Why did USSR fight China

[Old Bolshie]

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

Stalin was the first to say that a world war was not inevitable:

"Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable?

Answer (Stalin): No."

When is war not inevitable?, J.V. Stalin

[Ismail]

Interesting, then why did he not let Tito get on with his own revolution like he did with the Chinese? Oh right, because Yugoslavia should be controlled from Moscow.

Yugoslavia did have its own revolution, assisted by the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism. Tito took that revolution and wrecked it. The Soviet Union and fraternal communist parties reciprocated in kind by expelling Yugoslavia from the Cominform and noting his bourgeois nationalism and anti-communism.

The Yugoslavs responded by deepening their links with Western capital and persecuting "Stalinists" such as Hebrang.

By communist parties I assume you mean "Communist Parties" of the early 20th century, who essentially Bolshevist organs that attracted left-wing voters who still thought the Bolshevik regime was some kind of utopia, and subsequently subjugated all its party members into the bolshevist grinding machine.

Your issue is evidently with Bolshevism itself, you just target Stalin because that's a popular thing to do. Such was also what the Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists did.

- Asking to create Popular Fronts with liberals once Stalin realised Fascism might well be a threat.

The Popular Fronts had been called for in Spain and France by the local communists. They greeted the Seventh Congress of the Comintern and its line with applause.

- Asking subsequent Popular Fronts to halt revolutionary measures in Catalonia and France because Uncle Joe was getting jealous of, wait for it, actual revolutionary measures from anarchists, trotskyists, Left Comms, etc.

It was the PCE that held high the banner of revolution in Spain against the Trotskyites and certain sections of the anarchists who undermined the anti-fascist struggle and thus helped doom the Republic and usher in decades of Francoism.

- Total abandonment of the Greek Communist Party during the Civil War after a deal done with Churchill.

The Yugoslavs betrayed the KKE. It was the "Stalinist" Albanians and Bulgarians who gave the majority of support to the Greek struggle after the Soviet-Yugoslav split. Stalin, furthermore, knew that the KKE had made serious errors and that, as a result of this, it was not in a position to overthrow the government. His comments on the subject made it clear he would have continued strongly backing the KKE had it been capable of seizing state power.

When Tito, Mao and other legitemate revolutionary bodies around the world refused to take orders from Stalin and the Comintern/Cominform, he threw a paddy. Some exporter of socialism, this guy.

You seem infatuated with bourgeois nationalists operating under "revolutionary" rhetoric. Whether it be Tito, Mao, Castro or others, so long as they attack Stalin it's a-okay.

What about all the Satellite states in Eastern Europe? Are you denying they weren't under direct Bolshevist control?

I don't operate under a reactionary understanding Bolshevism which posits that every movement with ties to the USSR was nothing more than an insidious mask for the international communist conspiracy.

It was the Khrushchevites who founded the Warsaw Treaty Organization and who expounded on the "international socialist division of labor," which did away with the line of Stalin in the construction of the economies of Eastern Europe in favor of "specializing" them to serve Soviet social-imperialism.

Stalin was the first to say that a world war was not inevitable:

"Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable?

Answer (Stalin): No."

When is war not inevitable?, J.V. Stalin

This is the full context:

Question: Do you consider a new world war inevitable?

Answer: No. At least at the present time it cannot be considered inevitable.

Of course, in the United States of America, in Britain, as also in France, there are aggressive forces thirsting for a new war. They need war to obtain super-profits, to plunder other countries. These are the billionaires and millionaires who regard war as an item of income which gives colossal profits.

They, these aggressive forces, control the reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time they are afraid of their peoples who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of peace. Therefore they are trying to use the reactionary governments in order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as aggressive. They are trying to deceive their peoples in order to impose on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war.

Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, fearing that it can expose the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments.

Precisely for this reason they turned down the proposal of the Soviet Union for the conclusion of a Peace Pact, for the reduction of armaments, for banning the atomic weapon, fearing that the adoption of these proposals would undermine the aggressive measures of the reactionary governments and make the armaments race unnecessary.

What will be the end of this struggle between the aggressive and peace-loving forces?

Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples will take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war.

That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of peace as a means of exposing the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of first-rate importance.

As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining peace.

This interview was conducted in 1951. In 1952 he put out Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. It is obvious that Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts. He stressed that in the present time wars could be averted so long as the forces of peace were willing to defend that cause to the end. I'd imagine it's hardly different than the Bolsheviks relying on the solidarity campaigns of various West European workers and organizations against the plans of their governments to overthrow or otherwise isolate Soviet Russia on the world stage.

[Old Bolshie]

This is the full context:
This interview was conducted in 1951. In 1952 he put out Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. It is obvious that Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts. He stressed that in the present time wars could be averted so long as the forces of peace were willing to defend that cause to the end. I'd imagine it's hardly different than the Bolsheviks relying on the solidarity campaigns of various West European workers and organizations against the plans of their governments to overthrow or otherwise isolate Soviet Russia on the world stage.

If Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts it doesn't matter if one text is from 1951 and the other in 1952. The issue you were reffering to was not of the similarity between the Bolshevik position in early revolutionary years and Stalin's 30 years latter but the inevitability of a world war which both Stalin and Khrushchev denied it.

He stressed that in the present time wars could be averted so long as the forces of peace were willing to defend that cause to the end.

This is actually the base of Khrushchev's denial of the inevitability of a world war.

[Zutroy]

If Stalin gave the same treatment in both texts it doesn't matter if one text is from 1951 and the other in 1952. The issue you were reffering to was not of the similarity between the Bolshevik position in early revolutionary years and Stalin's 30 years latter but the inevitability of a world war which both Stalin and Khrushchev denied it.

Stalin was referring to a global war, and Khrushchev was referring to wars of imperialism in general. Two distinct concepts, which you merged together for some reason.

[Old Bolshie]

Stalin was referring to a global war, and Khrushchev was referring to wars of imperialism in general. Two distinct concepts, which you merged together for some reason.

Tell me, which is the difference between a WORLD war and a GLOBAL war? Didn't you read Ismail's post?

By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

[Ismail]

Stalin stated that world wars could be averted for certain periods. Khrushchev declared that the existence of nuclear weapons had fundamentally altered the situation in the world and that wars were no longer inevitable even under imperialism.

If a Marxist says that it is possible for capitalism to stave off collapse for a period, it hardly means that capitalism therefore will exist forever and that objective forces do not exist for its destruction at the hands of the proletariat. The objective conditions exist under imperialism for world wars, Khrushchev denied these conditions.

[Zutroy]

Tell me, which is the difference between a WORLD war and a GLOBAL war? Didn't you read Ismail's post?

None. I merely referred to world wars as global wars---a common appelation, which seems to have thrown you into confusion. Are you still able to follow along?

We're debating to the distinction between Stalin's quote referring to global wars (or world wars, if that keeps you from becoming disoriented) and Khrushchev's quote referring to imperialist wars. You're contending that they're referring to the same thing, in order to draw a line of continuity between Stalin and Khrushchev. That is obviously ridiculous, as the two terms refer to two different scenarios.

If you need an example, consider that the 1950-2000 period was filled with imperialist wars, but no global wars. An obvious distinction, I'd think.

[Old Bolshie]

None. I merely referred to world wars as global wars---a common appelation, which seems to have thrown you into confusion. Are you still able to follow along?

We're debating to the distinction between Stalin's quote referring to global wars (or world wars, if that keeps you from becoming disoriented) and Khrushchev's quote referring to imperialist wars. You're contending that they're referring to the same thing, in order to draw a line of continuity between Stalin and Khrushchev. That is obviously ridiculous, as the two terms refer to two different scenarios.

If you need an example, consider that the 1950-2000 period was filled with imperialist wars, but no global wars. An obvious distinction, I'd think.

First off, Ismail didn't quote Khrushchev.

Secondly, that is a completely idiotic interpretation of what Khrushchev meant when he spoke about the inevitability of a new war. Just like Stalin he was talking about a global confrontation between socialist and capitalist countries.

[Old Bolshie]

Stalin stated that world wars could be averted for certain periods. Khrushchev declared that the existence of nuclear weapons had fundamentally altered the situation in the world and that wars were no longer inevitable even under imperialism.

If a Marxist says that it is possible for capitalism to stave off collapse for a period, it hardly means that capitalism therefore will exist forever and that objective forces do not exist for its destruction at the hands of the proletariat. The objective conditions exist under imperialism for world wars, Khrushchev denied these conditions.

Khrushchev didn't deny that capitalism would eventually fall and even made a slogan for it.

I don't see where Khrushchev said that even under imperialism wars were no longer inevitable. Pretty much like Stalin he relies on political and social peace forces to ensure that the reactionary governments and agents don't push forward their war agenda.

[Zutroy]

First off, Ismail didn't quote Khrushchev.

Secondly, that is a completely idiotic interpretation of what Khrushchev meant when he spoke about the inevitability of a new war. Just like Stalin he was talking about a global confrontation between socialist and capitalist countries.

Yes he did, on the first page. You retorted that Stalin said the same thing, and produced a quote of him saying something different. World wars and imperialist wars are clearly different. That's not an "interpretation" but an observation of the fact that two explicitly different words were used. You can claim they mean the same thing, but they objectively don't. There's no way Stalin was referring to the latter, because such wars were happening at the time of Stalin's quote.

As Ismail pointed out, the context further reveals that Stalin was referring to intervals of time without a world war, while Khrushchev was referring to a permanent end to imperialist wars.

[Zutroy]

Khrushchev didn't deny that capitalism would eventually fall and even made a slogan for it.

You're missing the point. The implication of what Khrushchev said is the same as if he were to take an instance of capitalism staving off collapse, and use it to claim capitalism could go on forever. The fact that he said one thing with regard to wars and another thing with regard to modes of production is a testament to how inconsistent he was.

I don't see where Khrushchev said that even under imperialism wars were no longer inevitable. Pretty much like Stalin he relies on political and social peace forces to ensure that the reactionary governments and agents don't push forward their war agenda.

