[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / ausneets / doomer / leftpol / lovelive / marx / sw ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 95fd121c7b34184⋯.jpg (75.63 KB, 960x720, 4:3, THE 2 SIDES Japan Italy Ge….jpg)


>capitalists always side with each other against communis-

No leftist have given me a good answer on why the West would choose to align with the USSR instead of the nutsacks, even though it contradicts their "hook theory" of succdems always siding with the fascists.


because they were both attacked by the nutsacks and it was convenient to coordinate?


Europe was willing to let Hitler slaughter everyone in the USSR (and Eastern Europe to an extent) if it meant the end of socialism. If he hadn't made moves on western Europe and instead focused entirely on the east WW2 would have turned out much differently.


>capitalists always side with each other against communis-

no one is saying this. it’s just that because of the profit motive capitalism selects for, they usually do.


Stalin offered the "Allies" to preemptively attack Hitler in 1939 and nobody listened because they'd rather appease the Nazis endlessly than side with communists. Only when they both were attacked by Hitler did the West choose to cooperate. Even then, they did everything in their power to do as little as possible to help the Soviets, and even conspired to attack the Soviets after the war.


Germany started invading countries that the allies were allied with

They stopped paying war debts

Capitalist countries go to war with eachother in times of capitalist crisis to benefit national capitals (US steel gotta beat out German steel)

Japan attacked US because they were competing for imperial control of the Pacific

A lot of left over animosity towards Germany over ww1 still remained

Britain valued liberal democracy as well as capitalism so Germany was nearly as alien to them as ussr

and finally, many British politicians, industrialists, and diplomats were in talks with Germany and the axis, ready to support an invasion of the USSR. Hitler was literally just an idiot who thought he had to invade France because of the history of WW1



Because team Nutsac wanted to upend established imperial powers. And the national bourgeoisie of the various allied countries couldn't allow this to happen.

Mind Churchill himself admitted that he had wished to ally with the fascists against Bolshevism. The gambit didn't work out and they instead ended up invading the west.

Most of it is really because of the Nazis own doing. Had they not thrown an autistic fit about Danzig, and respected their mutual treaties, Poland would have joined the anti-comintern, and WW2 would have been a pan-European invasion of Russia.

Also the Nazi occupation of Europe was literal white-genocide.


Reminder that the USSR was attacked by Germany two years after WW2 started. It was an alliance of convenience, nothing else, and it ended the moment Germany was defeated. Google Operation Unthinkable



The jig is up


the usa was controlled by jews is why


Because capitalists are not ideological, they only do what benefits them in the short term. Sometimes this means cooperating for common interest, other times it means vying with each other for power. They don't give a shit if communists are fundamentally incompatible with them beyond immediate convenience.



Stalin himself argued that contradictions between capitalist powers could grow to the point that it overrides the contradiction between the capitalist world and the growing socialist one.

WWII is an example of this even though the socialist world was just the USSR and the Mongolian Peoples Republic at the time. Hell, WWI is an example of this to an extent, even though 1917 posed a threat to their entire world order and the threat of insurrection at home was very, very likely the capitalist powers couldn't stop killing each other long enough to stop Bolshevism. When they finally ended the war they attempted to act in unison to respond to the threat (Germany, US, Britain, France, Japan all backing the whites) but eventually they kinda fell out as they started bickering with each other while realizing that the situation with the whites was already lost.

Britain and France, were more concerned with punishing Germany than they were in stabilizing the Weimar Republic against possible communist insurrection.

Still, in spite of all this, the West held a united front against communism during the Cold War. France's split with the USA under DeGaulle was a minor event. Only France had the power and will to challenge the US for dominance while the capitalist world faced the communist enemy–and France came up short. Hence, the French establishment now licks the boots of Washington despite being the principle capitalist threat to US dominance post-WWII.

Macron said he'd build a European army to challenge America but his anti-Russian rhetoric employed during the showdown with the yellow vests implies he will probably back down against the US while facing insurrection at home.






Because alliances are usually formed much more on pragmatical than on ideological grounds.



>Stalin offered the "Allies" to preemptively attack Hitler


>Mind Churchill himself admitted that he had wished to ally with the fascists against Bolshevism.

Do you guys have any links, were I can read about this?


