey for British Imperialism when she decided not to support the German efforts in WWI?


Originally posted by YKTMX
This is not to suggest the Nazis were "anti-capitalist" in any sense, but neither were they "capitalist".

They were neither "capitalist" or "anti-capitalist"?&#33; :blink:

The Nazi Party presided over a class system that was thoroughly capitalist. Whether they were "popular" with other sections of the bourgeois is, essentially, irrelvant....because, when all is said and done, it&#39;s the class relationships in Nazi Germany that matter and not the "popularity" of the Nazi Party with other sections of the bourgeois.


Originally posted by YKTMX
They didn&#39;t have a bourgeois base....

Uh, yes they did.

Well, I suppose it might depend on what you classify as a "base"; but objective fact that the Nazi&#39;s were well supported by various capitalists, of the German and American variety in particular, shows a "bourgeois base" in my opinion. Sure, they may not have been universally popular in the circles of the German capitalist class, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt wasn&#39;t too popular in the offices of Wall Street from 1933-37....but that doesn&#39;t make the Administration of FDR something other than a representative of American capitalism.

Heck, the present Bush Administration is currently being propped up by only a few sectors of the capitalist class....Oil companies, PR companies, Military contractors and Engineering firms. Yet the lack of support he receives from other sectors of the American capitalist class, doesn&#39;t mean that said Administration is something other than a representative of American capitalism.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....they were profoundly anti-liberal; they didn&#39;t favour free trade and, as I said, they increased public spending MASSIVELY once they got into power.

Various Social Democratic Parties have, over the years, expressed somewhat of an aversion to "free trade"....yet they were organs of capitalist rule. But, I&#39;m not too sure myself of the validity of your claim that the Nazi&#39;s "didn&#39;t favour free trade". After all, I thought the amount of foreign capital that flowed into Germany under the Nazi&#39;s was pretty well known....the idea that they "strangled Free enterprise" has always seemed a bit of a libertarian myth to me. Indeed, I did have something saved on my computer that explored the Nazi Parties relationship to private enterprise....unfortunately, I can&#39;t seem to find it; but if I do, I&#39;ll try to find the website I got it from and link said website, because it does a reasonable job of exploring the idea that Hitler was "didn&#39;t favour free trade".

As for being "profoundly anti-liberal" and "increasing public spending MASSIVELY once they got into power"; well, that could apply to the present Bush Administration, or perhaps the Blair Government and the Kennedy Administration. Depending, of course, on what exactly you mean by "profound" in this particular context. Certainly, all of the above Administrations "increased public spending MASSIVELY once they got into power". And if you want to find examples of both anti-liberalism and increased public spending in capitalist regimes, then I would have thought the old State Monopoly Capitalist regimes would suffice....they had somewhat of an aversion to "free trade" as well.

So, been as we can find the listed factors in a variety of different forms of bourgeois rule, I don&#39;t see how these would make Nazi Germany neither "anti-capitalist" or "capitalist".


[email protected]
If the Chinese Stalinists invaded Britain, I would defend the British state, yes.

What a good little patriot you are.


YKTMX
When did I ever "defend British Imperialism".

Uh, when you started to propose that the working class should fight in its interests.

[Comrade-Z]

I don&#39;t support WWII as it stands right now.

Instead, I would have supported an "Arm the working class&#33;" scenario in which the working class of, for instance, Great Britain fought against both foreign imperialism (from Nazi Germany) and against domestic class enemies.

Just think: with 50 million people armed, determined to wage urban guerrilla war throughout the country, there&#39;s no way the Germans could have conquered Great Britain. But the ruling capitalist class of GB would never arm the entire populace. That would be suicidal on their part. Because, after the war against the imperial invader is over, all these citizens still have firearms and organized networks of units....bad news for the capitalist class.

[TC]

World War Two wasn&#39;t really single war, and the "Allies" were less allies so much as they were co-belligerents against a common enemy. The Western imperialists didn&#39;t even recognize WWII as starting with the Japanese invasion of China, and they weren&#39;t at war with Japan until the Japanese attacked the American imperial colonies in the pacific.

Soviet socialism and Chinese socialists and nationalists resisted and repelled a genocidal war by the German and Japanese fascists. Those were fully &#39;justified&#39; defensive wars and they helped to spread socialism in Europe and Asia.

The war waged by the British and American empires, however, was an aggressive war that had more to do with fighting the socialists by proxy than fighting the Fascists. They only invaded Europe once it had become clear that the Germans had lost it, they didn&#39;t contribute to the Soviet war effort they just raced the Soviets to conquer territory in order to prevent the Soviet Union from liberating all of europe from the capitalist ruling class.

Moreover, unlike the Soviet and Chinese and Korean socialists, the Americans and British routinely deliberately ordered atrocities and warcrimes, like concentration camps for japanese citizens (sorry, not using Imperialist euphamisms), deliberately targeting civilians in mass fire bombing and nuclear bombing attacks, even when such cities had no military value. Dresdon was bombed to deny the Soviet Union use of the city and to demonstrate the imperialists willingness and capacity for brutality to their "allies", not for any military purpose, psychological or material. The Japanese nuclear bombing had nothing to do with it being "less costly than an invasion", or even &#39;ending the war&#39; when the Japanese government could sustain the loss, but rather because they wanted to give teh Japanese government an opening to surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets, who were making far faster progress than the Imperialists and would have taken Japan before any imperialist invasion would have been possible.

[YKTMX]

And, essentially, after Tsarist Russia&#39;s entry into the War, a German Social Democrat could very easily have made the case that it would have been in the "self-interest" of German workers to defend the German State and bourgeois "democracy" from Tsarist autocracy

That&#39;s a rather stupid comment since Germany didn&#39;t even become a bourgeois republic until after the first world war. It was still semi-absolutist itself in 1914. The German social democrat was defending the Kaiser and his Empire from "Tsarist autocracy", not bourgeois democracy.


At the expense of fighting for their own interests?

That&#39;s the thing, though. I don&#39;t see how fighting an enemy who wants to send us all to the gas chambers is "fighting against our own interests". I think you&#39;re just confused by the fact that, as it happens, we had an overlap of interests with the British ruling class. It&#39;s nothing to get particularly worried about. It&#39;s not the end of the world or anything.


But the difference between calling for the arming of the class and the call to "defend the British state in war" is more than just a semantical difference....it&#39;s a difference in class allegiance.


It&#39;s ridiculous.

You arm the class to fight civil war and defend communities. The defense of Britain took the form of light aircraft battles over the Southern English coast. Quite where "arm the workers" relates to this military neccessity I&#39;m not sure.


You see, your proposition calls on the working class to fight and die for the benefit of the bourgeois

As I&#39;ve said, the defense of democracy when faced with certain threats cuts across class allegiances.


So how come you raised such a fuss about the destruction of Religious buildings by fascist forces?

And what are fascists or anybody for that matter who knock down religious buildings fighting against exactly? This has never been explained.


After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what that intervention would be "for" (Imperialism), what matters is what the intervention would be "against" (mass murder).

*Yawn*

Intervention would not prevent "mass murder", it would make things ten times worse.


After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what the "Coalition Forces" were fighting "for" (Imperialist gain), what matters is what the invasion would be "against" (a reasonably brutal regime).


Well, yes, some people did make that judgement.

The problem being that the invasion would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and leave the place either mired in ethno-conflict or as an sub-colonial, oil pumping wasteland with puppet leaders to do our bidding. The war was also a total belligerence. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to democracy in other parts of the world. Therefore, we should have been concentrating on helping Iraqis overthrow him, rather than invading Iraq to pursue our own Imperialist ends.

This option didn&#39;t exist in the second world war. It wasn&#39;t the case that French socialists or British socialists could simply "wait" and assist their German brothers in overthrowing Nazism, for two reasons:

1) Most of them were dying or dead already (I realise AS doesn&#39;t care about this)
2) The Nazis were not happy with merely oppressing German workers and committing genocide in the German state, they wanted to dominate Europe.

So, you&#39;re faced with a judgement. Either you declare yourself "neutral" and draw no distinction between democracy and fascism, or you delcare that the CLASS, regardless of our leader&#39;s selfish motives, has Enemies that cannot be placated and must be fought BY ANY MEANS NECCESSARY, including the organs of the bourgeois democratic state.


Heck, this kind of logic could easily be used to make the case for supporting the Nazi&#39;s....after all, it&#39;s not what they were fighting "for" (fascism), it&#39;s what they were fighting "against" (initially, British and French Imperialism).


How is invading Poland and murdering Jews combatting "British imperialism".

Spurious nonsense.


And, again, it&#39;s not what your fighting "for" (Imperialism), it&#39;s what you&#39;re fighting against (various atrocities)....

Fight atrocities by committing greater ones?


After all, bourgeois "democracy" is more "preferable" when compared to the Hussein regime, so you should be trumpeting the "cause of the Coalition".


I think we should defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy from certain enemies. I don&#39;t think we should invade other countries, kill thousands of their people and steal their resources.

I&#39;m failing to see the contradiction.


So why don&#39;t you support Imperialist intervention in these places?


The war wasn&#39;t an intervention. It was a defensive war.

Do you accept that the British, French and Russian campaigns, at least initially, in the course of the second world war were defensive?


Well, I suppose it might depend on what you classify as a "base"; but objective fact that the Nazi&#39;s were well supported by various capitalists, of the German and American variety in particular, shows a "bourgeois base" in my opinion.


Their base was, as I said, disaffected sections of the protestant middle class and lumpen sections of the working class. Most of them were jilted ex-army types. It&#39;s a fundamental misunderstanding to classify fascism as merely bourgeois reaction. It ignores several key facts about the movement itself and what it represents.


Yet the lack of support he receives from other sectors of the American capitalist class, doesn&#39;t mean that said Administration is something other than a representative of American capitalism.


You&#39;re confusing a social base with "popularity". The Nazi movement is slightly different to the GOP.

My point was that the Nazi movement had its own autonomous, organic institutions (the SS, the SA) that were seperate to the German state. The Nazi movement wasn&#39;t just "popular" amongst the social classes I mentioned, it was of them. It arose completely independently of the German bourgeoisie. Their goal was to "revolutionize" the German state. Most of them thoroughly despised the conservative arisotocracy and industrialists.

