a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[TremulousTetra]

at the time when World War II happened Britain was completely overstretched in terms of its empire. I don't think that Britain went to war in order to capture more territory. The reason IMO why the british gov't went into war was because of the threat of a strong (or strong appearing) Germany capturing more and more territory in Europe and threatening countries where they had treaties, the possibility of disrupting trade etc. Hitler's activities were having a very destabilising effect. It wasn't much to do with empire building imo.

couldn't agree with you more. But defending an empire is just as much an imperialist aim, as extending one. Britain defending, America extending, both imperialist aims. Add to that Japan.

I mean this another element to this. The topic of the Holocaust has been done to death. How me times do we get to discuss the imperialist aims of the players in the Second World War? I'm not saying for 1 min it is the whole story, but I can understand somebody bending the stick to make the point.

not only that, I actually think Emanymton's right.

while it is true that the allies committed war crimes, they weren't on the systematic scale that the holocaust was on, neither was the aim to wipe out millions of people made an integral part of why the war was being fought. while horrific, they were incidental to the war effort, rather than becoming one of the main aims as it was for hitler.

couldn't agree with you more.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Has RMP3 got around to reading an article yet?

I only ask because his contributions to this thread seem to be catching up with the word count of the article he hasn't the time to read.

I have been to waylaid by reading cuntish nonentities like Pickman at times, but yes. Some time ago.

 

[butchersapron]

couldn't agree with you more. But defending an empire is just as much an imperialist aim, as extending one. Britain defending, America extending, both imperialist aims. Add to that Japan.

I mean this another element to this. The topic of the Holocaust has been done to death. How me times do we get to discuss the imperialist aims of the players in the Second World War? I'm not saying for 1 min it is the whole story, but I can understand somebody bending the stick to make the point.

not only that, I actually think Emanymton's right.
couldn't agree with you more.

You think that she's right when she says the exact opposite of what you've said? When she argues that the holocaust became an integral part of the 'germanys' war aims and so should be discussed, whilst those that were discussed were in actual fact non-essential and conjunctural.

I note also that you fully agree with ayatollah when he takes apart your sort of crude economism.

Astonishing really.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You think that she's right when she says the exact opposite of what you've said? When she argues that the holocaust became an integral part of the 'germanys' war aims and so should be discussed, whilst those that were discussed were in actual fact non-essential and conjunctural.

I note also that you fully agree with ayatollah when he takes apart your sort of crude economism.

Astonishing really.

all my posts say what you want, except the ones that don't.

while it is true that the allies committed war crimes, they weren't on the systematic scale that the holocaust was on, neither was the aim to wipe out millions of people made an integral part of why the war was being fought. while horrific, they were incidental to the war effort, rather than becoming one of the main aims as it was for hitler.​

 

[frogwoman]

couldn't agree with you more. But defending an empire is just as much an imperialist aim, as extending one. Britain defending, America extending, both imperialist aims. Add to that Japan.

I mean this another element to this. The topic of the Holocaust has been done to death. How me times do we get to discuss the imperialist aims of the players in the Second World War? I'm not saying for 1 min it is the whole story, but I can understand somebody bending the stick to make the point.

not only that, I actually think Emanymton's right.
couldn't agree with you more.

Britain did not have an empire in europe at the time. And I reckon that at the start of the war the colonial possessions weren't really much of a motivating factor, they became so later on in the war, but you have to remember that following the first world war the decolonisation process had already started and the colonies were starting to be seen as increasingly more of a burden on the economy. The British government were already making deals with the Jews and the Arabs for an independent Israel/Palestine.

I think it was the fact that a government of the extreme right was annexing territory from various states and making threatening noises towards France etc, and the fact that Germany was rearming so significantly. I don't think these are imperialist aims mate.

 

[butchersapron]

all my posts say what you want, except the ones that don't.

It's quite simple, you argued that the Holocaust was a non-essential part of the re-telling of the war as it wasn't a motivation for 'germany' (leaving aside the simplistic nature of this approach for now as you've failed entirely to come back on the earlier criticisms made of it) and so it was not only justifiable that the holocaust should left out of this re-telling, but is actually probably required. This provoked FG into the reply in which she said the opposite to you and pointed out that under your approach other non-essential events were included (foregrounded even) in your 'reasonable article'. To this you bizarrely respond by saying that you agree. That you couldn't agree more.

