American congress get maid

[KarlXII]

I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

exactly, Hitler provided actual military support to the facists what did the communists do provide material support ?

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

I think you can blame the germans for the firebombing of dresden as much you can blame the allies for ww2, it was unjust and undeserved but through thier own injustice they triggered the actions, in both cases....

He seems to still be part of the "Red Scare" era.

Though Dresden was a shameful decision, when you look at German atrocities, they far outweigh the bombings.

[Kralizec]

One of the reasons of why German society became so polarized after WW1 is that it went immediately from a monarchy to a democratic republic- its aristocracy of dukes and petty kings had been a pillar of society. They were gone almost overnight.
Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations). There had been a Reichstag with political parties before, but they played a role that consisted largely out of giving advice or criticism rather than weilding any sort of real power.

[LittleGrizzly]

I didn't mean to compare them in terms of effect, obviously the germans causing ww2 (mostly) was far worse, i just meant in terms of blame, the allies helped make the ground for ww2 and the germans helped make the ground for dresden, in neither case does it absolve those that did wrong for thier actions, just helps us understand how it reached that point...

Another point is the harshness of the treaty of versailles meant that hitler could rip the treaty up and worldwide it was seen as a fair move, so each little step didn't seem quite so bad

I think you could also put some blame on the UK for not backing the treaty, at some point im sure the french wanted to hold germany to the versailles conditions but the uk wouldn't back them up, maybe my memory is fuzzy can anyone confirm or deny this for me ?

Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations).

I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?

If i remember right they where present at the negoations but simply powerless...

[Kralizec]

I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?

You're probably right, but in that case the republican government should never have signed the treaty. Germany was at rock bottom anyway, and the terms of the treaty would decide how much room they'd have to rebuild the economy. I don't think any of the victorious powers would be interested in an occupation of Germany if they rejected the first draft.

As for the 1871-->WW1 line of discussion, it's more complicated than that.
Napoleon III was as much of a military adventurist as Hitler (before anyone attacks me, I know that he wasn't interested in exterminating entire ethnic groups - but he was hardly peaceful) and I can't feel sorry for the humiliation France received after being at the wrong end of the stick for once.

Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French. France and Russia were allies and France was still looking for a revanche. The Germans sent France an ultimatum demanding that they'd stay neutral while they were going to war with Russia; if France didn't respond they'd be considered hostile. After war with Russia was inevitable, they didn't have any other choice really.

On that point, as was mentioned before Wilhelm II did his honest best to defuse the situation and had pleaded the czar to leave Austria alone.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think you can blame the germans for the firebombing of dresden as much you can blame the allies for ww2, it was unjust and undeserved but through thier own injustice they triggered the actions, in both cases....

To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

[LittleGrizzly]

The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

the bombing off german towns actually saved the raf as german bombers where hitting raf airfields and doing a damn good job of it before hitler ordered bombs to fall on british towns as revenge.

Anyway that wasn't really my point, i was more making the comparison in terms of blame but i think the comparison works in terms of a trigger as well, it wasn't so much a direct trigger to bomb dreseden but ww2 up to dresden did build up some vengeful attitudes, i have always thought dresden was wrong but there was some strategic value in destroying it, it was full of industry not military but in its own indirect way it helped the nazi war machine.

Its too simplistic to say dresden couldn't have happened without ww2, but in terms of the blame game they partially brought it upon themselves and well by the time of dresden they where dropping bombs on our towns, even if we did start the bombing off towns they did start the war...

Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...

Edit
Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French.

I think the fact that both france and russia mobilised thier forces first cancels out the fact that germany struck first, infact i think you could call mobilisation of both forces as much a declaration of war as an attack across the border...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

the bombing off german towns actually saved the raf as german bombers where hitting raf airfields and doing a damn good job of it before hitler ordered bombs to fall on british towns as revenge.

Yes.

but there was some strategic value in destroying it

By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people. Of course, you could argue that there was strategic value in destroying it to show the Soviets what the Allied bombing machine could do, which was part of the objective (as I recall).

Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...

Indirect trigger I agree with.

[LittleGrizzly]

By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people.

I have to be honest i wasn't sure on the date for dresden, if were talking 44 there probably wasn't much strategic gain, though i would assume just through indirect means it would have slowed the nazi war machine, if dresden was purely to terrorize and to show off to the soviets then it is an even worse decision than i thought originally, its seems much nicer to imagine a hothead seething with rage causing atrocities than it being simple cold calculated political decision

Though i would still assume revenge played its part in helping get the plan through its various stages

Yes.

Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?

or was it because british pilots didn't have the means to get to better targets, i seem to remember hearing we had a problem flying too far into germany because we wouldn't have enough fuel to get back, or was it simply a way to strike back ?

[Kralizec]

I think the fact that both france and russia mobilised thier forces first cancels out the fact that germany struck first, infact i think you could call mobilisation of both forces as much a declaration of war as an attack across the border...

