Ww2

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

And it didn't. You can call it "backpedalling" if that makes you feel better about yourself, but I'm only saying what I mean so that we can further the debate.

Organized working class were instrumental in the defeat of fascism? Some partisan and resistance movements had a lot of success, after the Allied Imperialists invaded their nations...or when they were on their way.



The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Thats because it was "their" war. It was an imperialist war just like WW1 was. Imperialist wars effect us, but they aren't "about" us. We may react to them, we may be pawns, we may help or w/e. That doesn't change their nature as imperialist wars.

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

And it didn't. You can call it "backpedalling" if that makes you feel better about yourself, but I'm only saying what I mean so that we can further the debate.

Organized working class were instrumental in the defeat of fascism? Some partisan and resistance movements had a lot of success, after the Allied Imperialists invaded their nations...or when they were on their way.



The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Thats because it was "their" war. It was an imperialist war just like WW1 was. Imperialist wars effect us, but they aren't "about" us. We may react to them, we may be pawns, we may help or w/e. That doesn't change their nature as imperialist wars.

[EusebioScrib]

Nah, you said "WW2 had nothing to do with the proletariat!" and now you are backpedalling pretty hard. But you still got a bit of pedalling to do before you arrive at the fact that the organised working classes around the world were instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

And it didn't. You can call it "backpedalling" if that makes you feel better about yourself, but I'm only saying what I mean so that we can further the debate.

Organized working class were instrumental in the defeat of fascism? Some partisan and resistance movements had a lot of success, after the Allied Imperialists invaded their nations...or when they were on their way.



The shame of all this is you have managed to help the bourgeoisie further paint WW2 as 'their' war. Or maybe you just fell for the history that's been fed to you without thinking about all the history that has been stolen from you and this class.

Thats because it was "their" war. It was an imperialist war just like WW1 was. Imperialist wars effect us, but they aren't "about" us. We may react to them, we may be pawns, we may help or w/e. That doesn't change their nature as imperialist wars.

[CCCPneubauten]

I would call WWII one of the 'good wars' but in a way WWI and WWII are connected, almost just one massive qar, with economic downfall (which didn't hit the Soviet Union) inbetween.

I don't know how one could argue against WWII.

Stop of Fascism (except Spain) and the stop of the Holocaust.

[CCCPneubauten]

I would call WWII one of the 'good wars' but in a way WWI and WWII are connected, almost just one massive qar, with economic downfall (which didn't hit the Soviet Union) inbetween.

I don't know how one could argue against WWII.

Stop of Fascism (except Spain) and the stop of the Holocaust.

[CCCPneubauten]

I would call WWII one of the 'good wars' but in a way WWI and WWII are connected, almost just one massive qar, with economic downfall (which didn't hit the Soviet Union) inbetween.

I don't know how one could argue against WWII.

Stop of Fascism (except Spain) and the stop of the Holocaust.

[Janus]

No, it was not "our" war but it was necessary to stop fascism. That was the main positive result of this war.

[Janus]

No, it was not "our" war but it was necessary to stop fascism. That was the main positive result of this war.

[Janus]

No, it was not "our" war but it was necessary to stop fascism. That was the main positive result of this war.

[EwokUtopia]

There were no good guys in the war, but the halting and eventual destruction of fascism was a victory for the people of the world, even if it was 'won' by the same people that cause their poverty and suffering in the name of their profit. Stopping fascism is a victory that is hard to underestimate, however there were alot of pretty severe losses suffered by the outcome of that war. That is when US neoliberal world dominance really began, and the Soviet Union prooved itself to be basically the same as the imperialist capitalists, but with sickles and hammers and hegemonic statism. Another severe defeat issued to mankind by the second world war was the invention of the Atom bomb. This one nearly destroyed everything (and may yet still) and so history may prove that it was this article in history, not the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Dresden, the decimation of Russia, or even the Holocaust that is the saddest event of the era. I would easily put the Manhattan Project on the same scale as the Wansee Conference, because although the latter resulted in 6 million deaths, the former has the possibility to kill 6 billion, and the threat of nuclear anihilation has loomed over humanity ever since that "victorious war".

