Forthcoming ACG Public Meeting on War in Ukraine

[kebabking]

Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.

This, you see, is where you loose people because you're obviously spinning a line that's only real objective is avoiding a difficult choice.

Is there an Anarcho-Syndicalist Workers Collective currently able to provide Anti-Tank Guided Weapons, or jamming resistant UAV's, or Surface-to-Air missiles, or night vision gear, or Signals Intelligence, or any of the 500 things necessary to keep the Ukrainian resistance on its feet?

Your NWBTCW position isn't about finding a better option for them, it's about finding a more comfortable position for you, and they can go and fuck themselves.

There is only one group who can provide the Ukrainians with what they need, you either support/accept them taking that help off that group, or you are advocating no help. That's it, that's all there is.

If that's what you think, that's fine, that's your choice - but don't dress it up as something else.

 

[LDC]

Also as I posted the other day, can't remember where, but something along the lines of if you say 'no weapons supply' you need to follow that with something about how that's sacrificing people there to all sorts of horrors, but that's a position you're happier to take than weapons being sent.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I hope the people who make it to the meeting find it as challenging and thought provoking as some of this thread has been for me.

Spot on. One of the best threads on here for a while. Some really good contributions and some difficult issues being properly, firmly and constructively debated.

 

[hitmouse]

Blimey, there's been a lot of posts on here. Some valid points, some less so. Yes, the ACG blurb could have been phrased better, but it's as if some of the commenters are responding to the STWC type politics here. They're really not.

A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering?

This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.

This is partially retreading stuff that I've said already, but: instinctively, NWBTCW is my starting point, or at least one of the principles that I start from. But another one is... I'm tempted to phrase it as "listen to what Ukrainians are saying", but of course that's shorthand, there are Ukrainians who are in Azov battalion, Ukrainians who genuinely and uncomplicatedly think NATO is great, Ukrainians who think that the war is a brilliant liberation of the oppressed Donbass region, etc etc. So what I actually mean is "listen to what Ukrainians who seem to have similar principles and values to me are saying". And this is where I run into trouble, cos most of the Ukrainian anarchist/antifa/left voices I can find seem to be arguing for what you'd tend to call anarcho-trenchism. I don't think this is just me automatically trusting anyone who puts circles around their vowels, like if there was a strong and significant Ukrainian leftcom group or similar going "that lot have got it all wrong, here's how we're doing the proper serious class war that cuts against national unity" I might well listen to them and conclude that the UA @s had just shat the bed. But I've not seen much of anything like that, so that leaves me thinking that like... either all our comrades in the country are getting it wrong and we've got it right, or else they understand the situation better than we do.
As to how far we support intervention: well, various Western projects have already begun providing support, either ideological (eg Crimethinc and Final Straw) or whatever limited direct material support we can provide (eg ABC Dresden, Brighton ABC, Antifa International and others) to groups within the country like Operation Solidarity and their mates. I think I'm coming down on the side of that being a good and worthwhile thing to do.
As for whether I'd volunteer, or be OK with other people volunteering: I'm not going to do it myself, and I'm not going to say other people should do it either. But some people from our milieu have already gone to fight in Rojava, and I don't personally feel like it's my place to condemn that decision?

I see no contradiction between a NWBTCW position and sympathy for people defending their families, friends, neighbours in the face of a brutal invading force.

Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.

I agree, it is horrendous, and that's why I say I don't have the answers, just political lines I won't cross. I agree that a cold NWBTCW position may seem a failure of something quite fundamentally human, but I also see military intervention as an even bigger failure. There are no easy answers.

I'm sure everyone is desperate to see a Spain 36 argument break out on this thread, so I might as well go there: what line did, or should, British and French anarchos take on "their" state's neutrality on Spain? I genuinely don't know what campaigns and things there were, but I sort of felt like I'd got the impression that that the British and French insistence on sticking to strict non-intervention after Germany and Italy had clearly fucked their end of that pact off was seen as a bad thing. Obviously Ukraine today is not Spain 36 or even Ukraine 19, and Zelensky's no Durruti, but still: does NWBTCW mean never supporting any supply of arms to a conflict under any circumstances, or does it mean opposing supply of arms unless specific conditions are met?

 

[kenny g]

Ukraine today is not Spain 36 or even Ukraine 19, and Zelensky's no Durruti, but still: does NWBTCW mean never supporting any supply of arms to a conflict under any circumstances, or does it mean opposing supply of arms unless specific conditions are met?

