Totalitarianist

Lie No. 1: Capitalists Of Britain, France And The U.S. Were Against The Fascists From The Beginning

Lie No. 2: The U.S. And Britain Defeated The Nazis, With Just A Little Help From The Soviet Union

More lies:

Churchill Was A Great War Leader
Japan Was Defeated By The U.S
Atomic Bombs Were Necessary To End The Japanese War Quickly
Hitler Was The Cause Of WW II And The Holocaust
The Nazi Party, Not The Capitalist Cla ss, Turned Germany Fascist
The Soviet Forces Were Anti-Semitic
Liberal Democracy Is The Opposite Of Fascism

Also:

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html (the Hoax of the 1932-33 Ukraine Famine)

All from here: http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/

Celsus

Ah yes, the Marxist-Leninists trying to co-opt struggle from below with their vanguardism from above, along with their usual rewriting of history. How dull. Why don't you post your own arguments for a change?

Zar

I feel like entertaining myself with a short reply to these. I have numbered them above to make it easier to respond.

1) I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if he majorly flubbed a thing or two. Every side of the war made errors and some of the outcome of the war was due to chance or sheer resources (human or otherwise) rather than strateigic brilliance.
2) If you're saying the U.S. alone didn't defeat the Japanese, you'd probably be fine. If you're saying the U.S. had nothing to do with it, that'd be another story.
3) I am in agreement that dropping the atomic bombs was probably not necessary, and it seems that some important people at the time thought so, too.
4) Hitler was certainly a principal agent, even if the streams that fed his movement were not Hitler, per se. What is the point here?
5) Who is under the delusion that Nazis didn't own businesses or weren't also capitalists? This is a strange claim. I see no reason to make it. I'm sure few would object that powerful capitalists helped bring the Nazi's into power. This may be a reason to fear powerful fascists, but not necessarily all capitalists.
6) I can't really say much about this. They were probably no more anti-semitic than anyone else.
7) I'm not sure what Liberal Democracy is supposed to be the opposite of in any sense, let alone fascism. I'm sure that fascistic elements can enter such a democracy, such as in Germany or even in America. On the other hand, so can other elements. If Liberal Democracy is fascistic because it combines a democratic process with certain, say, constitutional and legal limits that guide the outcome of the process to some extent, than any other type of democracy short of anarchy might be accused of the same exact thing for "restricting" the free outcome of the will of the people. A "social democratic" movement might disallow "liberal" ideas from taking hold. For that matter "soclialism" and "communism" aren't incompatible with Nazism or totalitarianism. Remember "National Socialism" and Stalin?

The world is full of thieves and murderers ready to thrive in any environment with sheep in tow. There are ways to help us fight that, but no silver bullet exists.

Godbert

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Lie No. 1: Capitalists Of Britain, France And The U.S. Were Against The Fascists From The Beginning
Lie No. 2: The U.S. And Britain Defeated The Nazis, With Just A Little Help From The Soviet Union
Atomic Bombs Were Necessary To End The Japanese War Quickly


I guess those 3 are more or less obvious.



Churchill Was A Great War Leader
Japan Was Defeated By The U.S
Hitler Was The Cause Of WW II And The Holocaust
The Nazi Party, Not The Capitalist Cla ss, Turned Germany Fascist

Those are at least partially true, even if not all in their full generalization represented here
I'd really like to hear why you think Japan was not defeated by the US

To generalize that the russians were antisemitic is of course wrong too- they certainly did not have an antisemitic doctrine. But I'm pretty sure some of them were - as far as i know that was pretty common back then.

As for the liberals vs. Nazi stuff I have no clue what that's all about.

Sakpo

Disclaimer: I'm not saying I remember all my facts 100% right, I'm not saying any of my versions of events are The Truth�, that they're at all complete, that people who disagree are wrongm etc. I'm just adding my initial take on these for discussion.



