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

S. Artesian 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 mailing list