I would propose the latter interpretation over the former but would be interested if anyone were to propose the reverse.

 

[hitmouse]

I would propose the latter interpretation over the former but would be interested if anyone were to propose the reverse.

I'd say the latter too, but then obviously that leaves a wide range of possibility to disagree about what those precise conditions should be?

 

[chilango]

Spain '36 more easily can be seen as a class war.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm not sure I'd say I'm opposed as such, and like I've said I think it holds much more use in Russia rather than Ukraine. But I do think it's generally inadequate as a position, and I also do think bringing up 1914 as having any relevance to what's going on for people in Ukraine is a bit misplaced tbh. Anyway, a couple of quick answers to your points:

For a start I support people in Ukraine resisting the Russian State attack by whatever mean they see appropriate and effective. That as it stands is a non-NWBTCW position isn't it?
On military intervention, for a start I support supplying people there with weaponry they need to fight the Russian State attack. Also a non-NWBTCW position.

I don't think I interpret no war but class war in quite the same way as Serge Forward but if you really mean the bit I've bolded then yes I don't see how can be anything other than a non-NWBCW position. And it is the bolded bit where you lose me.

I would not deny that in the current conflict the interests of Ukrainian workers are more aligned with the Ukrainian state and capital (both national and international) than at other times but there is (for me) a difference between alignment and simply subsumption.
Does 'whatever means' include the Ukrainian state imposing forcible conscription? Would it include putting down strikes (probably not likely in this conflict but has happened in plenty of previous conflicts).

This is what I mean about keeping the class conflict in mind. I can understand why Ukrainian socialists see the interests of the workers are best served by joining the fight against the Russians, I think I'm probably more accepting (wrong word but I can't think of a better alternative) of that such than Serge, but I don't think that can mean simply throwing away class struggle absolutely.

TBH I skeptical that you really do mean the bolded bit, at least literally. Surely there would be lines which you would be unhappy to see crossed? I am not going to pretend those lines are nice and clear, or easy to navigate, but class has to continue to be the lodestone for socialists even in the midst of conflict.

 

[LDC]

I don't think I interpret no war but class war in quite the same way as Serge Forward but if you really mean the bit I've bolded then yes I don't see how can be anything other than a non-NWBCW position. And it is the bolded bit where you lose me.

I would not deny that in the current conflict the interests of Ukrainian workers are more aligned with the Ukrainian state and capital (both national and international) than at other times but there is (for me) a difference between alignment and simply subsumption.
Does 'whatever means' include the Ukrainian state imposing forcible conscription? Would it include putting down strikes (probably not likely in this conflict but has happened in plenty of previous conflicts).

This is what I mean about keeping the class conflict in mind. I can understand why Ukrainian socialists see the interests of the workers are best served by joining the fight against the Russians, I think I'm probably more accepting (wrong word but I can't think of a better alternative) of that such than Serge, but I don't think that can mean simply throwing away class struggle absolutely.

TBH I skeptical that you really do mean the bolded bit, at least literally. Surely there would be lines which you would be unhappy to see crossed? I am not going to pretend those lines are nice and clear, or easy to navigate, but class has to continue to be the lodestone for socialists even in the midst of conflict.

Yeah, I left that purposefully vague as it's a whole extra layer of complexity I didn't think I could address it, as well as being not sure what I thought any 'lines' were for me. Re-reading it I think it was clumsy wording as well, and as I wrote it I thought it was open to fair questioning. As hitmouse said, listening to the 'Ukrainians' comes with the obvious "yeah, but which ones" response? But of course there are lines, I guess I'd broadly say for me they'd be similar to those examples you gave.

Gonna have a coffee and try and write something else in a bit about Syria and a few other bits.

 

[redsquirrel]

If that's what you think, that's fine, that's your choice - but don't dress it up as something else.

As you've said this I'll throw it right back at you.

Let's not pretend that your own politics on the Ukrainian conflict aren't every bit as ideological as mine, Serge's or anyone else's.
Your views are absolutely based on your own Labour rightist liberal politics with the nation and state subsuming workers.

Is there an Anarcho-Syndicalist Workers Collective currently able to provide Anti-Tank Guided Weapons, or jamming resistant UAV's, or Surface-to-Air missiles, or night vision gear, or Signals Intelligence, or any of the 500 things necessary to keep the Ukrainian resistance on its feet?

