Would You Consider My View Of Ww2 To Be

[Cheung Mo]

The "good" guys -- The American side -- included 2 fascist mass murderers (Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek), a Anglo-supremacist responsible for the overthrow of the only government that could have brought peace to the Middle East, a French madman responsible for the starvations of thousands of Vietnamese, a Canadian anti-Semite who admired Hitler during the early 1930s and who allowed no Jewish refugees into Canada to escape the Holocaust (Mackenzie King), and an American "socialist" who tolerated White supremacism in his Dixie stronghold and whose Drug Czar -- William Aslinger -- was the biggest White Supremacist in post-civil war American politics and who, along with Canadian pseudo-feminist and xenophobic fundie asshole Emily Murphy, was responsible for the racist prohibition of cannabis and other drugs (The fact that some of these drugs were later proven to be extremely dangerous is completely coincidental.). Combined, these worthless goons killed more people than Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. There were totalitarian fucks on both side of that war: It just so happened that "our" totalitarian fucks won it.

I used to hate CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth for opposing our involvement in the Second World War. Now I know exactly where he's coming from.

[Ander]

They are not sympathetic towards the Axis at all, they are just extremely critical of both sides, which is good.

[Marukusu]

a French madman responsible for the starvations of thousands of Vietnamese

...And don't forget Algeria.

There are no such things such as "good" and "evil", in war or outside war. Hitler (and the whole Axis) where not evil, they where psycothic, fanatical and racist.
And then, the WWII was a war fought between complete pragmatic and sometimes outright ruthless leaders, but many times their ruthless acts was "neccesary" for their respective nations (or peoples) very survival.
I don't think Stalin would pass the Order № 227 if he didn't belive it was necessary for the Soviet Unions survival.

[Red Polak]

yeah, "our" totilitarian fucks "won" (though, we all know some people didn't get freedom until 1989!) but I think that's probably a good thing because had the other totalitarian fucks won we'd be in a bit of a mess right now (more so than we were).

"Canadian anti-Semite who admired Hitler during the early 1930s and who allowed no Jewish refugees into Canada to escape the Holocaust (Mackenzie King),"

I agree with this, but remember - many Britains also supported Hitler in his early days. think BUF and daily mail.



"I used to hate CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth for opposing our involvement in the Second World War. Now I know exactly where he's coming from."

by "our" you mean US right?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 4 2006, 04:42 PM
The "good" guys -- The American side -- included 2 fascist mass murderers (Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek)
You clearly have no idea as to the meaning of the term "fascist" <_<

[Raj Radical]

They all deserve critisism , but the fact is that things would be alot worse if the Nazis won, to put it as simple as possible.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 4 2006, 06:13 PM
"I used to hate CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth for opposing our involvement in the Second World War. Now I know exactly where he&#39;s coming from."

by "our" you mean US right?
He is talking about Canada. J.S. Woodsworth was the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation), an old socialist party that became the modern day New Democratic Party in Canada. I don&#39;t know why he used such an obscure reference as I only know it because I studied Canadian History as an elective course in High School.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 4 2006, 03:01 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 4 2006, 03:01 PM)
Cheung [email protected] 4 2006, 04:42 PM
The "good" guys -- The American side -- included 2 fascist mass murderers (Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek)
You clearly have no idea as to the meaning of the term "fascist" <_< [/b]
Chiang Kai Shek- Chinese Nationalist, opposed Chinese Communist Party, killed several hundreds of thousands of peasents (Red or otherwise).

Stalin- Under his reign, more people died than the reign of Hitler. His ideology is more closely related toFascism than actual communism.

[Avtomatov]

The worst thing about fascism is that it was aristocratic. Atleast Stalin wasnt aristocratic.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:34 PM
Chiang Kai Shek- Chinese Nationalist, opposed Chinese Communist Party, killed several hundreds of thousands of peasents (Red or otherwise).

Stalin- Under his reign, more people died than the reign of Hitler. His ideology is more closely related toFascism than actual communism.
Do you want to contribute something relevant to the discussion? Or have we suddenly started assigning political labels depending on death count? Neither Chiang Kai Shek nor Stalin can in any way be described as fascist. Unless you’re a fucking idiot of course.

[Marukusu]

Do you want to contribute something relevant to the discussion? Or have we suddenly started assigning political labels depending on death count? Neither Chiang Kai Shek nor Stalin can in any way be described as fascist. Unless you’re a fucking idiot of course.

You take the words from my fingers, comrade. ;)

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 6 2006, 04:46 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 6 2006, 04:46 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 09:34 PM
Chiang Kai Shek- Chinese Nationalist, opposed Chinese Communist Party, killed several hundreds of thousands of peasents (Red or otherwise).

Stalin- Under his reign, more people died than the reign of Hitler. His ideology is more closely related toFascism than actual communism.
Do you want to contribute something relevant to the discussion? Or have we suddenly started assigning political labels depending on death count? Neither Chiang Kai Shek nor Stalin can in any way be described as fascist. Unless you’re a fucking idiot of course. [/b]
I wouldn&#39;t think that suggesting that I am a "fucking idiot" is extreamly constructive, either, mate. :rolleyes:

Stalin Support massive state collectivisation. making him appear socialistic, yet he believed in heavy laws on people morality. Hitler did the same thing. Yes, Hitler was worse, but Stalin wasn&#39;t much better.

