@Red:
I disagree. Fascism is not the answer to communism and never has been. (Although today’s conservatives often consider and propose it as such, a rather disturbing notion.) Some choice, Hitler (with Imperial Japan and Mussolini thrown in) or Stalin. Neither is in any way appealing. Both were mad men bent on world domination and elimination of others.
I have not proposed fascism as “the answer” to communism. But given a choice between the two–which is what things boiled down to, at least for Eastern and Central Europe–fascism was less bad than communism.
I also disagree with the assertion that either Hitler or Stalin were insane. To me, insanity implies a basic disconnect with reality. I would argue that having some awareness of reality is useful in rising to power–as both Hitler and Stalin did–just as it’s necessary to remain in power. Both men were brutal, and Stalin was bloodthirsty. Neither were insane.
It is also false to assert that either Hitler or Mussolini were bent on world domination. Hitler had no desire for an overseas empire, which is why German naval spending was never much more than 10% of the overall military budget; and why in 1940 Hitler made no real effort to conquer Africa or the Middle East. The desire for world domination and one world government is one of the basic tenets of Marxism. This is an important point of difference between Marxism and Nazism.
@Red:
And the proof of the strategic soundness of the decision that was made is that both Japan and Germany were defeated, Western Europe was liberated, and the threat from the USSR was contained. The most likely result of the other scenario is the U.S. alone standing. It’s a far worse position to start from even if the U.K. somehow survived.
“Still standing” being a relative term here. I would argue that both the U.S. and Western Europe are on a path of long-term decline; and that internal sources of strength which may have existed a century ago are slowly slipping away. I would also argue that WWII represented a war in which we sided with the one nation which represented the greatest long-term threat (the Soviet Union) and against the nation with the most willingness and ability to contain that threat (Germany).
The only reason this policy did not result in Europe being overrun by communists was because of America’s nuclear arsenal. That same arsenal could have been just as effective at supplying a deterrent to a victorious Germany or Japan. It’s also worth noting that in the postwar era, a new breed of Republicans strongly favored an anti-communist foreign policy. (As opposed to the old breed of Republicans, who were isolationists, or the Democrats, who like FDR were often pro-communist.)
@KurtGodel7:
The second was military conquest–conquest which added Poland, eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and North Korea to the communist sphere. Having had success with both methods, communists were perfectly willing to use either method against the Western democracies.
@Red:
All of of these were under the brutal control of Nazis, the Japanese or USSR anyway early in the war, so there is no loss shown from the path taken!
This is false. Finland, for example, was a German ally, but not under German control. I realize this may seem like I’m quibbling about details, but bear with me. The loss of Finland’s eastern territory to the Soviet Union resulted in 12% of the Finnish population fleeing westward to escape the brutality of Soviet occupation.
Another example is the Baltic States. “10% of the entire adult Baltic population was deported or []sent to labor camps](http://[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Ethnic_operations).” “It is estimated that Lithuania lost almost 780,000 citizens as a result of Soviet occupation, of which around 440,000 were war refugees.[29]” In contrast, the Nazis regarded non-Jewish Balts as being fairly similar to Germans; and had intended to add the Baltic States to Germany.
But the ultimate example occurred in Germany itself.
Fleeing before the advancing Red Army, large numbers of the inhabitants of the German provinces of East Prussia, Silesia, and Pomerania died during the evacuations, some from cold and starvation, some during combat operations. A significant percentage of this death toll, however, occurred when evacuation columns encountered units of the Red Army. Civilians were run over by tanks, shot, or otherwise murdered. Women and young girls were raped and left to die (as is explored firsthand in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Prussian Nights).[51][52][53] In addition, fighter bombers of the Soviet air force penetrated far behind the front lines and often attacked columns of evacuees.[51][52]
The Red Army’s violence against the local German population during the occupation of eastern Germany often led to incidents like that in Demmin, a small city conquered by the Soviets in the spring of 1945. Despite its surrender, nearly 900 civilians committed suicide, fueled by instances of pillaging, rape, and executions.[citation needed]
Although mass executions of civilians by the Red Army were seldom publicly reported, there is a known incident in Treuenbrietzen, where at least 88 male inhabitants were rounded up and shot on May 1, 1945. The incident took place after a victory celebration at which numerous girls from Treuenbrietzen were raped and a Red Army lieutenant-colonel was shot by an unknown assailant. Some sources claim as many as 1,000 civilians may have been executed during the incident.[notes 1][54][55] . . .