He stated it in 1956, when he stated capitalism and socialism could coexist in peace. I believe that's the Khrushchev quote we've been referring to. If one presumes both can coexist in peace (and Khrushchev meant for good, to specifically distinguish himself from his predecessor), then it follows that one presumes war isn't inevitable.

[TheEmancipator]

Yugoslavia did have its own revolution, assisted by the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism. Tito took that revolution and wrecked it.

Most historians agree that the Red Army had little to do with the liberation of Yugoslavia, and that it was mostly Communist Partisans who liberated Yugoslavia, just like in your beloved Albania.

The Soviet Union and fraternal communist parties reciprocated in kind by expelling Yugoslavia from the Cominform and noting his bourgeois nationalism and anti-communism.

See this is why I always like to bring up Tito with the Stalinists : it always exposes their hypocrisy.

How is Tito a bourgeois nationalist when he reaffirmed his desire for a Federal Yugoslavia where all ethnicities would be treated equally and effectively brought them together.

How is Stalin not a bourgeois nationalist when his prime foreign policy interests consisted at first to hijack revolutionary movements to bring them under his control. Then he engaged in typical Russian irredentism with the invasions of Finalnd, the Baltic states, and Eastern Poland (collaborating with Hitler to ensure that last one).

The Yugoslavs responded by deepening their links with Western capital and persecuting "Stalinists" such as Hebrang.

I'm not falling for Stalinist strawmen. I'm an open critic of Tito's regime as much as I am of Stalin's. Its just that the way Stalinist criticise Tito is so damn hypocritical it makes them lose so much credibility.

Your issue is evidently with Bolshevism itself, you just target Stalin because that's a popular thing to do. Such was also what the Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists did.

Well Leninist Bolshevism is what it is : a somewhat romantic view of the world revolution, a series of theorists intent on keeping their own council and supressing any other interpratation of Marxism, believing their own revisionism to be the "One True Interpretation" of Karl Marx. Bolshevism and the Comintern became the equivalent of Catholicism and the Vatican in the way it totally dismissed and cracked down on any other interpretations of Marxist theory. And clearly its legacy lives on through the current crop op MLs.

I target Stalin because he is tribalisitically defended by his fanboys such as yourself, most of which would not have survived his purges, would not have enjoyed being on the wrong side of his brutal regime, and would disagree with him on most practical actions.

If Trotsky is discussed, I'll condemn his mistakes too. However, Stalinists must take the bulk of responsibilty for letting Marxist-Leninism as an ideology go completely down the toilet, without constantly wining about revisionism, which was the result of Stalin's bureaucratic, centralised cult of the leader regime.

The Popular Fronts had been called for in Spain and France by the local communists. They greeted the Seventh Congress of the Comintern and its line with applause.

I'm not denying that. They were the ones intent on stopping fascism in Western Europe, not Stalin, who did the square root of nought for the German Communist Party.

It was the PCE that held high the banner of revolution in Spain against the Trotskyites and certain sections of the anarchists who undermined the anti-fascist struggle and thus helped doom the Republic and usher in decades of Francoism.

Most unbiased historians both left and right almost unanimously agree that although the PCE was the strongest faction (due to Russian armament as it is after all a Bolshevist Communist Party), its ultimate quest for supremacy was what led the Trots and Anarchists to disassociate themselves from the Popular Front.

They are not responsible for the loss to Franco though. Foreign intervention was what tipped the balance. The USSR halted its foreign intervention after the Germano-Soviet pact. Hmmm...I wonder why?

The Yugoslavs betrayed the KKE. It was the "Stalinist" Albanians and Bulgarians who gave the majority of support to the Greek struggle after the Soviet-Yugoslav split. Stalin, furthermore, knew that the KKE had made serious errors and that, as a result of this, it was not in a position to overthrow the government. His comments on the subject made it clear he would have continued strongly backing the KKE had it been capable of seizing state power.

Again making excuses for Stalin when you know that part of the post-War agreement with Churchill and Truman was to leave Greece to be put under Western influence.

You seem infatuated with bourgeois nationalists operating under "revolutionary" rhetoric. Whether it be Tito, Mao, Castro or others, so long as they attack Stalin it's a-okay.

All three are influenced by Bolshevist ideology. I never denied that and I'm not supporting their regimes one second, I only defend them from their independent position, that is to not follow whatever Moscow wished them to do, as Bolshevist Moscow never had any legitimate right to dictate an international working class revolutionary policy, having bourgeois nationalist interests at heart and/or thinking the world revolution was a series of wars between nations instead of classes.

I don't operate under a reactionary understanding Bolshevism which posits that every movement with ties to the USSR was nothing more than an insidious mask for the international communist conspiracy.

Don't get me wrong Ismail, the USSR was a communist state when its urban areas were under Soviet rule. The moment it became a neo-bourgeois nationalist state was the moment the Bolsheviks took fall control of centralised policy in the country.

It was the Khrushchevites who founded the Warsaw Treaty Organization and who expounded on the "international socialist division of labor," which did away with the line of Stalin in the construction of the economies of Eastern Europe in favor of "specializing" them to serve Soviet social-imperialism.