Which surely means that you now need to tell us why you've changed your argument 100%, what points of FG's posts changed your mind so utterly, and what problems you've since identified with your original posts. Right?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Britain did not have an empire in europe at the time. And I reckon that at the start of the war the colonial possessions weren't really much of a motivating factor, they became so later on in the war, but you have to remember that following the first world war the decolonisation process had already started and the colonies were starting to be seen as increasingly more of a burden on the economy. The British government were already making deals with the Jews and the Arabs for an independent Israel/Palestine.

I think it was the fact that a government of the extreme right was annexing territory from various states and making threatening noises towards France etc, and the fact that Germany was rearming so significantly. I don't think these are imperialist aims mate.

I'm sorry frog, no disrespect, but you are wrong, in my opinion.

I can't remember the exact quote, or find it easily on Google, but there was some kind of Commissioner, British representative in the Middle East at the time who clearly articulated what the aim of Israel was, when he said Israel will be our own little Ulster.

Ulster was the guard dog for Britain's imperialist interests in Ireland, Britain's first colony. Israel then, and today, plays exactly the same role for Western imperialist interests. That is why the Americans fund it to such an insane level.

no disrespect, but in my opinion you need to read Neils article again, and deal with the aspect he talked about about the way Britain's military strategy was more about defending control of oil in the Middle East, than it was breaking Germany's European domination.

ETA

Churchill’s main war aim was to defend the British Empire. He favoured war as soon as it became clear that Germany might become hegemonic in Europe. Britain’s rulers always feared a threat to their maritime supremacy and trade from a hostile power in control of north-west Europe.

That is why, until late in the war, Churchill prioritised operations in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Far East over the opening of a ‘Second Front’ in north-west Europe. He wanted to protect Egypt, the Suez Canal, and India. ‘I have not become the King’s first minister,’ he declared, ‘to oversee the dismemberment of the British Empire.’

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's quite simple, you argued that the Holocaust was a non-essential part of the re-telling of the war as it wasn't a motivation for 'germany' (leaving aside the simplistic nature of this approach for now as you've failed entirely to come back on the earlier criticisms made of it) and so it was not only justifiable that the holocaust should left out of this re-telling, but is actually probably required. This provoked FG into the reply in which she said the opposite to you and pointed out that under your approach other non-essential events were included (foregrounded even) in your 'reasonable article'. To this you bizarrely respond by saying that you agree. That you couldn't agree more.

Which surely means that you now need to tell us why you've changed your argument 100%, what points of FG's posts changed your mind so utterly, and what problems you've since identified with your original posts. Right?

what?

 

[TremulousTetra]

do you know of any books that say otherwise?

I'm taking butchers word for it

I seem to remember reading the German economy being the most industrialised in Europe, perhaps that's what he was referring to?

Evwen if so it's still a bit of a stretch to saying it had a position of European dominance.

It wasn't though. It's a commonplace that has been trotted out in shoddy historiess like this for years . Adam Tooze destroys this myth in The Wages of Destruction that shows beyond a shadow of doubt that Germany was pretty much the modern day equivalent of a state like India.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

I was just saying okay, I bow to your superior knowledge on the topic. And take your word for it.

I seem to remember reading the German economy being the most industrialised in Europe, perhaps that's what he was referring to?

Evwen if so it's still a bit of a stretch to saying it had a position of European dominance.

It wasn't though. It's a commonplace that has been trotted out in shoddy historiess like this for years . Adam Tooze destroys this myth in The Wages of Destruction that shows beyond a shadow of doubt that Germany was pretty much the modern day equivalent of a state like India.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

I don't know whether you're saying that tongue in cheek, but that is the basis on which I am defending the article. It is a 1400 word article on A aspect of the Second World War.that's how it reads to me.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Can you point to anyone saying that the socialist worker paper has propelled them into "being the great anarchist/socialist/etc revolutionaries you are today"?

 

[TremulousTetra]

That is your general point. That the holocaust was almost incidental. That 'Germany' (your usage - you've not specified what you mean by this term) had no interest in the holocaust.If so, why were so many resources spent on putting it into motion over such a long period and not into military initiatives? You should be able to say why.

And no, of course i don't agree with it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

There was also an interesting talk about Marxism and the holaucast at Marxism a few years ago by a bloke called Maitland whose main argument was that the capitalists on Germany didn't like the effect of forced emigration of Jewish labour but embraced the logistical issues around the extermination camps with some ease.

In fact what could be argued was that it was precisely the unwillingness by the to be allies to accept Jewish immigrants per war that led to the conditions for the final solution.

is there a typing error in that? Could you make it a little clearer please?

 

[butchersapron]

If you've nothing to say how about just leaving the thread alone?