I'm not certain that this is true- quite sure it isn't, in fact. I have one of Keegan's books on WW1, I'll check.

[LittleGrizzly]

From what i understand, which ill admit isn't all that much, france and russia could simply not afford to keep thier forces mobilised for too long without using them, the simple cost of mobilising thier entire forces meant that it was an aggressive move, there is no way they would have mobilised thier forces without using them, or not logically...

this has been my understanding of the subject for sometime, im prepared to admit i may be wrong here...

[Conradus]

Possibly, though at that time war wasn't uncommon in Europe at all - nobody thought that there was going to be a war as big as the First World War. Many actions at that time could have led to war - Germany just tried to get the best deal. Even the terms Germany put on France weren't as crippling as the ones we got at the Treaty of Versailles, even though we took Paris.

The deal was very harsh though, cripling their economy by taking Alsace-Lorraine or however it's called (that thing still isn't solved eh?), and imposing on them huge payments. I'd call it about as unfair as Versailles. And again both parties were the agressors in this conflict (just as in WWI)

Yes, I did. Partially because his wording is insulting, partially because they weren't all Germans, and partially because I feel Germany had what I see as a casus belli right up until the invasion of Poland.

Sure, Germany started the war, but the Allies didn't help with the whole situation.

I didn't see the wording as insulting, and I'm sorry you did. We all know they weren't al germans, but I don't see Germany's right to go to war. They accepted Versailles, like it or not, you're bound by such a treaty then. Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.

The "pinnacle" of German civilization? More like absolute bottom, but I love your sarcasm. Judging Germany by the Holocaust is like judging the French by Robespierre's Terror.

I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization. Ofcourse we all realise now that's utter .......

[Ironside]

This direct Soviet influence can be easily recognized in the outright military support given to the Spanish communists.

Weren't they just supporting the republic against the facists, to be honest i think its shocking western countrys didn't help out spain but let them get taken over by franco...

No, PJ is quite correct on that one, the support also consisted of a considerble unwanted export of stalinism, something that was utterly detrimental to about all factions in the Spanish Republic.

That had of course something to do with that the Soviets were the only one supplying the Republic with about anything, while the "neutral" nations did in practice support the fascists, even long after the popular support was in favour of the Republic.

Isn't it ironic that the "red scare" forced all red factions into the really scary reds, making them stronger?

[Tribesman]

I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

Oh dear oh dear Mars is off on the bombing again .
So then Germany repeatedly asked Britian .....isn't that nice , isn't that civilised , isn't it oh so pleasant , isn't it bollox .
After German bombing of Polish cities pressure was applied to get an agreement not to bomb civilian targets . The agreement was reached after much delay by Germany but was conditional , Germany quickly broke those conditions by bombing the hell out of Rotterdam .
So Mars Germany did trigger the bombing campaign that led to Dresden and no government was going to agree to another new deal when Germany had shown how quickly it was willing to throw deals out of the window .

[PanzerJaeger]

Would you like to provide evidence that the USSR was supporting Republican Spain based off their communist ideology? I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

There were very few pre WW2 communist countries. Mongolia was one. However, Communist China was in no way a Soviet lapdog.

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.

General Soviet Policy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is possible to detect three distinct phases in Soviet foreign policy between the conclusion of the Russian Civil War and the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939, determined in part by political struggles within the USSR, and in part by dynamic developments in international relations and the effect these had on Soviet security.

Although to begin within, and under the partial guidance of the Third International, the government of Lenin attempted to export revolution to the rest of Europe, this effectively came to a halt after the Soviet defeat in the war with Poland in 1921. Thereafter, a policy of peaceful co-existence began to emerge, with Soviet diplomats attempting to end the country's isolation, and concluding bi-lateral arrangements with 'capitalist' governments. Agreement was reached with Germany, Europe's other 'outcast' of the day, in the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.

There were, however, still those in the Soviet government, most notably Leon Trotsky, who argued for the continuation of the revolutionary process, in terms of his theory of Permanent Revolution. After Lenin's death in 1924 Trotsky and the internationalists were opposed by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin, who developed the notion of Socialism in One Country. The foreign policy counterpart of Socialism in One Country was that of the United Front, with foreign Communists urged to enter into alliances with reformist left-wing parties and national liberation movements of all kinds. The high point of this strategy was the partnership between the Chinese Communist Party and the nationalist Kuomintang, a policy favoured by Stalin in particular, and a source of bitter dispute between him and Trotsky. The United Front policy in China effectively crashed to ruin in 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek massacred the native Communists and expelled all of his Soviet advisors, notably Mikhail Borodin.