It was Stalin who had the elections rigged and his own stooges put into power in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania etc

But again, its the revisionist fault. Always the revisionists fault without realising they are a product of the Stalinist regime.

[Old Bolshie]

Yes he did, on the first page.

Here is Ismail post:

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

It is said that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must now be regarded as obsolete, since powerful popular forces have come forward today in defence of peace and against another world war. That is not true.

The object of the present-day peace movement is to rouse the masses of the people to fight for the preservation of peace and for the prevention of another world war. Consequently, the aim of this movement is not to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism - it confines itself to the democratic aim of preserving peace. In this respect, the present-day peace movement differs from the movement of the time of the First World War for the conversion of the imperialist war into civil war, since the latter movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.

It is possible that in a definite conjuncture of circumstances the fight for peace will develop here or there into a fight for socialism. But then it will no longer be the present-day peace movement; it will be a movement for the overthrow of capitalism.

What is most likely is that the present-day peace movement, as a movement for the preservation of peace, will, if it succeeds, result in preventing a particular war, in its temporary postponement, in the temporary preservation of a particular peace, in the resignation of a bellicose government and its supersession by another that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. That, of course, will be good. Even very good. But, all the same, it will not be enough to eliminate the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries generally. It will not be enough, because, for all the successes of the peace movement, imperialism will remain, continue in force - and, consequently, the inevitability of wars will also continue in force.

To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

Now tell me where is Khrushchev's quote?

You retorted that Stalin said the same thing, and produced a quote of him saying something different. World wars and imperialist wars are clearly different. That's not an "interpretation" but an observation of the fact that two explicitly different words were used. You can claim they mean the same thing, but they objectively don't. There's no way Stalin was referring to the latter, because such wars were happening at the time of Stalin's quote.

And such wars were happening also at the time of Khruschev's statement. So according to your own logic Khruschev couldn't be talking about imperialist wars.

You're missing the point. The implication of what Khrushchev said is the same as if he were to take an instance of capitalism staving off collapse, and use it to claim capitalism could go on forever. The fact that he said one thing with regard to wars and another thing with regard to modes of production is a testament to how inconsistent he was.

He showed the same position Stalin did before him.

He stated it in 1956, when he stated capitalism and socialism could coexist in peace. I believe that's the Khrushchev quote we've been referring to. If one presumes both can coexist in peace (and Khrushchev meant for good, to specifically distinguish himself from his predecessor), then it follows that one presumes war isn't inevitable.

"Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?

Stalin: Of course they can."

Coexistence, American-Soviet Cooperation,Atomic Energy, Europe, J.V.Stalin.

[Ismail]

Most historians agree that the Red Army had little to do with the liberation of Yugoslavia, and that it was mostly Communist Partisans who liberated Yugoslavia, just like in your beloved Albania.

The Communist partisans in Yugoslavia were founded by a party affiliated with the Comintern, led by a longtime member of the Comintern, were in regular contact with the Soviets, and had the benefit of the Red Army assisting in the liberation of Belgrade and other areas.

Obviously the Yugoslavs would have taken power on their own, but the same could be said for Mao's men as well. It was Soviet assistance that allowed them to take power when they did in both cases.

How is Tito a bourgeois nationalist when he reaffirmed his desire for a Federal Yugoslavia where all ethnicities would be treated equally and effectively brought them together.

All Slavs, perhaps, but certainly not Albanians who were treated as an enemy nation and denied their own republic. Furthermore the Yugoslavs held that Muslims constituted a nation among other anti-Marxist views on nationality. See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.or...e/titoites.htm

Furthermore you have a narrow understanding of bourgeois nationalism as basically just opposition to chauvinism within one's own country (in which case Tito still fails to qualify, as noted), when in fact bourgeois nationalism goes further than this.

How is Stalin not a bourgeois nationalist when his prime foreign policy interests consisted at first to hijack revolutionary movements to bring them under his control.

You already think that the "Bolshevists" placed revolutionary movements under their control. Again, your issue is with Lenin, not with Stalin.

Then he engaged in typical Russian irredentism with the invasions of Finalnd, the Baltic states, and Eastern Poland (collaborating with Hitler to ensure that last one).

First off, the Baltic states had been severed from close collaboration with Soviet Russia through the intervention of White Guardists of Finland, the British, and the Germans, which overthrew the soviet republics established in those three states.

