[Marxism] This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's Poison

Lüko Willms lueko.willms at t-online.de
Mon Sep 14 02:24:46 MDT 2009


Shane Mage (shmage at pipeline.com) wrote on 2009-09-13 at 00:57:33 in  
about Re: [Marxism] This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's Poison:

  commenting on a guest comment in the British Guardian:  
 
> On Sep 13, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Dennis Brasky wrote:
> >> By Seumas Milne
> >> The Guartdian (UK)
> >> September 9, 2009
> >> 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/09/second-world-war-so
viet-pact
> >>



> Stalin's pact with Hitler did indeed set off the war.  But without  
> that pact the war would have broken out anyway within a year or two,  
> and it would have been an even greater disaster.

  No, the pact allowed Hitler to start the war he wanted to. Hitler could no 
longer wait, if he wanted to win the first alternative of his supreme maxime: 
"Germany must be a world power, or it will not be". 

  In 1938 with the Munich conference, Hitler could still rely on a bluff, but in 
1939 no longer. He had to start. 

> It was in June 1939 that Trotsky wrote that Chamberlain and Daladier  
> were forcing Stalin to do a deal with Hitler.  

   No, Trotsky wrote since 1933 that Stalin actually wanted a pact with Hitler. 
In June 1939 Trotsky wrote that it is Hitler's choice if he would give in to 
Stalin, and wage war first in the West, or if his first strikes should go against 
the Soviet Union. 

> By August it was clear to everyone that the British and French 
> empires had no interest in an alliance with the Russian empire 
> against the German.  

   Wrong. The imperialists would very much liked to have the Kreml on their 
side, and let Hitler deal with it... 

> Stalin therefore had every reason to expect that 
> the British and French would do  another Munich accepting Hitler's 
> declaration that Danzig and the Corridor were his last territorial 
> ambitions in Europe, a deal which would leave a German-dominated 
> Polish regime, motivated by its hereditary hatred of everything Russian, 
> at Hitler's service for an invasion of Russia.  

  Well, striking a deal with Nazi Germany was certainly giving an advantage to 
the USSR of postponing the war for some time, and to prepare militarily. 
Unfortunately, not even the latter was really done -- Germany's onslaught 
against the USSR in June 1941 met completely unprepared defenses and 
could achieve major advances in the first weeks of the attack. 

   Worse for the defenses of the first workers state was the political alliance 
with German fascism, putting the blame on the war exclusively on the 
Western competitors of German imperialism and sharing the responsability of 
the fourth partition of Poland with Nazi Germany. This resulted in an important 
weakening of the solidarity of working people the world over with the country 
of the first successful socialist revolution. It increase the effect of the lies 
and crimes of the four show processes in Moscow against the leaders of the 
1917 revolution, and the de facto destruction of the Russian communist party. 
Add to that the fact that the Kremlin delivered German communists to the 
Gestapo and did not even demand the release of Ernst Thälmann, the leader 
of the KPD during the catastrophic defeat of the German working class, and 
you can imagine the devastating effect of this pact on the security of the 
first workers state. 

> Having destroyed the military capability of the Red Army in 1937-38,  
> Stalin had placed himself in the position where Russia could 
> not plausibly threaten war, and so he could claim to have  
> no choice but to realize his long-term ambition to form an alliance  
> with the German nationalists.  

  Long before that came the complete destruction of the workers movement 
in Germany due to the disastrous policies of the KPD on the instigation of the 
Kreml. This put the continuation of the inter-imperialist war on the agenda. 

  This catastrophe was followed by more defeats, most notably the defeat of 
the Spanish republic by fascism, also due to a disastrous political course of 
the "Communists" in Spain on the instigation of the Kremlin. 

  The victory of fascism in Spain removed the last element which could have 
prevented the new war (actually the continuation of the old). 

> He did disrupt the Anglo/French strategy and forced them into war 
> (they were forced to declare war because the Russian alliance 

  nonsense. France and England declared war, but did not wage a war. Since 
the end of the so-called First World War, real wars were always started 
without a declaration of war, while a formal declaration of war amounted to 
nothing more than a formal protest. 

> and the resulting German domination of east-central Europe 
> meant that Hitler would become ever stronger so the military balance, 
> still equal in 1939, would inevitably tilt ever more toward the German side). 

  Well, you overlook what really happened, namely that Hitler had decided to 
strike first against England, and take up the USSR after England's defeat, and 
that Hitler waged that war according to _his_ agenda, not to the one by Paris 
or London, who did _not_ have one in the first place. 

> Unfortunately for Stalin, Hitler was no Hindenburg or Ludendorff.  
> He turned out to be quite the wrong sort  
> (the insane plebian vonless sort) of German nationalist.

   Whaddaya mean? 

   To sum up: what you wrote above is complete bonkers. 

   Incredible that one read such a nonsense in a mailing list claiming to be 
"Marxist". But such nonsense is also one of the reasons for me to refuse the 
designation as "Marxist". 


