[Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two

[Lüko Willms]

G K Milner (gkmilner at eftel.net.au) wrote on 2009-07-04 at 23:31:38 in  about 
Re: [Marxism] Socialist Policy in World War Two:
> 
> 
>                  I don't think we are really in disagreement.   

  Well, according to everything which I have read from you, we are in very 
very deep disagreement. Reread my previous answer to you about the 
strange idea that an "Australian" (who is that) should thank somebody of 
having prevented a Japanese invation of that island-continent. 

  I understood your contributions as supporting the US, British and French 
colonialy robber barons against the Japanese colonial robber barons, which 
is certainly the opposite of what I have said and written nearly all my life. 

> I did state in my last message that I thought World War Two 
> was 'at root' an inter-imperialist war.  

   That was it main cause, and was the reason for all the imperialist powers, 
from Britain and their colonial-settler states in Oceania wen to war: to defend 
their colonial dictatorship over hundreds of millions of colonial slaves. 

> But the existence of the USSR as a workers' state and the embroilment 
> of that state in the war would inevitably affect the way socialists viewed 
> the war as a whole.

  As a war which was a combination of many wars: of the war of the 
oppressed nations, i.e. colonies like Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, China, etc 
fighting for their independence, their national self-determination, the 
revolutionary war of the USSR defending the conquests of the October 
Revolution against the imperialis onslaught (well, revolunionary at least in its 
basis, even if the Stalinist burocracy tried its utmost to suppress the 
revolutionary character of the war), the struggle of the imperialist newcomers 
in Europe, mainly Germany and Italy, for a redivision of the colonial empires 
of all European colonial powers, which meant that France, England, Belgium, 
Netherlands and Denmark would have to give up at least a large part of the 
colonies in Africa and Asia, the struggle of the USA to impose their rule over 
_all_ of the Pacific Ocean and Pacific Rim, i.e. to take over the British, 
French, Portuguese and Dutch colonies as they had taken over before the 
Spanish colonies in the Pacific, and at the same time to keep their Japanese 
rival in check, who tried to expand their empire, too. And then the war of the 
USA against Britain where the shooting was done not by US arms, but by 
German and Japanese, but which resulting nontheless in a victory of the USA 
over Britain in this second phase of the interimperialist slaughter. 

> I met a young member of the old pro-Moscow Socialist Party of Australia, 
     
> I essentially agreed with him, and said so.   
 
   That is what you are writing all the time, and I do sharply disagree with the 
Stalinist support for the imperialist war. 

   The big crime of Stalinism in this so called Second World War (it was the 
continuation of the so called First) was to prevent the Communist Parties all 
over the world to fight their own oppressors and to fight for national 
liberation. So the Brits could even free a CP leader in India during the war, 
and he would support his slaveholder. 


Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------