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.as...ogies.Stalinism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.Stalinism)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=3128

As for Chiang Kai Shek, he was a nationalist, which is close to fascism.

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.as...ies.Nationalism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.Nationalism)

[rebelworker]

Its a tuffy. I met and old spanish civil war vet who saw first had the horrors of Facism and the Trechery of Stalinism, so he was pretty non aligned as far as that goes, but he still chose to come out of exile and join the "free" french forces to continue the war against facism.

The Fact is, with possibly the exception of the Soviet Union, revolutionaries were far more abe to operate under the allied contries than the Axis, in Japan, Spain and Germany (Italy was a minor exception) the revolutionary left had to go completely underground, not even able to amintain regular contact. Whike in the US, Britan and China the left was still fairly active, although heavily repressed.

I would have to say that I would have gone over tio fight Hitler, if he had been sucessful in Europe Im sure the US and Britan would have followed not long after as there were grassroots far right movements and considerable ruling class support for facism in both of thoes contries, capitalism adapts well to unspeacable horrors, the holocost was buisness as usual for IBM and Ford.

[ComradeOm]

So we&#39;ve established that Stalin was moralistic and Chiang Kai Shek was a nationalist. Now how does that make one fascist?

[Ol' Dirty]

So we&#39;ve established that Stalin was moralistic

Who the fuck said that? :blink:


and Chiang Kai Shek was a nationalist. Now how does that make one fascist?

Dude, I didn&#39;t say he was a fascist, only that his ideology is similar to fascism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:10 PM
Stalin Support massive state collectivisation. making him appear socialistic, yet he believed in heavy laws on people morality. Hitler did the same thing. Yes, Hitler was worse, but Stalin wasn&#39;t much better.

Dude, I didn&#39;t say he was a fascist, only that his ideology is similar to fascism.
He was no more fascist than Reagan. But it begs the question... why mention him at all?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 7 2006, 11:58 AM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 7 2006, 11:58 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:10 PM
Stalin Support massive state collectivisation. making him appear socialistic, yet he believed in heavy laws on people morality. Hitler did the same thing. Yes, Hitler was worse, but Stalin wasn&#39;t much better.

Dude, I didn&#39;t say he was a fascist, only that his ideology is similar to fascism.
He was no more fascist than Reagan. But it begs the question... why mention him at all? [/b]
Because they were in fucking World War 2, dude. That&#39;s why he mentioned him.

Also, as for suggesting I&#39;m a "fucking idiot", if you&#39;re going to resort to name calling, you most likely don&#39;t have a point. I see no reason not to just ignore you, but, hell, it&#39;ll be fun toying around with your argument (even though it&#39;s not the best one I&#39;ve ever heard). :rolleyes:

[ComradeOm]

My "argument" consists of the fact that neither Stalin nor Chiang Kai Shek could be described as fascist by anyone with even the faintest grasp of either 1) fascist theory and characteristics or 2) history.

That&#39;s it. I suggest that you read up on your history before you start throwing the term "fascist", which after all does describe a particular set of beliefs, around without regard to historical fact. Perhaps Bush is also a fascist?

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:58 PM
My "argument" consists of the fact that neither Stalin nor Chiang Kai Shek could be described as fascist by anyone with even the faintest grasp of either 1) fascist theory and characteristics or 2) history.

That&#39;s it. I suggest that you read up on your history before you start throwing the term "fascist", which after all does describe a particular set of beliefs, around without regard to historical fact. Perhaps Bush is also a fascist?
I&#39;m not really sure who you are yelling at but lovely shade of red has only said they have similiar qualities to facist leaders. Is that such a crime?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@Jul 7 2006, 07:12 PM
I&#39;m not really sure who you are yelling at but lovely shade of red has only said they have similiar qualities to facist leaders. Is that such a crime?
Such as the fact that they were all human? Neither of the leaders he mentioned could, in any way, be described as fascist.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;+Jul 7 2006, 02:12 PM--> (Jesus Christ&#33; @ Jul 7 2006, 02:12 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 06:58 PM
My "argument" consists of the fact that neither Stalin nor Chiang Kai Shek could be described as fascist by anyone with even the faintest grasp of either 1) fascist theory and characteristics or 2) history.

That&#39;s it. I suggest that you read up on your history before you start throwing the term "fascist", which after all does describe a particular set of beliefs, around without regard to historical fact. Perhaps Bush is also a fascist?
I&#39;m not really sure who you are yelling at but lovely shade of red has only said they have similiar qualities to facist leaders. Is that such a crime? [/b]
Thank you, Jesus&#33;

:lol:

Sorry.

:lol:

Seriously, though, thank you for seeing my point, mate. Apparently, someone doesn&#39;t. :rolleyes:


Such as the fact that they were all human? Neither of the leaders he mentioned could, in any way, be described as fascist.

:lol:

Wow, you&#39;re observant.