On the Baltics I bring you a book except:

"The three [Baltic] States had all gained their independence as a result of the disintegration of the Russian Empire. It was widely held in the Soviet Union that they had been 'snatched' (to use Zinoviev's word) from Russia with German aid, and maintained by the forces of the Entente, which had been active in suppressing the Communist regimes established in the winter of 1918-19 in the wake of German withdrawal. Relations between the Soviet Union and the three republics during the 1920s were cool, but on the whole, correct. There were some attempts at subversion, culminating in the abortive Communist coup in Estonia in 1924, but with the demise of the Comintern as a leading agent of Soviet foreign policy, the Soviet Union posed no immediate or evident threat to the integrity of the Baltic States. The resurgence of Germany in the 1930s altered the political scene in the Baltic area. In the event of conflict with Germany, the Soviet Union could not afford to have its front door opened by the defection of pro-German States on its very doorstep. This was clearly spelled out by Andrei Zhdanov to the VIIIth Congress of Soviets in November 1936. According to the Latvian chargé d'affaires, Zhdanov warned the governments of neighbouring States that if they drifted too far in the direction of Fascism 'they might feel the strength of the Soviet Union, and the window of the Soviet Union might well be widened'."
(Martin McCauley (Ed.). Communist Power in Europe, 1944-1949. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 1977. p. 22.)

"As Stalin told the Latvian Foreign Minister, who was summoned in turn on 2 October [1939], the demands of the U.S.S.R. arose purely out of the wartime situation: the Soviet government had no desire to encroach upon the internal affairs of Latvia. He informed Munters with brutal frankness that a division of spheres of interest between the U.S.S.R. and Germany had already taken place, and that 'as far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you'."
(Ibid. p. 25.)

"During the period of the Winter War, the Soviet Union scrupulously observed the terms of the treaties with the Baltic States. Red Army troops were strictly disciplined and behaved with absolute correctness. Attempts by pro-Communist elements to establish contacts with Russian troops were discouraged, and access to Soviet embassies was officially denied. The Soviet government made no representations when large numbers of Latvian Communists were arrested in January 1940, and in no way interfered in the running of the affairs of the three countries. At the end of October [1939], Molotov denounced as malevolent talk the rumours of the imminent sovietisation of the Baltic States: in December, Stalin spoke with satisfaction of the smooth running of the treaty with Estonia and assured the visiting Estonian military delegation of the continued independence of their country."
(Ibid. p. 26.)

"There is evidence of Stalin's mistrust of native Communists. In October 1939, he told the Lithuanian Foreign Minister that it was no concern of the Soviet Union how the Lithuanian government dealt with its Communists; and, even more bluntly, he informed the Latvian Foreign Minister: 'There are no Communists outside Russia. What you have in Latvia are Trotsk[y]ists: if they cause you trouble, shoot them.' In the deportations of June 1941, not a few Party members found themselves in trains bound for the interior of the Socialist fatherland.

Lacking instructions from Moscow, the local Communist Parties seemed to have played safe and followed the prevalent popular front line. The Lithuanian Communist Party programme of 1939 urged the mobilisation of all democratic forces to overthrow the Černius government, and the Party sought alliance with the Social Democrats. In common with the Parties of Latvia and Estonia, its programme issued in 1940 was democratic in tone rather than Communist. The governments which were established in June 1940 seemed to offer a genuine opportunity for a reintroduction of democratic liberties, and as such they gained the passive and even active support of many democrats and Socialists who had suffered under the old regimes. The authoritarian regimes which had been set up in the early 1930s in Latvia and Estonia and in 1926 in Lithuania had all shown signs of collapse before the outbreak of war in 1939. They had suppressed political liberties and had failed to replace them with anything other than poor imitations of Austrian Fascism. The percipient comment of the British Minister to Riga on the state of affairs in Latvia is equally applicable to Estonia and Lithuania. The Collapse of the Ulmanis regime, 'literally overnight':

'left a political vacuum which, as the result of M. Ulmanis' totalitarianism, could be filled by no alternative middle-class organisation, and the swing to the left was therefore unduly abrupt, partly no doubt owing to the influence exercised by the USSR but also owing to the absence of any mobilisable political forces to challenge or correct those of the town workers.'

The evidence available would suggest that considerable sections of the urban proletariat, including the Jewish and Russian minorities, supported the new order, whilst many democratic and left-wing intellectuals were prepared to give the new regimes a chance to fulfil their promises. The new governments, composed of left-wing democrats rather than Communists, did indeed appear to represent a fresh wind of change in an atmosphere which had become stagnant during the last years of the dictatorships. All-round wage increases were decreed in June, laws against hoarding and speculation were passed, whilst assurances were given to peasant landholders that their land would not be touched. The bastions of the old order were speedily demolished and replaced by new organisations. In Latvia, for example, the law of 26 June provided for the creation of workers' committees in factories employing more than twenty persons, whilst on 8 July a law establishing the politruk system in the army was passed. The Estonian trade unions, which had managed to preserve much of their independence during the Päts' regime, were taken over by the Communists on 20 June. The Kaitseliit guards were dissolved on 27 June, and replaced by a workers' militia under the direct control of the Communist-dominated Ministry of the Interior. Widespread purges of local government and the bureaucracy occurred in the last days of June and early July, with Communists installed in vital positions. Nevertheless, the lack of Party members in all three countries—and, quite possibly, Soviet mistrust of local Communists—meant that 'progressive elements' willing to serve the regime were used. In rural areas, there appears to have been less change, and appointees of the old regimes remained in office... The left-wing intellectuals who formed the governments of Latvia and Estonia remained in favour and high office until the purges of 1950, when they were accused of bourgeois nationalism and replaced by more reliable Soviet-trained Communists."
(Ibid. pp. 29-31.)