Its only a matter of time before people clue in or die out.

[EwokUtopia]

There were no good guys in the war, but the halting and eventual destruction of fascism was a victory for the people of the world, even if it was 'won' by the same people that cause their poverty and suffering in the name of their profit. Stopping fascism is a victory that is hard to underestimate, however there were alot of pretty severe losses suffered by the outcome of that war. That is when US neoliberal world dominance really began, and the Soviet Union prooved itself to be basically the same as the imperialist capitalists, but with sickles and hammers and hegemonic statism. Another severe defeat issued to mankind by the second world war was the invention of the Atom bomb. This one nearly destroyed everything (and may yet still) and so history may prove that it was this article in history, not the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Dresden, the decimation of Russia, or even the Holocaust that is the saddest event of the era. I would easily put the Manhattan Project on the same scale as the Wansee Conference, because although the latter resulted in 6 million deaths, the former has the possibility to kill 6 billion, and the threat of nuclear anihilation has loomed over humanity ever since that "victorious war".

Its only a matter of time before people clue in or die out.

[EwokUtopia]

There were no good guys in the war, but the halting and eventual destruction of fascism was a victory for the people of the world, even if it was 'won' by the same people that cause their poverty and suffering in the name of their profit. Stopping fascism is a victory that is hard to underestimate, however there were alot of pretty severe losses suffered by the outcome of that war. That is when US neoliberal world dominance really began, and the Soviet Union prooved itself to be basically the same as the imperialist capitalists, but with sickles and hammers and hegemonic statism. Another severe defeat issued to mankind by the second world war was the invention of the Atom bomb. This one nearly destroyed everything (and may yet still) and so history may prove that it was this article in history, not the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Dresden, the decimation of Russia, or even the Holocaust that is the saddest event of the era. I would easily put the Manhattan Project on the same scale as the Wansee Conference, because although the latter resulted in 6 million deaths, the former has the possibility to kill 6 billion, and the threat of nuclear anihilation has loomed over humanity ever since that "victorious war".

Its only a matter of time before people clue in or die out.

[RebelDog]

Nuclear weapons would have come about with or without WW2 happening.

Essentially the coming of fascism in Europe was the extreme bourgeois reaction to communism. Once the workers movement in Germany was defeated the fascists could live out their imperialist dreams. Being that fascism is the most lethal weapon the bourgeois have against proletarian revolution, yes, WW2 was a victory for the proletariat when fascism was destroyed. But as EwokUtopia alludes to in his post, the end of WW2 heralded the coming of a new capitalist super-power, the USA and they have been destroying workers power worldwide ever-since.

[RebelDog]

Nuclear weapons would have come about with or without WW2 happening.

Essentially the coming of fascism in Europe was the extreme bourgeois reaction to communism. Once the workers movement in Germany was defeated the fascists could live out their imperialist dreams. Being that fascism is the most lethal weapon the bourgeois have against proletarian revolution, yes, WW2 was a victory for the proletariat when fascism was destroyed. But as EwokUtopia alludes to in his post, the end of WW2 heralded the coming of a new capitalist super-power, the USA and they have been destroying workers power worldwide ever-since.

[RebelDog]

Nuclear weapons would have come about with or without WW2 happening.

Essentially the coming of fascism in Europe was the extreme bourgeois reaction to communism. Once the workers movement in Germany was defeated the fascists could live out their imperialist dreams. Being that fascism is the most lethal weapon the bourgeois have against proletarian revolution, yes, WW2 was a victory for the proletariat when fascism was destroyed. But as EwokUtopia alludes to in his post, the end of WW2 heralded the coming of a new capitalist super-power, the USA and they have been destroying workers power worldwide ever-since.