So, to simply reduce all this to "bad capitalism" is dunderheaded nonsense.


So, been as we can find the listed factors in a variety of different forms of bourgeois rule, I don&#39;t see how these would make Nazi Germany neither "anti-capitalist" or "capitalist".


They&#39;re not "capitalist" because their principle goal isn&#39;t to defend German capitalism. Yes, that&#39;s one of their goals, but it certainly isn&#39;t a predominant one. For instance, before he invaded the Soviet Union, his Generals told Hitler it would be a disaster. They should just consolidate in Central and Western Europe and reap the "profits" from the early conquests. If Hitler and Nazism was merely, as you contend, about the German ruling class, why did he ingore their advice, and take them into a conflict that was unwinnable and made German capitalism completely untenable.


It&#39;s illogical.

Look at someone like Pinochet as an example. Now, his goal IS merely to defend Chilean capital.

[Maksym]

Had it not been for the second front, even more Soviet citizens would have been slaughtered -- more than the 24-29 million who actually died. More dead communists would have undoubtedly warmed the heart of Trotskyists, but those who really supported Soviet power welcomed the second front.

By the time the second front was opened the Nazis had been pushed out of Soviet territory. The atrocities by this point in time were no longer being conducted against the Soviet people since they had crushed the German legions. The second front was a successful attempt by the western imperialists to reinforce their position in France and Germany before the Soviets could over-run the continent. During the last months of the war the entire Germany army was thrown against the Soviets with the hope the western allies could swallow up as much of Germany as possible. The German imperialists knew they would only receive a slap on the hand from the western allies and they were exactly right. The FDR was stocked with former Nazis and turned into a bulwark, armed with nuclear weapons, against the Soviet Union by the 1950’s.


What? The Soviets did go to war with Japan. And Japanese imperialism would have never been overthown if not for the atomic bombs.

I tend to believe the war against Japan came to an abrupt end because of Soviet offensive in Manchuria. The Japanese establishment knew an invasion of the mainland by the Communists was inescapable. This reality forced the Japanese ruling class to accept any terms by the Americans in order to save their society from the Soviets.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)But the ruling capitalist class of GB would never arm the entire populace. That would be suicidal on their part.[/b]

Yeah, but the demand was designed in a way that would make it "suicidal" to the British bourgeois. That is, it was an attempt to create a Transitional Programme in Wartime....rather than simply becoming an unrepentant lapdog of the ruling class.

Indeed, if I&#39;m not mistaken, the general consensus in left circles after Germany conquered France, was that it had happened because the French bourgeois had not armed the workers. Therefore, this line of argument, along with a programme which attempted to stop workers enlisting in the War, may well have led to a situation where British capitalism become massively unstable. At the very least, by making it a lot harder for the bourgeois to ready itself for War, the working class would have found itself in a much stronger in post-WWII Britain.

I mean, I think the bourgeois knew they were in great difficulty, hence their active courtship of the various "official" Communist Parties and the prominence they gave them during Wartime. And in that kind of situation, there are certainly situations that revolutionaries can capitalise on....particuarly if they don&#39;t through themselves head first into the pro-War camp.


Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)World War Two wasn&#39;t really single war....[/b]

I&#39;d agree with that. I think WWII probably covers three, almost separate, Wars: (1) the National Liberation struggle in China; (2) the Russian War of self defence; and (3), the Inter-Imperialist War between the European powers....and later America. And aside from differing with your classification of the old USSR&#39;s class system, I&#39;d probably agree with you in saying that the Eastern and Asian Theatres represented "justified defensive wars".

Of course, we&#39;d likely differ in our interpretation of what happened in the Eastern bloc post-WWII and what Russia gained out the War....more through luck than by design; the "design", as vague as it was, was to participate in order to try and facilitate social revolution in both Germany and France. At least that is the "design" Stalin was discussing in, I think, about 1938.


Originally posted by TragicClown
Dresdon was bombed to deny the Soviet Union use of the city and to demonstrate the imperialists willingness and capacity for brutality to their "allies", not for any military purpose, psychological or material.

Actually, I think the bombing of Dresden was requested by the advancing Red Army. Whether it was "necessary" or not, I don&#39;t know....but I think you&#39;re wrong on this one.


Originally posted by YKTMX
That&#39;s a rather stupid comment since Germany didn&#39;t even become a bourgeois republic until after the first world war. It was still semi-absolutist itself in 1914. The German social democrat was defending the Kaiser and his Empire from "Tsarist autocracy", not bourgeois democracy.

Really???

Britain was, and still is, a Constitutional Monarchy and not a democratic republic....like, for instance, America is. And not only that, but before WWII Britain was at the height of her Imperial supremacy....that, of course, meaning that the British Empire was still functioning reasonably well.

So, both pre-WWI Germany and pre-WWII Britain were "semi-absolutist", had a system of Parliamentary democracy and had a functioning Empire. Tell me, why is the comparison "stupid"? Was British "democracy" somehow "superior" to German "democracy"? It must of been for you to vehemently support its "defence" and not the "defence" of German "democracy". I mean, Tsarism was a fucking brutal system of class rule....and its officials didn&#39;t tend to think twice about mascaraing various sections of its populace. So I&#39;m rather puzzled why you haven&#39;t chosen to pick a side in WWI.

After all, if the "German social democrat was defending the Kaiser and his Empire from Tsarist autocracy, not bourgeois democracy", then surely your average Labour politician was defending the Queen and her Empire? And, certainly, there was more of the British Empire to defend....and that was the primary reason for Britain&#39;s entrance into the War.


Originally posted by YKTMX
I think you&#39;re just confused by the fact that, as it happens, we had an overlap of interests with the British ruling class.

Oh, really???

So defending the interests of British Imperialism represents "an overlap of interests with the British ruling class"? :blink:

And, your petty scare mongering, "fighting an enemy who wants to send us all to the gas chambers", forgets that the British bourgeois were perfectly happy with slaughtering people en masse. After all, just a few years after WWII ended, the British State was directly responsible for the death of around 1.2 million people in Kenya. So whilst, undeniably, the British bourgeoisie was far less brutal on "home soil", their colonial exploits would have made a few Nazi&#39;s blush. And, yet, you think we should fight in defence of that?

And, furthermore, if you&#39;re going to make the case for supporting British Imperialism on the basis of the brutality of Nazi Germany, then I think it&#39;s only fair that we take into account the record of British colonialism. And in terms of brutality, I don&#39;t think many things come close to the record of British colonialism....yet for some reason you consider it in the interests of the international working class to perpetuate that and fight for its survival.

And, again, surely a German Social Democrat could have made the case that the "Russian threat" represented "an overlap of interests with the [German] ruling class" from the perspective of the working class. What would your argument be against that?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Quite where "arm the workers" relates to this military neccessity I&#39;m not sure.

Well, it says that unless the working class becomes the ruling class, they ain&#39;t gonna&#39; "defend" shit. That is, a workers government will protect itself against fascism, counter-revolutionaries or even Ms. Marples, but it ain&#39;t going to fight in the interests of British Imperialism....or any other Imperialism for that matter.


Originally posted by YKTMX
And what are fascists or anybody for that matter who knock down religious buildings fighting against exactly? This has never been explained.


I would have thought it was relatively obvious who they were "fighting against". They&#39;re "fighting" against the influence of organised superstition in contemporary society....of course, historically, fascist movements have been more likely to cooperate with organised superstition when it suits their interests. Which, essentially, made the example somewhat fictitious.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Intervention would not prevent "mass murder", it would make things ten times worse.

You&#39;re able to predict the future now? Really???

You could, I suppose, speculate that intervention would "make things ten times worse"; but that again, would be what the intervention was "for". And you&#39;ve dismissed opposing things on that basis, rather you favour giving your support to things based on what they are "against". And, once again, an intervention in Darfur would, verbally, be "against" the present situation....so, unless you "support" the current state of affairs, I don&#39;t see how you could oppose an intervention.

After all, that it would benefit various Imperialisms, or even, for that matter, that "would make things ten times worse", is a statement that defines what said intervention would do....that is, what it is "for". So, been as you give your support based on what something is "against", I can&#39;t think of a single credible reason why you could oppose intervention. Because, essentially, virtually every reason you could give for opposition to an intervention, would be based on what that intervention was "for"....and you don&#39;t consider what something is "for" to be a credible category. Indeed, how can you actually call any War an Imperialist War? After all, that would denote what the War would be "for".

And, furthermore, your main "objection" to the protests on May 1st was based on what you thought they were "for"....if I remember correctly, your exact words were that they wanted "more capitalism". But, surely, you can&#39;t voice your "objections" in this framework if what something is "for" is irrelevant? Or do you think a degree of theoretical consistency is beyond you?


Originally posted by YKTMX
The problem being that the invasion would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and leave the place either mired in ethno-conflict or as an sub-colonial, oil pumping wasteland with puppet leaders to do our bidding. The war was also a total belligerence.

They are all things that the invasion would do; that is, things that it was "for". After all, as you put it, it&#39;s not a question of what you&#39;re fighting "for" [sub-colonies, Oil, Imperialist gain, slaughter and so on], but what you&#39;re fighting against [the Hussein regime].

So, not only should "some people [have made] that judgement", the judgement being to support the Iraq War, but you should have made that judgement as well. But, of course, you&#39;re no Gary Neville. And whilst, in this case, your inconsistent approach hasn&#39;t made your politics shit, your lack of clarity and consistently really does make your theoretical arguments shit. In other words, your far from complex schema is, ultimately, employed far from consistently by yourself.

And "total belligerence"? A curious phrase to use.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....rather than invading Iraq to pursue our own Imperialist ends.

Uh, "our own"? You&#39;re even linguistically identifying with British Imperialism now.


Originally posted by YKTMX
(I realise AS doesn&#39;t care about this)

Oh please, do us all a favour and shove your petty emotionalism where the Sun don&#39;t shine.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....or you delcare that the CLASS, regardless of our leader&#39;s selfish motives, has Enemies that cannot be placated....

And the bourgeois and capitalism can be "placated"? Get real.

But the real point here, is that you are more than willing to support capitalism, promote British Imperialism and even serve as a goon of British Imperialism as soon as a sufficient "bogeyman" appears. In other words, despite your rhetoric about "an overlap of interests", you are more than willing to abandon the cause of working class revolution in favour of becoming a fervent lackey of British Imperialism. Do you vote Labour when they start talking about BNP victories? :lol:

And, by the way, the emphasis should be on "the" and not on "class"....you could, I suppose, emphasise both words, but in this context, the "the" part is the meaningful part.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Fight atrocities by committing greater ones?