>No leftist have given me a good answer on why the West would choose to align with the USSR instead of the nutsacks

Because the nutsacks attacked their allies before they attacked the ussr.

Also the USA was not in the war because they were half nazis already but then japan decided, for whatever reason, that they needed hawaii, so now the USA declared war on Japan, and since japan and germany were in a union the USA also had to declare war on germany and get involved there because if youre already at war might as well try to take control of europe before the evil commies take all of it.



>also had to declare war on germany

Except that's not what happened. Nazi Germany declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor.



It wasn't even Hawaii, it was the Philippines iirc. America said it would defend the Philippines if attacked and the Japs took this as gospel and tried to get in the first punch.


This is funny because the only reason they did it was because Nazis are spooked out their mind and someone said to Hitler something along the lines of "Empires declare war, the weak are declared upon".

The US would have probably gone for the Nazis first either way though, since they didn't want the Soviets having Europe.


File: 221b774a6bcd24d⋯.jpeg (488.15 KB, 1242x687, 414:229, 5C15FDCF-B882-4BD7-9BEB-4….jpeg)

hitler was told dozens of times to stop invading other countries through appeasement. When he stopped listening and invaded poland after a final warning, the west declared war

<b-but i can’t just take over e-europe?




I don’t think that is true. Ultimately WW2 was still an imperialist war like WW1. Germany, Japan and Italy were grabbing clay and instituting puppet governments, and it was encroaching on the allied power block. Even if the Nazis were attacking the enemy of the allies, the USSR, it would have represented an expansion of German empire that may have not been tolerable. It could be preferable to have that power broken between two countries at odds, the USSR and Germany.

But to suggest the US felt any good will towards Russia is ridiculous. The USSR were obviously considered a threat since 1917 and the Russian civil war when they were invaded. Furthermore, the US played all of its normal media tricks, propagating retarded stories about how Lenin nationalized women in Russia, and sort of DPRK unicorn-tier nonsense. The USA elite is not made up of total idiots though. Having Japan literally attack them while Europe is totally consumed with Germany and allied fascist governments was not good for the US because it destabilized world power by bringing key countries like France and the UK under the umbrella of the Nazi empire. Allying with the USSR was necessary to save Western Europe for them and maintain hegemony. In fact, it clearly was a net gain for the US, totalizing their place at the top of western hegemony for almost a century.



>japan decided, for whatever reason

The Japanese reasoning for entering the war was actually fairly sound from their perspective as they were on the verge of collapse due to allied embargoes, so they stuck out to secure the resources they could

taking US islands was mostly to try and form a defensive line to bleed out the Americans in hopes of negotiated peace, their real goal was British and Dutch controlled southern asia



Phoney War

Even in war, the West was trying to appease fascists until they were unappeasable.



The JIG vs the FABS?


>>Mind Churchill himself admitted that he had wished to ally with the fascists against Bolshevism.

>Do you guys have any links, were I can read about this?




>their real goal was British and Dutch controlled southern asia

What would the Japanese stand to gain from this?



Oil, Tin, rubber, and slaves.



>What would the Japanese stand to gain from this?

resources, oil being the big one, but there were a multitude of other ones they needed to grab to prevent their economy from imploding



FDR repeatedly refused to negotiate with the moderate elements within the Japanese government, preferring to provoke the militarists with unmistakable insults. On April 9, 1941 Japan offered a draft proposal containing sweeping concessions to U.S. demands, including the removal of all Japanese forces from China on terms agreeable to both nations, with no acquisition by Japan of any Chinese territory or indemnifications, all to be overseen by the United States. Cordell Hull rejected these generous terms out of hand, refusing even the smallest quid pro quo between the two nations. Instead FDR reacted to Japanese peace overtures by declaring an embargo on Japan's critical oil supply, which, following on the heels of severe trade sanctions and the freezing of all Japanese assets in the U.S., was a de facto declaration of war.

The U.S. decision in 1940 to move a formidable attack fleet of battleships from its home bases in California to Hawaii, three thousand miles closer to the Japanese home islands, is not hard to see for what it once, another extreme provocation and an existential threat to Japan. From the Japanese perspective the attack on Pearl Harbor was clearly a militarily necessary, preemptive strike against an implacably aggressive foreign enemy. And it was a Japanese surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Harbor that won the Russo-Japanese War 36 years earlier.