[bayano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:36 PM
There were no good guys in the war
what about EAM and ELAS in greece, the Red Army in China, the Viet Minh in Viet Nam, the Huks in the philippines, Tito and the Yugoslav partisans, the ukrainian peasant partisans, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans and other groups in France, Poland's People's Army, the Italian communist partisans.....

the list goes on. i think there were plenty of 'good guys' in ww2

[bayano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:36 PM
There were no good guys in the war
what about EAM and ELAS in greece, the Red Army in China, the Viet Minh in Viet Nam, the Huks in the philippines, Tito and the Yugoslav partisans, the ukrainian peasant partisans, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans and other groups in France, Poland's People's Army, the Italian communist partisans.....

the list goes on. i think there were plenty of 'good guys' in ww2

[bayano]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:36 PM
There were no good guys in the war
what about EAM and ELAS in greece, the Red Army in China, the Viet Minh in Viet Nam, the Huks in the philippines, Tito and the Yugoslav partisans, the ukrainian peasant partisans, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans and other groups in France, Poland's People's Army, the Italian communist partisans.....

the list goes on. i think there were plenty of 'good guys' in ww2

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by bayano+Jun 23 2006, 02:09 PM--> (bayano @ Jun 23 2006, 02:09 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 11:36 PM
There were no good guys in the war
what about EAM and ELAS in greece, the Red Army in China, the Viet Minh in Viet Nam, the Huks in the philippines, Tito and the Yugoslav partisans, the ukrainian peasant partisans, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans and other groups in France, Poland's People's Army, the Italian communist partisans.....

the list goes on. i think there were plenty of 'good guys' in ww2 [/b]
Greece, Italy, and France became capitalist countries, the Philipines are still under the yolk of oppressive western exploitative policies, Poland and the Ukraine came under the power of the Anti-Imperialist Imperialistic power that was Stalins Soviet Union, and Chinese Communism is likely the worse kind implimented outside of Pyongyang, so although there were good guys, the good guys were usually defeated, and certainly never the most victorious victors.

But I am just being a pessimist. If anything, World War II was a Phyrric victory for the people, they beat the devil but had no strength left to fight the hungry wolf of capitalism. Also, the Fauxcialist Soviet Union hardly offered a good alternative to the US, so the result of that war was bad, but I suppose it could have gone infinately worse.

[Redmau5]

Greece, Italy, and France became capitalist countries, the Philipines are still under the yolk of oppressive western exploitative policies, Poland and the Ukraine came under the power of the Anti-Imperialist Imperialistic power that was Stalins Soviet Union, and Chinese Communism is likely the worse kind implimented outside of Pyongyang, so although there were good guys, the good guys were usually defeated, and certainly never the most victorious victors.

You're missing the point. Just because the partisans lived in capitalist countries doesn't mean they were bad guys. I'm sure the country you live in is capitalist.

[Ol' Dirty]

I agree with EusebioScrib.

World War I and II (which are both deeply interconected) were both wars fought for imperialist ends. The reason Germany invaded Chekeslovakia, Poland and France was due to the need for more "breathing room", as Hitler put it. The British Empire had to protect its many trade routs from German U-Boats, and Japan was fighting an iperialist war on mainland China, the Philipenes, and many other places. There are many other stories like this in World War One and Two.

The proletariat had little to do with the downfall of Fascism. It was truly their war.

[Hiero]

The proletariat had little to do with the downfall of Fascism. It was truly their war.

Then who did all the fighting? Who was part of the french resistance? Who come from the USSR? Were there no peasants in Asia?

I am very confused, because im not too sure about the idea that rich white men were runing around fighting and dying to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia.

[YKTMX]

I think comrades should try and distinguish between the immediate goals of the Allied leaders and the feelings of the soldiers on the ground and in the air. There's no doubt there was mass and active working class support for and participation in the anti-fascist struggle. The idea implicit in some comrades posts that we should surrender to Fascists because our own ruling class are "just as bad" is both wrong and dangerous. All forms of class society are not "as bad" as each other. Bourgeois democracy (and, I'll add, Stalinism) are wholly and without qualification "better" than fascism. And if the choice is, as it almost certainly was, between fascism or "our" own form of capitalism, then we will rally to defend the latter.