The following year, after having defeated the left-opposition, led by Trotsky and Grigory Zinoviev, and the right-opposition, led by Nikolai Bukharin, Stalin began the wholesale collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, accompanied by a major programme of planned industrialisation. This new radical phase was paralleled by the formulation of a new doctrine in the International, that of the so-called Third Period, an ultra-left switch in policy, which argued that Social Democracy, whatever shape it took, was a form of Social fascism, socialist in theory but fascist in practice. All foreign Communist Parties-increasinngly agents of Soviet policy-were to concentrate their efforts in a struggle against their rivals in the working-class movement, ignoring the threat of real Fascism. There were to be no united fronts against a greater enemy. The catastrophic effects of this policy, and the negative effect it had on Soviet security, was to be fully demonstrated by the victory of Hitler in 1933, followed by the destruction of the German Communist Party, the strongest in Europe. The Third Way and Social Fascism were quickly dropped into the dustbin of history. Once again collaboration with other progressive elements was the key, in the form of the Popular Front, which cast the net still wider to embrace moderate bourgeois parties. Soviet-German cooperation, extensive until 1933, has been now limited.

Hand-in-hand with the promotion of Popular Fronts, Maxim Litvinov, Commissar for Foreign Affairs between 1930 and 1939, aimed at closer alliances with western governments, and placed ever greater emphasis on collective security. The new policy led to the Soviet Union joining the League of Nations in 1934, and the subsequent conclusion of alliances with France and Czechoslovakia. In the League the Soviets were active in demanding action against imperialist aggression, a particular danger to them after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which eventually resulted in the Soviet-Japanese Battle of Khalkhin Gol.

But against the rise of militant fascism and imperialism the League accomplished very little. Indeed, in the end it was only USSR that took a stand in trying to preserve the Second Spanish Republic, and its Popular Front government, from the Fascist rebellion of 1936. The Munich Agreement of 1938, the first stage in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, gave rise to Soviet fears that they were likely to be abandoned in a possible war with Germany. In the face of continually dragging and seemingly hopeless negotiations with Great Britain and France, a new cynicism and hardness entered Soviet foreign relations when Litvinov was replaced by Vyacheslav Molotov in May 1939. The Soviets no longer sought collective but individual security, and the Pact with Hitler was signed, giving Soviets protection from the most aggressive European power and increasing Soviet sphere of influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...e_World_War_II

Spanish Communists:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In the anarchist-controlled areas, Aragón and Catalonia, in addition to the temporary military success, there was a vast social revolution in which the workers and peasants collectivised land and industry, and set up councils parallel to the paralyzed Republican government. This revolution was opposed by both the Soviet-supported communists, who ultimately took their orders from Stalin's politburo (which feared a loss of control), and the Social Democratic Republicans (who worried about the loss of civil property rights). The agrarian collectives had considerable success despite opposition and lack of resources, as Franco had already captured lands with some of the richest natural resources.[55]

As the war progressed, the government and the communists were able to leverage their access to Soviet arms to restore government control over the war effort, through both diplomacy and force. Anarchists and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista, or POUM) were integrated with the regular army, albeit with resistance; the POUM was outlawed and falsely denounced as an instrument of the fascists. In the May Days of 1937, many hundreds or thousands of anti-fascist soldiers fought one another for control of strategic points in Barcelona, recounted by George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war

(Pay careful attention to this next one.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By the spring of 1937 the intervention of the USSR and of
the Comintern as such was having profound effects not only upon
the conduct of the war but on the Republican regime. On the
military level, the Comintern organized through national
communist parties the famous International Brigades, which
eventually numbered some 35,000 men, including future leaders of
East and West European communist parties; these "Spaniards" (for
example, Laszlo Rajk of Hungary) were later systematically
purged during the Stalinist show trials of the late 1940s in the
East European countries.

On the ideological level this intervention was represented
by the appointment of political commissars throughout the
Republican (or "Loyalist") forces, by the export to Spain of
Soviet secret police activities and personnel, and by attacks on
Trotskyites and other non-Stalinist revolutionary forces. This
last policy culminated in May 1937, when the Communists and the
Catalan government (clearly under Soviet pressure) first
provoked the CNT Anarchists and the anti-Stalinist militants of
the POUM to armed resistance and then used the excuse to outlaw
and crush them. The leader of the POUM, the former communist
Andres Nin, disappeared, and most historians accept that he was
killed by NKVD agents. Questioned about this case in 1983 by
the exiled Romanian scholar Lilly Marcou, Carrillo said that he
did not know who had assassinated Nin, though he had tried to
find out. One could, he said, advance the hypothesis, no more
than that, that "it was the Soviets present in Spain who decided
on and organized the death of Nin."

