Allies against fascism?

[James Heartfield]

In message <sa01796e.093 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown
<CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
>CB: "Collaboration" is not an accurate term for relations between states. The SU 
>was under no obligation to make symbolic gestures to make fine distinctions 
>among imperialist powers. It's diplomacy was appropriately targetted to maximize 
>the splits among the imperialist nations and delay the inevitable assault that 
>was most likely to come from Germany. So, getting some delay with the non-
>aggression pact was not collaboration, but pro-world working class policy, as 
>preservation of the only socialist state was top priority of the world's working 
>class and oppressed peoples.

A shame then that Molotov lavished praise on the German high command
just days before they invaded the Soviet Union, which was, even
accepting the 'pragmatic' argument, unnecessary and disorienting.

The argument that the pact 'bought time' is simply wrong. Firstly,
Stalin didn't use the time but left the military wholly unprepared out
of his tragic illusions in Germany's good intentions.

More to the point, the pact bought time for the Third Reich, giving it a
free hand in Western Europe. At the same time the left was ideologically
disarmed by the pact, which as every one of any real insight understood
was a disaster politically for the Communist Parties.


>CB: Henry Ford  was collaborating with the Nazis. The SU was maneuvering for 
>time to save the world. And it worked.
>

It worked for Hitler, who bought time for his expansionist plans. For
the Soviet Union it represented 20 million dead.
>
>CB: SU couldn't have saved the KPD, 

Maybe not, but it didn't have to protect the KPD's destroyers from
blame. The KPD could, though, have saved the KPD, had it not followed
the Communist International's disastrous policy of ignoring the special
threat posed by fascism.


>
>CB: The whole Soviet policy during this period, including the People's Front was 
>shown not to be foolish, because the SU won the war. 

Only after a year of the most savage defeats, as the military was
unprepared.


>You talk in counterfactual historical terms as if you, in hindsight have a 
>better policy than the SU did. That is rather remarkable hindsight claim to 
>fame. 

I wasn't born, but there were plenty of people who warned against the
pact.
-- 
James Heartfield