Your NWBTCW position isn't about finding a better option for them, it's about finding a more comfortable position for you, and they can go and fuck themselves.

There is only one group who can provide the Ukrainians with what they need, you either support/accept them taking that help off that group, or you are advocating no help. That's it, that's all there is.

This is what I oppose LynnDoyleCooper.
The complete writing out of class. The contention that the interests of the Ukrainian state (and capital) are the interests of the workers and therefore one cannot support the workers without supporting the Ukrainian state (and NATO, the EU, etc).
If one accepts such politics that then I don't see how that can be anything other than a rejection of anarchism and socialism.

On the accusation that trying to keep class politics during a conflict is simply about "finding a more comfortable position for you, and they can go and fuck themselves.", well the same line could be thrown that back at those who promote an increased conflict and nationalism, a strengthened NATO, increased spending on arms (policies that they've always backed but now have increased popular support).

But yes those of us here do have a luxury that our comrades in the Ukraine (and Russia) don't have. Personally I agree with chilango

As we have the luxury of being able to form our views without being bombed, shelled and shot at, I think we have a responsibility to use that luxury.

Frankly the size of the ACG (or any UK anarchist/socialist organisation) means that whatever support we can offer our comrades is very limited.
But one thing UK (and other western) socialists can do is argue for a class understanding of the conflict and, where possible, organising to support class power and against the increasing (supra-)nationalism at home.

 

[hitmouse]

Spain '36 more easily can be seen as a class war.

I mean, on one hand, yes, but also I reckon the conflict between German and Italian imperialism vs the proxy forces backed by Russia can accurately be described as an inter-imperialist conflict, innit? Anyway, I mostly brought it up because of the bit Serge Forward asked, about "Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing?... The British Army?", cos if we wake up tomorrow and this has all been a dream and we're actually living in 1936, then those same questions can be asked of anyone demanding arms for Spain, so I'm not convinced that they're an automatic knockout. Although it is certainly worth asking critical questions about who's supplying arms and why they're doing it and what they're asking for in exchange.

But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle. On WWII, I've never been 100% confident what the official correct internationalist line is meant to be, but personally I am very very glad the nazis did not win the war, while also thinking the people who carried on class struggle in the Allied countries were more right than the people who wanted to put everything on hold for the war effort and denounced them as undermining the war.
What does that mean today? In the UK it's pretty simple, I don't think anyone except maybe Paul Mason suggests putting social struggle on hold for the duration of the war. The only thing I've seen that comes close is when the TUC cancelled the tory conference demo, but it turns out that apparently they weren't actually doing it because of national unity but cos they're shit at organising.
In the Ukraine - hard to say, it would be useful to have more Ukrainian voices involved! I suppose my rough sketch is something like support for looting, opposing conscription and the ban on men leaving the country, opposing the ban on opposition parties (too much opposition in this sentence!), definitely opposing the changes to labour laws and so on... but, I think you can take all those positions, while also "supporting"* the military resistance against the invasion.

*and yes, obviously there's also questions to be asked about what "supporting" means and how/whether it can be meaningfully put into practice.

 

[redsquirrel]

But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle.

See I agree with all this. But I don't see it as a rejection of NWBCW (I guess others disagree), for me this is a NWBCW position.
I don't interpret no war but the class war literally but as a principle to be applied by socialists to try and guide their actions, that class war is present and has to be thought about and, wherever possible, organised for.

I'll quote SpineyNorman again

Class struggle isn't the glorious proletariat overthrowing the capitalist pigdogs or nothing.

 

[Pickman's model]

See I agree with all this. But I don't see it as a rejection of NWBCW (I guess others disagree), for me this is a NWBCW position.
I don't interpret no war but the class war literally but as a principle to be applied by socialists to try and guide their actions, that class war is present and has to be thought about and, wherever possible, organised for.

I'll quote SpineyNorman again

Just to go back to Spain, certainly anarchists in Barcelona had been preparing for revolution for some years as detailed in the excellent 'ready for revolution' Ready for Revolution

 

[LDC]

Just to go back to Spain, certainly anarchists in Barcelona had been preparing for revolution for some years as detailed in the excellent 'ready for revolution' Ready for Revolution

The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936 by Bookchin is good on that as well iirc.