The Pacific War was a grotesque Nazi masturbation fantasy against a nation provoked into hostilities by nearly a century of intolerably demeaning U.S. policies, whose people were uniformly depicted in the American news media of the day as animalistic and subhuman. Three-fourths of the US war effort in WWII was against Japan. The issue was economic, as all wars, control of the lucrative China trade and naval supremacy in the Pacific, which the Japanese were ever so prickly about, since that is where their home islands are located. Its like our blustering today in the South China Sea, as though China has no rights there at all.

We were told in history class that Admiral Perry blandly opened Japan to western trade in 1853, but what he promised was to return in a year with his gun ports open if Japan did not accede to all US trade concessions. They had no choice but to accept the exploitation, though there was an anti-western uprising in 1863 that actually saw British warships shelling Nagasaki. The Shogun was overthrown in 1868 and Japan accomplished a near-miracle, going from a cloistered medieval society to a modern world power with an advanced navy in a generation. They saw what became of defenseless China, dismembered among European empires.

Japan was a western ally in WWI. Their navy convoyed the ANZACS from Australia and their army captured German colonies in China. But the grotesquely racist treatment they received after the war ignited the militarist faction to depart the alliance. And FDR deliberately provoked the militarists while snubbing the moderate faction.

My personal feeling is that FDR pushed us into WWII because war is every elite’s most effective tool to suppress domestic dissent. American working men and women reacted to the disaster we call the Great Depression by organizing and fighting back in unprecedented numbers. Starting in 1934, they carried out militant strikes and protests, often culminating in armed battles, as in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Toledo, Flint, and other cities across the country. On a level far beyond anything seen since the radical 1890s, they challenged the right of the bosses to run, and, in some cases, to even own, the companies. In several places, protestors took over cities. And in the process they demonstrated they were not fooled by pro-establishment liberals and so-called progressives. This, clearly, was way too much democracy for the one percenters to long tolerate, and the other reason why FDR did everything in his power to provoke war with the two emerging non-capitalist world powers.



>FDR didn't accommodate the plans of the moderate genocidal Japanese imperialists in China

While it can't be said that his actions had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor I can't see how he did anything wrong here. And, yes, I'm aware he was doing this more for selfish reasons than some grand moral convictions but to my mind it was still the right thing.


The reason the UK, France, and USA didn't wanna attack the Axis was because they wanted to maintain their control. It wasn't some EVUL CAPITALIST PLOT

Read Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy. The Germans because of World War 1 and 2 ended White Supremacy because they attacked the West. If not for World War 1 and 2 the Empires would've lasted.

It was actually done on purpose. Using the Colored People's of the World as a means of attacking the UK, France, and USA was a plan made by German Intelligence.

Remember, the same people who sent Lenin into Russia were the ones that trained Hitler. WW1 and 2 and the Cold War was really a long-term plan of fucking up the other nations. Nazis after World War 2 went into places like Algeria, Egypt, Syria, and etc to fight the Imperial Powers and National Self-determination that Communists did is actually a type of volksgruppenrechte, the rights of native peoples, that the Germans made to fuck up the Empires. The reason the Cold War was a fight between the USA and USSR after the War was because Nazis who were in both intentionally made them fight each other.

War is just politics by other means.



Nah the Pacific War was a conflict between two imperialist powers that ended when the Soviets got close to occupying Japan.



It is true that Japan had practical motives, but Pearl Harbor was still pants-on-head retarded. The only reason the attack went so smoothly for Japan was because the US didn't think they were insane enough to try it, and as a result, the US came to see Japan as a volatile threat that couldn't be left to its own devices. Japan was too far up its own ass to act rationally, and that is what cost them the war.



>the most important ships of the US Navy, the three aircraft carriers, just happened to be away on a training exercise



Really I like how none of you have considered the possibility that maybe the reason that Bismark spied on Marx was because Marx was actually a Fed. Or how the failed 1848 Revolution caused Prussian Army Officers to join the Republican Party in the USA and then ravage the CSA and then join key political offices while none of the Prussians in the CSA did the same, or how the Republican Party didn't want either WW1 or 2 with Germany and even helped them. And that maybe creating the most Far-Left and most Far-Right ideology they were able to destroy the other nation's control over the World.