Furthermore the release of Soviet archives after 1991 confirmed that Stalin was not interested in "sovietizing" the Baltics until internal reports reached him that such policies would actually be popular in those countries. Before that he just wanted military assurances that these states would not assist the Nazis in the event of any conflict between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Eastern Poland was not Polish. It had been taken by the Polish bourgeois state in 1921.

"The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians 'as doing a policing job.' Despatches told of Russian troops marching side by side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands over Russian tanks."
(Anna Louise Strong. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream Publishers. 1957. p. 80.)

As for Finland, its government refused to conclude a treaty allowing the Soviet Union to defend Leningrad from a future Nazi invasion, even though the Finnish negotiators (which included a future Prime Minister) had asserted repeatedly that Stalin's proposals were acceptable. Stalin had no aim of territorial conquest, but the securation of Leningrad.

Most unbiased historians both left and right almost unanimously agree that although the PCE was the strongest faction (due to Russian armament as it is after all a Bolshevist Communist Party), its ultimate quest for supremacy was what led the Trots and Anarchists to disassociate themselves from the Popular Front.

The POUM and various anarchists were denouncing the "Stalinists" and calling for a proletarian revolution during the civil war, opposed the formation of a regular army to fight the reactionaries, carried out forced collectivization in the countryside (whatever you think of Stalin's campaign, it wasn't conducted during a civil war), and so on.

They are not responsible for the loss to Franco though. Foreign intervention was what tipped the balance. The USSR halted its foreign intervention after the Germano-Soviet pact. Hmmm...I wonder why?

The Spanish Republic fell in April 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in August that year. I didn't reply to you the first time because what you said made no sense.

Every single historian of the left and right notes that the Soviet Union's assistance to the Spanish allowed for Madrid to be defended in the first year of the war. It was the British and French who proposed "non-intervention," treating the elected Spanish Republic with the same legitimacy as a fascist uprising in its armed forces. It is true that by April Soviet assistance had declined, but that's hardly surprising when the Republicans were clearly losing. The issue was whether they could hold out for a few more months, but that was answered in the negative when a right-wing coup ousted Negrín and immediately began negotiations with Franco.

Again making excuses for Stalin when you know that part of the post-War agreement with Churchill and Truman was to leave Greece to be put under Western influence.

Hungary was supposed to be 50/50%, that obviously didn't work out now did it?

It was Stalin who had the elections rigged and his own stooges put into power in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania etc

No he didn't. In fact even bourgeois sources acknowledge that in Czechoslovakia the Communists enjoyed genuine popularity. It was because of this that the events of February 1948 occurred, wherein the bourgeois parties tried to expel the KSČ from the government and the KSČ replied by arming workers and rebuffing such an attempt.

But again, its the revisionist fault. Always the revisionists fault without realising they are a product of the Stalinist regime.

It was the revisionists who attacked Stalin in literally every field, who declared that Yugoslavia was a socialist country, who restored capitalism and who transformed the USSR into a social-imperialist state.

[MaximMK]

Saying that Tito's Yugoslavia was nationalistic etc. is utterly wrong. Stalinists always blamed Tito for nationalism even back than but the truth is that Tito managed to hold so many nationalities in peace for so long there was no national hatred in Yugoslavia it came after Tito in the last decade when nationalists took over the party and the break up was inevitable. People traveled lived everywhere and had contacts with all nationalities without hatred ask anyone who actually lived in Yugoslavia and he will tell u and i know lots of people because i live in Macedonia i never heard a single man talk about nationalism in Yugoslavia. There are right-wingers who criticize Yugoslavia and even hate it but not a single one of them would call Yugoslavia a nationalist state on the contrary they the nationalists hate Yugoslavia because they couldn't spread their hatred when it existed until they managed to get to power.

And the greek partisans had the help of the Yugoslavian people i have living relatives who had fought in the civil war and i know a man who lost an arm in it. The KKE even had camps in Yugoslavia. Tito was willing to help KKE and Yugoslavia was the main supporter of the Greek Anti-Fascist with people because lots of Macedonians live in the northern part of Greece who were part of the Communist party of Macedonia's partisans. It was only after KKE decided to ditch Tito for Stalin did he withdraw his support.

[Ismail]

Saying that Tito's Yugoslavia was nationalistic etc. is utterly wrong.

Then why did he repress the Kosovar Albanians and deny them their just status as a republic within the Federation? Why did the Kosovar Albanian workers and students have to protest in the late 60's and in 1981 to struggle for basic demands, like a University in the former case? Why did Tito renege on holding a referendum in Kosova after the war on whether the Albanians there would like to join Albania or remain a part of Yugoslavia? Why did the Yugoslav state deport so many Kosovar Albanians to Turkey, claiming they were actually "Turks" on account of being Muslims?