1. Of course they weren't, at least not all of them. The U.S., Britain, France, et al stayed out of the Spanish Civil War, refusing to help the Republicans at all against the fascist onslaught. Chamberlain was quite willing to play merry with Hitler, praise him as a man of peace, and hope for "peace in our time" and such rot. If I recall correctly, Henry Ford had a major crush on Hitler for quite some time. There was a sense of shame regarding what had been done to the defeated parties at Versaille, and a sense maybe fascism was an understandable product of that that had to be dealt with nicely this time. Furthermore, fascism was strongly anti communist and militeristic, so it seemed like it could provide a wonderful buffer in between the red hordes and the free peace loving peoples of the world. After the war, the Nuremburg trials turned out to be largely for show, as Nazis were "rehabilitated." Top bureacrats were retained and war criminal scientists were even shipped to the U.S. and given cushy jobs. Both the United States and USSR forgot about war crimes charges against Nazi rocket scientists and began using them.


Once again, nonsense. Anybody who has taken a basic history course on the subject or has done any serious reading on the matter knows that the Russians took the brunt of the European war (on the allied side, in both military and civilian losses) and did the large part of the fighting. Of course, you'd never know this from what is typically taught in high schools or shown in the American cinema. Still, American assistance in helping the Soviet Union quickly build up a semblance of military industrialization proved to be quite vital to their second push in chasing the Nazis back into Germany. It must be remembered that Vice President Truman is known to have uttered an idea that what was on many minds in the White House....that the best thing to do would be to let the Nazis and the Commies duke it out, a dead red being a good one. One would win and then America could then swoop in and defeat whichever one was left staggering around in a weakened state (there is no evidence this actually was possible or became official policy, obviously by the time Roosevelt died and Truman was in charge Russia was not seen as being weak, in fact her strengh was vastly overestimated).

Based on the link provided, the rationale for this claim (that he wasn't one) is that Churchill was an imperialistic British conservative, and to be one of these was a Bad Thing, furthermore, after WW2 the British Empire was over and done with whether he liked it or not, and also, he had some daft ideas. I agree, but it says little about his status as a war leader. Churchill did an excellent job of stirring his people and turning world opinion, particularly American popular opinion, toward ardent sympathy for Britain. Even in the British colonies, many subject peoples ardently wanted to aid England. One example was Nigeria, where British propaganda succeeded into causing many Nigerians to literally believe all their problems were Hitlers fault ("Hitler" being something of an abstract concept) even as Britain was able to essentially rob Nigeria blind (and the food shortage ? Hitler!). Certainly he inspired his people and helped temporarily unite its people in the war effort, and managed a relatively good ship as far as the war economy went. He must also be given credit for having never fallen for the appeasement bit in the 1930s. And yes, he was important in delaying the opening of a second front and this did cause a lot of unneccesary suffering on the part of the Russians and probably increased the lifespan of the Third Reich (as it went about its wonderful operations). I'd say his record is a good one (in regards to the war), but blemished. Prior to the war he positioned himself for it well. Still, perhaps anyone who was leader at the time would have been called a great leader. Look at the worship of Shrub after Sept. 11.


Japan's aggression began well before the Second World War, and the world ignored it. Witness the League Of Nations inability to do anything about the barbaric taking of Manchuria (they denied it for a year, then said it was sorta bad and went back to ignoring it). During this period the U.S. (not a member) essentially practiced isolationism. During WW2 the Nationalist and Communist Chinese were still both ostensibly fighting the Japanese as they had been for many years. In reality, the Nationalists were far more interested in looting the peasants and fighting the Communists. Even as Americans tried to aid the Nationalists agains the Japanese, they didn't. They horded armaments and such, waiting to use them against the Communists. They also continued to wage war on the Communists while largely avoiding fighting the Japanese. The U.S. was not pleased by this behaviour. The CCP did do a lot to fight the Japanese, and when using Mao's tactics were quite succesful. This scored them big points with the Chinese people.

