International Communist Current public forum on world war two, London 14 November

In Bloom · Nov 15, 2009

behemoth said:
Did anyone anywhere say WW2 was not bad? Deary.

Could have had me fooled, given the screaming outrage at the suggestion that the mass slaughter of civillians is a bad thing, no matter what the crimes of government ruling over them may be.

People saw country after country fall to the Nazis, and felt their very existence was under threat, which it was. I don't blame them for doing whatever was necessary to defend themselves. I would have done too, as most normal people would.

Fine, and of course nobody's going to argue that there was anything "wrong" with people defending themselves against the Nazis. The argument of the ICC isn't that the Allies shouldn't have fought in WWII, it's a tad more nuanced than that. The point is that both sides represented capitalist factions, for the ICC, choosing the lesser of two capitalist evils is a false choice, since which one wins is determined by which is more powerful, not which one is slightly less evil. They argue (and I broadly agree) that the working class needs to unite across national borders and stop war altogether.

The attrocities of Nazi Germany were truly horrific, but they were not the reason that the Allies went to war, they're just a handy post-hoc justification for a decision that had already been made long before most people in Britain or America even knew about them.

The political posturing of some after the event sound uneasily like positions adopted by neo Nazis.

Neo-Nazis adopt the position that Germany during the Second World War was an imperialist power participating in acts of terrible and unjustifiable barbarism?

tbaldwin · Nov 15, 2009

Alfredo said:
Black Hand, as a 'marxist' or 'anarchist', perhaps, instead of getting hot under the colour about my utopian liberalism, you should think about answering some of the recent posts that have apologised for the cold blooded slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden, Hamburg and Hiroshima for 'tactical' reasons

Alfredo what would you have done instead. 1 Surrendered to Hitler and Hirohito. 2 Let the war go on for a few more years/decades?

tbaldwin · Nov 15, 2009

smokedout said:
un-fucking-believable

Shouldnt you just stick to the drugs threads?

The Black Hand · Nov 15, 2009

derf said:
Fucking stupid post.
It's fucking war. When attacked by a seriously vicious enemy, you do whatever you can to finish them asap.
Yep, civilians died as they did in London and other British cities. So fucking what? Moan about those attacks as well or first.
It's a fucking war not a 'be nice' competition.
The atomic bombs saved how many lives? The invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been a fucking bloodbath. See what happened on the islands. Those who moan about the use of the bombs always manage to forget about that.
Bunch of fucking leftie idiots who are just trying to score a few points but rewriting history. Silly cunts to a man.

This is pretty spot on tbh, the lefty idiots who try and abstract certain events of the war for a critique are misplaced and utopian. You cannot do that realistically because you totally miss the class struggle dynamic, the dynamic cannot be discovered by starting at a bombing raid, that is totally wrong. The events were caught up in the totality of war and the political events which preceeded it (including WW1).

They SHOULD study actually existing class warfare instead (that's now and today).

Pickman's model · Nov 15, 2009

The Black Hand said:
This is pretty spot on tbh, the lefty idiots who try and abstract certain events of the war for a critique are misplaced and utopian. You cannot do that realistically because you totally miss the class struggle dynamic, the dynamic cannot be discovered by starting at a bombing raid, that is totally wrong. The events were caught up in the totality of war and the political events which preceeded it (including WW1).

They SHOULD study actually existing class warfare instead (that's now and today).

building on what you've said here, your point seems to be that the obvious lesson for the here and now is that you can't try and abstract certain events of the class war for a critique because you'd miss the dynamic and context in which those events occurred?

Pickman's model · Nov 15, 2009

tbaldwin said:
Alfredo what would you have done instead. 1 Surrendered to Hitler and Hirohito. 2 Let the war go on for a few more years/decades?

the implication is you think that the bombing of hamburg and dresden shortened the war by some years. on what would you base this?

phildwyer · Nov 15, 2009

Pickman's model said:
building on what you've said here, your point seems to be that the obvious lesson for the here and now is that you can't try and abstract certain events of the class war for a critique because you'd miss the dynamic and context in which those events occurred?

Does anyone have any idea what this clown is trying to say here?

Anyone at all?

Nigel · Nov 15, 2009

I'm inclined to take the perspective that although a this war was a build up of imperial and capitalist interests, from at least 1942 onwards it was a 'Just War' from even a socialist perspective.

Obviously with the bombing of Dresden & Hamburg, this was a tactic in terror, not military strategy however although what we have been indoctrinated to believe terror as a tactic can be successful.

Nagasaki & Hiroshima definitely had racist connotations for instance the view put forward by Truman. And definitely in the interests of American Foreign Policy for them becoming the major world superpower
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1269
However they could not have known how advanced Germany was in developing such weapons.

Its pointless to try and work out what would have happened in parallel universes if different tactic had happened form the hindsight of the twentieth century for obvious reasons.

