WWII - A New Perspective?

[RF]

Fascism is ruled out for Britain and Eurpoe after WWII because the class forces are no longer in the correct proportion. It requires a mass peasantry to swell the ranks of the fascist party and secure votes in elections. Fascsm is a mass reaction to communism


From the above it is clear that WWII owes nothing to the rise of Hitler, or to fascism, even though those names are the most commonly used in association with it and which conjour up the most vile events in human history.

Vic

This is the problem with using simplistic marxist polemics. It creates a totalitarian way of thinking, not unlike nazism itself.

As for a mass peasantry in Britain - that went out before the Corn Laws.

[RF]

The one dimensionality of your posts is amazing. You seam unable to look outside your vision of the socialist capitalist confrontation.

This is the essence of marxist ideology - capitalism in crisis from its alleged own contradictions, and its ''inevitable'' replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is atheory that has been reinvented many times to cater for up to date events - to explain the apparent non-occurrence of the ''revolution'' and the fact that capitalism is stronger today than it has ever been.

[lwd]

...I think it is you who have the problem.

What problem?

I have spoken of international skulduggery where Chamberlain and others thought they could use Hitler for their own purposes, only to have it backfire on them.

Indeed you have. What you have not done is make a good case for it and you have framed it in terms an academic socialist would be proud of. For instance, I've seen a much better case made for the proposition that Chamberlain was trying to buy time while Britain rearmed.

The fact that I can identify Britain, France and Germany as capitalist nations should not hurt anyone's feelings and also the fact that I can say that Hitler used socialism in the title of his party, but without conviction, should not cause offence in the slightest.

What makes you think anyone took offence at this? I did find the harping on workers rights a bit much especially as the workers in Nazi Germany probably had more rights than those in the USSR just about any time during the 30s. So it was rather irrelevant at best and misleading at worse.

I think it is you who have tunnel vision. You need a rest.

A couple opinions without any logic or data to support them. Why do you think I have tunnel vision? I have for instance disputed some of your allegations from quite a few different angles which does not seam to me to be consistent with "tunnel vision".

Ss an optical exercise, try reading the posts and developing a balanced view before leaping to post yourself.

Balance in this case is a mental function and I think I've already developed to a reasonable extent. I do admit I just skimmed some of your posts. They seamed to be extremly wordy considrering the amount of relevant information included.

If the words capitalist and socialist have caused irritation to your eyes, might I suggest rinsing them in warm water or if that doesn't work plucking them out altogether. They don't seem to be doing you any good. The next word I will be irritating you with is Balkanisation, so be prepared.

Based on the above you completly missunderstand my postion and comments. I have no problem with use of the words capitalist, socialist, or Balkanisation. I do have a problem with people putting arguments in terms of theories that have been shown not to work in the real world. Especially when they put things in very black in white terms. Like it or not the world we live in is full of many colors and shades of gray.

...The main thrust of my argument was that the word appeasement was not totally applicable to Chamberlain's strategy in Europe, even thought that is what he became famous for.

Appeasement is a too it is not a strategy.

British foreign policy in Europe at the time aided Britain and secured certain gains in diplomacy which might otherwise have caused problems for her in the market economy abroad.....

Again several paragraphs that seam to imply that everything was based on competitive international economic issues. This completly ignores a number of other key issues as well as cooperative aspects of the situation. As long as you frame the issues solely in such terms you will fail to present a true and complete picture.

...That war could be so certain from a single diplomatic blunder is an expression of world economic decay at the time.

It is far from clear that it was certain for a single diplomatic blunder or that this is an unusual circumstance or that it has anything to do with "world economic decay". Let's look at it in some detail:
1) It is not at all clear that the goals you ascribe to Chamberlain were indeed the goals he was persueing.
2) Even if they were it is not at all clear that persueing different goals would have avoided the war.
3) Single diplomatic blunders have caused wars on quite a few occasions.
4) The worlds economic situation was improvening dramatically in the mid to late 30's and can hardly be describeds as in a state of "decay".

[Vic Dale]

LWD and RF

You both amaze me.

I have said not a single word about my own political views deliberately, so not to turn this into an ideological battle, yet because I have used the words captitalism and socialsim, which can be found in the works of A.J.P Tailor, Churchill, Bullock and Liddel Hart, on whose works I have based myself soley, you divine that I am a marxist. I am sure there are many who consider themselves marxists, but I am sure that Lenin and Trotsky would have inisisted on a little more theory than that, before they were considered fit to wear the title.

There are very few worthwhile books about WWII written by socialsists, many of whom consider the study a side issue and not worth bothering with. I find it strange that we can use the words socialist, communist, marxist etc without turning a hair, yet when someone dares to use the word - dare I say it? - capitalism - all hell breaks loose. John Maynard Keynes wrote a book called "Understanding Capitalism." Would that make him a marxist - a Trotskyist? Is capitalism some sort of ideological dirty underwear that we must hide under the bed? I was under the impression that communism had been defeated in the 1990s and that capitalsim ruled supreme. Why are we not impressed with this? Why do we have to shie away from using the word? I don't understand, please enlighten.