The "May Days" in Barcelona in 1937 brought a turning point
in other ways. The left-Socialist Prime Minister, Largo
Caballero, who opposed the action against the poumistas, had
to resign and was replaced by the right-socialist Juan Negrin,
who proved a more accommodating partner for the PCE (and the
Kremlin). This is linked with the fact that the Kremlin's
policies on the civil war were governed by Soviet state
interests and had little to do with support for the cause of
revolution. Similarly, the PCE's domestic policies during the
war were notably moderate compared with those of the
anarcho-syndicalists, the POUM, and the PSOE: the objective was
to win the war, not to bring about radical reforms, let alone
social revolution. At the same time, the PCE, through its
organizational strength and the zeal of its members, was a
leading force in the Republican war effort, even after Stalin
ordered the withdraw of the International Brigades and ended
Soviet arms shipments in November 1938. This dilemma was
expressed by Fernando Claudin, a member of the PCE Executive
Committee until he was expelled in the early 1960s for
expounding prematurely "Eurocommunist" ideas (he now heads a
research center for the PSOE). In his critique of the history
of the world communist movement he wrote:

All the sacrifice and heroism of three years went down with
a policy that, from the first day of the civil war, had
turned its back on the essential demands of Spanish
revolutionary reality in order to adapt itself to the
international strategy of Stalin. . . .

Stalin helped the Spanish Republic in order that it might
prolong its existence and arrive at a compromise solution
acceptable to the "Western democracies," within the
framework of a system of anti-Hitler alliances, and not
that it might win.[4]

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtml



German Communists:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In 1923 a new KPD leadership loyal to Joseph Stalin, the new Soviet Premier, was installed. This leadership, headed by Ernst Thälmann, abandoned the goal of immediate revolution, and from 1924 onwards contested Reichstag elections, with some success. Although the KPD advocated a "united front" during this period, it remained deeply hostile towards Germany's SPD leadership. In 1928 Stalin launched a new "leftist" policy, which the KPD loyally followed. This so-called Third Period policy held that capitalism was entering a deep crisis and the time for a revolution was approaching fast. The SPD was denounced as "social fascists" and any suggestion of co-operating with them was rejected.

During the years of the Weimar Republic the KPD was the largest Communist party in Europe, and was seen as the "leading party" of the Communist movement outside the Soviet Union. It maintained a solid electoral performance, usually polling more than 10% of the vote, and gaining 100 deputies in the November 1932 elections. In the presidential election of the same year, Thälmann took 13.2% of the vote, compared to Hitler's 30.1%. However the "social fascism" policy scuttled any possibility of a united front with the SPD against the rising power of the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany




The Comintern:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

During its first chaotic and unsettled year of existence, the Comintern elicited support from the most varied quarters. Adherents of the most diverse revolutionist tendencies pledged their support, from such syndicalist and quasi-syndicalist groups as the american "wobblies" (the Industrial Workers of the World) to such sophisticated marxists as those who formed the communist parties in Poland and Germany. In some countries sections of the Comintern consisted of small sectarian groups, such as the Dutch Communist Party, formed for the purpose, while in others, already existing mass parties, such as the Norwegian Labour Party and the Italian Socialist Party, came over to the Comintern. At this time, Comintern leaders embraced the variety and diversity and preferred to keep their options open, negotiating in Germany, not only with the KPD, but with the KAPD and the USPD* as well.

However, by the time the 2nd world congress took place in July 1920, it had been decided to put the house in somewhat better order. In preparation, Lenin wrote Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and the west european bureau of the Comintern centered in Amsterdam and controlled by the dutch leftists was dissolved. Things were now to be tightened up, both organisationally and ideologically.

The 3rd international, in a radical departure from the precedents set by both the 1st and 2nd internationals, was no longer to be a series of national parties, but a single communist party with branches in different countries. A party line would be laid down for all and would be enforced by iron discipline according to the principles of democratic centralism. Between congresses, the highest authority was to be the executive committee, which would have powers parallel to and superseding the powers of the central committees of the individual parties. It was to be a directive centre of a world revolution, a far cry from the "mailbox" concept that had shaped the secretariat of the 2nd international.

The 2nd world congress adopted a list of 21 conditions to determine the admission of parties to the Comintern. Henceforth, each party was required to carry out systematic propaganda, including within the army and in the countryside, in favour of proletarian revolution; to remove reformists and centrists from all positions in the working class movement and to replace them by communists; to combine legal and illegal methods of work; to supervise the activities of its members in parliament; to denounce pacifism; to support colonial liberation movements; to secure the adherence of all sections of the labour movement to the Red Trade Union International as opposed to the "Yellow" Amsterdam Trade Union International; to organise on the basis of democratic centralism and to conduct periodical purges of its membership; to support all existing soviet republics by all possible means; to revise its party programme in accordance with the policies of the International; to accept all decisions of the Comintern as binding; to take the name of "Communist Party"; and to expel all members who voted against acceptance of the 21 conditions at a congress called for the purpose.2


The congress marked a sharp breach not only between communists and social democrats, but between communists and those who were still seeking a basis for compromise, such as the Austro-Marxists who still wished to find a 3rd way between "terrorist Moscow" and "impotent Bern."3

From the beginning, there had been uneasiness about this situation, particularly among the KPD leadership, and Rosa Luxemburg had early warned against the potential subjection of the international movement to the "russian model." However, it seemed possible that this danger would be circumvented. The russians at this time fully expected that their pre-eminence would be superseded as soon as a proletarian revolution triumphed in an advanced industrialised society. Indeed, bolshevik leaders were inclined to state the matter quite sharply, pointing to their own backwardness and to the necessity of a more advanced country taking the lead.

