[PEN-L:32420] Re: Re: Rx6: Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/20/02 4:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, joanna.bujes@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> 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.


Acknowledged and read. 

There are two aspects raised that are of interest to me personally: the military considerations of the proletarian state, which also has a diplomatic side and the question of fascist state rule in Germany that cannot be separated from the defeat of the working class movement and democracy

I responded to this question of Stalin because it allows me to inject the framework of a new doctrine within Marxism. I of course refer to the impact of robotics and why we are in fact passing - undergoing an evolutionary leap, to a new mode of production. 

Perhaps in the future I will find time to consult my brother on the specifics of the military question and Stalin's purges of the military. My brother is an International rep in the UAW and has studied this matter in detail more than I, although I am familiar with the above argument and the concept of "double-crossing."  Previously you advance the military doctrine of the preemptive strike and stated clearly that Stalin could have prevented the Second Imperial World War if he had the rights ideas and policy. 

May I suggest that you examine the state of industrialization  in Russia in 1939 and compare it with Germany, Britain and the United States and then ponder why one million ice picks - yes ice picks, were issued to the combatants in Leningrad. You might find the book "900 Days in Leningrad" to be of interest. 

The class configuration of the 20th century makes a preemptive strike on the part of the proletarian state against a major imperial center impossible. 

Stalin was very clear on the class configuration of society, including the internal economy of the Soviet Union and why it generated the counter revolution. 

Melvin P.