More interesting would be to analyse the mythology created around the victory of the allies was used in relation to the paternalistic role through the cold war, decolonisation & beyond.

How did the meeting go by the way? :rolleyes:

Pickman's model · Nov 15, 2009

phildwyer said:
Does anyone have any idea what this clown is trying to say here?

Anyone at all?

no one gives a flying fuck what you're on about, dwyer. you're a fucking loser. get back to the fucking god thread and prove his/her existence, of you can.

tbaldwin · Nov 15, 2009

Pickman's model said:
the implication is you think that the bombing of hamburg and dresden shortened the war by some years. on what would you base this?

That you seem to think the opposite but cant say why. Like all the other middle class anarchist clowns ive met.

The Black Hand · Nov 16, 2009

Pickman's model said:
building on what you've said here, your point seems to be that the obvious lesson for the here and now is that you can't try and abstract certain events of the class war for a critique because you'd miss the dynamic and context in which those events occurred?

Yes, when i say a study of the class struggle today, I mean also a look at its relevant history to understand the totality of the situation. It means looking at, in the case of Royal Mail, management initiatives, workplace resistance (informal and formal), union publications and statements, in short the history of the labour process relevant to workers employed in the Post office. It would also be useful to look at postal worker solidarity with other workers to see where some reciprocal solidarity could be asked for, and to calculate what workers are in a strategic position to help postal workers in a future dispute. These informal relationships should be built up now for the struggles which are sure to come.

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

tbaldwin said:
Alfredo what would you have done instead. 1 Surrendered to Hitler and Hirohito. 2 Let the war go on for a few more years/decades?

Your "argument" seems to rest on the assumption that were Alf around at the time he'd be in a position to make such a decision. Somewhat silly, to say the least.

likesfish · Nov 16, 2009

they would just have done what uncle joe told them to

from 39 to 41 obstruct the war as a imperialist adventure and then do a 180 and support the great patrotic war.
then go back top being against the british state in 1945 :mad:

phildwyer · Nov 16, 2009

Pickman's model said:
building on what you've said here, your point seems to be that the obvious lesson for the here and now is that you can't try and abstract certain events of the class war for a critique because you'd miss the dynamic and context in which those events occurred?

I don't know about anyone else, but I seriously can't make any sense out of this. Has Pickman's never heard of punctuation?

Hang on, I'll try reading it backwards...

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

likesfish said:
they would just have done what uncle joe told them to
from 39 to 41 obstruct the war as a imperialist adventure and then do a 180 and support the great patrotic war.
then go back top being against the british state in 1945

As opposed to the entirely principled U-turn that Churchill performed after calling Hitler a great man for years and de facto supporting a fascist coup in Spain through inaction.

phildwyer · Nov 16, 2009

In Bloom said:
As opposed to the entirely principled U-turn that Churchill performed after calling Hitler a great man for years

You wot?

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

phildwyer said:
You wot?

"If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations" - Churchill, Great Contemporaries

He wasn't exactly a fan of the "uncivilised tribes" that the British empire was in the process of trying to conquer, either.

phildwyer · Nov 16, 2009

In Bloom said:
"If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations" - Churchill, Great Contemporaries.

I'm aware of that comment, but it hardly constitutes "calling him a great man for years."

Churchill was pretty consistent in warning against Hitler's intentions. His private intelligence was better than the government's, so he knew all about the re-armament program.

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

phildwyer said:
I'm aware of that comment, but it hardly constitutes "calling him a great man for years."

Churchill was pretty consistent in warning against Hitler's intentions. His private intelligence was better than the government's, so he knew all about the re-armament program.

Churchill was aware of the threat that German imperialism posed to British imperialism, hardly inconsistant with what is obviously a certain level of personal admiration for Hitler.

phildwyer · Nov 16, 2009

In Bloom said:
Churchill was aware of the threat that German imperialism posed to British imperialism, hardly inconsistant with what is obviously a certain level of personal admiration for Hitler.

Nah, Churchill thought Hitler was a jumped-up corporal with no class or breeding, and the unscrupulousness born of vulgarity. He wouldn't have hired him as his gardener.

kyser_soze · Nov 16, 2009

The question comes down to 'Which brand of imperialism would you rather have had won the war?'

I know my answer to that question.

As to the issue of Dresden etc yes it's horrible that lots of civilians lost their lives. So when, on this august site, as we going to discuss the atrocities carried out by the heroic Soviet irregular battallions as they made their way West into Germany?

No one side has a monopoly on moral supremacy or degeneracy coming out of WW2. Was Dresden a horrible thing? Yes. So was Coventry. Was bombing Hiroshima a horrfic thing? Yes. So was the Rape of Nanking.

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

phildwyer said:
Nah, Churchill thought Hitler was a jumped-up corporal with no class or breeding, and the unscrupulousness born of vulgarity. He wouldn't have hired him as his gardener.

If you say so. I don't really give a fuck, my point is that Churchill (along with the rest of the British establishment at the time) was quite content to tolerate the spread of fascism before it started to threaten his class interests.