However, as E.H. Carr has pointed out, it was only when the revolution obstinately stood still at the russian frontier and the bright hopes of the summer of 1920 faded, that the gap in authority between those who had succeeded in making their revolution and those who had failed widened, leaving the Comintern shaped in a russian mould and ensuring russian dominance.4

The congress was followed by bitter debates within the parties on acceptance of the 21 conditions and the period between the 2nd and 3rd congresses saw a series of splits and amalgamations based on the new policies. The lines were drawn and redrawn in the turmoil of sorting out who stood where in the new situation that had emerged.

Following extremely acrimonious proceedings at an extraordinary congress of the USPD in Halle in October 1920, the majority voted to join the Comintern. This majority then amalgamated in December 1920 with the KPD, giving Germany a mass communist party. The minority went back to the SPD. Also in December 1920, the French Socialist Party met in Tours and split, as did the Italian Socialist Party when they met in Leghorn in January 1921. In France, it was the majority that became the Communist Party, whereas in Italy it was the minority, resulting in the secession of the mass Italian Socialist Party from the Comintern. The czechoslovak party also split, whereas the bulgarian, norwegian, dutch, hungarian and austrian ones accepted the 21 conditions without splitting.

The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), formed in London of diverse groups that came together in August 1920, while the 2nd congress was still in session, held another congress in Leeds in January 1921, at which it accepted the 21 conditions and adhered to the Comintern. In March 1921 the Independent Labour Party rejected the conditions of adherence to the Comintern, although the minority, which argued in favour, resigned to join the new CPGB.

The Socialist Party of Ireland became the Communist Party of Ireland and duly expelled its few members not in favour of accepting the conditions.

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/comintern1.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The realization that world revolution was not imminent led in 1921 to a new Comintern policy in order to gain broad working-class support. “United fronts” of workers were to be formed for making “transitional demands” on the existing regimes. This policy was abandoned in 1923, when the Comintern’s left wing gained temporary control. Joseph Stalin’s assault on the left group of his party, however, brought the expulsion of the Comintern’s first president, Grigory Y. Zinovyev, in 1926 and a further rapprochement with moderate socialism. Then Stalin’s move against the right wing of his party led to another turn in Comintern policy. In 1928 the sixth congress adopted a policy of “extreme leftism” set forth by Stalin: once again, moderate socialists and social democrats were branded as the chief enemies of the working class. The dangers of the rising fascist movement were ignored. In Germany in the early 1930s, the communists focused their attacks on the social democrats and even cooperated with the Nazis, whom they claimed to fear less, in destroying the Weimar Republic. World revolution was once more to be considered imminent, despite Stalin’s own concentration on “building socialism in one country.” At the Comintern’s seventh and last congress in 1935, Soviet national interests dictated a new policy shift: in order to gain the favour of potential allies against Germany, revolutionary ardour was dampened, and the defeat of fascism was declared the primary goal of the Comintern. Now communists were to join with moderate socialist and liberal groups in “popular fronts” against fascism. By now the Comintern was being used as a tool of Soviet foreign policy. The program of popular fronts ended with the signing of Stalin’s pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. Soon, however, Germany and the Soviet Union were at war, and in 1943 Stalin officially dissolved the Comintern in order to allay fears of communist subversion among his allies. From the Soviet point of view, Moscow was confident of its ability to control the foreign communist parties; and, in any case, much of the Comintern organization was preserved intact within the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1947 Stalin set up a new centre of international control called the Cominform, which lasted until 1956. The international communist movement broke down after 1956 owing to a developing split between the Soviet Union and China, among other factors.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...International#

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In March 1919 leading members of the Communist Party in Russia founded the Communist International (later known as Comintern). The aim of the organization was to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State".

To be admitted to the Comintern the Communist parties had to accept twenty-one conditions. This included: (1) conduct truly Communist propaganda and agitation and uphold the ideal of a dictatorship of the proletariat before the masses; (2) remove all reformists and supporters of centrists opinions from responsible posts; (3) create an illegal (in addition to the legal) organization for subversive work.