 

[TremulousTetra]

If you've nothing to say how about just leaving the thread alone?

no winning with you. You have a go for me not having every single post in this thread, and now I have time to go back through it you're still complaining. And what I have to say is, I find some of your posts hilarious.

 

[elbows]

I mean this another element to this. The topic of the Holocaust has been done to death. How me times do we get to discuss the imperialist aims of the players in the Second World War? I'm not saying for 1 min it is the whole story, but I can understand somebody bending the stick to make the point.

I think its the other way around. Most of the typical holocaust stuff has tended to focus on the horror, the evil that men do, and the asking of the question 'why?' without actually wanting a proper answer at all. Not very different to how murderers of children or mass shooting incidents are treated by the press. Stuff in this thread has managed to go well beyond that.

In contrast articles like the one that started this thread dont appear to offer all that much more than I was taught at school. The use of 'world' in the wars label, and the resulting global power reconfiguration that was obvious to just about everyone well before the war ended speak volumes, and makes it hard for me to see tales of empire as a fresh revelation with fascinating new detail.

That a very narrow focus on the horrific aspects of the holocaust has been used in the past to distract from the economic & imperial aspects of the conflict is no reason to dismiss the holocaust as incidental to that stuff. Rather it is reason to explore the holocaust deeper in an attempt to build a complete and cohesive picture where one aspect of the story is not allowed to crudely trump another.

 

[TremulousTetra]

while it is true that the allies committed war crimes, they weren't on the systematic scale that the holocaust was on, neither was the aim to wipe out millions of people made an integral part of why the war was being fought. while horrific, they were incidental to the war effort, rather than becoming one of the main aims as it was for hitler.

You think that she's right when she says the exact opposite of what you've said? When she argues that the holocaust became an integral part of the 'germanys' war aims and so should be discussed, whilst those that were discussed were in actual fact non-essential and conjunctural.

I note also that you fully agree with ayatollah when he takes apart your sort of crude economism.

Astonishing really.

Right. Had time to go back and read this article. Neil makes the point that for Britain the war was about defending Empire, and its economic interest of the Empire,

Churchill’s main war aim was to defend the British Empire. He favoured war as soon as it became clear that Germany might become hegemonic in Europe. Britain’s rulers always feared a threat to their maritime supremacy and trade from a hostile power in control of north-west Europe.

This threat materialised when new German blitzkrieg (‘lightning war’) tactics based on armoured spearheads brought about the collapse of France in six weeks in May-June 1940. Britain itself was not invaded, but communications with the overseas empire were immediately imperilled.

That is why, until late in the war, Churchill prioritised operations in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Far East over the opening of a ‘Second Front’ in north-west Europe. He wanted to protect Egypt, the Suez Canal, and India. ‘I have not become the King’s first minister,’ he declared, ‘to oversee the dismemberment of the British Empire.’


Nationalist protest, India, 1942 - where the British had more troops deployed than were fighting the Japanese

This made the war harder, longer, and bloodier than was necessary. In 1942, the British had more troops policing India than fighting the Japanese. Nationalist demonstrations were brutally suppressed with shootings, floggings, and gang-rapes of protestors, and 30,000 oppositionists were incarcerated.

A year later, three million died of hunger in Bengal because the British authorities failed to organise relief. Little wonder that some Indians chose to fight on the side of the Japanese in an ‘Indian National Army’.

and underlined the point by pointing out that Britain had more troops subjugating India, than fighting the Japanese, and you don't think this is relevant to his point?

just from first reading it is blatantly obvious to me that this is an article written from the SINGULAR perspective of "International Affairs". And in that respect it is A perfectly reasonable analysis.

PS. just got your response and the Maitland link butchers.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think its the other way around. Most of the typical holocaust stuff has tended to focus on the horror, the evil that men do, and the asking of the question 'why?' without actually wanting a proper answer at all. Not very different to how murderers of children or mass shooting incidents are treated by the press. Stuff in this thread has managed to go well beyond that.

In contrast articles like the one that started this thread dont appear to offer all that much more than I was taught at school. The use of 'world' in the wars label, and the resulting global power reconfiguration that was obvious to just about everyone well before the war ended speak volumes, and makes it hard for me to see tales of empire as a fresh revelation with fascinating new detail.

