Stalin & World War II
uburoi at panix.com
Thu Aug 4 19:28:05 MDT 1994
If it's true that the USSR's heavy industrial base was the only thing
that enabled successful resistance to Nazi invasion, then it's difficult
not to conclude that what Stalin did was justified. And that's a scary
As for Vietnam, you're right that the parallel with WWII doesn't
hold up in some important ways. Still, the resistance of the Vietnamese
to the U.S. military was phenomenal, considering the disparity in
technology and firepower. Even considering the restraints of democracy
and the effects of media coverage and protest, you have to wonder: would
anything short of nuclear weapons have won the war for the United States?
I think U.S. leaders were more worried about rebellion among the troops
(highest level in any army since 1917) than about the anti-war movement.
If Stalin was justified, does it follow that Mao, Ho Chi Minh et
al. were also justified? And if I disagree with that, am I an "objective
ally of fascism"? What becomes of the proletariat-as-subject if
everything comes down to a struggle to develop the forces of production?
On Thu, 4 Aug 1994 wpc at cs.strath.ac.uk wrote:
> On the need for heavy industry in total war. Is vietnam a
> counter example?
> The effort that the USA put into the vietnam war was much more limited,
> and there was within the USA a potential to organise against the
> war that was lacking in Germany. It seems doubtful that partisan warfare
> alone could ever have defeated German imperialism.
More information about the Marxism