Gregory Zinoviev, was elected chairman of the Comintern. He held the post for seven years before being dismissed by Joseph Stalin because of his support for the ideas of Leon Trotsky. Zinoviev was replaced by Nickolai Bukharin but he was dismissed in 1928 and Stalin, as General Secretary of the Communist Party, became the head of Comintern. He then purged all members of the organization who supported Trotsky and his views on world revolution.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScomintern.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Writings from the Third Congress, held in June-July 1921, talked about how the struggle could be transformed into "civil war" when the circumstances were favorable and "openly revolutionary uprisings".[15] The Fourth Congress, November 1922, at which Leon Trotsky played a prominent role, continued in this vein.[16]

During this early period, known as the "First Period" in Comintern history, with the Bolshevik revolution under attack in the Russian Civil War and a wave of revolutions across Europe, the Comintern's priority was exporting the October Revolution. Some Communist Parties had secret military wings. On example is the M-Apparat of the Communist Party of Germany. Its purpose was to prepare for the civil war the Communists believed was impending in Germany, and to liquidate opponents and informers who might have infiltrated the party. There was also a paramilitary organization, the Rotfrontkämpferbund.[17]

The Comintern was involved in the revolutions across Europe in this period, starting with the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. Several hundred agitators and financial aid were sent from the Soviet Union and Lenin was in regular contact with its leader, Bela Kun. Soon an official "Terror Group of the Revolutionary Council of the Government" was formed, unofficially known as "Lenin Boys".[18] The next attempt was the "March Action" in Germany in 1921, including an attempt to dynamite the express train from Halle to Leipzig. When this failed Lenin ordered the removal of the leader of the Communist Party of Germany, Paul Levi, from power.[19] A new attempt was made at the time of the Ruhr Crisis. The Red Army was mobilized, ready to come to the aid of the planned insurrection. Resolute action by the German government cancelled the plans, except due to miscommunication in Hamburg, where 200-300 Communists attacked police stations but where quickly defeated.[20] In 1924 there was failed coup in Estonia by the Estonian Communist Party.[21]

Several international organizations were sponsored by the Comintern in this period:

Red International of Labour Unions (Profintern - formed 1920)
Red Peasant International (Krestintern - formed 1923)
International Red Aid (MOPR - formed 1922)
Communist Youth International (refounded 1919)
Red Sports International (Sportintern)
In 1924, the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party joined Comintern.[22] In China at first both the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang were supported. After the definite break with Chiang Kai-shek in 1927, Stalin sent personal emissaries to help organize revolts which at this time failed.[23

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi..._Popular_Front




General:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For non-Russian communists questions about why the Bolshevik revolution could not be repeated and of the direction taken by Soviet communism became central preoccupations. Most of the discourse of the orthodox Communist Parties simply aped that of the Soviet government and the International. In particular, the idea that the Bolshevik path was simply unrepeatable in the conditions in the more economically and socially advanced societies in the rest of Europe was officially unacceptable. Even so, some creative intellectuals, often called the Western Marxists, did flourish. Chief among them were Antonio Gramsci, Karl Korsch, György Lukács, and some members of the so-called Frankfurt School (particularly Herbert Marcuse). They were active in the first flood of revolutionary enthusiasm for the Soviet experiment, when there was more space for creative thinking within communist movements. Questions about the significance of culture and aesthetics in Marxist analysis concerned them as much as, if not more than, economics and politics. They were aware that cultural and social circumstances often conditioned political possibilities. Often implicitly, rather than explicitly, they offered a critique of Leninism in all its variations (including Trotsky's). Gramsci in particular, without ever rejecting the Soviet model, suggested a path to revolution that contained the same sense of human agency as Lenin's views but rejected its insurrectionary and conspiratorial strategy as well as the primacy placed on the material conditions necessary for revolutionary change. In complex Western societies, Gramsci argued, revolution was intimately bound up with a competition or struggle for cultural dominance (egemonia). In order for socialism to be established it had to be as consensual as possible—more akin to the triumph of the Italian Renaissance. Such thinking remained a minority concern and was decisively marginalized after 1928 in the drive to impose Stalinist orthodoxy on all communists. Either purged from their parties, recanting their views, exiled or imprisoned by their governments, they were silenced and their writings ignored by contemporaries.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8762/...rnational.html


As can be seen, the communist movements of Europe and around the world came increasingly under control of the Soviet Union. Those who didn't fall in line were eventually purged or moved to far left parties operating under the socialist banner.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them. If anyone else wants to have a debate, go ahead.

I have to be honest i wasn't sure on the date for dresden, if were talking 44 there probably wasn't much strategic gain, though i would assume just through indirect means it would have slowed the nazi war machine, if dresden was purely to terrorize and to show off to the soviets then it is an even worse decision than i thought originally, its seems much nicer to imagine a hothead seething with rage causing atrocities than it being simple cold calculated political decision

It was February of 1944.

Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?

Well, they did bomb Berlin intentionally. I'd like to make it clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with bombing a city in times of war as long as (at that time) they had followed Hague 1907.

The deal was very harsh though, cripling their economy by taking Alsace-Lorraine or however it's called (that thing still isn't solved eh?), and imposing on them huge payments. I'd call it about as unfair as Versailles. And again both parties were the agressors in this conflict (just as in WWI)

It was harsh, but I don't recall Germany forcing the French army (or navy) to disband (though, to be fair, it was already in ruins). Indeed, Bismarck was against making the treaty that harsh, but he was essentially forced to.

Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.