Again, the "greater atrocities" is something the invasion will bring....in other words, something it is "for". But, you&#39;ve already dismissed that line of argument as being valid, so, frankly, your squirming is laughable.


Originally posted by YKTMX
I think we should defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy from certain enemies. I don&#39;t think we should invade other countries, kill thousands of their people and steal their resources.

I&#39;m failing to see the contradiction.

If fail to see how it is "our" job to "defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy from certain enemies"....the bourgeois, after all, have many lackeys who&#39;ll happily do that. Unless you are using "we" in a context that denotes a social group other than revolutionaries?

As for the "contradiction", well....you see, if it is "preferable" to "defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy from certain enemies" at home, then surely it is "preferable" to facilitate the growth of those abroad? And, regardless of the stuff about stealing resources, that, after all, is something the invasion is "for", one could hardly argue that, superficially, the War in Iraq seeks to create some form of republican democracy. So, if you&#39;re willing to support both the "defence" of Britain and the invasion of mainland Europe using the argument that "we" need to "defend bourgeois democracy", then surely you should support the "Coalition Forces" attempts to create bourgeois "democracy" in Iraq.

After all, once again, it is "preferable" to the Hussein regime and it doesn&#39;t matter what it was "for", what matters is what it is against....in this case, a regime that did stifle the growth of a form of Parliamentary democracy. Heck, the Iraqi Resistance is fundamentally opposed to the "new and democratic Iraq", so why do you support them? After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what they are "for", what matters is what they are "against"....which, in this case, is bourgeois "democracy" which you consider worth defending. So, surely, you should be supporting the "Coalition Forces" who are suppressing these "anti-democratic" forces; or is the Iraqi Resistance not the "right" kind of "enemy"?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Do you accept that the British, French and Russian campaigns, at least initially, in the course of the second world war were defensive?

Russia took part in a defensive campaign....where as Britain, France, Germany, Japan and America all engaged themselves in Wars of aggression. These countries were involved in an Inter-Imperialist War and, therefore, regardless of whether they may have been on the defensive at certain points, they all entered the War with an objectively aggressive intent. Almost exactly the same as the First World War.

Painting Britain as a nation that was "defensive", almost as if it was somehow "persecuted", is patently ludicrous. The Imperialist powers decided to drop bombs on each other because they couldn&#39;t, in the Theatre of International Diplomacy, decide how best to "divvy up" their "Imperial booty".


Originally posted by YKTMX
Their base was, as I said, disaffected sections of the protestant middle class and lumpen sections of the working class.

The Conservative Party has a similar "base", doesn&#39;t mean that they ain&#39;t an organ of capitalist rule.


Originally posted by YKTMX
It&#39;s a fundamental misunderstanding to classify fascism as merely bourgeois reaction.

So it wasn&#39;t the German capitalist class that put the Nazi Party into power in order to "neutralise" the "communist threat"? You think that if there had been no "communist threat" Hitler and co. would have been allowed to hold Office? I rather doubt they would have been allowed to boil the kettle myself.

Political paradigms can receive massive backing from different classes, but without either the ruling class supporting them or a social revolution, all those paradigms will become is a footnote in a history textbook. So either the German capitalist class put the Nazi Party into power or there was some form of social revolution that led to the "protestant middle class" and the "lumpen sections of the working class" gaining State power.

Heck, if you&#39;d like a counter example, just look at Mosley and co. The British bourgeois, not fearing a "communist threat", at least not a threat which was as strong as the one in Germany, simply ignored Mosley....for the most part. And what exactly did Mosley ever achieve? Not a whole lot, as you&#39;ll no doubt agree.


Originally posted by YKTMX
It ignores several key facts about the movement itself and what it represents.

Well, been as you haven&#39;t yet classified whether fascism is capitalist or not, I don&#39;t know whether your description of what fascism "represents" will be all that enlightening. So, come on, what class does fascism "represent"? That is, under fascist system, which class holds State power?


Originally posted by YKTMX
You&#39;re confusing a social base with "popularity". The Nazi movement is slightly different to the GOP.

Well, "slightly different", yes....but one could hardly deny that the Grand Old Party finds a base within, especially, the "disaffected sections of the protestant middle class".


Originally posted by YKTMX
My point was that the Nazi movement had its own autonomous, organic institutions (the SS, the SA) that were seperate to the German state.

Well, the Republican Party has somewhat of a similar dynamic....that is, the Christian movement provides it with "autonomous, organic institutions that [are] seperate to the [American] state". True, you could say that these groups represent Christian fascism, and I wouldn&#39;t argue with you, but the fact is that until the American bourgeois, or at least a section of it, decides to let these groups Administer American capitalism, they won&#39;t have that much of a significant impact.

Though, all this is frankly irrelevant, because what matters here is the class nature of a fascist State....and unless you are arguing that the bourgeois didn&#39;t rule in Nazi Germany, I don&#39;t see the relevance of your bluster.

Oh, and the Conservative Party has "autonomous, organic institutions that [are] seperate to the state"....unless by the word "organic" you mean that they only like a certain type of food. Indeed, I&#39;m pretty sure that most political groups have some kind of "autonomous, organic institutions that [are] seperate [from the] state". I mean, there are only two political groups, in Britain, that I can think of, off the top of my head, that didn&#39;t arise "organically" but, rather, were directly created by the British State....and they are Searchlight and C18.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Their goal was to "revolutionize" the German state.

Thatcher wanted to "revolutionize" the British State....and, indeed, loads of windbags talk about gaining Office and having some kind of "revolution". But, unless you&#39;re contending that there was a social revolution in Germany and a different class became the ruling class, then I really don&#39;t see your point.

Fuck, the Green Party is always on about "revolutionizing" this or that, but that doesn&#39;t mean that if they gained political power, they&#39;d somehow not be an organ of capitalist rule. Heck, I&#39;m sure some nitwit said that New Labour would "revolutionize" the British State, but, again, I don&#39;t see why we should take their bluster at face value.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Most of them thoroughly despised the conservative arisotocracy and industrialists.

So did Old Labour. But when they gained Office, the class nature of Britain didn&#39;t change.


Originally posted by YKTMX
So, to simply reduce all this to "bad capitalism" is dunderheaded nonsense.

I can&#39;t remember making a moral judgement on this, so you can stick the "bad" part. As for the general point, that I consider Nazi Germany as a capitalist state, then unless you&#39;re going to say what economic system was in place, I&#39;m inclined to view your mutterings as "dunderheaded nonsense". Especially given your definition of Nazi Germany as neither capitalist or anti-capitalist.

So, come on, what&#39;s your counter argument?


Originally posted by YKTMX
They&#39;re not "capitalist" because their [b]principle goal isn&#39;t to defend German capitalism.

Oh, that sure clears things up.

And how, exactly, were you able to ascertain what the "principle goal" of Hitler and co. was? Do you own his diary or something? Because, as I&#39;ve said, the Nazi Party presided over a capitalist state in which capitalist social relations remained....so whether the "principle goal" of Hitler and co. was "defending German capitalism" or shoe shopping, really doesn&#39;t matter from my perspective.


Originally posted by YKTMX
For instance, before he invaded the Soviet Union, his Generals told Hitler it would be a disaster.

The same could be said of Monsieur Blair and Iraq. So what?


[email protected]
If Hitler and Nazism was merely, as you contend, about the German ruling class, why did he ingore their advice, and take them into a conflict that was unwinnable and made German capitalism completely untenable.

Well, so far you&#39;ve just mentioned the view of the Generals and not the ruling class in its entirety. But, anyway, are you shocked that, on occasions, the ruling class makes a mistake? I mean, by all accounts, Vietnam didn&#39;t do much to "defend American capitalism", indeed it put it under much strain....but that the ruling class fucked up, doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t a capitalist regime in America at that time.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, had Nazi Germany won WWII, it would have done a great deal to improve the strength of German capitalism, but they fucked up and made tactical errors. But, just because the German capitalist class appears not to have acted in its interests, doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t a capitalist system in place. By this token, one could make the case that various capitalist regimes are somehow not capitalist.


YKTMX
It&#39;s illogical.

Who ever said the capitalist class should be "blessed" with "eternal logic". After all, they&#39;re human....and that means, occasionally, they fuck up.

[YKTMX]

So, both pre-WWI Germany and pre-WWII Britain were "semi-absolutist"

:lol:

Don&#39;t be so ridiculous. The Monarch hasn&#39;t held any real political power in Britain in centuries. The Queen can&#39;t hold a fucking tea party without the consent of parliament.

The Kaiser appointed the German chancellor and held all sorts of other political and policy making powers.

Why?

Well, you might want to look up something called the "English Revolution". It was what Marx called a bourgeois revolution.

Interesting stuff. Check it out sometime.


So I&#39;m rather puzzled why you haven&#39;t chosen to pick a side in WWI.


I did - the Russian working class. They won.


After all, if the "German social democrat was defending the Kaiser and his Empire from Tsarist autocracy, not bourgeois democracy", then surely your average Labour politician was defending the Queen and her Empire?

Yes, I was criticising the German social democrats for this reason.


So defending the interests of British Imperialism represents "an overlap of interests with the British ruling class"?

Christ.

DEFENDING BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT FROM FASCISM IS IN THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE WORKING CLASS AND THE NATIONAL RULING CLASS.

The fact that the ruling class were defending their Empires is meaningless. Think about this, maybe you will understand this better. Let&#39;s use the Russian Revolution as an analogy.

Why did Makhno&#39;s army fight the White Army in the Ukraine? Surely they knew this would just "benefit" Bolshevik tyranny?


forgets that the British bourgeois were perfectly happy with slaughtering people en masse.

How does that "forget that"? Do you really think we would have been in a better position to offer solidarity with the anti-colonial movements if Britain had been ceded to the Third Reich?

Are you REALLY that stupid?


And, yet, you think we should fight in defence of that?


No, I said we should defend bourgeois democracy from more reactionary forms of government. Anything else is just a product of your famously overactive imagination.

I dunno, maybe it&#39;s too much sugar or something. Try drinking more water.


