a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[butchersapron]

I haven't read the article, and I'm sure your rendition of it is somewhat cartoonesque, but it sounds like a pretty reasonable analysis to me. Is there a better 1400 word analysis you have in mind?

PS I quite liked his stuff in the past on the fall of the Roman Empire. So, I may be biased.. lol

Why don't you read it? You think the summary offered by barney is a reasonable analysis of the conflict? You think this is a reasonable analysis?

an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies).

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ok, first thing:



Germany had never had a position of european dominance to restore.

wasn't it the biggest economically? I mean I don't know how you factor in the British Empire, but wasn't its production much bigger than most if not all other European countries?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why don't you read it? You think the summary offered by barney is a reasonable analysis of the conflict? You think this is a reasonable analysis?

not got time at the moment, I'm on my way out, but I doubt he will say anything I have not heard before. Yes a perfectly reasonable analysis.

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?

 

[frogwoman]

a reasonable analysis that doesn't include the holocaust?

 

[Brainaddict]

Haven't read it and don't want to waste my time on it - it sounds a bit suss that they don't mention the holocaust at all. However, I think if you ask many Brits why Britain fought Nazi Germany they would give you some answer involving the holocaust. Which is nonsense of course, and it's important to say that. And from Churchill's point of view it was almost entirely imperialist reasons. If you talk about the motivations for going to war it's fair enough not to mention the holocaust. A bit funny not to mention it in a history of the whole war though.

 

[butchersapron]

not got time at the moment, I'm on my way out, but I doubt he will say anything I have not heard before. Yes a perfectly reasonable analysis.

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?

You're entitled to say that you would expect NF to offer a reasonable analysis without reading it - you're not entitled to say that he has given a reasonable analysis without reading it.

 

[treelover]

It wasn't - it was heavily based in the industrial areas and electorate. Which wasn't actually that widespread as the myth has it. The bulk of other production and support came from small scale manufacturies with a handful of people employed in them - and those people being paid peanuts and working on outdated machinery (i.e extensive exploitation rather than the true mark of capital, intensive exploitation). The idea of Germany as an industrial behemoth comes from the post-war years, not from the reality of germany in those years.

Eh, what about re-armament?, that was on a massive scale in the 1930's, must have increased industrial output..

 

[treelover]

btw, wonder how long it will take to get to Harry's Place

Does it mention Palestine?

 

[emanymton]

Just speculation but maybe part 89 will be the holocaust.

 

[butchersapron]

Eh, what about re-armament?, that was on a massive scale in the 1930's, must have increased industrial output..

It didn't take place until the mid-late 1930s - and that doesn't make germnay the most advanced industrial country nor the dominant european power at some period prior to then - which is what we were discussing. Here is a table from Toozes book that puts Germany in a proper sort of perspective and context in the 30s.

 

[TremulousTetra]

nah he didn't say that at all, i said that before I'd read the article. but it's a kind of "marxism" i've come across before, mostly on revleft lol

okey dokey, no worries.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The entire article was only 1400 words long, so it was never going to be any good.

I don't really see what made it a "Marxist history", the only bit of it which was arguably Marxist was the final paragraph:



And this rests on the 'state capitalist' thesis.

which he considers Marxist?

 

[Idris2002]

Ok, first thing:



Germany had never had a position of european dominance to restore.

Kissinger once said that Germany was too big for Europe and too small to be a world power.

AJP Taylor used to say that there were too many Germans, and that Germany was in the wrong place.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You're entitled to say that you would expect NF to offer a reasonable analysis without reading it - you're not entitled to say that he has given a reasonable analysis without reading it.

Piggy was shocked at "Niel Faulkner has written an 'interesting' account of ww2 which was, apparently, an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. ", I wasn't. Seemed a pretty reasonable starting point, I view I will hold whether you give me permission or not.

now;

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

 

[Red Storm]

which he considers Marxist?

Of course, but it just makes it rocky ground. And weakens the position that its a 'Marxist history'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course, but it just makes it rocky ground. And weakens the position that its a 'Marxist history'.

do you want to just expand on, makes it rocky ground, and weakens its position? Please.