Because, and I don't say this glibly, you can't have socialism in the concentration camp. You can talk about, like we do here, but they'll shoot you or gas you. So, before comrades start pontificating on the "worthlessness" of bourgeois democracy, let them consider what situation they'd rather be in: lined up against the wall in Bergen-Belsen or campaigning for socialism in a bourgeois democracy.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:34 PM

The proletariat had little to do with the downfall of Fascism. It was truly their war.

Then who did all the fighting? Who was part of the french resistance? Who come from the USSR? Were there no peasants in Asia?

I am very confused, because im not too sure about the idea that rich white men were runing around fighting and dying to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia.
A good point. Still, I think the war was fought mainly for imperialist ends.

[Ol' Dirty]

Oops.

[EusebioScrib]

Then who did all the fighting? Who was part of the french resistance? Who come from the USSR? Were there no peasants in Asia?

I am very confused, because im not too sure about the idea that rich white men were runing around fighting and dying to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia.

So I guess the current war in Iraq is our war as well?

Please read everything before making comments.

We can be pawns in the war and we can react to what happens. It doesn't make the nature of the war about us. WWII was an imperialist war, no getting around it.

[chimx]

as i recall, FDR as an early advocate for intervention in europe, was forced to sign the Neutrality Act in 1935 because American public opinion was so isolationist at the time. It wasn't until Germany defeated France that public opinion started to turn. Later, it was a strategic error on the part of Hitler to declare war on the US following the Pearl Harbor attacks that really brought American public opinion to the Allies side and drop the isolationist stance.

But more importantly, it is impossible to view ww2 in a microscope and ignore the historical process which led up to it. The Treaty of Versailles is obviously one clear reason, needlessly placing all the blame on Germany and forcing reparations. This ignores the fact that an imperialist arms race had been unfolding between Germany and Britain; a rise of nationalism, thanks in part to imperialist Europe's recent conquest of Africa; and of course the great depression and its links to Germany's war reparations. WW2, the rise of fascism, imperialism, was part of the historical process of capitalism, and to analyze just the event of the war and "the defeat of fascism at the hands of the proletariat" really is to commit the vulgarity of extricating it from the reality of history and process.

[Hiero]

So I guess the current war in Iraq is our war as well?

No. Iraqi's were not fascist, the Iraqi resistance is "our" war.


and to analyze just the event of the war and "the defeat of fascism at the hands of the proletariat" really is to commit the vulgarity of extricating it from the reality of history and process.

Why is it to "extricat it from the reality of history and proccess"

[rebelworker]

The majority of the armed resistance to the US occupation, although justified, is being carried out by islamic facists.
They are killing communists, union organisers and opose womens rights.

The recruitment resorts to religeous brainwashing and sending young men off as suicide bombers.

The "resisitance" is not "our war".

[Urban Rubble]

It's cute how some of you guys still think the point of WW2 was to defeat Fascism.

If the point was to end fascism and/or facist aggression, why did we wait until Germany had conquered half of Europe? Why did the American government allow U.S. corporations to support Fascists in Germany, Spain and Italy?

It was never about ending facsism, it was about economics, like always.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by bayano+Jun 23 2006, 02:09 PM--> (bayano @ Jun 23 2006, 02:09 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 11:36 PM
There were no good guys in the war
what about EAM and ELAS in greece, the Red Army in China, the Viet Minh in Viet Nam, the Huks in the philippines, Tito and the Yugoslav partisans, the ukrainian peasant partisans, Francs-Tireurs et Partisans and other groups in France, Poland's People's Army, the Italian communist partisans.....

the list goes on. i think there were plenty of 'good guys' in ww2 [/b]
Agreed. But this is just more of the usual ultra-left abstentionism that's abundant here.

For all their r-r-r-revolutionary rhetoric, these people wouldn't know a working class advance if it happened on their street.