Following the Red Army’s capture of Berlin in 1945, one of the largest incidents of mass rape took place. Soviet troops raped German women and girls as young as eight years old.
@Red:
And the thing about communism is that it is run by committee, and that puts limits on what it can accomplish. As long as all out war posed a likely existential threat, it was unwilling to risk it.
I don’t think very many committee members would have been willing to oppose something Stalin or Mao wanted. Or if they did, they would not live to make that mistake twice.
It’s also worth noting that the type of person who proved very good at the committee-based infighting proved, at least in the case of Stalin and Mao, to be the most execrable type of human being imaginable.
@Red:
How do you kill communism? Contain it and let time take its course. You out compete it economically. (Why do you think China is doing so well today? They are converting to capitalism…a managed form of capitalism reminiscent of Singapore.)
Had they chosen it, the Soviets could have done what communist China has done. Namely, to employ a capitalist economic structure while retaining an authoritarian regime. Pro-communists like FDR, working in the '40s, had no way of knowing that the Soviet system would collapse in the late '80s. Or if FDR did know that, then one has to wonder why so many of his own policies were so akin to communism.
@KurtGodel7:
I would argue that the U.S. is far better able to deal with military threats than it is with long-term efforts to weaken its existing social order.
@Red:
I would agree, but with the opposite conclusion as to what constitutes the worst threat. I don’t fear the idea of workers getting living wages and health care as much as I’m concerned by the strategic ineptitude of the oligarchy, the 0.1% that own and control nearly everything and operate above, beyond, and outside the law with near term greed as the only motivator. We’ve had two depressions in the last century as the result of unfettered canabalistic capitalism and are setting up for a worse one to come because we’ve done nothing to address the problems of the most recent one–unlike in FDR’s time. Regulated free markets work, unregulated ones fail…spectacularly. Even Greenspan had to admit that his operative economic theory (the same one still espoused by the majority of economists) doesn’t work.
I agree with a portion of what you’ve written in the above paragraph, while strongly disagreeing with other portions. First, I’ll address the causes of the Great Depression. I agree that one contributing factor was inadequate regulation in one specific area. Namely, there was nothing to prevent inaccurate corporate reporting. People had to guess how much of corporate reports were accurate, and how much were fiction. During times of optimism people assumed the best, and during pessimistic times they assumed the worst. Another source of the Great Depression was bank failure. This was not a case of absent regulation, so much as it was of misguided regulation which made banks more likely to fail. A third source was the Federal Reserve. Its monetary policy was far too pro-growth during the Roaring Twenties. Conversely, the Fed had tightened credit far too much in the months leading up to the crash. A fourth (and very important) source of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and the resulting trade barriers which were erected around the world. The collapse of free trade was devastating to the world economy. Of the four main sources of the Great Depression, one involved the government taking too little action; the other three involved it taking misguided actions.
This is not to say that an unfettered free market is perfect; because it clearly is not. But if the government becomes involved, politicians ought not to act like economic idiots! Unfortunately, the average Washington politician does not understand the fundamentals of economics, and is not qualified to tamper with the economy. This makes it difficult for the government to engage in enlightened economic involvement where necessary (for example by requiring accurate corporate reporting) while refraining from involvement in cases where doing so would cause more harm than good.
Incidentally, FDR’s administration did not solve the problem of non-enlightened government interference in the economy. On the contrary: his administration’s actions represented misguided government interference the like of which has never been seen in the U.S. either before or since.
It is incorrect to imply (as you seem to have done above) that communist influence in this country has been exerted to guarantee workers a living wage or healthcare. Their end objective is the destruction of the existing social order as a precursor to revolution. Their positions on issues should be examined with that goal in mind.
For example, wages are the result of supply and demand. A relatively small workforce + high demand for labor = high wages. Demand for labor increases as individual workers become more productive. If an average worker can produce 20 widgets an hour instead of ten, that makes corporate owners eager to hire more workers! Communists have supported high paperwork requirements, complex regulations, and other burdens which greatly lower worker productivity. They have also formed an unholy alliance with American corporations in an effort to increase immigration rates. Communists favor high immigration as a means of eliminating Western Civilization in the U.S. and Europe. Corporations (correctly) see high immigration as a means by which to drive down wage rates. The measures communists favor lead to a large labor force + low worker productivity. Together, these factors imply a low free market wage rate. If one then attempts to artificially boost the wage rate through high minimum wages, the result will be a high unemployment rate. A high unemployment rate is not necessarily unwelcome to communists, because it increases the number of people who have to depend on government handouts for their next meal.