Just on a quick point that's tangentially related to this... I think that 'the left' largely has ignored what's been going on in Ukraine for years, including in the months leading up to the invasion being in outright denial of something being very likely to happen, so to hold a position now that again prioritises what political position their group holds over what many of our comrades in Ukraine are calling for does slightly stick in my throat. And I don't agree that we blindly follow what people there say and want, but I do think it's notable I've heard quite a few Ukrainians speak in the last months (from all parts of the left) and not one has pushed a NWBTCW position. (Not aimed at the ACG btw, I think StW etc are far more guilty of this.)

 

[Serge Forward]

I mean, on one hand, yes, but also I reckon the conflict between German and Italian imperialism vs the proxy forces backed by Russia can accurately be described as an inter-imperialist conflict, innit? Anyway, I mostly brought it up because of the bit Serge Forward asked, about "Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing?... The British Army?", cos if we wake up tomorrow and this has all been a dream and we're actually living in 1936, then those same questions can be asked of anyone demanding arms for Spain, so I'm not convinced that they're an automatic knockout. Although it is certainly worth asking critical questions about who's supplying arms and why they're doing it and what they're asking for in exchange.

But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle. On WWII, I've never been 100% confident what the official correct internationalist line is meant to be, but personally I am very very glad the nazis did not win the war, while also thinking the people who carried on class struggle in the Allied countries were more right than the people who wanted to put everything on hold for the war effort and denounced them as undermining the war.
What does that mean today? In the UK it's pretty simple, I don't think anyone except maybe Paul Mason suggests putting social struggle on hold for the duration of the war. The only thing I've seen that comes close is when the TUC cancelled the tory conference demo, but it turns out that apparently they weren't actually doing it because of national unity but cos they're shit at organising.
In the Ukraine - hard to say, it would be useful to have more Ukrainian voices involved! I suppose my rough sketch is something like support for looting, opposing conscription and the ban on men leaving the country, opposing the ban on opposition parties (too much opposition in this sentence!), definitely opposing the changes to labour laws and so on... but, I think you can take all those positions, while also "supporting"* the military resistance against the invasion.

*and yes, obviously there's also questions to be asked about what "supporting" means and how/whether it can be meaningfully put into practice.

I think much of that fits in with a nuanced NWBTCW outlook.

Eta: oops, I see redsquirrel said that in the post after yours

 

[LDC]

I think much of that fits in with a nuanced NWBTCW outlook.

How about non-State supplied weapons with no strings attached?

Kimber America | Kimber America | Kimber Press Releases

Fine 1911 pistols and rifles for both the hunter and shooter. Kimber offers law enforcement tactical pistols and rifles, less-lethal self-defense products, light weight rifles and mountain rifles.

www.kimberamerica.com

 

[Pickman's model]

How about non-State supplied weapons with no strings attached?

Kimber America | Kimber America | Kimber Press Releases

Fine 1911 pistols and rifles for both the hunter and shooter. Kimber offers law enforcement tactical pistols and rifles, less-lethal self-defense products, light weight rifles and mountain rifles.

www.kimberamerica.com

Maybe pinched from armouries ftw

 

[chilango]

I think it's probably worth remembering that "No War but the Class War" isn't "No War" full stop. There is somne interesting stuff on the Angry Workers site where various people are thinking about whether the war in Ukraine can, or does, contain a class war within it. I couldn't possibly say, but it is definitly worth thinking about.

For me the StWC position has nothing to do with nwbtcw. It's miles away. A lash-up of straight up "No War" unconditional pacifism with half-remembered hand-me-down anti-imperialism stuffed into a consumable package by career grifters.

 

[LDC]

Re: Syria (especially NES/Rojava) as it's been mentioned a few times. Sorry if it's slightly rambling and doesn't seem that relevant!

I'm not going to talk about wider Syria and what happened there pre-2015 or so as I don't know enough, but there's a great book called Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War by Leila Al-Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab I'd highly recommend. (Leila has also done a few talks about Ukraine btw.)

Anyway, I don't think there's much (any?) similarity about the development of what happened there and what happened/happening in Ukraine. I do think there's some similarities about the left's (really need a better word, but that'll do for the moment) response though, and then some of the dynamics with the military support provided, what that enabled, and what problems that brought with it.