That a very narrow focus on the horrific aspects of the holocaust has been used in the past to distract from the economic & imperial aspects of the conflict is no reason to dismiss the holocaust as incidental to that stuff. Rather it is reason to explore the holocaust deeper in an attempt to build a complete and cohesive picture where one aspect of the story is not allowed to crudely trump another.

it's not about dismissing the Holocaust.

many people have contributed some great stuff in this thread that shows the relevance of the Holocaust and Nazi ideology to the internal dynamics and direction the Germans war aims, and how they travelled over time. Some of that leans to a mostly super structural analysis, this superstructure dictating a kind of madness, and some even finding a logic, the necessity of slave labour, in the madness. The madness of invading Russia, was probably ideological driven [even though it is debatable as Russia with its massive natural resources was a prise Germany wasn't too far from winning (The Devils Virtuoso(]. But I am stressing this is about the internal dynamics of Germany. Sure the by 43/4 the Holocaust has influence over Germany where and how places are invaded/subjugated etc. But does the Holocaust dictate Britain and America's response?

again, I am not saying and international affairs perspective is the only perspective, but how could the Holocaust add to an international affairs perspective of the Second World War?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Halfway through that - rmp3 could do with a listen to that, or even with reading Callinicos on marxism and the holocaust.

Glad to say that he doesn't go anywhere near the unbelievably crude sort of analysis that simply divides the period into 1) motivations (and of a homogenous bloc called germany) and 2) how these claimed motivations panned out. That sort of thing misses firstly, the competing motivations of different parts of the regime and secondly how the failure or success of meeting those ends can itself lead to a process of 'cumulative radicalisation' (to use Hans Mommsen's phrase). In this case the failure to ideologically and militarily destroy the USSR in 1941 led to a radicalisation of the work of the einsatzgruppen and the decision to embark on industrial genocide, not as some mere side-detail but as one of the central aims of the most powerful section of the competing power blocs and with the agreement of the lesser power groups. That's why to ignore the holocause is to ignore a key part of ww2 and pretty much all the really important surrounding context. Even in two 3000 words pieces there is no need to be that simplistic.

edit: There's another good example of that interconnection between the wider capitalist motivations and anti-semitism as functional to them that Maitless nearly touches on but goes around in the end. The orignal plan was to expel the jews - but to do it on a sort of basis of domestic primitive accumulation, that is, first special taxes on jews as hard as possible, expropriation of businesses, investments and bank accounts - then to make the issue of exit-visas directly tied to giving up all your property and money to the state - and all this extra potential capital flowed back to expanding German capital at a rate subsidised firstly by theft and then financial double-tricks by the German state. This expansion of industry led to wider conflicts between German capital and German workers in 1937-39 period, which put Hitler's longer term plans for eventual war under threat and forced him/them into fighting an earlier war in order not to allow their enemies time to open up a wider military gap.

edit: and a third point, Maitless points out that at the moment of utmost military danger to the German state their one of their central objective - to the disregard of other more urgent measures (to a mind concerned with military victory anyway) - was how to get the Thessalonian jews to the death camps.

phew! I eventually got to this.

All this is about the internal dynamics of the German regime/power blocks etc. from an international affairs perspective what is the difference?

There is a holocaust going on, America seeks to advance its interests in the Middle East, and use its advantage to weaken the imperialist French and British blocks. Britain seeks to defend its empire. the Japanese start to carve out an empire. Beyond militarily tactical questions, what effect does the Holocaust of on British and American and Japanese aims?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, the one in which i ask you to think about if you agree with barneys characterisation of the article - and which you responded to by saying that yes you did, you thought it gave a reasonable overview. You thought that an overview that has "No holocaust, no death camps, no mass slaughter of Jews, slavs, gypsies, homosexuals etc. No mass terror of civilian populations ( except by the allies)." was reasonable.

I don't know where you have got that quote, but it's not me..

I said I was in a rush, as I was going out. That the original comment was probably rather a cartoonesque representation, however I referred to some essential elements in it, which were A reasonable analysis. Why would I fully endorse "cartoonesque" representation? To memory, at one time I even selected the elements which I felt were A reasonable analysis.

the rest you read into it because you are so blinkered.

 

[butchersapron]

phew! I eventually got to this.

All this is about the internal dynamics of the German regime/power blocks etc. from an international affairs perspective what is the difference?

There is a holocaust going on, America seeks to advance its interests in the Middle East, and use its advantage to weaken the imperialist French and British blocks. Britain seeks to defend its empire. the Japanese start to carve out an empire. Beyond militarily tactical questions, what effect does the Holocaust of on British and American and Japanese aims?

You finally got to the post that i made on page 3 of a 7 page thread that you've been posting pointless replies to posts from after my one? How did you manage that then?