As a matter of historical fact, the forces of genuine marxisim had beome utterly marginalised during the 1930s and in the war years, so what they did or did not do does not concern us here. What does concern us is the way in which Stalin's so-called communist government, and Hilter's so-called socialist government were able to blend with and form alliances with capitalist nations whose base ideology was diametrically opposed to them. Clearly somebody was not telling the truth and believe it or not this red-fanged Trotskyist thinks it was Hitler and Stalin who were lying to their people about being communists and socialists and the leaders of Britain, France and the USA, were quite open about being capitalist.

Let us focus ourselves on the issue at hand if we possibly can. Chamberlain was accused of appeasing Hitler, yet Hitler was no threat militarilly or economically, so if he was using Hitler for Britain's benefit the word 'Appeasement' hardly applies. Through Chamberlain's machinations France lost her place as leading nation in Europe, to be replaced by a nation which did not have economic independence and was still subject to strictures imposed by the Versailles treaty. A measure of France's weakness is shown by the fact that despite Chamberlain, France still entered the pact with Britain against Hitler. Possibly Chamberlain feigned weakness to convince France of his innocence, if he did it certainly worked.

It was with surprising ease that the remnants of Versailles were swept away from Hitler's path and with no little help from Britain, yet the minute Hitler crossed the line by asking for a pact with Poland which secured the road link between East and West Prussia and gave Danzig to Hitler, Chamberlain immediately stamped on him, abandoned policy and effectively pitched Europe into war. That is hardly the work of a wet-pants who could not stand up to a militarily weak dictator.

Chamberlain was branded an appeaser who gave in to Hitler and the misery for him was that since France was now Britain's ally in the war, he could never defend himself against his accusers. The failure in Norway was largely down to Churchill, but when the reckoning came it was the hapless Chamberlain who had to go and Churchill became prime minister.

With the fall of France the question of the French fleet came to the fore. Hitler had promised the French ruling elite that France would be able to carry on as usual, she still had most of her colonies in Africa and the Far and Middle East and it seems that the Vichy element which was largely pro-fascist was left unmolested. The destruction of the fleet, far from being one of Churchill's blunders, seems actually to have been a continuation of British pre-war foreign policy. And it did serve to convince Roosevelt and those around him that Britain meant to fight on and honour the promises made before the outbreak of war, especially in regard to preservation of her empire and overseeing the demise of the French empire.

It is pretty certain that Germany would not be able to use the French fleet in the Atlantic campaign, but the French themselves having caved in to Hitler would be able to employ them, policing the French empire overseas which still remained intact. Those ships really did need to be destroyed and though I myself criticised Churchill for this action in the past, this sort of in-depth examination of the deeper causes and effects of the war and the path that led to it has convinced me otherwise.

Taking account of all this, it seems likely that discussion was had between the US and Britain with a view that the depression of the 1930s had made it all but impossible for the world economy to sustain two massive empires and that one or the other should go. The relationship between Britain and the USA largely built by the likes of Churchill and those around him, even elements of the conservative government, may have included the promise of support in the event of war between the two empires, or at least the promise of a free hand and this may be one of the factors which established US isolationist policy. The USA seems to have been isolationist except where it chose to intervene.

Vic

[Vic Dale]

Especially for LWD.

You speak of shades of grey and these I agree are important in gaining a full understanding of what went on. Perhaps it would be better to add those shades instead of getting insensed and simply writing off everything I say. My hypothesis is based on facts which can easily be found in the standard history books, however my own political experience has shown me that there is much leeway to be had between the brackets described by a particular policy and in the actions and interpretations of those involved in diplomacy. Facts can be put together in a number of different ways and differing conclusions can be derived from them.

The question is, do we trust what we read in the newspapers? If we do then the whole and truthful history was written before Churchill could get pen to paper and there was no need for him to make his adjustments. If on the other hand we distrust what was written at the time, we find that on digging deep we can learn a thing or two and find that all was not laid before the masses eager to know what was going on. We can also apply that to what the likes of Churchill himself placed before us, because that man had axes to grind and things to try and cover up, actions to justify. Much of this has been revealed, as secret papers have been released and dedicated journalists and others have trawled through reams of documents to find nuggets of history which shed light on events which were not revealed in the past, or which were conveniently distorted.