 

[Red Storm]

Piggy was shocked at "Niel Faulkner has written an 'interesting' account of ww2 which was, apparently, an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. ", I wasn't. Seemed a pretty reasonable starting point, I view I will hold whether you give me permission or not.

now;

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

I'd recommend him not to bother with a poxy article on an enormous subject of WWII.

Maybe a 1500 word article on an aspect of WWII.

 

[butchersapron]

Piggy was shocked at "Niel Faulkner has written an 'interesting' account of ww2 which was, apparently, an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. ", I wasn't. Seemed a pretty reasonable starting point, I view I will hold whether you give me permission or not.

now;

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

You're entitled to say that you would expect NF to offer a reasonable analysis without reading it - you're not entitled to say that he has given a reasonable analysis without reading it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ok, first thing:



Germany had never had a position of european dominance to restore.

would be fair to say Hitler’s Germany was attempting to create a dominant position in Europe and to secure access to the raw materials, labour reserves, factories, and markets necessary for the continued expansion of German capitalism (see MHW 87).

 

[TremulousTetra]

You're entitled to say that you would expect NF to offer a reasonable analysis without reading it - you're not entitled to say that he has given a reasonable analysis without reading it.

ok dad.

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

 

[Red Storm]

do you want to just expand on, makes it rocky ground, and weakens its position? Please.

Because of the differing thoughts on the Soviet Union regarding state capitalism and deformed blah blah. I personally don't have an opinion on it; I've not done any research or thought on it.

His only Marxist position in the entire article is subject to debate (read as intellectual masturbation) I think it only weakens the article's promise of being a Marxist history further.

 

[The39thStep]

Some fun may be had with the latest installment of this series on counterfuck website.
Niel Faulkner has written an 'interesting' account of ww2 which was, apparently, an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies).
There is a comments box, can anyone get something past the clusterfuck moderators?

this was the Ferudi RCP line I think which they pushed in a pamphlet against the ANL in the 70s.

 

[Red Storm]

ok dad.

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

I'd recommend him not to bother with a poxy article on an enormous subject of WWII.

Maybe a 1500 word article on an aspect of WWII.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You're entitled to say that you would expect NF to offer a reasonable analysis without reading it - you're not entitled to say that he has given a reasonable analysis without reading it.

btw "an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)."
Is piggy, not NF isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

would be fair to say Hitler’s Germany was attempting to create a dominant position in Europe and to secure access to the raw materials, labour reserves, factories, and markets necessary for the continued expansion of German capitalism (see MHW 87).

Of course it would. And it would be wrong to say that Germany was doing this to reattain an old dominance - and that 'it was the greatest industrial power in Europe'.

 

[butchersapron]

ok dad.

But we've been over this kind of topic many times. What would you recommend as a better 1400 word analysis?​

I wouldn't.

 

[butchersapron]

btw "an entirely imperialist conflict, which was marked by horrific massacres by the western powers and soviet union, while the Germans were simply attempting to regain a fair division of imperialist spoils. No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)."
Is piggy, not NF isn't it?

Why are you posting to tell me that the characterisation in the opening post was made by the poster who posted it?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course it would. And it would be wrong to say that Germany was doing this to reattain an old dominance - and that 'it was the greatest industrial power in Europe'.

OK fair enough. perhaps it just isn't as clever as you, and has only read the books that say otherwise. I don't know.

Just seems to me that any article that starts by describing the World War II is purely an imperialist war, is starting from a pretty sound footing. I don't think, like many others, the Holocaust is central as to how and why the Second World War came about. I will go andhave a read of the article now.

 

[butchersapron]

OK fair enough. perhaps it just isn't as clever as you, and has only read the books that say otherwise. I don't know.

What a really useful way to make some sort of point. What was it again?

 

[love detective]

OK fair enough. perhaps it just isn't as clever as you, and has only read the books that say otherwise. I don't know.

do you know of any books that say otherwise?