Shane (and Nestor), I wasn't talking about 1945. I was talking about 1942, 43 and 44. US involvement (or anyones involvement) wasn't a mechanical placement of troops or "reoccupation". "No US Aid to the Philippines" (no one raised this in any event, it would of been stupid) I asked because the US was involved every minute, including with those same Huk communist guerrillas and the larger nationalist movement against the Japanese occupation. US was engaged in active support or the armed struggle against the Japanese in the Philippines from logistics, to special operations, to supplies, etc etc...all part, and parcel, of the US imperialist war effort in the Philippines. From the UK supplying arms to Yugoslav partisans to complete integration of western Europe's resistances movements with Allied military maneuvers; to the support to the USSR by the Allies.
My question has to do with how, why or where one separates these movements, reflecting European opposition to everything Nazi, is *politically* part of the overall Allied military efforts. When Marxists say "No to the Imperialist War" I wonder, and have always wondered, what this means concretely? Or is it simply revolutionary hyperbole with absolutely no on the ground meaning vis-a-vis allied *imperialist* aid to resistance movements, troop landings, etc? I think it's very, very complex question. David ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