There was also serious indigenous resistance to the Japanese in many other occupied countries (Vietnam, the Phillipines, etc). Historians still argue (don't worry, eventually the majority will pick a wrong answer as the consensus and move on) about how close the Japanese were to being defeated in the empire by the locals (some say really close, some say nowhere near it, the debate is distorted because there never really was any pure such struggle, it all happened in the context of the rest of the world, outside involvement, the larger war, etc). Certainly the major U.S. role in the defeat of Japan would not be denied by anyone with a genuine desire to get at the truth of the matter (rather than try to alter the facts to suit their beliefs, rather than alter their beliefs to suit the facts).

Yowza! It wasn't clear then and it isn't now. Certainly it was clear invading the home islands conventionally would have meant heavy casualties (which Stalin agreed to provide, what were more dead Russians to him, comrade?), there was muddled communication between Japan and the U.S. (communication routed through Russia, where the locked up archives presided over by Putin may hold clues to old mysteries with lost messages and such), there was a need to justify spending so much money on a bomb, etc. Anyway, I don't have the temperment to defend nuking people tonight. It's sickening however you look at it. Certainly it isn't as cut and dry as some like to think. I tend to think the war could have been won at an acceptable cost, with acceptable conditions, without the atomic bomb and that domestic political concerns and Trumans incompetence played far too large a role in the decision. I say this almost 60 years after the fact, from the safety of my home, across a continent from Washington and an ocean away from Japan. What do I know?

People tend to ascribe greatness to people caught up in great events. I disagree with the outdated Marxist explanation for what starts war (war is bad, so capitalism!). I'd say (to be non controversial, though not for the sake of avoiding controversy) the root of the war was the failure to properly resolve the first world war (economics, nationalisms, etc).

As for the links list of other comperable events to the holocaust, well...add the Communist planned and carried out genocide in Ukraine to the list. It fits perfectly, the brutal murder of millions of innocents in an attempt to wipe out the religion, culture, language, history and ethnic identity of a group so they could be swalled up into another one. Stalin did it by making them grow lots of food, but taking it all away so the millions starved. He made quite a bit of money too by selling it to the west (which happily ignored and even helped conceal the genocide). This was in 1933 if memory serves. It is hilarious to see how quickly some communists will descend into the kind of grotesque disingenuous acrobatic intellectual dismal of this genocide...the exact kind of exercise they normally delight in lampooning when carried out by ideological opponents. Don't worry, it didn't happen, its capitalist lies. On top of it not happening at all, comrade, it didn't kill many. Etc.

After WW1 the defeat, horrible experience, and poor living conditions during and after the war (after a high standard of living prior to the war) radicalized many German people. During WW1 German people at home did not witness the war on the western front, where Germany lost, but did see the defeat of the Russians in the east. After the war there was a real sense Germany could have, should have, won the war. Because the victorious nations, under idiotic Wilsononian influence, wouldn't negotiate with unelected officials, and then under idiot British and French thinking didn't negotiate, but rather dictated really bad terms, the German people saw the moderate Social Democrats (who'd been elected to a silly show parliament) accept the humilating terms of the peace while the generals, kaiser, etc, escaped assosciation.

The poorly executed Spartacus Revolt failed (in part due to cowardice on the part of the Social Democrats who betrayed their socialist brothers and sisters), and really communism ended up not holding much promise to most Germans (the SDs were tainted at Paris anyway, and unfairly associated with communsits even after their treachery, etc). So fascim held a real appeal to many Germans (a promise of a strong Germany, correcting of unjustices, real and imagined, toward Germans, etc etc). Meanwhile, the economic and social conditions were largely the predictable results of what was done by the winning powers at Paris.

That helped give the Nazis some grass roots support, and a more receptive public. As far as Hitlers rise to power, yes, the German capitalists were important (much like Italian capitalists helped the rise of Mussolini immeasurably). Their politicans initially thought they could use Hitler as a figurehead national leader while restraining him. They failed. Still, Hitlers Germany was one where the capitalists benefited enourmosly from his mega projects, the war economy, slave labour, etc.