That simple act of forming the pact with Pilsudski against Hitler, created a situation by which war could not have been avoided. I am certain that the likes of Chamberlain and even Churchill will have tried every way possible to find a peaceful solution. Yet to judge by the poutward apearance of their attitudes at the time, Chamberlain comes over as rather desperate and Churchill as pugnacious. Churchill denounced Chamberlain's decision outright in Volume 1 of the History of WWII yet he wholeheartedly who supported the pact at the time. (Liddel Hart History of the 2nd World War P. 39.)

The likes of Chamberlain and Churchill, Roosevelt too, were experienced politicians and knew a thing or two about keeping their hand close to their chest, keeping their own council when needed and letting the odd hint slip to wrong-foot an opponent. The dictators on the other hand did not have the experience to be able to manipulate and were rather easy to read. I believe this is because their positions were precarious and it made them rather paranoid (very paranoid at times) and it led them to rely largely on their own wits, whereas Britain, France and the USA each had a vast political structure to rely on and fingers in every pie, making it possible for them to shift policy without necessarily making it public. The dictators needed to be seen to act and be decisive at all times, whilst the democracies could be seen to bumble and get away with it - most of the time. In short, the dictators had something to prove, whereas the democracies had established reputations.

Vic

[Bgile]

Reading all this made my mind wander a bit and I was thinking ...

I wonder if Chamberlain looked into Hitler's eyes and thought he got a sense of his soul ...

[lwd]

..., yet because I have used the words captitalism and socialsim ... you divine that I am a marxist.

If that's what you think then you have clearly not understood what I've said.
1) Any labeling has nothing to do with your use of the word "capitalism" or "socialism". I'm pretty sure I've said this at least once earlier.
2) I didn't say you were a marxist.
What I did say is that you seam to be framing everything in terms that a rather single minded socialist (or if you prefer marxist) would.

... I find it strange that we can use the words socialist, communist, marxist etc without turning a hair, yet when someone dares to use the word - dare I say it? - capitalism - all hell breaks loose. ... Why do we have to shie away from using the word? I don't understand, please enlighten.

1) There has been little to no reaction to the use of the word "capitaism".
2) We don't shy away from using the word.
3) Try rereading and comprehending what was said earlier in the thread.

As a matter of historical fact, the forces of genuine marxisim had beome utterly marginalised during the 1930s and in the war years, so what they did or did not do does not concern us here. What does concern us is the way in which Stalin's so-called communist government, and Hilter's so-called socialist government were able to blend with and form alliances with capitalist nations whose base ideology was diametrically opposed to them.

I'm not sure anyone really thought especially after the middle of the 20th century that the Nazis were socialist. As for communism well a thing is what it is. Real world communism was a long way from it's theoretical form but that is as much an indictment of the theory as the form.

...Let us focus ourselves on the issue at hand if we possibly can.

OK

Chamberlain was accused of appeasing Hitler, yet Hitler was no threat militarilly or economically,

History rather indicates otherwise.

so if he was using Hitler for Britain's benefit the word 'Appeasement' hardly applies.

Why not?

Through Chamberlain's machinations France lost her place as leading nation in Europe, to be replaced by a nation which did not have economic independence and was still subject to strictures imposed by the Versailles treaty. A measure of France's weakness is shown by the fact that despite Chamberlain, France still entered the pact with Britain against Hitler. Possibly Chamberlain feigned weakness to convince France of his innocence, if he did it certainly worked.

This opinion does seams based on no fact or logic that I can discern.

It was with surprising ease that the remnants of Versailles were swept away from Hitler's path and with no little help from Britain, yet the minute Hitler crossed the line by asking for a pact with Poland which secured the road link between East and West Prussia and gave Danzig to Hitler, Chamberlain immediately stamped on him, abandoned policy and effectively pitched Europe into war.

I believe you will find that Britain actually started reacting to Hitler's aggression well before that. Look at the British military production for some clues.

....

My impression is that you are choosing the facts to fit your theories rather than deriving the theories from the facts. The whole French British relationship thing seams grossly over simplified and at least partially at odds with what I know of British policy.

Taking account of all this, it seems likely that discussion was had between the US and Britain with a view that the depression of the 1930s had made it all but impossible for the world economy to sustain two massive empires and that one or the other should go.

I find this unconvincing and unlikely. It is far from clear that this was the case. Indeed historically there were two massive blocks (if not empires) after the war.

... this may be one of the factors which established US isolationist policy. The USA seems to have been isolationist except where it chose to intervene....

Thus demonstrating that you don't really understand what "isolationism" meant/means with respect to US foreign policy in the 19th and 20th centuries. It did not mean that the US avoided getting involved with overseas issues it meant that the US wanted to avoid getting dragged unwillingly into European wars.

[RF]

LWD and RF

You both amaze me.

I have said not a single word about my own political views deliberately, so not to turn this into an ideological battle, yet because I have used the words captitalism and socialsim, which can be found in the works of A.J.P Tailor, Churchill, Bullock and Liddel Hart, on whose works I have based myself soley, you divine that I am a marxist.

