The Nonaggression Pact
I thought I would try being a little more fact-based for a change, and I would like to start with something brought up by a commenter- the 1939 nonaggression pact between Hitler and Stalin.
It has become part of accepted conservative cant that this action demonstrates that Hitler and Stalin were both the same; this notion has enjoyed renewed popularity as part of the contemptible notion that Hitler was really a left winger, currently a major right wing talking point (i.e. lie.) It was in pursuit of this notion that it was cited here. I don't think most people really know much about this pact, and I want to relate my understanding of what really happened.
As the thirties drew to an end, Stalin was becoming more and more suspicious of the intentions of his allies, Britain and France. Chamberlain and Daladier's disgraceful betrayal of Czechoslovakia gave Stalin reason to doubt that he could count on their commitments. As it became crystal clear that Hitler's next move would be into Poland, and up to the border of the Soviet Union, Stalin sought reassurance from Britain and France that they would fulfill their treaty obligations to Poland. A number of Soviet approaches to the English government for clarification resulted in refusal on the part of Chamberlain's government to give any clear answer.
Now, Stalin knew in 1939 that his army possessed neither the men nor the weapons to take German on alone. Yet he began to suspect (with good reason, in my opinion) that that is exactly what Chamberlain had in mind: to let the Nazis expend the might of their military in savaging the Soviet Union, after which Britain and France would have an easy time defeating them.
Stalin had no illusions about the intent of the Nazis to eventually crush the Soviet Union, but he knew that he needed time to build an adequate military. This opinion was shared by Hitler, who attacked the Soviet Union in 1942 at the expense of defeat in North Africa, because he believed that if he waited any longer he would be unable to achieve victory.
Thus, Stalin felt himself forced to buy time with the nonaggression pact, which of course he knew would be thrown in the trash heap the minute it suited Hitler's purpose. What did he do with the time he bought himself? Perhaps most importantly, he virtually disassembled all Soviet heavy industry, primarily located in the west, within easy reach of Germany, and moved it to the Urals, out of the reach of German bombers. This insured that the Soviets could continue their massive arms production, which was so crucial to their success from 1942 onwards. Also, of course, he began a huge expansion of his army which, by 1943 made it almost impossible for Hitler to win in a battle of attrition. The result of this is history.
Now, let me talk about Chamberlain, and what I want to say here is admittedly somewhat speculative. By the 1930's reflexive anticommunism had become a well established part of Western conservative doctrine. I believe that Chamberlain believed that he could not pay the internal political cost of publicly linking himself with the Soviet Union. He traded away his chance to do the honorable, and in fact, the necessary thing in order to avoid the condemnation of his fellow conservatives, which might well have cost him his job. If this sounds familiar to you, it is because it is exactly the sort of behavior that has come to characterize the behavior of our current crop of conservative "leaders-" the trading of national interest for personal advantage.
In this behavior, I believe, can be found the true cause of the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact.
It has become part of accepted conservative cant that this action demonstrates that Hitler and Stalin were both the same; this notion has enjoyed renewed popularity as part of the contemptible notion that Hitler was really a left winger, currently a major right wing talking point (i.e. lie.) It was in pursuit of this notion that it was cited here. I don't think most people really know much about this pact, and I want to relate my understanding of what really happened.
As the thirties drew to an end, Stalin was becoming more and more suspicious of the intentions of his allies, Britain and France. Chamberlain and Daladier's disgraceful betrayal of Czechoslovakia gave Stalin reason to doubt that he could count on their commitments. As it became crystal clear that Hitler's next move would be into Poland, and up to the border of the Soviet Union, Stalin sought reassurance from Britain and France that they would fulfill their treaty obligations to Poland. A number of Soviet approaches to the English government for clarification resulted in refusal on the part of Chamberlain's government to give any clear answer.
Now, Stalin knew in 1939 that his army possessed neither the men nor the weapons to take German on alone. Yet he began to suspect (with good reason, in my opinion) that that is exactly what Chamberlain had in mind: to let the Nazis expend the might of their military in savaging the Soviet Union, after which Britain and France would have an easy time defeating them.
Stalin had no illusions about the intent of the Nazis to eventually crush the Soviet Union, but he knew that he needed time to build an adequate military. This opinion was shared by Hitler, who attacked the Soviet Union in 1942 at the expense of defeat in North Africa, because he believed that if he waited any longer he would be unable to achieve victory.
Thus, Stalin felt himself forced to buy time with the nonaggression pact, which of course he knew would be thrown in the trash heap the minute it suited Hitler's purpose. What did he do with the time he bought himself? Perhaps most importantly, he virtually disassembled all Soviet heavy industry, primarily located in the west, within easy reach of Germany, and moved it to the Urals, out of the reach of German bombers. This insured that the Soviets could continue their massive arms production, which was so crucial to their success from 1942 onwards. Also, of course, he began a huge expansion of his army which, by 1943 made it almost impossible for Hitler to win in a battle of attrition. The result of this is history.
Now, let me talk about Chamberlain, and what I want to say here is admittedly somewhat speculative. By the 1930's reflexive anticommunism had become a well established part of Western conservative doctrine. I believe that Chamberlain believed that he could not pay the internal political cost of publicly linking himself with the Soviet Union. He traded away his chance to do the honorable, and in fact, the necessary thing in order to avoid the condemnation of his fellow conservatives, which might well have cost him his job. If this sounds familiar to you, it is because it is exactly the sort of behavior that has come to characterize the behavior of our current crop of conservative "leaders-" the trading of national interest for personal advantage.
In this behavior, I believe, can be found the true cause of the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact.
Comments
This suggests that Communism was, indeed, demonized -- almost literally.
It was certainly demonized by the Nazis. Anti-Bolshevism was a big part of Hitler's justification of his own rise to power -- making nonsense of the idea that he was a "leftist".
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
With gems like these, it would appear that Mussolini is about as right wing as they come:
"Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage."
"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism"
"And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society"
This conversation as to whether fascism=socialism is ridiculous anyway. It ignores the fact that Hitler outlawed trade unions and imprisoned Socialists and Social Democrats when when he came to power.
and let's not forget this famous poem about Nazi Germany:
:First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me"
Perhaps you should have left it there...
The idiocy of equating Nazism with pro choice or gun control was illustrative in how parochial the Right wingnut talking point about this is.
Don't dare get a license for your firearm. That's what Hitler did apparently (WTF...???) - amazing considering how many he had access to...
I hear you, but my wife tells me that the minute she sees Derek's name in the comments she has to stop reading my blog. I'm afraid that other people feel the same way, and I am more worried about them than about Derek.
I'm not banning him, but I have reached the point where I will only allow him to make comments with some kind of substance.
I like opposing viewpoints here, but that's not what I get from Derek, who rarely has anything to offer but Republican talking points, many of which he knows to be false.
The problem with deleting comments that are obviously ridiculous is that it lends them more credibility than they deserve. I would never get mad at someone who continuously told me that the sky was green. I'd prefer to just laugh.