Have you noticed that I&#39;ve already said that I believe neither of these people to be fascist? I merely stated that their views were rightist, and closer to fascism than far-left views.

[ComradeOm]

So when I noted that the original poster was completely wrong in suggesting that Stalin and Chiang Kai Shek were fascists you decided to list their crimes for the fun of it? I would have been a lot easier if instead you had posted something like:

Why yes Comrade Om, you are fully correct as always. Neither of those two could be described as fascist.

[IronColumn]

Let&#39;s see, Fascists run a one party police state, support control of every aspect of people&#39;s lives, with massive state expenditures to drive the economy and provide employment. Leninists are, at a fundamental level, exactly the same.

As Chomsky notes, so many can switch from "right" to "left" (i.e. our current neoconservatives who used to belong to the Trotskyist SWP-USA, or other various sell out Communist parties from many European countries who colloborate with governments) because there is really very little difference between the fascists and the self styled Leninist communists.

As for WW2, the war only provided a victory for capitalist governments, and total horror for the people of all the countries involved. To view it as an either/or proposition does not see it as a historical event with causes and effects. It would be more informative, instead of rooting for one side or the other (although really who&#39;s rooting for Hitler?), to see what we can do to avoid a similar catastrophe in the future (supporting real democracies like in Spain, and opposing Imperialism, racism, etc.).

I would say the ultimate lesson from ww2 is that this has to be nipped in the bud, and capitalism has got to be disposed of.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@Jul 7 2006, 07:12 PM
I&#39;m not really sure who you are yelling at but lovely shade of red has only said they have similiar qualities to facist leaders. Is that such a crime?
Yes, because it&#39;s a retarded thing to say. According to that person&#39;s logic, anything that kills and has a "big government" can be seen as "fascist". But of course, in reality(you know, that whole planet earth place...), killing and heavy legislation are not exclusive to fascism. The USA has all sorts of wacky moralist laws, but it&#39;s not a fascist country. The social-democrats in Sweden have a massive welfare system, yet Sweden is not fascist. And every revolutionary movement in the history of mankind, every single one, has been involved in killing opponents. Yet none of them have been fascist. To think that fascism is "a big government that kills opponents" is to be retarded, not to mention completely ignorant of how class comes into it(but then again, that is not unusual with "marxists" on revleft).

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:59 AM
Let&#39;s see, Fascists run a one party police state, support control of every aspect of people&#39;s lives, with massive state expenditures to drive the economy and provide employment. Leninists are, at a fundamental level, exactly the same.
You are, at a fundamental level, talking shit. Fascism is not defined by its totalitarian nature, though this of course plays a role, but by its specific beliefs and class makeup.

[PRC-UTE]

Fascism is a form of open class dictatorship that comes about in a period of crisis. The big capitalists turn to the smaller capitalists, army officers, priests and other middle class forces to restore order as a last ditch effort to save their rule. It&#39;s reactionary for it seeks to turn back history to &#39;a more simple time&#39; when &#39;values&#39; were important, blah blah blah (sound familiar?). The Marxist analysis of fascism comes from Napoleon and his role in restoring order in France.

Stalin was a wretched bastard in many ways, but I don&#39;t see how he&#39;s a fascist.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@Jul 7 2006, 07:12 PM
I&#39;m not really sure who you are yelling at but lovely shade of red has only said they have similiar qualities to facist leaders. Is that such a crime?

Yes, because it&#39;s a retarded thing to say.

Dude, don&#39;t be ableist.


According to that person&#39;s logic, anything that kills and has a "big government" can be seen as "fascist".

Don&#39;t you dare put words in mouth. :angry: I never said such a thing, and you know it.


But of course, in reality(you know, that whole planet earth place...), killing and heavy legislation are not exclusive to fascism.

Yes, but few Capitalist states are as infamous for their moralism as that of Fascist states.


The USA has all sorts of wacky moralist laws, but it&#39;s not a fascist country

...Because the USA has nowhere near as many controls upon peoples lives, it has little state centralization, and (quite qarguably) is not a police state, though it has many implements like that of one (FBI, CIA, USA Patriot Act).


The social-democrats in Sweden have a massive welfare system, yet Sweden is not fascist.

Are you some sort of fucking fool? :huh:

State control over societal economy is completely different than moral mastery over those lower in the social hierarchy.


And every revolutionary movement in the history of mankind, every single one, has been involved in killing opponents.

The nonviolent revoltion in India implemented little blododshed against the British, except for other groups un-affiliated with Ghandi and his supporters. Martin Luther King&#39;s social revolutionary movement partook in little violence within its ranks.

Don&#39;t count your chickens, *****. :rolleyes:


Yet none of them have been fascist.

The Beer Hall Putsche was very much a revolution, along with the night of the long knives, nationalist revolutions against feudal warlards in China, and pro-fascist revolutions in Italia all involved violence and rightism, if not Fascism.


To think that fascism is "a big government that kills opponents" is to be retarded, not to mention completely ignorant of how class comes into it(but then again, that is not unusual with "marxists" on revleft).

If it weren&#39;t for your completly bigoted and ableist. remarks, I would agree. :)