What would your argument be against that?


The German ruling class is a reactionary, Imperialist caste, as is the Tsarist autocracy. Both forms of government are equally anti-democratic and anti-working class. Anyone who "sides" with their own leaders in this conflict is a traitor. The war is about nothing more than increasing the number of colonies and plunder. Victory for either side will only increase the sum of oppression and reaction in the world.

You should volunteer and shoot your commanding officer in the back.


That is, a workers government will protect itself against fascism, counter-revolutionaries or even Ms. Marples, but it ain&#39;t going to fight in the interests of British Imperialism....

No one is asking you too. Fight to defend yourself from Nazism. Deal with our own bastards later.


They&#39;re "fighting" against the influence of organised superstition in contemporary society

Haha, Nazis against "organized superstition".

No, they&#39;re burning Mosques because, like you, they&#39;re racist. Haha, another "overlap".


You&#39;re able to predict the future now? Really???


I&#39;m able to use judgements about similar historical episodes to make informed prediction, yes.

Will you wake up tomorrow morning? Yes?

Predicting future now are we?


And, once again, an intervention in Darfur would, verbally, be "against" the present situation....so, unless you "support" the current state of affairs, I don&#39;t see how you could oppose an intervention.


Because I would know they are lying.

You&#39;re missing the point still.

I&#39;m not doubting the British ruling class fought the second world war for the reasons you&#39;ve described. I&#39;m saying that, despite this, socialists and workers supported the war effort, as the vast majority did, because an important goal, defending democracy and defeating fascism, existed independent of the British ruling class. The best way of achieving this goal was to support the resistance movements in occupied Europe and actively oppose the fascist expansion.

Quite frankly, your "advice" that we should have let the people in the camps die and left the Partisans to be slaughtered is sickening. It&#39;s a strange kind of insular, ultra left chauvinism. Completely bizarre.

And this thing about you being totally befuddled about "fighting fascism". What do you think the Spanish Civil War was?

What was it that people fighting there were defending from fascist forces? Presumably you think the Republicans should have just given up because the Soviets and the French supported them? After all, we don&#39;t want to beat Franco if it means giving a boost to Stalin do we?

I don&#39;t see how you could have supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.


Again, the "greater atrocities" is something the invasion will bring....in other words, something it is "for". But, you&#39;ve already dismissed that line of argument as being valid, so, frankly, your squirming is laughable.


But if it&#39;s both "against" atrocities and "for" atrocities, then your point is rather lost isn&#39;t it?

It&#39;s similar to arguments over the Iraqi resistance. Many say we should not support them because they&#39;re "for" various reactionary political programmes, whereas we argued that we should identify with them because of what they&#39;re against (the occupation) - or what their victory will bring about (a defeat for Empire).

Your desperate attempt to "pin" me on this is making you look like a mental incompetent.


But, just because the German capitalist class appears not to have acted in its interests, doesn&#39;t mean that it wasn&#39;t a capitalist system in place. By this token, one could make the case that various capitalist regimes are somehow not capitalist.


There&#39;s a difference between disagreements and mistakes and having fundamentally oppositional goals. The Generals and the German ruling class opposed the Russian invasion because they knew it would be a disaster for both the war effort and German capitalism. Hitler drove ahead with it because his goals were in conflict with theirs i.e he represented competing interests.

The fact is that the Iraq War and Vietnam War are not good comparisons. Both wars were roundly supported by the ruling classes of those countries. Objections only arise when the prosecution of the war seems to be going wrong, or when opposition within those States began to threaten the stability of the system as whole.

But the American ruling class where dragged out of Vietnam kicking and screaming.

The German ruling class, from the start and throughout, thought that Hitler was fucking nuts, couldn&#39;t be trusted, would betray them, didn&#39;t like them, didn&#39;t represent German Capital to a sufficient degree and would eventually lead them up the path to destruction.

They were right.

Sure, they liked the stability and the anti-Communism and there was an overlap of interests. But the regime was ultimately unstable because Hitler simply wasn&#39;t content with "stabilizing German Capital". And that&#39;s because he represented a movement with ideas and interests that were contradictory to German Capital. Something more, something, as I said, autonomous and quite distinct, with its own social makeup and social class interests.



So did Old Labour. But when they gained Office, the class nature of Britain didn&#39;t change.

New Labour despises Big business, where are you getting this stuff?



Though, all this is frankly irrelevant, because what matters here is the class nature of a fascist State....and unless you are arguing that the bourgeois didn&#39;t rule in Nazi Germany, I don&#39;t see the relevance of your bluster.


The Nazis didn&#39;t challenge private ownership, but the German bourgeoisie no longer held significant political power. Imagine something like a middle class, anti-semitic, virulent anti-Marxist version of the Bolivarian revolution.

No one can seriously claim Chavez is an agent of Venezuelan Capital, but Venezuelan Capitalism still exists.

It&#39;s like that.

I&#39;m trying to simplify it for you, because I know your Vulgar Stalinism is massively inhibiting your ability for coherent debate.


Heck, the Iraqi Resistance is fundamentally opposed to the "new and democratic Iraq", so why do you support them? After all, it doesn&#39;t matter what they are "for", what matters is what they are "against"....which, in this case, is bourgeois "democracy" which you consider worth defending.

The resistance is opposed to the occupation.

Furthermore, the question begs itself, I don&#39;t see how YOU could support the resistance. A victory for the resistance might lead to a fundamentalist regime that aligns with Iran, so you&#39;re lining up with Iranian imperialism, so you can&#39;t call yourself an anti-imperialist.

Yes?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)The Monarch hasn&#39;t held any real political power in Britain in centuries.[/b]

The British Monarchy has a great deal of wealth, State funding and a vast portfolio of properties. Which makes their "real political power" anything but "ridiculous". Indeed, pound for pound, the British Monarchy is probably as powerful as any other individual family in the ruling capitalist plutocracy....and the ruling Monarch has a significant Legal influence over the functioning of Parliament.

Whether that makes them "semi-absolutist", I don&#39;t know. Essentially, because that phrase, in and of itself, seems a rather curious phrase and if it is the case that you are using it to denote a degree of power the Monarch holds over the political system, then I&#39;d like to hear your arguments, based on the Constitutional systems of both countries, as to why the Kaiser could be classed as "semi-absolutist" where as the Queen, or at the time the King, couldn&#39;t be put in that category. I mean, both Germany and Britain, in the periods we are discussing, were capitalist regimes....so I can&#39;t see the argument of whether one Head of State was "semi-absolutist" whilst the other wasn&#39;t "semi-absolutist" taking any other form that a rather dull Legal discussion. Unless, of course, you&#39;re saying that Germany in 1914 wasn&#39;t a capitalist regime? In other words, do you think that pre-WWI Germany had a form of social relations alien to capitalism? :blink:

And, anyway, aside from this, pre-WWI Germany still had elements that are comparable to modern day bourgeois "democracy". So, once again, surely that should have been "defended" from Tsarist reaction? After all, a "young" and "developing" form of bourgeois "democracy", is surely "preferable" to political forms of Tsarism. So why, in this case, aren&#39;t you lining up with the German Social Democrats?


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)I did - the Russian working class.[/b]

Just the Russian working class??? The statement that "Perhaps [you] maintain a tankie belief in the superiority of the "Great Russian" people" seems almost relevant here....I think you&#39;ll recognise it.

Aside from that, what puzzles me, is why you are willing to avoid supporting the various Imperialisms in WWI and, instead, support the Internationalist slogan of working class revolution. But, then, when it comes to WWII, you are more than willing to leap to the defence of the interests of your own ruling class. Indeed, what is, perhaps, even more surprising, is the extremely enthusiastic nature of your support. I mean, you&#39;ve barely voiced a single criticism of the actions of the Allied Powers....and given your tendency towards political opportunism, one would have thought that you would have leapt at the chance to deplore the actions of the "Stalinist" Joint Production Committees or the actions of the CPUSA. Yet, for some reason, you&#39;ve remained curiously quiet. I guess, though, once one&#39;s snout soundly penetrates the Imperialist trough, you stop smelling the shit around you.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Yes, I was criticising the German social democrats for this reason.

You didn&#39;t answer the question. If the German Social Democrat can be criticised for these reasons, then why can&#39;t the Labour politician be criticised for those very same reasons?

And, by the way, the past tense doesn&#39;t apply here.


Originally posted by YKTMX
DEFENDING BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT FROM FASCISM IS IN THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE WORKING CLASS AND THE NATIONAL RULING CLASS.

Please, there&#39;s a key under "Tab" and above "Shift" that you should use, it certainly helps increase the visual quality of your post.

As for your point, one could, I suppose, choose to dispute your continual assertions that the Second World War constituted a "defence of bourgeois democracy", but, aside from that, it is worth mentioning here that bourgeois hegemony is most certainly not in the "interests" of the working class. Whether that hegemony takes the political form of Parliamentary "democracy" or fascism.

Rather, as even Leon realised, the "interests" of the working class were direct class rule. And, therefore, the line we take towards WWII, should not be devoid of explicit class interest as yours is....but, rather, it should continue to express the fundamental interest of the international working class. And, therefore, at the very least, any communist worth his or her salt, should at least make some demands before they plunge themselves headfirst into the War effort.

But, frankly, you show absolutely no inclination towards that approach. Perhaps it&#39;s a matter of what, from your perspective, seems easiest. After all, at least trying to gain some concessions takes effort, where as become a faithful cheerleader is something that can be done with relative ease. So why even bother trying to retain a revolutionary outlook during Wartime, right?


Originally posted by YKTMX
The fact that the ruling class were defending their Empires is meaningless.

Really???

So the fact that the German Social Democrats were defending the interests of German Imperialism now becomes, to quote your good self, "meaningless"? Your "criticism" of them, from a logical standpoint, becomes rather weak now, doesn&#39;t it? Indeed, in terms of actually having any theoretical merit, consistency and clarity, it&#39;s your criticism that becomes "meaningless".

After all, as they say, what do you call a logical Trotskyist? Something other than a Trotskyist&#33; Oh look, I can engage in a bit of chest beating rhetorical posturing as well. Fun, ain&#39;t it?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Why did Makhno&#39;s army fight the White Army in the Ukraine? Surely they knew this would just "benefit" Bolshevik tyranny?