What's the saying? If you can't recognize a revolution that's already happened, you won't be able to recognize or take part in one when it happens in your country..

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It was never about ending facsism, it was about economics, like always.

For the imperialist countries who participated in it, yes. For the communists and communist partisans, no.

[Andy Bowden]

I think that the US SWP analysis of WW2 is the one I'd agree with. It holds that WW2 was three wars,

- An Imperialist war between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy against the US, UK and France,

- A war of aggression against the USSR by Nazi Germany,

- And a war of national liberation against fascism, in places like Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Where does Japan fit into that equation? I don't see them listed in your post.


The "resisitance" is not "our war".

The resistance of secular Iraqi workers and farmers most certainly is.

[chimx]

japan was one of the biggest imperialist nations involved with the war.

[Enragé]

in WW2 the war, though against fascism, was for the allies nothing more than an attempt to reassure their economic power.

As such during WW2 class struggle took, or at least should have taken, precedence even if it damaged the "war effort".

[workingman]

Why are people even questioning weather WWII was our fight? The fash had to be stoped. We can also thak WWII for giving women some sort of equality and giving racial equality in the US some foundaitions.
Its just a shame that it started the cold war!

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 26 2006, 12:38 AM
It's cute how some of you guys still think the point of WW2 was to defeat Fascism.

If the point was to end fascism and/or facist aggression, why did we wait until Germany had conquered half of Europe? Why did the American government allow U.S. corporations to support Fascists in Germany, Spain and Italy?

It was never about ending facsism, it was about economics, like always.
I don't think anyone here is confused or naive to the intentions of the rulers of the bourgeois democracies. Though it seems some are very, very confused about the role of the Soviet Union in the war, by that's neither here nor there.

The point I, and others, have made is that regardless of the whims of the ruling class, the workers and oppressed have a general interest in opposing fascism. That general interest, for a brief moment, lined up with the coincidental interests of the ruling classes of the Western democracies. In this instance, you can either throw a huff and talk about the British Empire, or you can wage an independent working class anti-fascist struggle alongside the bourgeois war (as the French resistance did, co-ordinating their operations with allied leaders).

[Vargha Poralli]

1)The British government fought against hitler because they think they alone had the right to enslave non white people.

2)The Americans fought against hitler because their arms and ammunition manufacturers needed more money

3)In case of Soviet Union and almost all eastern europe had to fight aginst that F**r because of his stupid racist ideas lebranchum etc.it seems that he even assumed to his cost that the russians wont give his army a hard fight.and wud just surrender to him and start serving him just as they served stalinists whos are just as cruel as him.

On the whole at that end of the war only one evil is terminated .Stalinists needed another 46 yrs to fall and capitalism is still hanging on till now :angry:

[Mare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:03 PM

2)The Americans fought against hitler because their arms and ammunition manufacturers needed more money


Let's hope you don't think that was the only reason for the US American response to Hitler.

[Alf]

I also agree with EusebioScrib. World War Two was an imperialist war, and the ideologies of fascism and anti-fascism (but especially the latter) were used to mobilise the working class to make the supreme sacrifice for capital.

Not only that: but loyalty to internationalism during that war was a fundamental historical watershed. The political currents which crossed the class line in 1939-45 by supporting 'democracy' or the 'socialist fatherland' or the ' national resistance' - in particular the Trotskyists - have served as apologists for imperialist war ever since, whether in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, Africa or South America. This includes the Trotskyists who had a 'state capitalist' analysis of the USSR, since when it came down to it groups like the SWP generally supported Russian imperialism against US imperialism in these conflicts.

Today this anti-working class tradition continues, but the same political currents - echoed by all the various Stalinist, Maoist, or Castroist groups, and not a few 'anarchists' - are now telling us to support the national resistance or 'anti-imperialist' forces embodied by Hamas, Hizbollah, or the jihadists in Iraq. The recruiting sergeants are out in force, judging by the recent 'anti-war' demo in London, where the most prominent placard was "We are all hizbollah", distributed by the Muslim Association and the SWP.

