I will go to bat for the Soviet claim to have saved the world from the Nazis, but it did so despite Stalin, not because of him. Whether on not we can explain the Stalin-Hitler pact as a desperate exercise in realpolitik--a rather plausible claim, since Stalin had spent the previous years and months attempting to get an alliance against Hitler with France and Britain--we must certainly agree that Stalin blew the chanvce he had to prepare in many ways. He purged the Red Army down to the captain level. He tore up the strong defenses at the border and moved them into the parts of Poland stolen in the partition. He ignored utterly reliable and accurate information about German war preperations, and was apparantly caught utterly off balance by the actual attack, ordering the troops not to return fire lest this provoke the Germans. The war was won, and in that sense the "strategy" "worked," but not thanks to the Father of Peoples. Thank the Russian soldiers, thank Zhukov, Yeremov, Chuikov, and Rossokovsky. But not old Uncle Joe. He nearly got us all killed. --jks
>From: James Heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Allies against fascism?
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:39:40 +0000
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.