Well, I can&#39;t see why the "Bolshevik tyranny" would enter into your line of argumentation here. That, after all, would be something they were fighting "for"....and, as you&#39;ve previously stated, that isn&#39;t what&#39;s important.

As for the question you&#39;ve posed, it&#39;s not really comparable, as an analogy, to WWII. You see, Makhno and co, who, admittedly, I ain&#39;t all that familiar with or interested in, weren&#39;t just fighting "against" the White Army. But, they were fighting "for" the establishment of an anarcho-communist society. And that, you see, represents a difference in the class allegiance of their actions when compared to the actions of the British State during WWII.

I mean, essentially, both parties were fighting enemies opposed to the interests of the working class, but only one of those parties, at least sporadically, fought in the direct interests of said class. And, you see, that we would be happy to see the demise of this or that enemy, doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that revolutionaries should actively participate in the fight which brings about the demise of said enemy. Rather, our support and involvement, should be based upon the objective class interests of a struggle....and, by no means, was WWII in the objective class interests of the working class. Inter-Imperialist Wars never are.

Additionally, of course, your approach is somewhat hypocritical here. I mean, despite your bluster about what something is "against", you are more than willing to describe what something is "for" when it suits your personal political interests. As you showed above with regards your "criticism" of the German Social Democrats....and as you&#39;ve shown in other cases. There&#39;s actually a rather accurate phrase that I think describes your approach, but I really don&#39;t want to embrace the petty shit slinging you seem so keen to promote.


Originally posted by YKTMX
How does that "forget that"?

Because, in addition to your scare mongering about the threat of Nazi atrocities, your argument that "we", as in revolutionaries, should "defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy", in other words, the British State, doesn&#39;t take into account the totality of the British State. So, essentially, not only does your argument along humanitarian lines seem rather weak when faced with the atrocities of British colonialism, but your [mis]characterisation of the dynamics of WWII, leads you to advocate the defence of a fundamentally anti-democratic colonial system.

After all, you could, if you so desired, frame your support simply in terms of just "defend the institutions of bourgeois democracy", but, as I&#39;ve mentioned, you neglect to mention that the totality of the British State incorporated various colonies that were far from "pleasant". And, any defence of capitalist Britain would include a defence of said colonial system....whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

Now, granted, I don&#39;t find attempts to "measure" human misery a particularly fruitful endeavour. But, if you persist in including a moral and ethical dynamic into your support for Britain during WWII, then I think a discussion about the atrocities of British colonialism is virtually inevitable. And, despite your insistence of trying to drastically simplify what the War represented, that is, your opinion that it simply constituted a "defence" of bourgeois "democracy", I feel it is also worthwile to discuss all of the dynamics involved....and, whether you like it or not, defending British colonies was part of said dynamic. And your failure to even pay lip service to this, does mean that, essentially, you "forget it".


Originally posted by YKTMX
Do you really think we would have been in a better position to offer solidarity with the anti-colonial movements if Britain had been ceded to the Third Reich?

Our "solidarity" wasn&#39;t a very significant factor regarding the success, or lack of, with regards the various anti-colonial movements. Whether "Britain had been ceded to the Third Reich" or not, those movements would have, ultimately, failed or succeeded based on the actions of the people in said colonies....and, partly, based on the amount of funding they would receive from the Soviet Union.

I mean, for all your bluster about my "racism", the implications of your statement, seem to denote a far more thorough racism on your part, in my, all so humble, opinion. After all, if you are somehow arguing that "White Europeans" were, somehow, "crucial" with regards the success or failure of various anti-colonial movements....then I can only speculate as to the light in which you see the individual actors who make up said movement.

But, still, I don&#39;t see the validity in this line of argumentation with regards support for WWII. As I said above, I don&#39;t see how a "Nazi Britain" would significantly hinder the progress of various anti-colonial movements....and, furthermore, tactically speaking, a humiliated and defeated British Empire would be one in which the likelihood of success for said anti-colonial movements was significantly increased.

Indeed, surely, using your logic, we should support Nazi Germany? After all, if we didn&#39;t then, to borrow a bit of your petty moralism, our actions would "have let the people in the [colonies] die and left the [anti-colonial movements] to be slaughtered [which] is sickening". Indeed, your failure to support Nazi Germany in WWII represents "a strange kind of insular, [Trotskyist] chauvinism". And there, Ladies and Gents, we have a fine example of why picking a side in an Inter-Imperialist War is an exercise in futility....because whilst both sides may not be "as" reactionary, whatever side you pick to defend is going to lead you to support the interests of said sides Imperialism.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Are you REALLY that stupid?

Coming from the person who seems to think that the "solidarity" of revolutionaries does more to enhance the struggle against colonialism than the blood and sweat of the anti-colonial fighters, I think I&#39;ll take that as a compliment. After all, at the very least, you seem to think that said "solidarity" represents a "crucial" factor, which really leads me to wonder just how poor the University system is right now. I mean, if it churns out folks like you, then I really do wonder about its capacity to provide a decent education.

Oh look, I just produced another YKTMX-[i]esque insult. Though, to be fair, my insults do seem to be of a higher intellectual calibre than yours....which basically just consist of petty name calling and shit slinging. But, maybe, that&#39;s what they are promoting these days in the countries Premier Educational Establishments....at the very least, they&#39;ve endowed you with a strong feeling of British Patriotism. How rad. :lol:


Originally posted by YKTMX
No, I said we should defend bourgeois democracy from more reactionary forms of government. Anything else is just a product of your famously overactive imagination.

So, just because you don&#39;t want to recognise that those who fought on behalf of the British Empire during WWII fought to defend the continuation of said Empire and its colonial outposts, that ceases to be an issue? My "imagination" may be "famously overactive", but the statement that those who fought to "defend" Britain during WWII also fought to defend British colonialism, is a statement of objective fact.

Now, not only does this seriously weaken the moral and ethical arguments you&#39;ve presented with regards your advocacy that "we" fight on behalf of the British State against Nazi Germany. But, also, it helps to further emphasise your willingness to pick a side in an Inter-Imperialist War. And that willingness to side with the Imperialism of your own ruling class, is really what is important here....whether you choose to recognise the issue or not. And to think, you&#39;re not even benefiting from any kind of material gain here....as someone once said, I wish selling out was more lucrative. :lol:


Originally posted by YKTMX
The German ruling class is a reactionary, Imperialist caste, as is the Tsarist autocracy.

Uh, how was Germany in 1914 a caste system? In other words, how did it have a pre-capitalist system of social relations? Unless you are using the word caste to denote something else?

It seems to me, that you are deliberately trying to mask the nature of Germany in 1914 in order to make the Internationalist slogan raised by revolutionaries in that period someone contextual....and, therefore, not applicable to WWII. However, as I&#39;ve already said, Germany in 1914, like Britain in 1939, had a system of Parliamentary "democracy", was a capitalist regime complete with, what Lenin termed, an Imperialist bourgeois and, also like Britain in 1939, her system was threatened by a "more reactionary form of government". So, once again, why aren&#39;t you proposing that we support Germany against Russia?

The "masking" of the nature of German society, by the way, seems to be an attempt by yourself to create a kind of "equality of reaction"....Both forms of government are equally anti-democratic and anti-working class. Now, in terms of democratic structures, Germany was far more advanced when compared to Tsarist Russia. And, depending on the context of your statement, one could hardly argue that any Government in which the working class doesn&#39;t hold power isn&#39;t "anti-working class"....though I have no idea what kind of scale you are using to measure this supposed "equality".

So, frankly, I don&#39;t see the merit of your position with regards dismissing the comparison between the first major Inter-Imperialist War and the second. Indeed, the arguments you&#39;ve raised in support of the actions of the British Empire, could be, and probably were, used to rally support in Germany in 1914. So your refusal to support Germany, at least against Tsarist Russia, truly baffles me. At the very least, one would think that you would give her a degree of critical support....after all, that would, at the very least, represent a degree of consistency in your approach.


Originally posted by YKTMX
The war is about nothing more than increasing the number of colonies and plunder.

And WWII wasn&#39;t? Even you commented that "The war was fought to defend the British Empire" in your original post....and, based on the actions of the victors, one could hardly argue that "colonies and plunder" weren&#39;t on the table. After all, both the major Empires of the second half of the last century arose from the ash and rubble of a destroyed Europe....and, certainly, the American Empire wouldn&#39;t have become what it is today had it not been for WWII.

But, once more, that the above criticism can be applied to both Wars, only goes to show the Inter-Imperialist nature of both Wars. And, therefore, again, I am truly puzzled as to why you only choose to direct your criticism at one of these Wars. Is there a particular reason? Or is it just inconsistency on your part?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Victory for either side will only increase the sum of oppression and reaction in the world.

And what instrument are you using to calculate "the sum of oppression and reaction in the world"? I mean, regarding "the sum of oppression", one could pretty easily make the case that a "Tsarist Germany" would be immensely more oppressive than what had gone before it....and, essentially, the "beating of the War Drum" is always going to "increase the sum of [....] reaction in the world" by promoting Nationalist Chauvinism. So I don&#39;t see how your point couldn&#39;t apply to both Wars.

Indeed, the willingness of supposed revolutionaries to add a degree of legitimacy to the ideological paradigm of "Patriotic Defence", is one of the more troubling aspects, from our perspective, that has occurred at both times. Indeed, what would differentiate between the "traitorous" Patriotism of the German Social Democrat and the "revolutionary" Patriotism of yourself? In both cases, the era in which Patriotism could be defined as a progressive paradigm has passed....so I don&#39;t see how one form of Patriotism has more validity myself.


Originally posted by YKTMX
No one is asking you too.

You are&#33;

As you said in your opening post in this thread, "The war was fought to defend the British Empire". So how you can even pretend to deny the nature of the War now, truly baffles me. And the idea that you can separate the War from the totality of its nature, is truly laughable....because, as I&#39;ve said, by supporting a War based on this or that aspect, one could make the case for supporting any Imperial venture. After all, if someone came along and said they supported the Iraq War because the "New Iraq" would have the "infinitely preferable" system of bourgeois democracy, what possible objection could you make which avoided the totality of the Wars nature?

