[Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two

[G K Milner]

Dear Tom,
                You know, Marxists are often accused of being narrow 
determinists.   I worked with a member of the Communist Party of Australia 
back in the 1970s in various campaigns here in Perth, and I remember once 
debating with this person the historical issue of the reasons for the 
triumph of the Nazi party in Germany in 1933.   He held that Hitler won 
because there was no other possibility.   In other words,  whatever happens, 
must have happened.   This CPA member was quite convinced I think that this 
kind of narrow determinism was authentic Marxism.    He was  putting forward 
the notion that the German Communist Party's ultra-left policy, which so 
much contributed to the victory of Hitler, even had it been different could 
not have affected the outcome of events.   I thought, later, that this 
position was really just a cover and let-off for the Stalinist policies of 
the KPD.

There are a lot of imponderables in history, and some freakish episodes too. 
It was by no means certain that Japan would by preference attack the Western 
Allies, and the Japanese ruling circle had seriously weighed up the option 
of attacking the USSR from the east in 1941, after the Nazi invasion. 
Probably the factor that deterred the Japanese was the memory of the brief 
military struggle, in  the late 1930s if I remember correctly, when a 
portion of Siberia was attacked from Manchuria by the Japanese.   The Red 
Army forces stationed there aquitted themselves very capably and the 
Japanese army received a very bloody nose.    Probably, the Japanese 
concluded from this encounter that the Soviet Union was too tough a nut to 
crack.

History, while being a 'seamless web' is also a three dimensional 
kaleidoscope.   You seem determined to establish the belief that Australia 
was not under threat of invasion in 1942, and you evidently want to nail 
this piece of  'information' to the mast.   I still remain committed to the 
position that it is not possible strategically to hold the Pacific region 
without taking Australia.   The Americans knew this, and established their 
Allied HQ in Australia after the fall of the Phillippines, with the 
intention of mounting a counter-offensive against the Japanese from that 
base (Australia).   I intend to look into this issue in more detail, but as 
I said I am not a specialist in this area.   I would say that Japanese 
intentions vis a vis Australia must have been at least more fluid than you 
claim.

Although I am a naturalised Australian, I was not born or brought up in this 
country, and I have always kept my distance from the vagaries of Australian 
nationalism.   In World War Two, I  believe that, relatively speaking, 
Australia was a bit-player.   For goodness sake, compared with the big 
imperialist powers like Britain and the USA, Australia was really only in 
the Anglo-American orbit, and was very much  a junior partner of these 
powers

There has been historically a great deal of racism in Australian perceptions 
about Japan (and Asian peoples in general), and I think that your concern to 
keep this issue at the forefront when discussing Australian attitudes to its 
northern neighbours is a very healthy one.   It's not pleasant to see some 
of the propaganda posters of the war period, and the way in which Asian 
people are depicted.

You accuse me of making a 'gratuitous swipe' with respect to the Nazi 
'Voelkische Beobachter'.   I had no intention of implying that you did not 
acknowledge that Germany was fascist.   But this thread began with a post 
from me that dealt with the whole of the Second World War, and not just the 
Pacific War.   But then you make your own gratuitous swipe, implying that I 
might have some supporte for the reactionary war waged by the US and its 
allies against Korea, under the banner of the United Nations!

I actually didn't know a lot about the Atlantic Charter until I saw a 
documentary on it some years ago.   The Charter does strike me strongly as 
being fundamentally a humanitarian document, which espouses 'universal' 
concepts about human rights.   The document does support the right of 
nations to self-determination, and other demands which are implictly 
anti-colonialist (a reason why apparently Churchill had deep misgivings 
about it).   Of course you could say that the League of Nations was based on 
similar, noble-sounding sentiments, while in fact that body was little more 
than a decorative front for the reality of imperialist rule.   But it does 
seem to me to be self-evident that socialists would have more leverage under 
a regime where such humanitarian concepts are established as guiding 
principles, than they would under the sway of the ideologies and practices 
of the Axis.

In solidarity,

Graham Milner


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos at alphalink.com.au>
To: "Graham Milner" <gkmilner at eftel.net.au>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two


Graham, as I see it, your latest post offers the following:

Another  hypothetical -- what if the American carriers had been smashed at
Pearl Harbor? I dunno, but the fact is they weren't. And cnsequentlly there
was no actual danger of Japan invading Australia.




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/gkmilner%40eftel.net.au