The Soviet forces contained Jewish soldiers, non anti semitic soldiers, and anti semitic soldiers. It was the Soviets who liberate Austowitz (sorry about my spelling). Certainly, the red army had lots of anti semites in it though, it can't be reasonably denied, but neither can you thus label the whole army an anti semitic force because of that.


Yawn. This is just fodder for a form of ideological game playing which has little relationship to mind independant reality.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Lie No. 2: The U.S. And Britain Defeated The Nazis, With Just A Little Help From The Soviet Union

Had we not been providing huge amounts of aid the soviets wouldn't have done much against the Nazis. You contributed bodies, not equipment.

Japan Was Defeated By The U.S

Who else was doing much in the Pacific theater? Russia joined in at the last minute but it wasn't the Russian navy that won the war.

Atomic Bombs Were Necessary To End The Japanese War Quickly

They were neccessary to shake the Japanese leaders out of the resist-to-the-last-man ideas. Once it became obvious we could win without giving them the chance to kill a huge number of Americans they quit.

Hitler Was The Cause Of WW II And The Holocaust

He was one of the causes.

John Hancock

Totalitarianist

Celsus is quite right in taking you to task; url references are only used to back up a position one would like to present within a forum.

Sakpo

BTW a short rant:

Look at the worship of Shrub after Sept. 11
U.S. Citizens are stupid Al Maxo ! If that "more for us richuns" nitwit hadn't fought federalization in the Airline Industry we'd have had reinforced cockpit doors and no 9 fuckin 11. Huff Huff Huff it feels sooooo good!

Having returned to the thread, you my man have created a keeper. :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

For my own education who were the Social Democrats and what did they expose.

Martin Buber

Sakpo

I have limited knowledge of German history, so anybody who can offer corrections, clarifications, elaborations, etc, please do so.

Germany as a unified country came into being in January 1871. It would be autocratic and ruled by a powerful Kaiser. This new country had a democratically elected (by the standards of the time) parliament called the Reichstag. It had some influence on budgetary matters but could not form or overthrow the autocratic government. It was further restrained by an upper house, the Bundesrat, which at that time was a bunch of conservative German aristocrats. So really, the Reichstag was not very powerful. At the time Germany was really moving forward with industrialization, urbanization, and technological advance (all three going together).

So that's the background. The Social Democratic Party (refered to as the SDP from now on) was formed in 1875 when it published the Gotha programme which was in large part a mix of the theories of Ferdinand Lasselle, and Karl Marx. Scroll down on this page for a little marxist take on Lasselle. Suffice it to say the SDP was a socialist party that took on important core beliefs from proponents of revolution but largely remained commited to taking power relatively peacefuly in order to institute socialism (rather than violently seizing power). They won a handful of seats, which worried the autocracy who passed a bunch of anti socialist laws. The autocratic German state, in many ways, pioneered the welfare state. Many social programs and such were created to keep industrial workers happy, this was intentionally done by the autocrats to make them less inclined toward revolution. It worked like a charm. At some point in the 19th century the legal constraints on socialist parties in Germany were lessened (I believe within a few years of their passage). The SDP, a non revolutionary socialist party grew into the largest political party (but still lacked much real power).

Late in WW1 the SDP split into the old SDP and the Independant Socialists. The split was caused in large part by disagreement regarding the war, the majority of the SDP leadership supported it. Other groups of more revolutionary socialists were also still around (ones who had never joined the SDP and had their own groups, usually preaching violent revolution). Anyway, long story short, more right wing (espescially non revolutionary, even anti revolutionary) members of the SDP ended up at in and at the head of a coalition government after the autocratic government was gone at the end of WW1. It was this coalition government that had to recieve the humiliating terms at Paris (thus tainting them in the public eye in Germany as traiters who'd sold Germany out, all this Paris stuff came after the next bit).