Austria was annexed by popular opinion of the Austrian people (I don't agree with the annexation as I firmly believe in the Kleindeutschland concept), and the Sudentenland was German territory in the eyes of the people at the time. Germany never should have annexed the rest of the Bohemian part of Czechoslovakia, however, I agree with you.

That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.

The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns. I only rate the bombing as a war crime if it fits Hague 1907.

Actually, and bear with me here, I think that the bombing of Rotterdam could have been justified in the same vein as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it may have saved the lives of people who otherwise would have died by forcing a surrender. Just a thought.

I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization.

I hope he is.

[Meneldil]

Imposing harsh conditions in 1871 is alrighty, while doing so in 1918 is being shortsighted ?

1871 led to 1918, period. If it wasn't for the Archiduke and Serbia, France and Germany would have warred eachother for another reason.
The whole French ideology was back then was aimed at this war. Everyone was eagerly waiting for it, from the socialists patriots to the die-hard far right nationalists.
Germany knew it and prepared itself, as any nation would have done.

Unhappilly, the winners, mostly led by France, just did what Germany has done 50 years earlier. Call it being arrogant, short sighted or whatever, I think I would have done the same thing.
Germany, despite its glorious past and civilisation was widely seen as an agressive nation that deserved to be trampled. Invading Belgium, sunking civilian ships and making dubious diplomatic move probably justified these harsh conditions back then.

[Tribesman]

First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them.

Thats fine , it isn't going to stop me rippng your nonsense about the strategic bombing campaign to pieces every time you post stuff that is clearly of the bollox variety .
Which when it comes to that particular subject happens to be just about every time you write about it .
Like this rubbish...

The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns.

The allies only bombed german towns after the Germans bombed allied towns , and they only bombed German towns after Germany agreed to not bomb allied towns and then bombed allied towns .
Oh and only germany bombed towns by using a tourist guide to determine which ones were more culturally interesting to attack .

[LittleGrizzly]

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.

I don't think anyone doubts that they helped fund these groups and had influence over them, but these people where not there to hand over power to the soviet union any more than franco would have handed over power to Hitler for his support or leaders in latin america hand over power to usa because of help getting into power. As clearly shown by the example of china...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

*Ahem*

First of all, Meneldil, I see your point.

Second, I'll get to the whole "who bombed who first" tomorrow, because I'm exhausted now.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.


I don't think anyone doubts that they helped fund these groups and had influence over them, but these people where not there to hand over power to the soviet union any more than franco would have handed over power to Hitler for his support or leaders in latin america hand over power to usa because of help getting into power. As clearly shown by the example of china...

I'm sorry that just isn't correct. It was exactly the Chinese disaster that caused Stalin to tighten his control over foreign communists. Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.

By the spring of 1937 the intervention of the USSR and of
the Comintern as such was having profound effects not only upon
the conduct of the war but on the Republican regime. On the
military level, the Comintern organized through national
communist parties the famous International Brigades, which
eventually numbered some 35,000 men, including future leaders of
East and West European communist parties; these "Spaniards" (for
example, Laszlo Rajk of Hungary) were later systematically
purged during the Stalinist show trials of the late 1940s in the
East European countries.

On the ideological level this intervention was represented
by the appointment of political commissars throughout the
Republican (or "Loyalist") forces, by the export to Spain of
Soviet secret police activities and personnel, and by attacks on
Trotskyites and other non-Stalinist revolutionary forces. This
last policy culminated in May 1937, when the Communists and the
Catalan government (clearly under Soviet pressure) first
provoked the CNT Anarchists and the anti-Stalinist militants of
the POUM to armed resistance and then used the excuse to outlaw
and crush them. The leader of the POUM, the former communist
Andres Nin, disappeared, and most historians accept that he was
killed by NKVD agents. Questioned about this case in 1983 by
the exiled Romanian scholar Lilly Marcou, Carrillo said that he
did not know who had assassinated Nin, though he had tried to
find out. One could, he said, advance the hypothesis, no more
than that, that "it was the Soviets present in Spain who decided
on and organized the death of Nin."

The "May Days" in Barcelona in 1937 brought a turning point
in other ways. The left-Socialist Prime Minister, Largo
Caballero, who opposed the action against the poumistas, had
to resign and was replaced by the right-socialist Juan Negrin,
who proved a more accommodating partner for the PCE (and the
Kremlin). This is linked with the fact that the Kremlin's
policies on the civil war were governed by Soviet state
interests and had little to do with support for the cause of
revolution. Similarly, the PCE's domestic policies during the
war were notably moderate compared with those of the
anarcho-syndicalists, the POUM, and the PSOE: the objective was
to win the war, not to bring about radical reforms, let alone
social revolution. At the same time, the PCE, through its
organizational strength and the zeal of its members, was a
leading force in the Republican war effort, even after Stalin
ordered the withdraw of the International Brigades and ended
Soviet arms shipments in November 1938. This dilemma was
expressed by Fernando Claudin, a member of the PCE Executive
Committee until he was expelled in the early 1960s for
expounding prematurely "Eurocommunist" ideas (he now heads a
research center for the PSOE). In his critique of the history
of the world communist movement he wrote:

All the sacrifice and heroism of three years went down with
a policy that, from the first day of the civil war, had
turned its back on the essential demands of Spanish
revolutionary reality in order to adapt itself to the
international strategy of Stalin. . . .

