[fuser]

I was commenting on the way you nonchalantly brushed over the biggest exception to your claim 'Germany and the Soviet union were arch enemies', A part of course from that little treaty THE ONLY EXCEPTION where they signed a non aggression pact, divided up Europe into spheres of their respective influence where no party would object to what they did in such spheres, Forming a military alliance providing the use of bases and the joint invasion of a neutral country and the subsequent shared intelligence operation between the two security services in dealing with polish dissent. Oh and there were combined military operations that predate the treaty, continuing the arrangement with Weimar Germany to train the German army in the Soviet Union. But this is clearly because the international officially condemned Fascism Facists and communists were mortal enemies, like those other class enemies they were allied witha and divided europe between.

You are making no sense now, so where I am wrong exactly, are you saying that they were friends before 1939

o it makes sense to view it as a short term alternative to socialism

I don't care if it makes sense to you, what matters is how Marxists of those times viewed it as...

I was speaking purely hypothetically, you are saying that socialist countries should take an aggressive policy that prioritises fascist states.

No I m not saying that, don't take things out of context and try to grasp more than just literal meaning...

Your examples are awful.

Yeah sure your hypothesis are great and real world examples are awful So, why don't you for once try to give one real world example for a change and not just what you dream about........

These governments in the eastern bloc you are talking about were imposed, its that simple.

Like Germany, now I don't need to cite anything else.. So, you didn't read it or you deliberately left it.... Now, Benjamin its just an Internet forum you need to understand this first.

Whatever you have stated has nothing to do with the quote of mine which you have cited........

It has everything to do with that quote and its not my fault if you can't understand it...You are telling Bolsheviks to wait for fascist state to decay more and more until its ripe for workers revolution just like they were told by social democrats to wait for Russia to get fully industrialized to make workers revolution....

Fascism is more than just capitalism in decay and also no form capitalism shall be supported/encouraged by a marxist.

So Why is it so much worse than the state of capitalism?

and how exactly that questions arises from that quote?? Once again you make no sense.........

[Benjamin Noyles]

You are making no sense now, so where I am wrong exactly, are you saying that they were friends before 1939 :?:

Sorry to break it to you, buit that as well. Was The soviet union at war with these countries? No. Did they have diplomatic relations and other foreign arrangements? Yes. Apart from whats said on paper, the Soviet Union didn't have much worse relations with them than any other country. That beside I don't see how this helps your argument in any way as any exception pretty much shatters the anti-fascist integrity.

You keep brushing over the pact, That was fairly major! Here it is again as you missed it because apparantly i am not using historical examples.
"they signed a non aggression pact, divided up Europe into spheres of their respective influence where no party would object to what they did in such spheres, Forming a military alliance providing the use of bases and the joint invasion of a neutral country and the subsequent shared intelligence operation between the two security services in dealing with polish dissent. Oh and there were combined military operations that predate the treaty, continuing the arrangement with Weimar Germany to train the German army in the Soviet Union."

I don't care if it makes sense to you, what matters is how Marxists of those times viewed it as...

Which wouldn't be yourself. I was paraphrasing, obviously and the commintern at the time thought a pact was just swell.

No I m not saying that, don't take things out of context and try to grasp more than just literal meaning...
and how exactly that questions arises from that quote?? Once again you make no sense.........

Ok just read this post and explain it to me how it is supposed to be then.

Yeah sure your hypothesis are great and real world examples are awful So, why don't you for once try to give one real world example for a change and not just what you dream about........

I am not the one making a claim here, you are making a historical argument and the ownus is on you to prove it. If I don't prove the null hypothesis That does not make you any more right Eg God exists because you can't prove he doesn't. The Very fact that there are NO examples proves my point.

What I originally asked was a theoretical question(s) Particularly this latter problem
"If Fasciam is the last gasp of capitalism isn't it something that should be supported as a state in the final stage of dialectical materialism? .... How does a socialist country attacking a fascist state help to dispose it towards socialism, won't that have the opposite effect?"