In any case you are giving a simplified account of bourgeois nationalism. Just because a country declares itself multinational does not in any way mean that its foreign policy is guided by internationalism. The USSR itself after the Soviet revisionists usurped control is an example of this, as is China. All it shows us is that Tito was a bourgeois Slav nationalist rather than a bourgeois Croatian nationalist.

And the greek partisans had the help of the Yugoslavian people i have living relatives who had fought in the civil war and i know a man who lost an arm in it. The KKE even had camps in Yugoslavia. Tito was willing to help KKE and Yugoslavia was the main supporter of the Greek Anti-Fascist with people because lots of Macedonians live in the northern part of Greece who were part of the Communist party of Macedonia's partisans. It was only after KKE decided to ditch Tito for Stalin did he withdraw his support.

Tito actually reached an agreement with the Greek state wherein said state would agree not to dispute the status of Macedonia in return for Tito ceasing any material assistance to the partisans. It was also his decision to ally with US imperialism that colored his treatment of the KKE.

"As early as November 1946, when Greek rebel bands began their attacks on the legitimate government of Athens, Albania was accused of giving them assistance. When some months later, General Markos took over command of the guerrillas, that country became one of their chief bases...

Even after the Tito-Cominform break, Albania continued to help the Greek rebels. On September 21, 1949, the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans advised the General Assembly to declare the government of Albania 'primarily responsible for the threat to peace in the Balkans' and call on Albania (and Bulgaria) to cease aiding the Greek guerrillas."
(Skendi, Stavro (ed). Albania. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1956. p. 28.)

"The Bulgarians were also openly supporting the guerrillas... they instituted 'voluntary' wage deductions (as high as 10 percent) that went into the Greek Aid Fund. Every month Bulgarians bought coupons inscribed 'for the aid of the Greek Democratic People.' The Bulgarian Red Cross donated medical and other supplies, and the following month it issued a special stamp 'for the aid of the Greek refugees.' On the day after New Year's, the National Committee of the Fatherland Front sought contributions for 'moral and political aid' as well as 'material assistance to the refugees from Greece.' A 'victory of the Greek people' was 'definitely in the interests of Bulgaria.'

A further complication was that Albania and Bulgaria accused the Greek government of violating their borders. From early January through mid-April 1948, the Albanian government lodged over a hundred complaints with the UN secretary-general...

The Yugoslavs, however, filed no protests against Greece, which suggested that their government was undergoing a change in policy brought by increasing trouble with Moscow."
(Jones, Howard. "A New Kind of War": America's Global Strategy and the Truman Doctrine in Greece. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989. pp. 125-126.)

The American ambassador to Yugoslavia in a secret dispatch on January 3, 1948:

"During call on Foreign Minister yesterday afternoon I was informed Marshal Tito would see me this morning...

Knowing that interview had been arranged for general informal talk and that theme Tito expected me to develop was improved trade relations, I started by brief discussion prewar and present trade (which I shall report in separate telegram) and managed transition to political field by frank statement that many of US products Yugoslav Government needs are in such short supply that exports naturally go to countries friendly to US, and that Yugoslav Government cannot expect credit, whether by US public agencies or commercial banks, so long as American public opinion finds Yugoslav Government invariably opposing US in all efforts for establishing peace and reconstruction.

This brought us to questions of Trieste and Greece....

On Greece Tito said the whole world knows how Yugoslav Government sees situation there. 'We have stated our position repeatedly, but we are not going to do anything dramatic or engage in any adventure.' ... I had noted reports that in Bulgaria and Albania the tone is more interventionist and bellicose and in view of recent series of pacts one could suppose this to be by agreed plan. He replied, 'Yes, I know that you Americans are worried about Communism thrusting out into other areas but do not forget Yugoslavia's chief national task is internal development and we need peace'."
(Foreign Relations of the United States: 1948 Volume IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 1054-1055.)

[MaximMK]

It is clear that lots of problems are caused by nationalism. If the peoples in the Greek civil war only fought together openly everywhere without being separated by ethnic national borders of nation-states they would have won. But it is clear that they needed approvals of their leaders and depended on their leaders decisions and were separated by the squabbles of their leaders.

The main goal in this situation should be comrades to aid other comrades to achieve victory of Communism where they live and not divide in states or countries. Isn't the end goal to eliminate states and money and governments. I think the main reason why everything failed is because the workers were seperated in different nation states like a chinese state and a yugoslav state and a bulgarian state and an albanian state and later there are squabbles of which nation helped the other was it the Albanians Slavs etc.

Workers shouldn't divide on what nationality they are or where they live in what nation state if our end goal is to achieve victory everywhere. I actually wanted to start a separate topic about this. The workers who started communist rebellions everywhere should have united into a single cooperative force not different nation states each with its own agenda and politics. The workers should be free and united not divided by borders. Maybe forming a single great socialist state like a USSR and new revolutionary won territories to be considered part of it.

[Geiseric]

It is worth noting that Khrushchev declared that imperialist wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, a direct attack on the views of Lenin and Stalin to the contrary.

This is how Stalin assessed the role of the peace movement in 1952, in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.:
By declaring that world wars could be averted, Khrushchev effectively de-clawed the point of communist participation in the peace movement.

