If I may cross streams here, I’d like to ask MrDibble what his views are on the Czechoslovakia situation in 1938. Czechoslovakia felt threatened by its more powerful neighbour so it sought alliances with other stronger countries to fend off Germany.
That seems like a similar situation to what I described in previous posts: a weak nation seeking alliances with strong nations when threatened by another strong nation.
But you’ve said that strong nations should deny these requests because it’s a form of imperialism. Was this the case in 1938? Were Britain and France correct in refusing Czechoslovakia an alliance? If they had given Czechoslovakia the alliance it sought, would it have been morally wrong of them? Should Czechoslovakia have sought the protection of the League of Nations?
The CCP was pretty small potatoes in 1940. They also fought more against the Nationalists than against the Japanese and their focus was not so much to oppose Japan as such as to take over China for themselves, which Japan was also trying to do. Ironically, it was the Japanese who enabled the CCP to take power in the end (by so weakening the KMT that eventually the CCP was able to defeat them and force them out)…I think there is a famous quote by Mao to that effect.
Ah…ok. I gotcha.
Is it? If so it’s news to me. I thought only the 5 permanent members had veto power over anything that’s not non-binding or ‘substantive’. I’m trying to put the Suez crisis in the context of an end run around the UNSC and drawing a blank. How was it an end run around the UNSC?
Stalin said he was willing to fight the Germans in 1938 - if Britain and France did also. He only made this offer after it was clear that wasn’t going to happen. When the Germans did invade Czechoslovakia, the Soviets stood by just as the British and the French did. Stalin didn’t declare war on Germany or send troops into Czechoslovakia. So there was plenty of room for him to have been more directly confrontational if he had wanted to.
I’m not prepared to filter and prune his statements for reasonableness, based on every post I’ve read from him. I responded to what he wrote, and if he meant something else, he had ample opportunity to say so, and hasn’t. He says crap like this all the time, and needs to be called on it. Note that there, he says the US “freed the world from fascism and communism” and is therefore “exceptional”. That isn’t compatible with the idea that the US was one of many nations that fought against fascism and communism, and won.
That is not specifically bringing up World War II, as that’s not what I mean. I meant, as my next post makes clear, anti-fascism in general, which pre-dates WW2.
Well, that at least explains the dispute. I apologize if my initial post was unclear.
But the US really was late; to name one example, the Soviets send troops, weapons, supplies, and money to the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. The US…prohibited arms sales, and did nothing.
See previous paragraph: the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War included non-Soviet communists fighting against fascists.
You keep talking about the Spanish Civil War and ignoring World War II. Who’s blinkered now?
The Soviets send substantial military aid to the Nazis during World War II. How do you reconcile that with working against the fascists?
It’s true that the Soviets did fight the Nazis and took a lot of casualties later in the war. But it’s not like the Soviets woke up one morning and realized that fighting Germany was a moral cause. The Soviets fought the Nazis only because the Nazis attacked them.
And, yes, I’m aware that the United States didn’t fight until Japan and Germany declared war on America. But at least the United States was doing something while we were neutral; we gave supplies to countries fighting Germany and Japan (the Soviets made sure they jgot paid for all the aid they gave to Spain); we imposed economic sanctions on the Axis powers; we assisted the British in convoy patrols; and we had volunteers fighting in Britain and China.
So repeat after me: In 1940, the United States was sending supplies to Britain and the Soviet Union was sending supplies to Nazi Germany.
I’ve discussed WW2 in multiple posts on this topic. Funny sort of ignoring, that.
Trade isn’t aid, but yes, there was trade, some of it on credit.
I’ve made my point quite clear: communists played a large part in fighting and defeating fascism. That the Soviet Union and Germany had a trade pact and non-aggression pact doesn’t change this reality.
Take a break from attacking a strawman, and actually read what I’ve written: Communists played a large part in fighting and defeating fascism. Disagree with that? Then make your case. Agree with that, but want to criticize Soviet foreign policy? Go nuts, but I’m not particularly interested, it’s got little do to with my point.
