[Marxism] "WW2": interimperialist war to redivide the world,
sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 23 20:03:39 MDT 2009
Not my thesis either. I was responding simply to the suggestion that if
Barbarossa had been better planned... etc.
As for what might have happened, if...
What can I say? Has entertainment value, I guess.
In Colussus Reborn, Glantz does a neat job of counterposing the forces
Germany committed to its other fronts vs. the Eastern front; the forces the
Allies deployed vs. the forces deployed by the USSR, and it's clear as can
be where the emphasis was.
Germany's war production kept increasing despite the "strategic bombing,"
strategic bombing being an oxymoron that belongs right up there with
"military intelligence." "Strategic bombing" is an instrumentof terror
against the civilian population and nothing more.
Again, my only concern is this notion that if Barbarossa were better
planned, if only Hitler had committed more divisions to the east, etc. etc.
I have no interest in any speculations about what might have happened
If I remember correctly, the thread started with the issue of the
"progressive" or possibly progressive nature of Churchill and other
slimeball imperialist racist murdering slobs in allying with the USSR during
WW2. Nothing progressive about that either. Simple opportunism born of
----- Original Message -----
From: "nada" <dwaltersMIA at gmail.com>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] "WW2": interimperialist war to redivide the world,
> S. Artesian, this is not Glantz's thesis as compared against a *victory*
> against Britain.
More information about the Marxism