But Stalin signed the Molotov ribbentrop pact and didn't really prepare much for the Nazi invasion, he was more determined with invading poland. He also signed numerous pacts with capitalist states and pursued popular frontism. He even oversaw trade with Nazi Germany. So clearly his usage of peaceful coexistance is another word for "joining the U.N. after dissolving comintern"

[Ismail]

But Stalin signed the Molotov ribbentrop pact and didn't really prepare much for the Nazi invasion, he was more determined with invading poland.

Because obviously moving the Soviet border westwards had nothing to do with preparing for a Nazi invasion, right?

He also signed numerous pacts with capitalist states... even oversaw trade with Nazi Germany.

The USSR and Fascist Italy worked to establish trade relations with each other under Lenin, something achieved in February 1924. I don't see why the USSR should have treated one bourgeois government separate from another in terms of trade.

The Soviets also continued trading with the Nazis after the Non-Aggression Pact was signed. I don't see the issue unless the Soviets should have appeared to be insincere in their claims of seeking normal relations with Nazi Germany.

So clearly his usage of peaceful coexistance is another word for "joining the U.N. after dissolving comintern"

Soviet archives, the diary of Georgi Dimitrov, etc. show that the Soviets were concerned about two things in regards to the Comintern:

1. The bourgeoisie were persecuting communist parties under the charge of being "agents of Moscow."
2. Communist parties operating in occupied Europe and elsewhere had a tendency to wait for Comintern decisions rather than undertake local initiatives.

In both cases the activity of communist parties were hindered. I've seen nothing about anyone being concerned about appeasing the West.

[Zutroy]

Now tell me where is Khrushchev's quote?

Ismail referenced the quote. Are you questioning the existence of the quote simply because Ismail didn't directly put it into his reply. Your whole argument is predicated on the notion that the quote exists and is allegedly a continuation of Stalin's line, so what difference does it make where it is on this thread?

And such wars were happening also at the time of Khruschev's statement. So according to your own logic Khruschev couldn't be talking about imperialist wars.

No, that's according to your logic, because you insist that Khrushchev and Stalin were referring to the same thing. According to my argument, Khrushchev was so full of shit that his eyes were brown. We just established that Stalin was referring to world wars and Khrushchev was referring to imperialist wars in general (and Khrushchev made no distinction between global and local wars, so it should be quite clear that he was referring to something different than Stalin).

He showed the same position Stalin did before him.

He most certainly didn't. We should have cleared up by now the fact that he was referring to different things for a different duration of time than Stalin.

"Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?

Stalin: Of course they can."

Coexistence, American-Soviet Cooperation,Atomic Energy, Europe, J.V.Stalin.

This is the proper context of that quote:

Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?
Stalin: Of course they can. The difference between them is not important so far as co-operation is concerned. The systems in Germany and the United States are the same but war broke out between them. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. systems are different but we didn’t wage war against each other and the U.S.S.R. does not propose to. If during the war they could co-operate, why can’t they today in peace, given the wish to co-operate? Of course, if there is no desire to co-operate, even with the same economic system they may fall out as was the case with Germany.
Stassen: I believe, of course, that they can co-operate if they both have the desire to, but there have been many statements about not being able to co-operate. Some of these were made by the Generalissimo himself before the war. But is it possible, now that the fascist axis has been defeated, that the situation has changed?
Stalin: It’s not possible that I said that the two economic systems could not co-operate. Co-operation ideas were expressed by Lenin. I might have said that one system was reluctant to co-operate, but that concerned only one side. But as to the possibility of co-operation, I adhere to Lenin who expressed both the possibility and the desire of co-operation. As to the desire of the people to co-operate on the part of the U.S.S.R. and the Party, it is possible—and the two countries could only benefit by this co-operation.

The point made by myself and Ismail is that Stalin was referring to temporary co-existence, not permanent co-existence. Stalin is on record repeatedly insisting that permanent co-existence is impossible---in particular, during the XIX Party Congress. If you insist, I can dredge those quotes up as well. The point, though, is that in the full context of the quote, we see that Stalin doesn't explicitly state to Stassen that he's referring to a permanent state of affairs. Since he doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume he's referring to a temporary co-existence as he always had before? Or, are you so insistent on projecting Khrushchev's line onto Stalin that it doesn't matter what the context is?


The other thing the context reveals is that Stalin makes the distinction that the West must be a willing partner for co-existence to occur. He never just blatantly asserts that the West will cooperate, nor does he imply that it's even likely. Given his constant pronouncements in other settings that contradictions make permanent co-existence impossible, we must assume he is adroitly humoring the interviewer. Stalin further establishes a link between his line and Lenin's. Lenin did in fact make similar statements to Stalin with regard to cooperation, and he similarly worded them so as not to contradict his own repeated, well-documented assertions that capitalism and socialism cannot permanently coexist. Do you acknowledge that Lenin made such statements in the aforementioned manner, or do I have to dredge them up as well? If you do, then doesn't the logic of your argument imply that Lenin and Stalin were making the same preposterous claims about co-existence that Khrushchev was?