I am sorry but what are you even on about? You are having a go at me for being hypothetical when I am only asking about a hypothetical scenario you made!

This thread: 'Alternate history' if Italy acted differently would history/ideology be that much different, you say 'No, Fascism and Socialism were always arch enemies'

"Soviet Union always considered fascism/nazism as enemy and viewed it as desperate capitalism... You are forgetting spanish civil war, soviet plan of collective security and tons of materials written refuting fascism...."
"Sorry but your happiness is short lived, they were indeed like archenemies from beginning, "

So I say well The Nazi soviet pact Blows a pretty big hole in that, but youa re still confused.

This just looks like stalling to me.

[Conscript]

It is stalling, and disappointing because these aren't exactly tough questions you're asking him.

Fascism shouldn't be supported as a 'last gasp of capitalism' because for socialists that's not what it is, fascism is a last ditch attempt to save capitalism by any means necessary. Fascism could only possibly be considered a last gasp of capitalism in a historical context, which is what I believe the person you quoted is speaking in, as it might be the face of capitalism before a socialist revolution. Though you can note that often fascism instead comes after a failed socialist revolution, it still isn't any less an attempt to save capitalism that's in decay. So no, it wouldn't have the opposite effect, that would only take place if socialists didn't do anything.

Fascism and socialism were always enemies, but sometimes its pragmatic to work with your enemy if its in your best interests, especially if you can turn them against a larger enemy, as was the case with the interwar USSR and its approach to germany and the allies. The logic was that it was in the best interests of socialism (which was tied to the existence and success of the USSR), and if you look at the USSR's diplomatic decisions (including the pact, especially the pact) and socialist attitudes towards the war at that time, this attitude is clearly there.

[Preston Cole]

Though you can note that often fascism instead comes after a failed socialist revolution.

Well, fascism is often times the reason a socialist revolution will fail. Fascism will place itself in front of the socialist mass in defense of conservatives.

[Conscript]

And so will all the other non-revolutionaries of different color, but you all use the state to fend off the socialists, so I think its best to give it the credit.

[fuser]

the Soviet Union didn't have much worse relations with them than any other country

So, you are admitting it was an unhealthy relationship and it doesn't matter if it had the same kind of relationship with other countries. Now what are you really trying to prove here??

Which wouldn't be yourself. I was paraphrasing, obviously and the commintern at the time thought a pact was just swell.

We are not talking about that pact, stick to the topic.

If Fasciam is the last gasp of capitalism isn't it something that should be supported as a state in the final stage of dialectical materialism? .... How does a socialist country attacking a fascist state help to dispose it towards socialism, won't that have the opposite effect?"

You have already been answered...

you are making a historical argument and the ownus is on you to prove it

You really want me to prove that soviet union and other fascist states had an unhealthy relationship prior to 1939 ??

I am only asking about a hypothetical scenario you made!

Which hypothetical scenario are you talking about??

So I say well The Nazi soviet pact Blows a pretty big hole

Now you are stuck to this point only. It is a big hole only when you look at it in abstraction and that too with the looking glass of 21st century.....

Benjamin, my point is that soviet union and other fascist states were enemies, their relation became sweet only for a short time being because of the oppurtunism..

Post only if you could come up with some bizaare assumption that they were freinds prior to 1939.........

[Fasces]

You really want me to prove that soviet union and other fascist states had an unhealthy relationship prior to 1939 ??

Yes. Please prove that the Soviet Union and Italy had a negative relationship.

[Preston Cole]

You know he's going to pull some letters and "documents" off of Marxists.org, right? They have an entire archive containing various opinions/thoughts of more or less insignificant people. If some secretary in a Soviet country says "Fascism is capitalist evil, O_o" or "Italians are stupid for embracing fascism" every Marxist is going to preach it.

