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

nada dwaltersMIA at gmail.com
Sun Sep 20 17:54:15 MDT 2009


Shane (and Nestor),
I wasn't talking about 1945. I was talking about 1942, 43 and 44. US 
involvement (or anyones involvement) wasn't a mechanical placement of 
troops or "reoccupation". "No US Aid to the Philippines" (no one raised 
this in any event, it would of been stupid) I asked because the US was 
involved every minute, including with those same Huk communist 
guerrillas and the larger nationalist movement against the Japanese 
occupation. US was engaged in active support or the armed struggle 
against the Japanese in the Philippines from logistics, to special 
operations, to supplies, etc etc...all part, and parcel, of the US 
imperialist war effort in the Philippines.  From the UK supplying arms 
to Yugoslav partisans to complete integration of western Europe's 
resistances movements with Allied military maneuvers; to the support to 
the USSR by the Allies.

My question has to do with how, why or where one separates these 
movements, reflecting European opposition to everything Nazi, is 
*politically* part of the overall Allied military efforts. When Marxists 
say "No to the Imperialist War" I wonder, and have always wondered, what 
this means concretely? Or is it simply revolutionary hyperbole with 
absolutely no on the ground meaning vis-a-vis allied *imperialist* aid 
to resistance movements, troop landings, etc? I think it's very, very 
complex question.

David




More information about the Marxism mailing list