And even better, i outline a brief idea of how international events impacted on the nazi-regimes economic plans and opened the door to the holocaust (something your economistic posts said was impossible, didn't happen, couldn't happen - of course, you ignore my substantive point about it happening, don't challenge it, don't address it - i expected nothing more) and your response is to just dismiss it because it solely concerns domestic events. Now, apart from this crude separation into non-impacting domestic and international issues that you reduce this issue down to (one that mirrors your equally crude non-interacting economic and all others factors) it's the opposite of what i actually said. Time-waster.

 

[TremulousTetra]

He gave a 3000 words explanation/overview containing many secondary events - but he didn't include a primary factor in the military conduct/aims of the war in europe. This is shit.

was the Holocaust a primary factor in the military conduct/aims of the war for Russia Britain America and Japan? [

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know where you have got that quote, but it's not me..

I said I was in a rush, as I was going out. That the original comment was probably rather a cartoonesque representation, however I referred to some essential elements in it, which were A reasonable analysis. Why would I fully endorse "cartoonesque" representation? To memory, at one time I even selected the elements which I felt were A reasonable analysis.

the rest you read into it because you are so blinkered.

I got it precisely from you you clown. I asked you to clarify exactly what it was that you had said was a reasonable account (which, of course, you had said without reading it). The quote (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 from the characterisation i asked you if you agree with and to which you answered "Yes a perfectly reasonable analysis.". Now i asked you this because you said it once already on the first page and i wanted to give you the opportunity to think about what you were actually describing as a reasonable overview. You weren't expected to agree with but to come back with something along the lines of no, i didn't mean that. But you didn't - you said that yes, it was reasonable and then went on to try and defend (in the most crude terms) leaving out the holocaust in an article on the second world war. Stop wasting my time.

 

[butchersapron]

was the Holocaust a primary factor in the military conduct/aims of the war for Russia Britain America and Japan? [

You know what state the first three named of that quartet were fighting against right? Please tell me that you do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

of course it was counterproductive, the diversion of resources etc, as well as the destruction of a source of labourers and the fact that Nazi racial policy turned many of the occupied populations against them was one of the things that ended up losing the fash the war. That doesn't explain why they did it in the first place, the fact that it was counterproductive didn't mean that it wasn't a key factor in how the German ruling class conducted the war.

As for whether Hitler was in the German ruling class - of course he fucking was.

okay. I shouldn't really have made this point about the German ruling class, which only muddied the waters. I was trying to make a subtle point about the distinction between, the ruling class that formerly owned the means of production, and continued to profit greatly from the war, and the bureaucracy, so to speak, of the Nazi regime, of whom there were several blocks.to put it simply, the Holocaust was essential for some of these groups, and not so for others.

What's more, the Holocaust seems to be more essential in 1944/45 to some, than it is in say 41/42, in other words its influence varies over time. Not only that, the Holocaust is not the only reason for some counter-productive decisions. Why not invade Britain? Why invade Russia? Both questions were ideological, possibly, but not really to do with Jews are the Holocaust.

 

[butchersapron]

Other posters were the ones who pointed out the subtleties and nuances - not to mention the open competition between the components of the german polyocracy - in order to highlight the crudity of your 'germany' had no interest in the holocaust and it was just 'lumbered' with it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The Holocaust may be irrelevant for the allies motives for going to war but in an article that mentions a number of atrocities carried out during the war it's pretty mental to not mention the holocaust, it's almost like the author thinks that the holocaust serves to retrospectively null the allies actual reasons, or atleast that readers might think so. Basically it's typical Socialist Worker paper crap, where complexities and grey areas are either papered over or simply ignored out of the patronising notion that the proles needn't know these details,just jump behind the party line instead.

you have to see my comments to froggy and butchers above. I am somewhat amazed you cannot see the relevance.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Other posters were the ones who pointed out the subtleties and nuances - not to mention the open competition between the components of the german polyocracy - in order to highlight the crudity of your 'germany' had no interest in the holocaust and it was just 'lumbered' with it.

looks like I said it first though

 

[TremulousTetra]

Can you point to anyone saying that the socialist worker paper has propelled them into "being the great anarchist/socialist/etc revolutionaries you are today"?

how many times has Panda mentioned he used to be an SWP member to me? How many times has Panda pointed out that people on here used to be members of the SWP, and so understand the SWP just as much, if not better than I do? how many times of people spoke about the SWP being a conveyor belt?

And by the way, it was a bit of a joke, you humourless "insert your own expletive".

I can. It seems analogous to your relationship with me. You think me a time-waster, yet you waste time on me. I think that's something like what Resistance is saying in that post.