Vic

By writing marxist polemics you are giving your own, or should I say a marxist interpretation of history. Otherwise why go on about class war? A phrase not pursued as a holy grail by any of the authors you quote above, not even by Taylor who was a socialist himself.

[RF]

My impression is that you are choosing the facts to fit your theories rather than deriving the theories from the facts.

The tool of all political ideologues.

[Vic Dale]

Well clearly I have polarised this discussion around class issues without intending to and I have trodden on some very sore corns. Tough! I am perfectly prepared to have my views challenged and for members to point out where I am wrong, but when people try to silence a hypothesis by denouncing the originator as; marxist, socialist, trotskyist etc, then it is my contention - based on long experience of such types - that they have run out of ideas and have lost the argument.

The limited and narrow interpretations presented by certain members here, demonstrates that they have not the wit to see that far from presenting an extreme left wing position I could be accused of defending Chamberlain and that, I believe, has not been attempted often. For those who don't know, Chamberlain was a conservative and his defence is hardly likely to be the lynch-pin of a polemic designed to promote marxist ideas.

Let us try again to steer this discussion back to the point by asking;

Did Chamberlain have anything to fear from Hitler gaining in strength in Europe?

And supplementary to that; If the answer is no, why then would he need to appease him?

[RF]

I am not trying to silence any hypothesis, merely identifying where intectually it comes from. Neither am I the least offended by marxist, or indeed fascist views for that matter, having studied them on my degree.

What I am saying is that by adopting a holoistic paradigm, such as a class war or a marxist-leninist typology then in the words of lwd you are adopting a one dimensional approach. This is reflected in your question about Chamberlain fearing Hitler or why adopt an appeasement approach, as it precludes the possibilty of other motives, such as a genuine desire to prevent war, which Britain wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in anyway.

I am also well aware of the technique of confusing criticism with an attempt to supress views - only the webmaster can do that on this site and thus far there is no sign of it being done.

[lwd]

Well clearly I have polarised this discussion around class issues without intending to and I have trodden on some very sore corns. Tough! I am perfectly prepared to have my views challenged and for members to point out where I am wrong, but when people try to silence a hypothesis by denouncing the originator as; marxist, socialist, trotskyist etc, then it is my contention - based on long experience of such types - that they have run out of ideas and have lost the argument.

You seam to be having a lot of trouble understanding what others were/are saying. I don't see any of us trying to silence you or even getting particularly upset about things as you seam to be implying. However at least some of us reject the basic assumptions upon much of which your arguments seam to be based. When we have pointed out problems both with the data and logic in your posts we are for the most part treated to a paragraph such as the above which mistates out postions and does nothing to address the problems we have pointed out.

The limited and narrow interpretations presented by certain members here, demonstrates that they have not the wit to see that far from presenting an extreme left wing position I could be accused of defending Chamberlain and that, I believe, has not been attempted often. For those who don't know, Chamberlain was a conservative and his defence is hardly likely to be the lynch-pin of a polemic designed to promote marxist ideas.

The only one I see here with a limited and narrow interpretation is you. For instance, you have decided what and why Chamberlain was doing without examing other possiblities or even addressing them when they are raised. Whether it can be considered a defence or not is irrelevant. Again from what I've seen if his defence helped or fit with someones world view no matter what it was I'm hardly surprised if they defend him even if his politics differ from theirs.

Let us try again to steer this discussion back to the point by asking;

Did Chamberlain have anything to fear from Hitler gaining in strength in Europe?

The answer is a clear and well documented yes.

And supplementary to that; If the answer is no, why then would he need to appease him?

Since the answer is yes this is rather irrelvant.

[Vic Dale]

LWD.

I wasn't looking for a one-liner.

You don't seem exactly stuck of words much of the time, so can you possibly enlarge a little and try and show where and form what conditions, Chamberlain had anything to fear form Hitler?

[lwd]

History illustrates it at least in part quite clearly.

[Vic Dale]

I am not trying to silence any hypothesis, merely identifying where intectually it comes from. Neither am I the least offended by marxist, or indeed fascist views for that matter, having studied them on my degree.

What I am saying is that by adopting a holoistic paradigm, such as a class war or a marxist-leninist typology then in the words of lwd you are adopting a one dimensional approach. This is reflected in your question about Chamberlain fearing Hitler or why adopt an appeasement approach, as it precludes the possibilty of other motives, such as a genuine desire to prevent war, which Britain wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in anyway.

I am also well aware of the technique of confusing criticism with an attempt to supress views - only the webmaster can do that on this site and thus far there is no sign of it being done.

I thought there was a degree or two lurking about here somewhere.

Why would Chamberlain be desirous of preventing war in 1937 when, In Churchill's own words, Hitler could not muster six traned divisions in 1938?