Dear Marv: I gauged that this was the central question you wanted me to address. You will naturally, correct me - and re-direct me - if i have so mis-identified. This will of necessity be an inadequate response, but a full response with references and sub-themes, will take too long. Such a work is in process, but it has been a 'long game'. It is not near ready for sharing. Hence I will address this theme by only stating what I believe are key political determinants in the full discussion. A couple of references only, are provided. But only at points that are the most likely to be seen as 'outrageous'.
(i) The USSR posed a great threat to the international capitalist order. (ii) When open rebellion/invasion/fostering of White armies failed - the international capitalists class did not quietly fold its tent and say "we will live with this state." (iii) But if open war-invasion does not work, what does? I believe the details of history show that a Four Pronged Strategy (primarily) was adopted by the imperialists: (a) Supporting anti-CPSU(B) forces within the USSR. Which meant - support of the most visible standards against the CPSU(B) - including Trotsky. After open discussions in the CPSU(B), the latter with colleagues had failed in his initial objective. The opposition went underground since democratic centralism had rejected their viewpoints in several and intense discussions. A key element in this was the manufacture of the so-called 'Lenin Testament' and its printing and wide distribution in the West. Stephen Kotkin ( as you know an anti-Stalinist in Volume One ''Paradoxes of Power"; NY 2014; p. 472 f. To Bland's credit he had exposed this far earlier ca 2000 https://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1991/x01/lenins-testament.pdf ). [I am well aware that Louis fulminated against Kotkin's discussion of this]. (b) Supporting external fascist states to drive against the USSR). The spiking of Hitler's guns (aimed by the Western powers) was effectively performed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as discussed in the link sent prior for Michael's attention. I note Marv says this was "ineffective" as it delayed invasion by only up to 2 years. But they were critical years and involved the moving of factories/redesigning aircraft etc. Am happy to discuss specific points which will no doubt be lobbed on some of these matters. Most are effectively dealt with by the academic Roberts - who is however, clearly not in anywhere near the same camp as Mr. Kotkin and not a rabid anti-Stalinist. ( Geoffrey Roberts "Stalin's wars : from World War to Cold War, 1939-1953", New Haven 2006. Available via the Internet Archive). (c) Helping build a mythology about Stalin's omnipresent 'control' of the USSR, and how communism was shown equatable with fascism. This was in collaboration with internal forces who built the mythology of the 'voyzd', in order to hide behind it. ( https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/combat/x01.pdf )The so-called 'demoralisation of Stalin as the invasion occurred is yet another myth surrounding the picture systematically built up by imperialists and their stooges around the war. Stooges - certainly included Khrushchev by this stage https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/compass/04-2000.pdf ). (d) I believe that it is simply naive to deny that there were conspiracies within the USSR to organise against the CPSU(B) - and that the imperialists had no hand in them. Why would a Marxist not believe that this is possible of imperialists? Yet it is standard to dismiss the views of those such as Davies Ambassador to Moscow during the trials who attended them and judged them from a legal point of view convincing. However there is absolutely no doubt that the repressions were used by hidden revisionists - to extend and launch an uncontrolled terrible victimisation. The perpetrator was however in my view, not Stalin - but Yezhov and Iagoda. Consistent with the view that I put above, ("where do revisionists go if their open arguments are rejected?")- there were some revisionists who took control of the relevant agencies. The over-riding thrust was now to develop such antipathy of workers and peasants as to push for a rising. Stalin replaced Yezhov with Beria - who promptly released prisoners from the camps. This was first put as a view by Bland in the above reference ( https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/combat/x01.pdf ( https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/periodicals/combat/x01.pdf ) ) It was picked up and amplified more recently into a book ( by Grover Furr "Yezhov vs Stalin: Kettering Ohio 2017 - I have my political and historical differences with Furr - and I don't like his style of writing, but the content is not to be dismissed as many here do routinely. He has usually done his homework ). A final quick reference to the so-called revisionist school of academic historians crystallised around Arch Getty Jr needs noticing. But they have been very cautious in lifting the curtain, and have been severely rebuked for the corners they have lifted. (iv) Finally - Who writes history? Everyone knows that it is those who win. Those Western Allies who ultimately won the post-WW2 - with the help of Khrushchev (who then willingly tried to turn over the state to them - but who was put into a corner by Brezhnev and the Army) - ensured the swamping of history-books with the villain Stalin. Bland wrote this: "The nearest comparable figure in English history is, perhaps, Richard III who, we we "know" from our school history books and from Shakespeare, was a hunchbacked monster who murdered the little princes in the tower, and so on, and so on. It is only in the last few years that some historians have noticed that the nearly contemporary documents on which this picture is based all date from after Henry Tudor had overthrown Richard and established a new dynasty. These historians recognised that the Tudors had an interest in presenting their seizure of power as a "liberation from a tyrant" and drew the conclusion that what had been taken for authentic history was in reality mere political propaganda. That there was in fact no evidence that Richard III, committed the crimes attributed to him, no evidence that he was any worse that any other king of that time, no evidence that he was even deformed". I submit that the real history of the USSR is still to be written, and that objective investigations into it - are still needed. No doubt there will be various angry comments on specific extra points if not the architecture itself of what I have discussed above. As time allows I am happy to discuss these if some patience in timing is given. It is now the season of conferences and new analysis-data presentations - and I am still wrapped-up in this. Retired I may be - and unpaid I may be - but I have not let that slip away yet. [ It goes with the afore-mentioned toe exercises ]. Sorry to all about the length and yet, incomplete response. Hi Michael M - depending on my rate of progress with other matters, I will get back with my reply to your points about Poland and also Marshall Tukachevsky. Maybe tomorrow from the looks of things, I shall see. Besides the moderators will be annoyed that this is at least my 4th or 5th post today. Cheers H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#29581): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/29581 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105049655/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