There were similar positions on Rojava that we have here on Ukraine. Simplistically put lots of anarchists saw it as some re-enactment of Spain '36, and plenty of others saw it as nothing but a nationalist struggle that had no elements within it worth supporting. I think both those positions were wrong and were more about the groups and people and their ideology here rather than the realities there. Both seeing it as clear 'blocks' rather than a muddle of people and positions missed something important. Within the struggle and fighing in NES there were elements of self-organisation, decent left wing politics, community defence, material support and addressing of the daily concerns of people in the area, as well as a genuine attempt to create something different and better than what was there before. (Largely outside the militarised bodies themselves, and in communities really, but also there wasn't always a clear line between these things.) I don't think it was/is easy to put what was happening into a 'western class war' framework either, and also people still had strong connections to Kurdish nationalism that wasn't easy to get over, even through work was being done to try and do so. Anyway, to try and relate that to Ukraine, I think that while dynamics are of course different, to paint it all again as a simple 'nation vs. nation' struggle is also wrong and too simple, and within in will be elements very much worthy of the support of anarchists/etc. If you listen to Ukrainian lefties themselves plenty of them say this. (Although I also think just the act of self defence to the Russian State is something worthy of our support without any loftier political positions, but anyway...).

Western military support (largely airstrikes with some arms later on) enabled the YPG/J to defend and also recapture towns, villages, and land lost to IS that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. In the mess of what was going on there I think that was a 'good thing' and justifiable in any way - left wing politics as a judge or not. But on Serge's point about slippery slopes, access to those resources then did also then enable the YPG/J to militarily overreach themselves into areas that were less clearly justifiable (in terms of their politics and plans) but fitted more with those supplying the support - the defeat of IS no matter what. (Also not to say that on some level it didn't have benefits for the people there, especially some of the older elements within the PYD higher political ranks who still had some designs on the more nation state building side of stuff). It caused tension on the ground that Kurdish forces were moving into largely Arab areas supported by western military support that they wouldn't have been able to do without it. They did try and lessen this somewhat by forming a broader SDF force rather than it being a solely Kurdish led one, but that wasn't entirely convincing or successful. So I think bringing it back to Ukraine, I think it's possible to support the supply of weapons now as a needed and 'good' thing, but also be aware that this can very easily cross into something that then starts to cause problems if certain boundaries are pushed on (pushing into Russian areas for example), and that is for sure something to be careful of, but doesn't mean the position should be no weapons for you now because of what they might lead to at some distant point in the future.

I think people here have something weird about weapon supply as well. It's partly totally justifiable in terms of the history etc. of who and why it happens, although I think it's also connected to the dominance of pacifism and anti-militarism in the left wing political scene since the '50s or so. Which is partly why I think the left's position on this in Spain in the 30s is very different to Ukraine now. But I think this position doesn't logically make sense on some examination to me unless you think people should just not be fighting at all. If you accept that fighting is legitimate, but then block weaponry being sent to support this, then you're saying, 'Well you can fight, that's fine, but not with what you actually need, only with what you have now.' Which to me is clearly nonsense and is just people tying themselves in ideological knots.

Sorry that was a bit of an over-long ramble! At least it helps me think things through in my head!

Wanted to try and say something about the difference between people with similar politics having absolute 'positions' or general 'tendencies' as well, and how some of that maybe accounts for the differences in perspectives on this but ran out of steam.

 

[frogwoman]

It's weird but I find the idea of sending weapons almost easier to swallow than sanctions, the british state already ships weapons all over the place to much worse regimes like Saudi Arabia lol and nobody bats an eye. Whereas the sanctions are having real devastating effects on people I know, I'm also not at all convinced they are having the desired effect of weakening Putin, I think it's the opposite. But I think people view sanctions as less bad because it's not 'military'?

 

[The39thStep]

How would the 'arm the Ukrainians/send more arms to Ukraine ' line be implemented in practice ie what actions/protests/ etc could/ would be proposed?

 

[LDC]

How would the 'arm the Ukrainians/send more arms to Ukraine ' line be implemented in practice ie what actions/protests/ etc could/ would be proposed?

None. It's happening. I don't think anyone has suggested we do demos actually requesting it? There's some practical opposition to the supply, in Italy there's been a few refusals to handle shipments, largely by Stalinist unions I think. I wonder if the ACG and other NWBTCW positions would be supportive of that kind of action?

 

[frogwoman]

Well let's be honest its going to happen (or not) with or without anyone agreeing to it on here. Dont think a specific demo asking for it would be a good idea.

 

[chilango]

Who can arm who?

 

[LDC]

Who can arm who?

I demand the State sends my friend Yuri in Lviv 20 NLAWs! They promise they won't sell them on eBay.

