[Marxism] "WW2": interimperialist war to redivide the world

nada dwaltersMIA at gmail.com
Sun Sep 20 10:58:23 MDT 2009


I think it's far more complicated that what Paddy or Lüko think.

I think Paddy is more wrong than Lüko on this in that regardless of how 
one feels about British entry into the war in 1939, or it's aid or not 
to anti-fascist struggles. WWII was first and foremost an attack by 
Fascism against the USSR. It was always aimed, first and foremost, 
against the USSR. It was secondly an imperialist war *politically* 
because it involved all the great Imperialist powers regardless of the 
*effect* of the war.

Clearly, Lüko is formally correct based on the examples he gave but 
there is far more to it that. What about the Filipino masses who *in 
their entirety* went from welcoming in the Japanese to turning against 
them? Or the Indonesians? WHY did they welcome British and US troops 
then? Was there something WORSE about the Japanese occupation vs the 
historic Dutch or US occupations? Or the French and Dutch whose 
resistance worked closely with Allied troops and whose peoples welcomed 
them, *in fact* liberated them from the Nazi occupation? The military 
tie up of enough divisions in the west to prevent, in no small part, the 
destruction and occupation of Moscow in December of 1941. It's clearly a 
lot more complicated than "all sides being equal". They were not.

David




More information about the Marxism mailing list