Sunday, March 23, 2008

[allies and axis] who was the enemy of whom


The Flying Rodent, he of the battle fatigues, opines or allows to be opined:

Obviously, this depends on whether you think the Russians could've fought off the Nazis without Stalin's ruthlessness, inhumanity and propaganda.

Well that's a moot point, you know. I mean, who was actually the enemy of whom? To start with:

Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war matériel was sent to the Soviet Union under that program.

While this was occurring, on August 25, 1939, the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international published the text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow. He was quoted as follows:

It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.

Whether or not Stalin planned pre-emptive attacks in Europe, as Rezun claimed, war was certainly anticipated at the least:

In general, the Soviet media denied rumors of troop concentrations along the frontier. The defense committee had been secretly transferring combat divisions there since the summer of 1940. In April 1941, the Ural and Siberian military districts were ordered to release more formations.

And yet the massive negligence in preparing for the war is puzzling:

The Red Army had, for security reasons, opted for cable communications over wireless but in "something approaching criminal negligence, the telegraph lines had been left unprotected on the night of June 21." With their easy disablement by the German forces, intelligence could not be shared. Armies vanished. The Commissariat of Defense lost contact with 10 of 26 special trains that had been sent west. The slaughter was horrific.

Added to this was the British leadership's fuzzy attitude to "the enemy":

As early as 1934 British leaders of conservative party had adopted a policy of giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe.In Nov1937, Lord Halifax met Hitler ,told Britain would not oppose if Germany carried out expansionist polices in eastern Europe.Later British ambassador in Berlin Neville Henderson gave similiar assurances to this effect.

... coupled with the role of Allied firms in Germany throughout the war:

GM and Ford, through their subsidiaries, controlled 70 percent of the German automobile market when war broke out in 1939. Those companies "rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the Germany army," writes Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.

The Soviet Union had certainly been well involved with the allies more visibly and had been persuaded to attend the Bretton-Woods conference where Keynes and Harry Dexter White dominated, White accused of collusion with the Soviets:

Defecting Soviet spy Elizabeth Bentley, on July 31, 1948, told the House Committee on Un-American Activities that White had been involved in espionage activities on behalf of Soviet Union during World War II, and had passed sensitive Treasury documents to Soviet agents. Bentley said White's colleagues passed information to her from him.

So whatever was really going on and whoever was financing whom, over 20 million soviet people died, in an estimated overall toll of 48,231,700 during a fabulous time for wartime profiteering, which never seems to end, even today.

Lovely people, our leaders and financers.

16 comments:

  1. You ask the question in the title, "Who was the Enemy of Whom"?

    The answer is easy, and it comes down to the same old.
    Those in the know, versus those not.
    The doers and the done.

    Same as always.

    The men in the middle?, - they made the profits.

    Same as always.

    Some would say that the profiteers were the true enemies of humanity, they stoked the boiler, and fanned the flames.

    Sames as always.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just visited a previous post.
    So it's ok for some bitch to insult me, but not ok for me to answer back.

    "FUCK YOU JAMES WITH YOUR STUPID DISCRIMINATION POLICIES.
    TAKE YOUR BLOG AND STICK IT UP YOUR RAVING ARSE. I'M FINISHED HERE.

    NOW DELEATE THAT YOU COWARDLY FUCKWIT

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon if you have concerns with how James runs his blog, send him an email. I have never observed discrimination on this blog and that's coming from someone who disagrees far more with James than you do.

    James I am uncertain about your Stalin quote. He wasn't receiving lend lease then, he was in alliance with Hitler's Germany in the Nazi Soviet Pact in 1939 and right up until 1941.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very interesting post.

    One remark: There will never (!) be an outbreak of war. Volcanos break out! A war would always (!) be instigated.

    As I see, one Anon - what a pity - is again discrediting himself. I'd not delete his 'intellectual affodavit of means'.

    Gracchi, I cannot give evidence (who could?) - but to my 'knowledge' Stalin followed an aganda similar to the one described by James.