Frankly, your approach reeks of a kind of political opportunism. You are more than willing to point out all the social dynamics involved in a particular scenario when it benefits your own political interests. But, then, when it suits you, you are perfectly happy to support particular aspects of this or that and to complete ignore the totality of said scenario.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Fight to defend yourself from Nazism. Deal with our own bastards later.

Rather simplistic logic there, that could be used to promote support for all kinds of causes....including support for the German bourgeois against Tsarist Russia in WWI. Heck, that kind of logic is the essential foundation of "anti-Toryism". You know, where people are encouraged to Vote Labour....and then deal with the Labour Parties perpetuation of capitalist social relations later.

I won&#39;t say who takes such an approach....because, frankly, you should already know.


Originally posted by YKTMX
No, they&#39;re burning Mosques because, like you, they&#39;re racist.

Ah, come on, that&#39;s a "for"....and not an "against". And, as you&#39;ve pointed out, that just doesn&#39;t matter. However, the careful reader will note your glaring hypocrisy here. That is, you are perfectly happy to view the above action in its totality, but, as I&#39;ve pointed out above, in terms of WWII, when it comes to your own personal political positions, you promote a more specified approach....which focuses, instead, on aspects of said event.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Haha, another "overlap".

Or, maybe, just another example of you writing cheques with your mouth that your ass won&#39;t cash? You know, maybe one day we&#39;ll meet in person....I rather doubt, myself, you&#39;d be as "witty" face to face. Because, to borrow your own phrase, I don&#39;t think you are that stupid.

And, ya&#39; know, I think it shows a certain bankruptcy in someone&#39;s approach when, instead of being able to coherently argue their position, they resort to petty shit slinging....and, it must be noted, shitty moralism. But, really, I can&#39;t say you surprise me.


Originally posted by YKTMX
I&#39;m able to use judgements about similar historical episodes to make informed prediction, yes.

An "informed prediction", yes. But, a prediction is all it will be....and, therefore, it could, of course, be wrong. Which, essentially, makes your argument purely speculative; never mind inconsistent....as I mentioned, this is a "for". And, been as you&#39;ve ruled out opposing Wars because they are "for" Imperialism, I&#39;m still waiting for you to present a sound and clear argument why you would oppose any War. The argument, of course, being based solely in terms of what the War is "against".


Originally posted by YKTMX
Will you wake up tomorrow morning? Yes?

Uh, no. I&#39;ll most likely wake up tomorrow morning.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Because I would know they are lying.

About what? Stopping the atrocities that are currently being committed? Well, perhaps they are lying, or perhaps they are not. Personally, I would think that such a speculative argument really lacks the required coherency, which is why a solid argument which presents the Imperialist aspirations of said intervention, would be far superior. Though, again, that&#39;s a "for"....which you&#39;ve ruled out as a legitimate avenue of argument.

Tell me, how many times do you think you&#39;ve presented the argument that the Iraq War is an Imperialist War? That is, if I carefully combed through your posts, how many time do you think I would find you making an argument against the Iraq War based on what it was "for"? Indeed, you made such an argument in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50982&st=0&hl=iraq). Theoretical inconsistency or political opportunism? You choose.


Originally posted by YKTMX
....because an important goal, defending democracy and defeating fascism, existed independent of the British ruling class.

Once again, why aren&#39;t you applying this same logic to Germany&#39;s efforts to resist Tsarist Russia? Sure, they weren&#39;t "defeating fascism", but, despite your attempts to deny it, there was a viable system of Parliamentary "democracy" in Germany at that time. So, why not rally to defend that?

And, furthermore, I am puzzled at how you can say the "goal" of defending bourgeois "democracy" can somehow be "independent" of the British bourgeois. Bourgeois "democracy" is, essentially, the method of class rule that the British bourgeois had/has chosen to implement, so how can it exist "independently" of them? Honestly, please, just be frank and up front about this, you are perfectly happy to defend the institutions of bourgeois hegemony instead of working towards proletarian revolution, aren&#39;t you?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Quite frankly, your "advice" that we should have let the people in the camps die and left the Partisans to be slaughtered is sickening.

Would you like a side order of salad to go with your petty moralism? Again, as I&#39;ve said, I&#39;m under no moral obligation to anyone here. Rather, I have a direct class and personal interest in seeing the ruling class overthrown and, in their place, the creation of a truly liberated and democratic society. And, personally, I don&#39;t see how the promotion of British Patriotism and the suppression of working class struggle helps this goal....in any way.


Originally posted by YKTMX
It&#39;s a strange kind of insular, ultra left chauvinism.

Your "Friend" once said the following: The falsehood of the German chauvinists has its roots in their shouting their sympathy for the independence of the peoples oppressed by Britain, their enemy in the war, and modestly, sometimes much too modestly, keeping silent about the independence of the peoples oppressed by their own nation. [Link.] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/may/31.htm)

Change a few words and I think and I think this could well be said about you. After all, unlike the German Social Democrats who were, essentially, just windbags, you&#39;ve stated that you would be more than happy to kill on behalf of British Imperialism. Talk about "insular chauvinism"?&#33;


Originally posted by YKTMX
What do you think the Spanish Civil War was?

A defeated social revolution. Why? What did you think it was? And how is it comparable to WWII?


Originally posted by YKTMX
What was it that people fighting there were defending from fascist forces?

I don&#39;t have a great deal of interest in what some people were "defending", even though it was "preferable" to what Franco was fighting for. Rather, my interest lies in what other people were fighting for....and it is with these people, that my allegiance lies.


Originally posted by YKTMX
I don&#39;t see how you could have supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

Well, there are a few variables here. These are what you mean by "support" and who you are defining as the "Republicans". If you are using it, the term "Republican" that is, as a broad label which encompasses all elements opposed to Franco, then I do "support" them. Additionally, if you are using it in a more strict sense to denote the bourgeois liberals, bourgeois democrats and so on, who opposed Franco, then, in a vague sense, I "support" them.

But, in terms of direct allegiance, I support the CNT, POUM and so on. That is, whilst I don&#39;t "oppose" the liberals and democrats taking up arms and shooting fascists, I firmly support the above groups....and if I was around back then, it is one of those groups that I would join.

Likewise, regarding WWII, like I said in my first post in this thread, in the grand scheme of things, I don&#39;t "object" to an Allied victory in WWII. Rather, for me anyway, this is a question that purely relates to practical positions. And like with Spain where I directly support those who were fighting for working class rule and not those who wanted to perpetuate bourgeois "democracy", I don&#39;t "support" the fight for bourgeois democracy during WWII....and I certainly don&#39;t think revolutionaries should encourage people to enlist in its defence. Rather, as I&#39;ve said, revolutionaries should keep working towards proletarian revolution....and leave the "defence" of bourgeois "democracy" to non-revolutionaries who actually want to perpetuate that.

Essentially, just because this or that struggle may produce a "preferable" outcome, doesn&#39;t mean that said struggle should be directly supported from a revolutionary standpoint....never mind actually participated in. After all, our "goal" isn&#39;t a "preferable" result....it&#39;s proletarian revolution.


Originally posted by YKTMX
But if it&#39;s both "against" atrocities and "for" atrocities, then your point is rather lost isn&#39;t it?

Uh, no. As you said: It&#39;s not a question of what you&#39;re fighting "for", but what you&#39;re fighting against.

So, if someone was directing that argument at someone other than yourself, then the point may well be "lost". But, you&#39;ve explicitly said, that what something is "for" doesn&#39;t matter....therefore, invalidating any arguments you could make against something based on what it was "for". So, as I&#39;ve said, if you wish to remain consistent, you can&#39;t use the argument that an intervention will "commit greater [atrocities]" as a valid argument against intervention.

So, you see, you can&#39;t make said argument from sound logical base. That is, the logical framework you&#39;ve presented, simply doesn&#39;t allow you to make said argument. And, therefore, my point is anything but "lost".


Originally posted by YKTMX
....whereas we argued that we should identify with them because of what they&#39;re against (the occupation) - or what their victory will bring about (a defeat for Empire).

You may have framed your support in such simplistic terms, but I haven&#39;t.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Objections only arise when the prosecution of the war seems to be going wrong....

So in, say, the August of 1941 the German capitalist class was busy berating Hitler and co. for their stupidity? If I remember correctly, it was in late 1942 that the major German capitalists started moving their capital abroad....and that event shows that they had lost confidence in the Nazi Government to efficiently manage their interests. But before then? Nope.

Just because they decided to jump off a sinking ship, doesn&#39;t mean that they weren&#39;t originally happy passangers on said ship. And your attempts to absolve the German capitalist class from their historic role as Hitler&#39;s backers, is somewhat curious. Especially as Germany&#39;s "economic miracle" was helped immensely by the capital the German capitalist class had made from the Nazi Government....and its actions.


Originally posted by YKTMX
The German ruling class, from the start and throughout, thought that Hitler was fucking nuts, couldn&#39;t be trusted, would betray them, didn&#39;t like them, didn&#39;t represent German Capital to a sufficient degree and would eventually lead them up the path to destruction.

Uh, "from the start"? :blink:

Then why, in 1933, did they choose to fund his political party and not, say, the German Social Democrats? Both groups would have happily administered German capital, but many in the German capitalist class chose to back Hitler. Indeed, if they didn&#39;t think Hitler was useful, then they would have done more to bring about the demise of the Nazi Party....they would have at least withdrawn funding.

And, additionally, similar sentiments could have been found within the British bourgeois with regards their view of the British Labour Party. But, still, personal gripes, in this sense, are meaningless....because at no point has the class nature of Britain changed under the Labour Party.


Originally posted by YKTMX
And that&#39;s because he represented a movement with ideas and interests that were contradictory to German Capital.

Had Britain been thoroughly trounced in WWI and all of its Imperial possessions taken, then the same could have been said of Lloyd George and the Liberals. But, you see, it is the class structure of a society that matters....and not the efficiency of its rulers or their lackeys.


Originally posted by YKTMX
New Labour despises Big business, where are you getting this stuff?

Uh, where did I mention New Labour? Read the statement you quoted. And, to think, you called me "a mental incompetent". Beyond.


Originally posted by YKTMX
The Nazis didn&#39;t challenge private ownership, but the German bourgeoisie no longer held significant political power.

So we had a different form of class rule that refrained from challenging the economic foundation that supported their class enemies dominance? Fucking curious phenomena that. Like a flying pig or something. Tell me, has anyone developed this argument in depth? Or is it your own invention?