>the most important ships of the US Navy, the three aircraft carriers, just happened to be away on a training exercise

This is actually a poor argument. Aircraft carriers at the time were regarded as a relatively new novelty, mostly untested in real battle. Battleships at the time were the "Kings of the Sea" and what were thought to win battles. Every countries focus was producing larger battleships with bigger guns in greater quantities. It was only until WW2 actually began and the US entered the pacfic theater was the actual usefulness of Aircraft carriers discovered, especially given the loss exchange ratio of aircraft vs naval ships (It's a lot cheaper to produce a bunch fighters then a lot of ships and even if you lose a lot of fighters, if those fighters take out even one battleship they've made up their cost)


the west refused any and all attempts by the soviets to ally up against the nazis

which then invaded france and bombed the brits because communists actually know how to play imperialists and do diplomacy to work themselves into a better position

rest france wasn't an ally, it was a joke

the brits were desperate

and let's not forget who financed hitler and allowed germany to build up its army and annex europe nation by nation, without any actions taken even with their ally poland

not to mention austria and germans other unlisted european allies holding other peoples nations hostage

or i assume all those occupied territories weren't exploited for gains used in the war?

your revisionism doesn't hold up even on the most basic terms and falls apart with every bit of examination i don't even have to bother go even beyond surface level, just how sad can /pol/ack attempts get at damage controling?



>Pearl Harbor was still pants-on-head retarded

it made sense, they figured if they cripple the Pacific Fleet they buy enough time and go for the negotiated peace with the US after seizing Pacific assets

>what cost them the war.

Japan like Germany never had a chance at winning the war, the lost the second it started, hell I'd say Japan lost the second the 2nd Sino-Japanese war started



>they figured if they cripple the Pacific Fleet they buy enough time

Which is why it was retarded: they didn't. The Navy ultimately handed Japan their ass using the ships Japan decided not to attack, and the battleships they did destroy ended up not being very useful anyway. Japan could have easily fucked up the US's capacity to retaliate, and they gave it up out of pure hubris.



The West only joined the war because Churchill didn't like the idea of a German Empire and pulled the USA into the war as well. That, and the Japanese were taking over colonial areas of the Dutch and British, threatening US colonies as well. Western Corporations, and many Western politicians DID side with the Germans, but this was quashed in the face of the backfire the nazi regime became.

TL;DR The trained attack dog, meant to assault and weaken the USSR in a war, became a mad dog that attacked both its master and the intended target.



> the ships Japan decided not to attack

The Japanese wanted to sink the carriers of the USN, however they weren't in port, they'd been sent out just before the bombing.



Because they were both declared war upon by the Nazis? So they fought together? Is this an honest question or are you just actually retarded?



They did ignore the submarines, though, which was just fucking stupid. Japan was acting out of desperation, but was so blinded by ideology that playing on the safe side was like questioning their nation's divine infallibility.


Awful thread, awful understanding of history. The failure of OP and many others ITT comes from viewing history through an ideological lens, when geopolitics are principly determined by immediate strategic concerns. The Western powers would have relished a chance to destroy both the nazi state and CCCP but circumstances led them into an alliance with the latter instead of the former.

OP is also talking as if they had a choice in the matter, completely ignoring the fact that Hitler sperged out and declared war on all of them. How does this thread even have more than one reply? Saged for being the most retarded shit I've ever seen. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.



>How dare people have discussion

You sound fun.



>idealists don't act through an ideological lens

>literally examples given in the thread

Fuck off not reading threads before posting.



>Japan could have easily fucked up the US's capacity to retaliate

not really, not without destroying US ship production capability

the Japanese could have sunk the entire Pacific Fleet and it wouldn't have delayed or changed a lot of the content of the war



From a pure economic stand-point Japan was doomed from the start. IIRC, Japan’s nominal gdp was about 1/10th of the US at the time.

But a lot of this alternate history strategizing much like the debate around the atomic bomb really comes down to whether Japan would have fallen in 1946-48 instead of 1945. This is reflected in the thinking or Japanese leaders themselves who believed that if they inflicted enough pain on the Americans they could sue for peace on advantageous terms. But they never believed they could win against the US in a long-range total was fought any time in the near future.