Stalin helped the Spanish Republic in order that it might
prolong its existence and arrive at a compromise solution
acceptable to the "Western democracies," within the
framework of a system of anti-Hitler alliances, and not
that it might win.[4]

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtml

[LittleGrizzly]

Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.

I disagree entirely, people are mostly obsessed with power, what in gods name was going to make these foriegn communists work hard and then just hand it all over to the SU, they had thier own ideas thier own plans, they could have had good relations with su but they would have been under the su's control as much as france was under usa's control after ww2

I think the warsaw pact nations just proves the point even more, the only way for the su to rule over foriegn nations was through a huge army threatening any descent, and as this was one big land mass in eastern europe it was possible, but spain was half of europe away, through a load of countries or a damn long boat ride away, as shown by countless examples communists would not hand over power to the SU

[PanzerJaeger]

I disagree entirely, people are mostly obsessed with power, what in gods name was going to make these foriegn communists work hard and then just hand it all over to the SU

Because they were Soviet agents.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So was the treatment of Germany harsher after the end of WWI or WWII?

And if it was harsher after WWII, which did not lead to another world war, does it not seem to say that one must destroy an enemy entirely and not just partly, as was the case after WWI?

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then. Those idiots in Germany that led to WWII knew of the horrific scale of world war, and they started it. They had seen hell and again brought it to the world. That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again. Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.

And on air bombing, it seems Germany started that on Poland, then agreed not to bomb civilian targets with Britain and France, then proceeded to break that agreement by bombing Rotterdam.

To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...

If you want to appeal to emotion, how many of your ancestors were tortured in Lubyanka? How many of your ancestors were shipped to Gulags? How many of your ancestors perished because of famine or fire? How many of your ancestors were conscripted into the Wehrmacht and sent to the hell that was the Russian steppes? Don't talk to me about death.

Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So was the treatment of Germany harsher after the end of WWI or WWII?

I'd go so far as to say WWI. Why? Because after WWII we had a functioning economy, and an enemy was presented to us in the Soviets. Not only that, our former enemies encouraged and backed our choice of enemy. Whereas after WWI, we had a destroyed economy, no hope, no way out. We were offered a way out, and we took it, as anyone would have done.

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then.

Germany was partitioned after WWI.

That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again.

*Sigh...*

I'll remind you of that statement next time America goes to war anywhere...

Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...

I've explained Rotterdam, and I have to leave home soon, so I'll address the rest later.

Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.

And if the devil hits you over the head and drags you off to fight his wars? Or if you never entered his lair in the first place, and worked an ordinary respectable job in an ordinary neighbourhood? What then? Or is it the fault of the ordinary German?

[PanzerJaeger]

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then.

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it.

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it.

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

That's pretty much the point CR. Good post Panzer.

[Tribesman]

More rubbish

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

Illegal under what law ?
Oh yeah there was no law covering it

I've explained Rotterdam

Yet facts about the event do not support your explanation in the slightest .

[Reverend Joe]

@Dresden.

I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden. It doesn't matter how many civilians the Germans bombed. By doing exactly the same thing the Germans were doing, the Allies were just as much in the wrong. The proper response to something as morally reprehensible as massacring civilians is not to do it back to them; the proper response is to keep the moral high ground by not doing what the enemy does.

I hate to pull out an old cliche, but two wrongs really don't make a right.

[PanzerJaeger]

More rubbish

Illegal under what law ?
Oh yeah there was no law covering it

Again with this?

Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

-Hague Convention...



The first one is debatable, although a reading of Shimoda is in order for anyone interested. The second two define Dresden and other allied bombings as war crimes.

[Tribesman]

Again with this?

And how exactly does that apply to Dresden ?
Oh yeah it doesn't does it , and even if it did apply in general it doesn't apply on specifics , Dresden was a garrison town , it was defended , it contained arms industries and materials of war , it was used for military operations and the aiming point for the bombardment was chosen due to the location of the infrastructure that was a vital component of the war effort that was being used to facilitate offensive and defensive operations .

I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden.

Who is trying to excuse it , everyone will say it wasn't nice , it wasn't a really pleasant thing, however people cannot say it was illegal as there was no law which made it illegal .
They cannot say it was a war crime when it fits within the laws of war
When people repeatedly maintain that it was illegal and a war crime in the complete absence of any laws making it illegal and a war crime then they are showing ignorance of the legislation .
When they persist in their claims after already being shown that they are ignorant of the laws then it implies that they are more than just ignorant of the legislation , it shows that they are unable to learn and adjust their preconceptions .