Originally posted by YKTMX
No one can seriously claim Chavez is an agent of Venezuelan Capital, but Venezuelan Capitalism still exists.

Plenty do....and the actions of the Chavez Government towards various corporations, listed there, tend to back up their claims. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50783&st=0&hl=chavez) Or, do you think selling natural resources to large corporations and opening up your Markets to Chinese goods represents something else?

And, to be perfectly honest, it does confuse me how someone could administer said countries capitalism, broker the deals of its capitalist class and yet, for some reason, not be "an agent of Venezuelan Capital". What would Chavez have to do, in your eyes, in order for his Administration to be considered a legitimate front for Venezulan capitalism?


Originally posted by YKTMX
....because I know your Vulgar Stalinism is massively inhibiting your ability for coherent debate.

Cute. Have you got any toys left? Or have you already thrown them all of them out of your pram?


Originally posted by YKTMX
Furthermore, the question begs itself, I don&#39;t see how YOU could support the resistance.

Plenty of reasons that include both "fors" and "againsts". We can discuss them if you like?


[email protected]
A victory for the resistance might lead to a fundamentalist regime that aligns with Iran, so you&#39;re lining up with Iranian imperialism....

"Iranian imperialism"?&#33; :lol:

Have you been reading the ICC Notes or something? Because I don&#39;t know of any other "Marxists" who&#39;d define Iran as an Imperialist Nation. Is Iran a "major Imperialist player" now???


YKTMX
....so you can&#39;t call yourself an anti-imperialist.

Uh, I can....and I do. Though, to be honest, I can&#39;t see your point here. Perhaps you could frame your argument and reasoning in a more coherent manner? Because, as it stands, you&#39;ve lost me.

[Raubleaux]

TragicClown, from what I have read of your posts so far on this board I agree with you on pretty much everything. However, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of your World War II analysis.


The war waged by the British and American empires, however, was an aggressive war that had more to do with fighting the socialists by proxy than fighting the Fascists.

You are correct to suggest that anti-communism was a driving force of allied policy after the rise of Hitler. The allies had no particular aversion to fascism, and were very happy to appease Hitler as long as he kept his guns pointed at the Soviet Union (see Clement Leibovitz and Alvin Finkel&#39;s In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion).

However, once Hitler began waging war against the West, the Allies absolutely supported the Soviet Union militarily. They still opposed them politically, and containing the spread of communism was always a concern for them. They were also more than happy to let the Soviets die by the millions and do the vast majority of the grunt work in defeating the Nazis.

What I don&#39;t agree with is your characterization of the war waged by the allies as a war of aggression. How can a war waged by bourgeois democracy against fascism be a war of aggression -- especially when the world&#39;s first worker&#39;s state is fighting for its life? Clearly, the war waged by the Allies was a war of liberation. Once Hitler attacked the West, the Allies stood clearly on the side of the Soviet Union.


They only invaded Europe once it had become clear that the Germans had lost it, they didn&#39;t contribute to the Soviet war effort they just raced the Soviets to conquer territory in order to prevent the Soviet Union from liberating all of europe from the capitalist ruling class.

They didn&#39;t contribute to the Soviet war effort? They sent something like 9 billion dollars in lend-lease aid. They coordinated their efforts with the Soviets. Even Stalin said something like "we would not have been able to cope" without the aid of the Western "democracies."

The debate is not over whether or not the Allies aided the Soviets . They obviously did. The debate is over whether or not that aid was decisive. I don&#39;t think it was -- the Soviets would have probably won the war without it, but at a much, much greater cost (and the cost as it was is already terrible).


Moreover, unlike the Soviet and Chinese and Korean socialists, the Americans and British routinely deliberately ordered atrocities and warcrimes, like concentration camps for japanese citizens (sorry, not using Imperialist euphamisms)

The Soviets deported several groups into the Russian interior, but this was justified by the fact that these groups massively collaborated with the Nazis, or expressed pro-Nazi sentiments.


Dresdon was bombed to deny the Soviet Union use of the city and to demonstrate the imperialists willingness and capacity for brutality to their "allies", not for any military purpose, psychological or material.

This statement is pretty ridiculous, and makes me doubt whether you have ever done any serious reading about World War II. The Soviet Union specifically requested that Dresden be bombed. It was a very important part of the Nazi war machine -- practically all of its industry had been converted to war production. It was also an important transit point for German troops.


The Japanese nuclear bombing had nothing to do with it being "less costly than an invasion", or even &#39;ending the war&#39; when the Japanese government could sustain the loss, but rather because they wanted to give teh Japanese government an opening to surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets, who were making far faster progress than the Imperialists and would have taken Japan before any imperialist invasion would have been possible.

The Soviet Union was never going to "take Japan," nor did they want to. The only reason the Soviet Union even attacked Japan was because America urged them to enter the Pacific war. Where are you getting this stuff from? The atomic bombs were precisely about ending the war and saving both the United States and Asia from what would have been an extremely bloody invasion.

[YKTMX]

The British Monarchy has a great deal of wealth, State funding and a vast portfolio of properties.

You said Britain was "semi-absolutist" and now you&#39;re talking about property portfolios?

The British Monarchy is a heinous, reactionary institution, but your comparison between it and the German monarchy circa 1914 is totally spurious and non-serious.

You can see that surely?

As I said, the Kaiser actually appointed the German Chancellor; he could dismiss politicians he didn&#39;t approve of. I think he could also dissolve parliament if he didn&#39;t approve of them and I also think he had a veto on legislation, and he often excercised it. It&#39;s a while since I did German History, but I&#39;m certain that the German political system was highly reactionary compared to the British one in &#39;39, or even 1914.


So, once again, surely that should have been "defended" from Tsarist reaction? After all, a "young" and "developing" form of bourgeois "democracy", is surely "preferable" to political forms of Tsarism. So why, in this case, aren&#39;t you lining up with the German Social Democrats?


Well, I don&#39;t accept that that was the case. The revolution in 1905 had brought great improvements to the Russian political system (although it was still, of course, brutal and reactionary) - so the "point" doesn&#39;t really stand. The German and Russian regimes were a match made in hell rather total antagonisms. Therefore, the war was fought mainly over defense of Empire, and was understood as such by the working class, eventually at least (unlike the Second World War, which the class understood as essentially a Just War).

I&#39;ve said the British ruling class fought the war over defense of Empire, but I&#39;ve argued that a conflict needed to be fought beyond the immediate intentions of the ruling class.


Just the Russian working class???

No, you&#39;re quite right, the European working class.


But, then, when it comes to WWII, you are more than willing to leap to the defence of the interests of your own ruling class.

To the extent that the bourgeoisie defend democratic institutions under attack from fascism, I&#39;ll give them conditional support.

The second world war is the ONLY situation that I can think where this applies.


You didn&#39;t answer the question. If the German Social Democrat can be criticised for these reasons, then why can&#39;t the Labour politician be criticised for those very same reasons?




As for your point, one could, I suppose, choose to dispute your continual assertions that the Second World War constituted a "defence of bourgeois democracy", but, aside from that, it is worth mentioning here that bourgeois hegemony is most certainly not in the "interests" of the working class. Whether that hegemony takes the political form of Parliamentary "democracy" or fascism.

The Second World War had the effect of defending bourgeois democracy. I accept that most of the prosecutors where not fighting for this reason - though some in the war government, like Attlee, did have rather better records of opposition to fascism than Churchill.

In any case, I can&#39;t agree with your "same old shit" theory. Democratic rights - the right to assembly, speech, vote etc - were not "gifts" from the British ruling class. Britain didn&#39;t just "magically" become a democracy. These rights were won through class struggle and many working class partisans spilled their blood for those rights. You&#39;d be wise not to dismiss them so easily. You might found you rather miss them if they ever happened to be taken away from you.


So the fact that the German Social Democrats were defending the interests of German Imperialism now becomes, to quote your good self, "meaningless"?

You&#39;re confusing two things:

1) The SPD were defending the German Empire because of their capitulation to imperialism. There were no practical differences between the various regimes. In any case, the war was fought over small plots of land and colonies, so no political system was ever in danger.

2) The second world war, whilst an imperialist war, had a definite agressor who intended not only the liquidation of socialism and trade unionism as a movement but also the destruction of even bourgeois democratic norms. In the face of this belligerence, socialists rally to the defence of democracy against the fascists. In this case, we may either "join" with our ruling class if they&#39;re willing to defend democracy (Britain, Soviet Union), or you join autonomous movements against a ruling class who have capitulated (France, Italy, Croatia, India etc).


scare mongering about the threat of Nazi atrocities

Scare mongering?&#33;

No, AS, everything I&#39;ve described happened.


So, essentially, not only does your argument along humanitarian lines seem rather weak when faced with the atrocities of British colonialism, but your [mis]characterisation of the dynamics of WWII, leads you to advocate the defence of a fundamentally anti-democratic colonial system.


I really, really don&#39;t see that at all, I&#39;m afraid.

The second world war did not prelong colonialism. A Nazi conquering of Europe would not have ended colonialism. The War was fought principally on mainland Europe and the Pacific, so the major British colonies were not involved. Your argument seems to be that because the British Empire exists, you can&#39;t criticise Nazism? Or that criticising Nazism somehow amounts to a defense of the Raj.

It seems to that it was partly because Britain&#39;s democratic structures were preserved that India won its independence so soon after the war. And that&#39;s another thing we have to say. If preserving Empire was the main goal of the war (as it probably was), it was a profound failure. Britain was broke and powerless, totally dependent on America after the War, which is why the Empire never lasted much longer.


Whether "Britain had been ceded to the Third Reich" or not, those movements would have, ultimately, failed or succeeded based on the actions of the people in said colonies....and, partly, based on the amount of funding they would receive from the Soviet Union

Sorry, bub, the Soviet Union has collapsed as well :)


Ah, come on, that&#39;s a "for"....and not an "against". And, as you&#39;ve pointed out, that just doesn&#39;t matter. However, the careful reader will note your glaring hypocrisy here. That is, you are perfectly happy to view the above action in its totality, but, as I&#39;ve pointed out above, in terms of WWII, when it comes to your own personal political positions, you promote a more specified approach....which focuses, instead, on aspects of said event.