It’s hard to send plebs out to die for that though so they indoctrinated the public with myths of Japanese invincibility.



>Germany declares war on the allies

>Signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the USSR

>Attacks the USSR anyway

>Gets double teamed




>Because team Nutsac wanted to upend established imperial powers.

In the sense that they wanted to remove the jewish bourgeoisie, yes, but this does not align at all with Marxists ideas as they do not believe there is such an oligarchy. They simply do not address it in any meaningful sense, they instead would have us believe that the WASP or anglo aristocracy wanted to re move Hitler for some reason, despite them being either sympathetic or indifferent to him. The Bushes after all sided with the nazis and it was uncontroversial


WW2 was an example of capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin.


>Because team Nutsac wanted to upend established imperial powers.

So does the USSR, in fact, USSR teamed up with the Nazi in order to invade Poland yet Britain and France ONLY declared war against Nazi Germany.

>Mind Churchill himself admitted that he had wished to ally with the fascists against Bolshevism.

Bullshit, Churchill was anti-Hitler.

>Also the Nazi occupation of Europe was literal white-genocide.

More bullshit, the Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today.




>didn't end up with millions of white dead like today.

>like today

Fuck more than 20 million whites (wtvr that means, maybe white Russians) are killed right now

Where is this going on

>So does the USSR

True in fact most Germans (not only the Nazis) were a little disappointed about the treaty after ww1

That’s why USSR made deals with Weimar (you know pariahs united etc)

>Britain and France ONLY declared war against Nazi Germany.

They already attacked USSR before and didn’t go too well

Also Nazis had promised not to attack Poland as they were given lot of free shit to don’t go full retard

>Churchill was anti-Hitler

He personally hated Hitler

What a jerk

Though politics tend to not be feels>real’s like you think

>>2782060(see link)



>they wanted to remove the jewish bourgeoisie

They where largely indifferent to actually powerful jews, at worst they just wanted to replace them with their own bourgeoisie


>Britain and France ONLY declared war against Nazi Germany

Britain and France were already at war with Germany and was not ready to just join in another war, besides at that point the USSR was reconquering Belarusian and Ukrainian land occupied by Poland and had somewhat of a legitimate claim. At this point Hitler had already pissed of the allies plenty by annexing Austria and Chekia unlike Stalin.

>Bullshit, Churchill was anti-Hitler.

And anti bolshevik. He was the one who wanted Operation Unthinkable to happen.

>the Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today.

If you don't count the 11 million deaths of the holocaust as white(There were plenty of white people who died of it) the nazi regime still caused some 30 million excess death of almost exclusively white people due to ww2 and it's occupation of Europe.



>Britain and France were already at war with Germany and was not ready to just join in another war

There was in fact a plan


For attacking USSR

Anyway nice post


File: 8fe1902cf79fd58⋯.png (344.69 KB, 1199x653, 1199:653, Nazi demonised.png)


>More bullshit, the Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today.

WTF are you smoking?

I usually say 'read nigga!' but you don't even have to.




>capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin

Seeing as Hitler and Mussolini heavily supported capitalism and privatization, and seeing as the only reason fascism got to power was its support by financial elites who wanted capital do be defended by violent means, I suppose this also means fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin?

>the Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead


>like today

Literally where and when?



>More bullshit, the Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today.

Slavs are not white, right?



>USSR teamed up with the Nazi in order to invade Poland yet Britain and France ONLY declared war against Nazi Germany

The Allies pact only required them to defend Poland against Germany, and technically USSR never invaded Poland as the Polish state had ceased to exist. In any case, it clearly wasn't a good idea for the unprepared Allies to attack the USSR and countries do not go to purely out of moral outrage.

Later, they did consider aligning themselves with Finland against the Soviets (who where at this time supported economically by Germany) in order to justify intervening in Scandinavia but this did not pan out due to that war coming to an end.

>Churchill was anti-Hitler

He claimed to admire Hitler's character before the war. He was pro-British hegemony.

>Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today



You lost loser, get over it.


Yeah well daily fucking reminder that the USSR fought a mini war against China and was this close to nuking the fuck out of it. Soviet propaganda considered the Chinese to be fascists and had papers published that likened the Chinese model to nazi Germany. That is to say Commies hate heretics more than capitalists and liberals.

