[Marxism] "WW2": interimperialist war to redivide the world
lueko.willms at t-online.de
Sun Sep 20 03:36:57 MDT 2009
Paddy Apling (e.c.apling at btinternet.com) wrote on 2009-09-19 at 18:53:34 in
about Re: [Marxism] Query on British historiography:
Strange to hide this pro-imperialist propaganda unter a "Query of British
> From then on there could be no doubt that WWII was a just war, a war of
> liberation against fascism - and anyone who now seeks to dispute that is
> effectively a "holocaust denier".
Your age doesnt entitle you to spread such nonsense.
British imperialism had no interest in fighting fascism, but only in preserving
If it had been different, the British military would not have allowed that the
Nazi military judges hand out death sentences against deserters from the Nazi
army in the prisoners of war camps under British management.
If it had been different, the British troops who conquered Greece from the
German occupiers would not have installed a fascist dictatorship in Greece.
If Churchill would have had the slightest interest in democracy, he would
have declared the immediate independence of all British colonies as soon as
he took the office of premier minister of the British empire.
If French imperialists had the slightest interest in democracy, their colonial
troops would not have committed a massaker in Setif against a demonstration
for Algerian self determination the same day as German generals signed the
capitulation of the Wehrmacht.
Again, if British imperialist had the slightest interest in democracy, they
would not have done everything in their power to reestablish colonial rule
over Indonesia, and this with the help of the defeated Japanese occupation
Paddy, you are spreading bourgeois lies.
> Bringing the Bengal famine into the argument is a red herring. British
> communists - and indeed the working class movement in Britain generally,
> were active throughout the war - and before - in promoting the
> anti-colonial struggle;
in Sunday talk, but not in an effective struggle. The leaders of the reformist
working-class parties in the imperialist countries struggling to keep the
colonies did NOT promote the immediate independence of the colonies as a
measure of a "war against fascism and for democracy", but postponed the
independence to the Greek Calends "after the war", i.e. after their exploiters
had reestablished (or hoped to reestablish) the undisputed control over their
Instead, the immediate indepencence for the colonies of Britain, France,
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and USA would have been the most powerful
measure to defeat the fascist ruled imperialist competitors: German, Japanese
and US imperialism fought their war mainly to conquer parts of the British and
French colonial empires, and the declaration of independence of those
colonies would have made futile and further act of war against Great Britain.
Further it would have weakened the grip of the fascist dictatorship
especially in Germany, which was strengthend by the belief promoted by the
Nazis propaganda that "they are all equal, and we are just trying to get our
just share of the world riches, which England denies us".
War is the continuation of politics by military means and a war has to be
fought guided by a political strategy. The strategy of the competitors of
German and Italian imperialism was to preserve their colonial posessions.
> but all direct contact with Marxists in India were effectively impossible
> during the war -
and what for? All "Communists" i.e. followers of the stalinist burocracy,
fought against the independence struggle.
> though the representative of the Indian Congress, Krishna Menon,
> was speaker at many many public meetings organised during the war
> - and many on the left were advocating the handing
> over of power before the end of the war.
Which means: NOT NOW! but sometime in a distant future.
visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in
More information about the Marxism