[PEN-L:32409] Re: Rx6: Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot

[joanna bujes <joanna.bujes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not have detailed knowledge of pre WWII days; a friend who does, writes:

"That is true about Czechoslovakia, except that Stalin was lobbying Britian
and France to go to war against Germany at the same time.  But they didn't,
and the geographical layout of Czechoslovakia viz a viz the USSR didn't make
a solo intervention feasible.

But Carrol elides the issue of why Stalin _was not_ willing to fight, as he
slides the argument from Czechoslovakia to Poland.  POLAND was a different
matter entirely:  Britain and France had signaled and, if fact, went to war
over Poland;  the USSR had an _extensive_ border with Poland.  Intervention
against the Nazis was not only very feasible, but the strategic conditions
were ideal, though it did entail that Stalin bear the greater part of the
risk at the time.  But, wasn't the his "revolutionary duty", to take the LEAD
in the fight against fascism?

Nope, Stalin took up the rear at a crucial moment.  Stalin adhered to the
letter of the Pact like a good bourgeois.  With fascists no less, who by
definition do not adhere to bourgeois norms.  By doing so, Stalin guaranteed
that the war to come would be far costlier to the Soviet Union than it need
be. But, if with luck he survived, Stalin could emerge from this mess an even
"Greater Leader", in direct proportion to the immensity of the disaster of
the Nazi invasion.  And that is exactly what happened, though I am sure the
idiot leader did not intend it that way.  Bravo!

My point was: the REALLY RATIONAL thing to have done would have been to sign
the Pact with the intention of DOUBLECROSSING the Nazis! Doublecross the
ultimate doublecrossers! That would have been the _Bolshevik_ thing to do!
Whatever happened to the bourgeois watchword:  "You can't trust the
Communists"? They certainly could trust Stalin!  It would not have been a
solo intervention, because Britain and France were already at war, however
feebly they prosecuted it in 1939-40.

What was so "rational" about letting the Nazis ovverrun most of Poland,
redeploy their offensive power against France and defeat it, then redeploy a
vastly expanded force against the USSR, all virtually unopposed?  Sounds like
Stalin F**KED UP in his game, big time!  Sounds like Stalin thought the Nazis
would get bogged down in France, as in WWI.  Sounds like Stalin was fighting
the proverbial last war.  Wrong!"


> Umm, in case you did not notice, I was defending Stalin on that particular
> issue - saying he made the best choice of those actually available to him;
> the other choices open to the Soviets at that point would have helped
> Hitler. As it happens Stalin was "Stallin" at a time wnen "Stallin" was
> the right thing to do. I mean was he supposed to take on Hitler without
> allies? Or let Hitler take all of Poland instead of half? He would have
> been an idiot not to have stalled at that point. He chose the least evil
> of the bad alternatives available in those circumsances.
>
> As to Stalin being a mass murderer, a butcher a monster - I didn't know
> anyone still argued it.  And I don't know why recogizing that Stalin was a
> monster would keep anyone from recognizing the monstrosity in U.S.
> Capitalism. I don't want to argue the point. I just want to note that
> someone who very anti-Stalin can recognize that he made the right choice
> in Poland.