You haven’t discussed WWII. You’ve tried to steer the discussion away from topics that refute your claims.
Once again, you’re trying to spin it. You’re trying to pretend this agreement had no political significance when it actually did. This treaty went a lot farther than just a “trade agreement”.
Take a break from building strawmen and I’ll stop knocking them down.
The communists did play a large part of fighting and defeating fascism - after they were forced into doing it by a German invasion. Other than that, communist opposition to fascism was minor at best; token efforts which the communists made when it was to their advantage to do so.
I discussed WW2 in posts 186, 202, 206, 208, 210, and 212.
I have a single claim, the one I made back in post 177: that communists worked to fight fascism, in a struggle the US came late to. This fight included, but was not limited to, WW2.
There has been zero refutation of that, just plate-spinning and mutual misunderstanding.
No, I just consider the political significance irrelevant to my overall point, because it is. I’ve not said that only the Soviet Union fought fascism, or that Soviet opposition to fascism was universal and perfect, or anything similar that can be refuted by pointing to Nazi-Soviet pacts and treaties.
Do tell, what strawman have I built of your position? As far as I can tell, it’s that Soviet opposition to Nazi Germany gave way to a strategy of rapprochement from 1939 until 1941. This is not controversial.
So, even by the most generous-to-you interpretation of the facts, you agree with my point. Yeesh. This place, I tell ya, sometimes I don’t know…
Stalin said he would go to the aid of Czechoslovakia; the Czech government was only willing to accept Soviet aid if the West also backed them:
France and the Soviet Union had, in theory, a Treaty of Mutual Assistance. What exactly was the USSR supposed to do to be more directly confrontational? Declare war with Germany after Czechoslovakia had surrendered the Sudetenland in an agreement brokered by the UK and France? The lack of a common border would have been slightly problematic with regards to sending troops into Czechoslovakia unilaterally and without Czechoslovakia agreeing to them being sent.
Not if done in some sort of multinational grouping i.e. both UK and France
Yes, it should have done that too
I think I’m being misunderstood, BTW - my issue here isn’t with the smaller nation asking for protection - I can perfectly well understand why a smaller nation would want that. My issue is with the more powerful nation using that as a tool of imperialism - I think the more powerful countries should be the ones to only offer their protection services under some sort of group mandate, to prevent the imperialistic client state setup.
But in the real world, why do smaller nations ask for protection? On this planet full of peace and love, why would they need to?
How about this - My nation wants your nation’s protection. Plus the economic benefit of trading with your nation. We want your people to risk their lives, and spend their fortunes, for our protection. We would really like to offer to assist you in your defense of our nation, but, unfortunately, we are unprepared/unwilling/incapable/too incompetent/afraid to mount a basic defense of our homeland. Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You are our only hope.
Unless you’re prepared to claim that communists fought and defeated fascism without fighting and defeating fascism; at this point it wouldn’t shock me.
If you hadnt included *“in a struggle the US came late to. *” then you’d have no issue with me. But the USSR, the only Communist nation at that time, came even later. They were allies and supporters of Nazi Germany until June 1941. The USA was supporting the Allies months earlier.
Disagree; it may have been ultimately unsuccessful, but it wasn’t minimal. For example, the RFB was literally fighting it out in the streets with the SA, Arditi de Popolo was fighting the Blackshirts…these people fought, died, and went to prisons and camps to oppose fascism. It’s a disgrace to dismiss them as “minimal opposition”.
Already disputed: the Spanish Civil War alone proves otherwise.
Agreed, from '39 till the invasion, the Soviets stopped fighting fascism (in Europe, at least, to the extent that the Japanese were fascist).
Disagree; both the Spanish American War and the Soviet response to the Munich Agreement show otherwise.
Fair enough, but again this requires arguing against a distorted version of my point (eg, that it was only about WW2).
Americans, but not “the US”. Soviet support, by contrast, was official policy.
Do wha?