Had the British state wished to do so, they could have intervened in Spain and prevented the establishment of a fascist regime there, they didn't, because it was more important to them that the growing workers' movement in Spain be crushed.

The Black Hand · Nov 16, 2009

In Bloom said:
If you say so. I don't really give a fuck, my point is that
(A)Churchill (along with the rest of the British establishment at the time) was quite content to tolerate the spread of fascism before it started to threaten his class interests.

(B) Had the British state wished to do so, they could have intervened in Spain and prevented the establishment of a fascist regime there, they didn't, because it was more important to them that the growing workers' movement in Spain be crushed.

A) I do not think so, Churchill was warning for years about German rearmament and fascism. Agreed he didn't do it from a working class point of view but wtf do you expect?

B) Not so sure about that, they tried it with Russia and got their asses kicked at home (workers solidarity) and abroad didn't they? Why should they have intervened? That seems to be wishful thinking and projection to me. I think indifference is what makes sense here, they do not HAVE to intervene in each and every case/country. They left Franco till he died, cos he didn't try any games.

The Black Hand · Nov 16, 2009

phildwyer said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I seriously can't make any sense out of this. Has Pickman's never heard of punctuation?

Hang on, I'll try reading it backwards...

I know what he means

You should abandon the search for grammer and solely concentrate upon meaning in each and every case.

In Bloom · Nov 16, 2009

The Black Hand said:
A) I do not think so, Churchill was warning for years about German rearmament and fascism.

Again, only from the point of view that it might threaten British ruling class interests.

Agreed he didn't do it from a working class point of view but wtf do you expect?

I don't expect any different, that's exactly my point.

B) Not so sure about that, they tried it with Russia and got their asses kicked at home (workers solidarity) and abroad didn't they?

Different situation, in Spain they weren't actively intervening (they didn't need to, inaction in the face of appeals by liberal Republicans for arms in defence of liberal democracy was enough).

Why should they have intervened? That seems to be wishful thinking and projection to me. I think indifference is what makes sense here, they do not HAVE to intervene in each and every case/country. They left Franco till he died, cos he didn't try any games.

I think you're misunderstanding me here, I'm not saying that the British government should or shouldn't have done anything, I'm simply trying to point out that the Second World War was not some heroic struggle against fascism, just a war between two groups of imperialist powers, one of which happened to be a little less barbaric in its treatment of working class people at home. Questions of what individuals alive now would have done were they in power (probably the same thing, nobody is saying that Churchill was actually intrinsically evil, simply that he followed the logic of his own social position) or which side you'd prefer to have won a conflict that is already over are ultimately irrelevant.

The Black Hand · Nov 16, 2009

In Bloom said:
I'm simply trying to point out that the Second World War was not some heroic struggle against fascism, just a war between two groups of imperialist powers, one of which happened to be a little less barbaric in its treatment of working class people at home.

I think there was a huge amount of 'heroic struggle against fascism', from anarchists in Italy, communists virtually everywhere and many many others. I also think that there was a huge amount of socialist aspirations involved too, there was huge social change and feelings of collectivity generated. EP. Thompson wanted to rescue the intentions of those involved in the war too, informed in part by his brother Frank, who was made a national hero in Bulgaria i think.

Nigel · Nov 16, 2009

How did the meeting go anyway?

The Black Hand · Nov 16, 2009

Nigel said:
How did the meeting go anyway?

There were 3 men sat in a room, 2 spoke to each other, nodding. The third man sat apart, he had a minor disagreement about the Spanish Civil War actually being about rival imperialisms and hadn't spoken to any other members since.

Pickman's model · Nov 16, 2009

tbaldwin said:
That you seem to think the opposite but cant say why. Like all the other middle class anarchist clowns ive met.

so your claim is made on the basis of your belief that i disagree with you. how very well thought out of you.

but returning to the real world, have you any concrete grounds on which you're basing the suggestion that the bombing of dresden and hamburg shortened the war by years?

Pickman's model · Nov 16, 2009

phildwyer said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I seriously can't make any sense out of this. Has Pickman's never heard of punctuation?

Hang on, I'll try reading it backwards...

have you never heard of syntax?

International Communist Current public forum on world war two, London 14 November

Joyless and full of hate

the experts are morons

the experts are morons

Unclean

Starry Wisdom

Starry Wisdom

Plata o plomo

For A Degenerates' Workers State

Starry Wisdom

the experts are morons

Unclean

Joyless and full of hate

You can't park here sir

Plata o plomo

Joyless and full of hate

Plata o plomo

Joyless and full of hate

Plata o plomo

Joyless and full of hate

Plata o plomo

Hawking's Angry Eyebrow

Joyless and full of hate

Unclean

Unclean

Joyless and full of hate

Unclean

For A Degenerates' Workers State

Unclean

Starry Wisdom

Starry Wisdom

Similar threads