No, because I&#39;m opposed to racism. Fascists buning mosques, despite your apologetics, would always be about being "against darkies". Maybe you&#39;ll get a position on the "left" of the FN government when they get into power. I&#39;m sure you can explain yourself more thoroughly then.


My "imagination" may be "famously overactive", but the statement that those who fought to "defend" Britain during WWII also fought to defend British colonialism, is a statement of objective fact.


And those who fought in the Vietnam for the NLF were "objectively" fighting in the interests of Soviet and Chinese Imperialism.

So they shouldn&#39;t have fought?


Though, again, that&#39;s a "for"....which you&#39;ve ruled out as a legitimate avenue of argument.


No, I mentioned in once in a very specific context. Of course all situations have nuances and caveats. For instance, although you&#39;re an implacable class warrior, you&#39;ve indicated you&#39;d support the French ruling class burning Mosques if such a situation arose.

I said I support wars "against" belligerent, aggressive fascist enemies (which Saddam wasn&#39;t) and in defence of hard-won democratic rights. In this context, I argued, the "motivations" of the ruling class become secondary. We might not like why they&#39;re fighting a war, but we still realise it has to be fought.


And, personally, I don&#39;t see how the promotion of British Patriotism and the suppression of working class struggle helps this goal....in any way.


Why would one have to "promote" British patriotis? In fact, it seems to me that the second world war is one war in which patriotism would be least applicable, considering that was a truly internationalist anti-fascist struggle, in which socialists and communists all across Europe fought side by side, in the standing armies and the national liberation movements.

Your desperation to abandon all them to the gas chambers because Britain had an Empire makes you a risible class traitor. Though I suppose you have to be a member first in order to betray.


Additionally, if you are using it in a more strict sense to denote the bourgeois liberals, bourgeois democrats and so on, who opposed Franco, then, in a vague sense, I "support" them.


Ahhhhh - so now not only do you support the Soviet and French "imperialist" backed Republicans, you also support the Spanish "bourgeois democrats"? I don&#39;t see how you can support a victory for French Imperialism in Spain considering the plight of the Algerians?

Surely, the partisans in the POUM and CNT may have though they were defending socialism and democracy from Fascists, but, according to you, they were "lackeys".

The plot thickens.


But, in terms of direct allegiance, I support the... POUM and so on.

:lol: What, you&#39;d fight alongside the, how did you put it, noble philanthropists?



So, as I&#39;ve said, if you wish to remain consistent, you can&#39;t use the argument that an intervention will "commit greater [atrocities]" as a valid argument against intervention.


This is stupid. How can a force be both against and for atrocities? You can&#39;t be against atrocities whilst committing them.


Then why, in 1933, did they choose to fund his political party and not, say, the German Social Democrats?

Surely the question should be "why &#39;33" and not &#39;29 or even &#39;21? If Hitler was everything the German ruling class dreamed about, why wait 12 years to, reluctanctly, make him Chancellor? If he embodied all their dreams perfectly, surely they would just have let him get on with it straight away? I mean, when Allende came to power, the imperialists and the Chilean ruling class didn&#39;t need 12 years to "think about it", did they? Neither did the reactionary Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Why is it the German ruling class, even after the collapse in &#39;29, seemed to have a policy of "anyone but Hitler"?

I&#39;d suggest it was because their relationship was more practical than ideological or material. They had a "moment of overlap". If they thought that German capitalism could have been secured without letting the Nazi movement into power, they would have done it (they had tried it lots of times before). But the "pain" simply became too much. They had to let him in the door.


But, you see, it is the class structure of a society that matters....and not the efficiency of its rulers or their lackeys.


I agree.

What I&#39;m suggesting is that the German capitalists "accepted" political isolation for a degree of economic stability (although even that was fictitious).

As the economy became more and more unstable, and Hitler became even more powerful and detached, the German ruling class became increasingly impotent and isolated from the levers of power.

And, at the end of the day, if you&#39;re going to have a "materialist analysis" of why the German ruling class "brought him in" in the first place, you need a materialist analysis of why, ultimately, they deserted him.


So we had a different form of class rule that refrained from challenging the economic foundation that supported their class enemies dominance?

I never suggested Nazi Germany wasn&#39;t capitalist, did I? In fact, I specifically said they didn&#39;t challenge private ownership (though some of them wanted to). My point was that Economics was not Hitler, or the Movement&#39;s, primary motivator - evidence for this?

They drove the economy into the ground and KNEW they were doing it. Indeed, most people accept that unless the war in &#39;39 happened, the German econony would have collapsed under its own contradictions. Also, they took part in a totally disastorous, militarily and economically, adventure in the Soviet Union. Even when Hitler knew the war in Soviet Union would be lost, he continued with it? Why? For one, he was fucking nuts, that&#39;s obvious. But also because he represented a movement with ideas "beyond" simply maintaing and expanding German Capital. This was NOT a movement of Big Capital, it was a movement of the streets. The Nazi Party relied on highly motivated cadres and reactionary institutions of the State, such as the judiciary. They were NEVER just a "tool" of the German ruling class. That&#39;s important, I think.

Now, one may compare this to the Vietnam or Iraq war, but this would be wrong. For one, the loss in Vietnam never threatened to destroy American capitalism. And, despite the "cost of the War", the profits to be reaped in Iraq from oil contracts and new "markets" would likely secure the American economy for a generation (or so they assume).



Have you been reading the ICC Notes or something? Because I don&#39;t know of any other "Marxists" who&#39;d define Iran as an Imperialist Nation. Is Iran a "major Imperialist player" now???


A sub-imperialism at least, one would think, considering their insane wars, desire for nuclear weapons and, one would suspect, desire for a "piece" of a broken up Iraqi state, should one arise.

[Si Pinto]

Just to add a bit of scope to the German/British powerbase before WWI argument.

Bismark had been chancellor in Germany for years, and had consolidated the vast majority of power to himself, he considered the Kaiser(s) as weak minded and easily swayed, and he was probably right.

Bismark had become a virtual dictator over the German reich, their was still an elected reichstag but it had no real powers as these all belonged to Bismark, who could veto any motion he disagreed with, even if the vast majority of parliament had voted in favour (he frequently exercised this power).

William II dismissed Bismark in 1890, and one of the reasons he gave was to &#39;reclaim democracy for the people of Germany&#39; (obviously just nice words made to soften over the German public).

Rather than hand back the power to the Reichstag, William simply kept it for himself, by installing chancellors who he could control (or thought he could anyway).

So yes, he had the same powers of veto as Bismark had, and frequently used them.

The Moroccan crisis of 1905 was a perfect example, Britain and France were at loggerheads over Morocco, both wanted control of the colony, their was also a fledgling Moroccan independance movement. Both Britain and France made overtures to Germany to side with them in the matter. The reichstag had voted to remain &#39;neutral&#39; in this squabble, in which Germany had no real interest (other than keeping Britain and France arguing with each other).

The Kaiser decided instead to visit Morocco in 1905 and declared his support for the Moroccan independance movement, and he demanded a conference on the issue, which took place in 1906.

The only effect of all this was to actually have the reverse effect on Britain and France, as it clearly showed that the Kaiser was out to make trouble and as a result Britain and France, became the &#39;allies&#39; that would fight WWI.
-----------

As for the British,

Whilst I&#39;m sure that George V stuck his nose into parliaments business as often as he could, he had no real power over them, other than the power of his persuasion, which in itself shouldn&#39;t be underestimated.

That wonderful libertarian otherwise known as Queen Victoria :rolleyes: was famous for her disagreements with Parliament, apparently she despised Gladstone, which I&#39;m sure was reciprocated ;) , and she clearly still had great influence over her minnions (just ask Jack the Ripper).

So perhaps the argument can be made that Germany under William II was an Autocrisy with a useless democracy, whilst Britain was a democracy with a useless autocrat. (I know that&#39;s over simplifying it a tad, but hell it looks good on my screen ;) ).

[FidelCastro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:05 PM
I have heard little to no criticism about World War II so I was wondering if you all think World War II was a justified war.
No war is ever justified. I don&#39;t think the peaceful approach was given a fair shot either. But to determine is a war is "justified", you have to look at what caused the war. To some and often among leftists, it was Hitler&#39;s conquering of Europe and fascist ways that caused the war to be justified. However, you have to look at the fact that this war was caused by some major fuck ups by the Allies.
1. Treaty of Versailles because that is what Hitler used to get into power.
2. America not joining the League of Nations so they would have a standing army to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe.

My conclusion, this war, while nessesary, was about as justified as Vietnam or Iraq.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by FidelCastro+Jun 26 2006, 05:15 AM--> (FidelCastro @ Jun 26 2006, 05:15 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 07:05 PM
I have heard little to no criticism about World War II so I was wondering if you all think World War II was a justified war.
No war is ever justified. I don&#39;t think the peaceful approach was given a fair shot either. But to determine is a war is "justified", you have to look at what caused the war. To some and often among leftists, it was Hitler&#39;s conquering of Europe and fascist ways that caused the war to be justified. However, you have to look at the fact that this war was caused by some major fuck ups by the Allies.
1. Treaty of Versailles because that is what Hitler used to get into power.
2. America not joining the League of Nations so they would have a standing army to prevent Hitler from conquering Europe.

My conclusion, this war, while nessesary, was about as justified as Vietnam or Iraq. [/b]
I believe there are wars that are justified. A war against capitalism is justified. Wars against imperialism are justified. For a lot of communists the 2nd world war became a war worth fighting when Germany attacked the USSR.

The peaceful approach was given more than a fair approach until it could no longer be argued even by Hitler sympathisers in the UK that Hitler wanted peace. Peace was never an option for Hitler, Nazi Germany was always going to end in violence.

The Treaty of Versailles was only a part of the story. The bourgeois reaction to commu nism was a greater factor in propelling the Nazi&#39;s to power. A point largely ignored by bourgeois historians.

The French army was more than capable of deafeating Germany in 1938/1939. They should have immediatley attacked when Czechoslovakia was invaded or the next year when the same fate befell the Poles. Germany committed most of its armed forces to both these invasions and left the west hopelessly defended.

WW2 was nessesary. The Nazi&#39;s had to be defeated, had it been done when the opportunity was there millions of lives would have been saved. The Vietnam war was unjustified from the US point of view and completely justified from the Vietnamese point of view. I see the same comparisons with Iraq. Both are resisting imperialism.