    Very probably 'Anon the Wiser' in simple words hit the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sean I scanned the article too quickly- you are right I think Stalin thought that there would be a capitalist war of aggression in which all sides would be weakened. Factually though James is wrong- lend lease had not started when Stalin made that speech, it began in 1941 after the German attack on Russia. Furthermore I don't think there was any grand conspiracy- I think there was a grand mistake. We know Stalin was told by British intelligence about German buildup but that he ignored it because they were capitalist spies. For the British and French collapse there are good reasons too. After the war the situation had changed- but even then despite the Bretton Woods attendance, the Soviets turned down Marshall aid for themselves and for their allies as well. The conspiracy is wrong and James is factually wrong about hte date of lendlease and its concurrance with that Stalin speech.

    ReplyDelete
  7. that's why anons shouldn't comment

    Hitler attacked Russia 4 months ahead of schedule or he wouldn't have gotten bogged down at Stalingrad in the middle of hell's winter.

    Stalin would have invaded Germany by '43 at the latest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you touched a sore point with someone here James :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Anon

    Some blogs people come for an all in "debate" [brawl] and love that. This blog, not by my choice, tends to have people come in and read.

    I know this from the occasional e-mail on some point or other. I seem to attract the shy rather than the opinionated.

    My blog policy is laid down - argument to the point e.g. on religion where the anons put something to me and I answered, still looking for your "ewidence". By any reasonable definition of the word, that is debate.

    But ad mominem directed to anotehr blogger is not on, not here. The exception is me and you can say what you like to me. That's why I haven't deleted this comment.

    That's the only policy here on comments and I think I'm fairly free and easy - how many of yours have I deleted before?

    Not only that but yo are welcome yourself [I note Verlin's concern though] because you DO add greatly and provide good stepping off points to explore.

    I know for a fact - STB and others - that people do follow these suggested links and so it is not wasted effort.

    I write posts which are provocative to my reader base to challenge thinking, that's all.

    The girl who gave me the Islamic info is worried I should not have posted what I did. I print what appears to be the truth and that is the sole criterion here, except to keep it within the bounds of taste.

    What, would you have me post bland, formulaic pieces based on the MSM?

    My source material is generally other bloggers whom I know have taken the trouble to research, I link and hat tip and prefer them to the MSM.

    That's about all I can say on it and will continue to try to steer the line down the centre and avoid outright mindless ad hominem war between fellow bloggers, directed, not to the issue but to the person with the intent to hurt.

    We, Anon, are tryig to draw people's attention to iniquities so it's hardly right that we descend to the same level.

    You are welcome, as always, to tear this post apart.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 1 - yes, it was them I am after now in this phase

    Ann 2 - sigh [post follows on this]

    Tiberius - that is so ... and thanks

    Sean - where would we be without your corrections? :)

    Verlin - a thought which flitted through my brain more than once

    Nunyaa - what's a blog if it doesn't get people thinking? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Like the present, the past is a murky place. Businesses showing their loyalty to the half crown, Stalin cynically wishing to see the Reich, Britian and France destroy each other in a "capitalist war" - none of this surprises.

    THe best thing we can do is look history in teh face and perhaps be radical and actually learn from it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I read a while back in the annual newsletter from Jesus College, Oxford, that the dons had a betting book in the Senior Common Room. One wagered (a couple of years before it happened) that Hitler would attack Russia; an event which, when it occurred, took Stalin so much by surprise that he took to a hut in the woods for 10 days to deal with the shock.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You pose a good question, James: my reading has led me to see that very few of Britain's ruling class were actually opposed to Nazi policy at the beginning. It's frightening just hiw many of them knew what was going on and either went along with it or chose to ignore it.
    Later Russia was our ally in WW2 and went from that to being our no 1 enemy - in the minds of our rulers, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tiberius - if you look carefully, I did not say there was concurrence - that's why I put it in that order.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You forgot to mention that IBM were also supplying war material to the German army.

    Lovely world we live in, profit before people.
    :(

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.