 

[frogwoman]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm the cousin of a Ukrainian General in Dnipro who just died in a plane crash, please send me your bank details so I can send you a few RPGs. God bless you.

 

[zahir]

I think people here have something weird about weapon supply as well. It's partly totally justifiable in terms of the history etc. of who and why it happens, although I think it's also connected to the dominance of pacifism and anti-militarism in the left wing political scene since the '50s or so. Which is partly why I think the left's position on this in Spain in the 30s is very different to Ukraine now. But I think this position doesn't logically make sense on some examination to me unless you think people should just not be fighting at all. If you accept that fighting is legitimate, but then block weaponry being sent to support this, then you're saying, 'Well you can fight, that's fine, but not with what you actually need, only with what you have now.' Which to me is clearly nonsense and is just people tying themselves in ideological knots.

The arms embargo was of course fundamental to what happened in Spain in the 30s:

Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War: Howson, Gerald: 9780312241773: Amazon.com: Books

Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War [Howson, Gerald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War

www.amazon.com

The victory of fascism in Spain in 1936 set the stage for World War Two. As Gerald Howson argues in this startling and compelling new look at the Spanish Civil War, that victory was assured by the non-fascist European powers. When military officers and rich landowners rebelled against the left-wing Spanish government in 1936, the Spanish Republic found itself abandoned by other European nations. Hoping to prevent the escalation of the conflict into a world war, European leaders created an international arms embargo against Spain.

Arms for Spain reveals that this embargo gave Franco's rebels an enormous advantage against the Republic. While hindering arms from reaching the Republic, it allowed Hitler and Mussolini to equip Franco with enough armaments to win. The Republic was thus forced to buy illegal arms from foreign officials who extorted huge bribes for arms they never delivered. Banks and arms traffickers also swindled the Spanish government, often sending unusable weapons. Russia, long believed to be the Republic's strongest supporter, was one of the worst offenders. The Soviets provided far less aid than has been thought and defrauded the Spanish government of millions of dollars by secretly manipulating the exchange rates.

 

[The39thStep]

Just wondered that aside from agreeing to it whether there was anything practical being suggested . I get the point that it's happening and that it's happening without waiting for a section of Urban politics thread to agree to it.

 

[emanymton]

While I am in favour of weapons being sent to Ukraine not sure or is something I would ever want to demonstrate for.

In general I think it's important not to get too committed to a position. This is a complex situation which the possibility to progress in many different directions, so what is right today might be wrong tomorrow.

At the moment I am in favour of weapons being sent by NATO and for the Ukrainian state to continue the war.

But the situation could change in the future so I have to reconsider.

For example what if the Ukrainian state was to reject a peace deal that large numbers of Ukrainians want to accept and they continue the war while repressing anti-war demonstrations?

I think that's unlikely, in fact it is probably more likely they will sign a peace deal many Ukrainians reject.

 

[hitmouse]

Update Donation for Solidarity with anarchist and anti-authoritarian activist from Ukraine - Anarchist Black Cross Dresden

We support people from anarchist and anti-authoritarian community, their families and friends. For those who need to flee we help […]

abcdd.org

Since the beginning of the war, 24.02.2022 we have started gathering money to support people from anarchist and anti-authoritarian community, their families and friends.
People donated around 170.100 Euro so far.
With this money we supported Operation Solidarity and Individuals leaving the country or who are still in Ukraine and need financial support.

• Protection armor and equipment for the antiauthoritarian units 107.500 Euro
• Cars who are now in Ukraine and used there for different activities 45000 Euro
• Logistics (gasoline, car papers, …) 8600 Euro
• Individual support of people leaving the country (travel costs, accommodation, “pocket money” and special needs) and financial support for individuals inside the country 9000 Euro

Of course, while 170,100 euro/107,500 euro is a fair chunk of money, it's pretty small compared to most military budgets, but there you are: there's states who have large amounts of resources, and we can call on them to do whatever and probably get ignored; and then there's non-state actors, who have much less resources, but we can at least make more direct decisions about how we want our money to be spent.
And, as LDC mentions, there's also the issue of workers in Italy and Greece refusing to handle weapons for Ukraine on antiwar grounds - that's a tactic we'd all support in other situations, like weapons for Israel and so on, if we decide that we wouldn't support that tactic here then that's something. Again, it might seem a bit posture-y but it's not totally abstract, like I'm sure some of us here are in the same unions that British dock and transportation workers are and can have some say in arguments about what those unions should be doing.