Cheers,    
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------
Message-ID: <100.d0fb0100cefdad4a.013 at lws-media.de>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=" <lueko.willms at t-online.de>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:24:46 +0200 (MES)
In-Reply-To: <9C93FB76-78B4-444E-BE27-54B6F6A5B86A at pipeline.com>
References: <d37.5303833b.37ddbd8f at aol.com>
  <53a1ffe70909122108o2e0ad7d6u46cf88259450774a at mail.gmail.com>
  <9C93FB76-78B4-444E-BE27-54B6F6A5B86A at pipeline.com>
Priority: Normal
User-Agent: PMMail/3.05 (os/2; U; Warp 4.5; de-DE-EURO; i386; ver 3.05.47.1427)
X-Mailer: PMMail 3.05.47.1427 for OS/2 Warp 4.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Marxism] This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's Poison

Shane Mage (shmage at pipeline.com) wrote on 2009-09-13 at 00:57:33 in  
about Re: [Marxism] This Rewriting of History is Spreading Europe's Poison:

  commenting on a guest comment in the British Guardian:  
 
> On Sep 13, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Dennis Brasky wrote:
> >> By Seumas Milne
> >> The Guartdian (UK)
> >> September 9, 2009
> >> 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/09/second-world-war-so
viet-pact
> >>



> Stalin's pact with Hitler did indeed set off the war.  But without  
> that pact the war would have broken out anyway within a year or two,  
> and it would have been an even greater disaster.

  No, the pact allowed Hitler to start the war he wanted to. Hitler could no 
longer wait, if he wanted to win the first alternative of his supreme maxime: 
"Germany must be a world power, or it will not be". 

  In 1938 with the Munich conference, Hitler could still rely on a bluff, but in 
1939 no longer. He had to start. 

> It was in June 1939 that Trotsky wrote that Chamberlain and Daladier  
> were forcing Stalin to do a deal with Hitler.  

   No, Trotsky wrote since 1933 that Stalin actually wanted a pact with Hitler. 
In June 1939 Trotsky wrote that it is Hitler's choice if he would give in to 
Stalin, and wage war first in the West, or if his first strikes should go against 
the Soviet Union. 

> By August it was clear to everyone that the British and French 
> empires had no interest in an alliance with the Russian empire 
> against the German.  

   Wrong. The imperialists would very much liked to have the Kreml on their 
side, and let Hitler deal with it... 

> Stalin therefore had every reason to expect that 
> the British and French would do  another Munich accepting Hitler's 
> declaration that Danzig and the Corridor were his last territorial 
> ambitions in Europe, a deal which would leave a German-dominated 
> Polish regime, motivated by its hereditary hatred of everything Russian, 
> at Hitler's service for an invasion of Russia.  

  Well, striking a deal with Nazi Germany was certainly giving an advantage to 
the USSR of postponing the war for some time, and to prepare militarily. 
Unfortunately, not even the latter was really done -- Germany's onslaught 
against the USSR in June 1941 met completely unprepared defenses and 
could achieve major advances in the first weeks of the attack. 

   Worse for the defenses of the first workers state was the political alliance 
with German fascism, putting the blame on the war exclusively on the 
Western competitors of German imperialism and sharing the responsability of 
the fourth partition of Poland with Nazi Germany. This resulted in an important 
weakening of the solidarity of working people the world over with the country 
of the first successful socialist revolution. It increase the effect of the lies 
and crimes of the four show processes in Moscow against the leaders of the 
1917 revolution, and the de facto destruction of the Russian communist party. 
Add to that the fact that the Kremlin delivered German communists to the 
Gestapo and did not even demand the release of Ernst Thälmann, the leader 
of the KPD during the catastrophic defeat of the German working class, and 
you can imagine the devastating effect of this pact on the security of the 
first workers state. 

> Having destroyed the military capability of the Red Army in 1937-38,  
> Stalin had placed himself in the position where Russia could 
> not plausibly threaten war, and so he could claim to have  
> no choice but to realize his long-term ambition to form an alliance  
> with the German nationalists.  

  Long before that came the complete destruction of the workers movement 
in Germany due to the disastrous policies of the KPD on the instigation of the 
Kreml. This put the continuation of the inter-imperialist war on the agenda. 

  This catastrophe was followed by more defeats, most notably the defeat of 
the Spanish republic by fascism, also due to a disastrous political course of 
the "Communists" in Spain on the instigation of the Kremlin. 

  The victory of fascism in Spain removed the last element which could have 
prevented the new war (actually the continuation of the old). 

> He did disrupt the Anglo/French strategy and forced them into war 
> (they were forced to declare war because the Russian alliance 

  nonsense. France and England declared war, but did not wage a war. Since 
the end of the so-called First World War, real wars were always started 
without a declaration of war, while a formal declaration of war amounted to 
nothing more than a formal protest. 

> and the resulting German domination of east-central Europe 
> meant that Hitler would become ever stronger so the military balance, 
> still equal in 1939, would inevitably tilt ever more toward the German side). 

  Well, you overlook what really happened, namely that Hitler had decided to 
strike first against England, and take up the USSR after England's defeat, and 
that Hitler waged that war according to _his_ agenda, not to the one by Paris 
or London, who did _not_ have one in the first place. 

> Unfortunately for Stalin, Hitler was no Hindenburg or Ludendorff.  
> He turned out to be quite the wrong sort  
> (the insane plebian vonless sort) of German nationalist.

   Whaddaya mean? 

   To sum up: what you wrote above is complete bonkers. 

   Incredible that one read such a nonsense in a mailing list claiming to be 
"Marxist". But such nonsense is also one of the reasons for me to refuse the 
designation as "Marxist". 


Cheers,    
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------




More information about the Marxism mailing list