It's times like these I wish we could compile a collection of works written by fascist and far-right intellectuals and have a central point of reference when the issue of fascism or any ideology of the far-right pops up.

[Fasces]

Be that as it may, the fact that his evidence will be limited to the era of foreign relations subsequent to Hitler's ascension to power does well to illustrate that Soviet fears/hatred of fascism derived from a fear of resurgent German militarism, rather than outright hatred of the fascist ideologies. Mussolini was among the first of the European states to trade diplomats with the Soviet Union, doing so in either 1923 or 1924, well before the other major powers of those days.

[Potemkin]

Be that as it may, the fact that his evidence will be limited to the era of foreign relations subsequent to Hitler's ascension to power does well to illustrate that Soviet fears/hatred of fascism derived from a fear of resurgent German militarism, rather than outright hatred of the fascist ideologies. Mussolini was among the first of the European states to trade diplomats with the Soviet Union, doing so in either 1923 or 1924, well before the other major powers of those days.

There is also the point that Hitler had made his long-term intentions towards the Soviet Union (and towards the Slavs in general) very clear in Mein Kampf, which Stalin, of course, had read with great attention. Stalin had no illusions about the Nazis or their intentions. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was merely a short-term manoeuvre on both sides, neither of whom expected it to last for long. It was utterly unlike the 'Pact of Steel' between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

[starman2003]

I'm not sure if the nazi-soviet pact was certain to break down soon, or that the soviets, at least, were convinced it wouldn't last. In 1939-40 the russians helped the reich surmount the british blockade. Late in 1940, the Germans, seeking new ways to finish Britain, tried to entice russia into the fascist camp. Stalin demanded too high a price, but what if his terms were acceptable? Is it conceivable that, if the USSR had become an Axis member, the reich would've held off, at least far longer than it did?

[Figlio di Moros]

Do you think Stalin would have become an axis member? Certainly, it'd have altered the course of the war, but with Mein Keimpf easily accessable, I highly doubt Stalin'd have ever have truly considered it w/out serious gains to balance a future Soviet-Teuton war.

[Fasces]

I do not think Nazi and Soviet friendship could ever have been reconciled. An Anglo-German friendship is much more likely, but Hitler's animosity to the Russian people is laid out clearly in his defining work.

[starman2003]

Stalin did offer to join the fascist or axis camp, albeit at a higher price than Berlin was willing to consider. What is rather strange is that Stalin offered that, and helped the reich surmount the British blockade in 1939-40, by supplying grain and other commodities, despite awareness of nazi longterm plans.

[Figlio di Moros]

What price?

[starman2003]

In effect, he wanted the oilfields of the Mideast, besides the Turkish straits and Finland. Hitler considered this too much but it's noteworthy that much of it wasn't German controlled at the time anyway, but British controlled.

[Figlio di Moros]

Yeah, that'd have been a problem. I suppose they could've came to aggreement on French/British Arabia, though.

[starman2003]

If the nazis had agreed to Stalin's terms, the soviets would've overrun the British-held Mideast, and Persia. Moscow would've reaped a lot of spoils but the British probably would've had to give up, ending the war for the reich before the US could come in. Even if Britain kept fighting, the US probably would've been more reluctant than ever to enter the war on its side. With Russia added, the axis would've seemed invincible.

[Potemkin]

If the nazis had agreed to Stalin's terms, the soviets would've overrun the British-held Mideast, and Persia. Moscow would've reaped a lot of spoils but the British probably would've had to give up, ending the war for the reich before the US could come in. Even if Britain kept fighting, the US probably would've been more reluctant than ever to enter the war on its side. With Russia added, the axis would've seemed invincible.

Yeah, Hitler's racist ideology really fucked things up for him, didn't it?

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah, Hitler's racist ideology really fucked things up for him, didn't it?

Yeah he didn't even make himself at least tolerable. That's why diplomacy is important, to be able to say go screw yourself without making persistent enemies. (Luckily) Hitler didn't take lessons from Bismarck.