Here's what we've been building to:

In late October 1918 (war still going on, autocracy still in place, etc) the Germany navy revolted. They refused to leave their ports (where they'd been blockaded) to fight the British navy, and set up revolutionary soviet councils.
The revolution spread, right into the Germany army along the Western Front. In early november the leader of the Independant Socialists declared that the province of Bavaria was now a socialist Republic (though a different one than the USSR, one in which private property would be protected, less bloodshed, etc). The Independant Socialists and many elements of the SDP then united in Bavaria. There was some violence, including the assassination of the Independant Socialists leader (whose name I can't recall). To replace him, the leader of the German Communist Party stepped in. Red Guards modelled on the Russian Revolution (still a fresh event) were formed to proetect the new socialist state.

In Berlin, in Jan 1919 the Spartacus Revolt took place led by Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Jogriches, Karl Liebknect and Clara Zetin . By this point the autocracy was gone and the coalition government including SDP men and led by Friedrich Ebert (SDP) was in power. Ebert quickly had the Spartacus Revolt crushed and its leaders murdered. This supposed socialist then called in not only the German Army but also the ultra right wing nationalist proto fascist Freikorps into Bavaria. As they massed on the border there was some violence in Bavaria, including the execution of 10 men convicted (probably in a sham court) of being right wing spies. The Bavarian Republic was ubvaded and street fighting and such ensued in which hundreds died (700+). Furthermore, many participants in the revolution were captured and summarily executed. The revolution was crushed, and the age of the Weimar Republic was ushered in (which led to Naziism).

John Hancock

Sakpo

I appreciate the benefit of your Historical input. Would you concur that Marxism in it's presumption of capitalism a necessary step twixt monarchies and community goverment was an evolutionary dead end?

I define people not possessions the only acceptable citizens of any nation. Do you believe that our current Representative Republic run in a "democratic manner" is peaceably salvageable or will the growing disparage in wealth lead to such a large majority of disenfranchised that suicide attacks become the only option for the desperate poor?

Martin Buber

Sakpo

I agree most Marxism does make the presumption that capitalism must take place in order for industrialization to occur prior to a communist revolution (which orthodox marxism says will inevitably occur, which is obviously untrue). Is that what you were getting at? I'm not a marxist though, so I don't really agree with them about the whole thing (I don't think it ever was really right about a lot of stuff from the start, and it is quite outdated now, most of its current thinking being quite silly).

As for our republic, it no longer has a representative government (if it ever truly did). Massive voter fraud carried out by the Republican Party and its agents, primarily targeting blacks and non Cuban hispanics in Florida, which denied thousands of Americans their lawful rights, followed by a sickening display by the scum pictured in my attachment, ended any illusion of a proper democracy here.

I don't think suicide attacks by the poor will do a bit of good. They would be an ineffective strategy (in fact highly counterproductive) and morally repugnant (seeing as their failure would be so highly predictable and the suffering they would cause). They would obviously harm those that carried them out, those whom they targeted, and those against whom the elites retaliated against. I doubt suicide attacks could win any strategic victory, they would only cause pain and suffering and destruction. None of those things is desirable. America really is a grand experiment, a new thing...we'll have to see what happens while we're around to see it. And we'll have to do what we think is right. I am always hesitant to endorse beginning violence, we must recognize as people that we cannot always percieve things clearly in the heat of the moment, that we can rarely truly understand the full ramifications of our actions, that we can not plan the future on a grand scale and try to manipulate it into being....though we have to try. Still, when we can see our actions will predictably cause significant suffering we must be hesitant to go ahead anyway out of concern for some planned greater good down the road, as to do so is quite arrogant, and it is this mentality ("I can break eggs now so we all have an omellete later") that in combination with technological advance largely caused the 20th century to be the horror that it was (see Robert Conquest's book Reflections On A Ravaged Century for a worthwhile read about this). I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve things, think big, or act, I'm just saying we have to be careful about our willingness to subject others to suffering because we think it will cause greater good to happen later...human beings often miscalculate in this area.

I'm not a genius. I don't know what's going to happen or what we should do (heh, neither do the geniuses). I just know I don't want to hurt anybody else unnecessarily.

Edit:

Credit where credit is due. I downloaded the attachment from www.salon.com sometime in the last two years, where it was the image accompanying a story.