[MiniOswald]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 26 2006, 12:38 AM
It's cute how some of you guys still think the point of WW2 was to defeat Fascism.

If the point was to end fascism and/or facist aggression, why did we wait until Germany had conquered half of Europe? Why did the American government allow U.S. corporations to support Fascists in Germany, Spain and Italy?

It was never about ending facsism, it was about economics, like always.
While im sure economics was an issue for the leaders along with nationalist protection issues saying it was purely economical is a little shakey.

I mean, when England threw itself against germany after the invasion of poland. Someone seeking to protect british economic intrests really wouldnt have done that. The initial defeat of the british and french forces was something quite predictable. Furthermore the british came out at the end of the war fucked economically. Much weaker than theyd started out as.

Then again maybe your right, maybe it was just a massive misjudgement and they thought it best to attack an economical rival before he went any further. I dont really know.

The USSR's moves were clearly political and economical at the begining with the non-aggression pact, part of their move to keep foreign threat away while the 5 year plans were implemented and whatnot.

And yes the US actions were economical because since the creation of the US they hadnt really seen themselves as connected to Europe in any way.

However I do believe its too much of a sweeping generalisation to say that prominent figures on the allied side had absolutly no intrest in stopping fascism. Hell im sure there were even some prominent military figures who were anti fascist. So while im sure that economics and national intrests were the main concern for leaders I believe that the idealogical stand point of the nazis must have played a part in the decision to goto war.

[ComradeOm]

I mean, when England threw itself against germany after the invasion of poland. Someone seeking to protect british economic intrests really wouldnt have done that. The initial defeat of the british and french forces was something quite predictable. Furthermore the british came out at the end of the war fucked economically. Much weaker than theyd started out as.
1) The French defeat was a complete surprise to all but the Germans. On paper France had more tanks, more men, more planes and a better strategic position than the Germans. By the same token the extremely rapid collapse of Poland would also have come as a surprise.

2) A resurgent Germany would threaten the balance of power on the continent that the British and French had expanded huge resources to fix in WWI. No single competitor could be allowed to dominate Europe. This was British policy that went back centuries.

[Phugebrins]

Given the non-German establishment's cautious support, or at least cordial tolerance, of Hitler before WWII, I find it unlikely that they suddenly changed their minds and decided his ideology needed to be resisted - war was declared because appeasement ceased to seem a viable policy where the interests of the French and British ruling classes were concerned. The invasion of Poland proved not only territorial ambitions and the capability of the German army, but also the unreliability of the USSR in containing Germany.

However, that doesn't preclude WWII being, in the main, a worthwhile struggle against fascism. There's no reason something that's in the interests one nation's ruling class can't be a good thing overall.

[NantenWolf]

Originally posted by "MiniOswald"
The initial defeat of the british and french forces was something quite predictable.

ComradeOm is completely correct about this in his reply. The British, French, and other Allies in France had the advantage in tanks and artillery, and they had a slight advantage in the number of divisions until Italy invaded in the south on June 10.

The main problem with France's defensive planning was a reliance upon fortifications, such as the Maginot Line. The German attack bypassed that defensive line and struck to the north of it, and after that it was pretty much over.

World War II ended in the defeat of three large fascist nations. For this cause, millions of soldiers who lived in poverty gave their lives, while the rich in the victorious nations mostly were allowed to become richer. Yet I have to say that a world dominated by racist fascists was not allowed to become reality--well, not on the scale and not of the type the Nazis desired. So yes, I suppose it was worth it.

[Vargha Poralli]

QUOTE (g.ram @ Aug 28 2006, 05:03 PM)

2)The Americans fought against hitler because their arms and ammunition manufacturers needed more money


Let's hope you don't think that was the only reason for the US American response to Hitler.


Yea sorry didn't mean it in the first place. its not the only reason but one of the resaons

[LuXe]

ALL wars is about econimics. Belive me, had ww3 contributed to someones cashflow, it would happen.

Sadly enough.