Fascism and Russian Bolshevism are not exactly the same but they are closer to each other than any other ideology and are the most similar to each other. Fascism grew out of far left radicals in Italy and when Mussolini came to power the Soviet press jerked him off and saw him as a kindred spirit. Mussolini said Russian Bolsheviks are his closest ideological allies and Italy was the first country to formally recognize the USSR. I the 1920's Karl Radek made a speech to the Comintern about how the Nazis were super cool dudes who needed to be supported and that they were right to want to fuck up all the Jew Bankers and that the treaty of Versailles was a bad thing. Bukharin praised the Nazi party for modeling itself after the Bolshevik party. Basically Fascists are a heretical Bolshevik offshoot and has more in common with Bolsheviks than with Conservativea or reactionaries Fascists being very anti conservative initially.

All those little shitty "Communist" states in the third world were basically Fascist ethnocentric racist, nationalist and antimodernist and fully retarded in the case of Cambodia Juche is Furherpinzip 2.0 Ho Chi Minh was more a nationalist than a communist or a Nationalist who used communists and anti imperialism to gain independance and followed the prevailing intellectual currents of his time. Modern China ( as opposed to Maoist China which the post Stalinist USSR also considecommunist) is fascist according to actual corporatist structure of its economy and political system it's entirely revisionist doesnt give a fuck about internationalism or revolution or any such shit and is more similar to fascism than liberalism conservatism reactionaries or Bolsheviks



File: 6ff5159af22fb8f⋯.jpg (37.82 KB, 420x420, 1:1, 6ff5159af22fb8fe385f95fcdc….jpg)


>Modern China ( as opposed to Maoist China which the post Stalinist USSR also considecommunist) is fascist

Micro brain; China is socialist

Normal brain; China is capitalist

Galaxy brain; China is fascist


File: df8b8f9e4027ab5⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 67.48 KB, 505x650, 101:130, df8b8f9e4027ab5f43d3a6d43e….jpg)



Bazed and xi-pilled


File: 6e421de39f1e8a7⋯.jpg (76.39 KB, 600x572, 150:143, sips kvass.jpg)



>They did ignore the submarines

Yeah but at the time submarines were not viewed as the game-changing elements of the war. At least, not by the Japanese.


> USSR teamed up with the Nazi in order to invade Poland

<Britain and France ONLY declared war against Nazi Germany

HMMM maybe it's because the USSR entered after the Polish government fled to Romania after a direct order to their troops NOT to engage Red Army troops?

>Churchill was anti-Hitler

Anti-Hitler? Sure, though I remember reading some praise of him during the 30s. That aside. Fascism includes Mussolini, whom Churchill definitely praised, stating that,

"I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society…" (Speech in Rome, January 20th of 1927).

>Nazi occupation didn't end up with millions of white dead like today

Excuse me?

Slavs are white, Germans are white, French are white, British are white, most Americans are white, European Jews are white. That's 50 million white people killed in the war because of nazism you dumbass.



no, the USA let it happen


but the soviet union wasnt communist




“Allied Embargoes” is literal fascist propaganda. Japan attacked the US same reason Hitler attacked Poland, they wanted more land for their spooked out totalitarian capitalist racist empire. They are villains, and listening to them try and justify themselves makes you a villain too, fascist pig.



thank you mod



WTF? He got banned for being absolutely right.

The Soviet Union was SOCIALIST. It's why it's called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics and why people like Khrushchev said they would try to reach communism in 20 years. The official line was that they were still in the socialist stage and not the communist stage.



Clearly that's not what he meant




>no canada, australia or new zealand

wew lad



They were part of the British Empire at the time IIRC.









What I have to say as an outsider is that Democrats have been the most slick and efficient imperialists in US politics, Republicans end up eating away at the very foundations of American hegemony with their sheer reactionary stupidity.



They actually reinforced the Manchurian front immensely after the defeat of Khalkhin Gol, and there was a significant voice in Japanese planning for placating the West while linking up with Germany and the Soviet Union.

The foreseeable post war situations Roosevelt Roosevelt and Churchill had to take as they coordinated the succession from UK to US led global imperalism were the following 2

1. 'Reconstructed' fascists restored in the anticommunist bloc after the war against a battered USSR

2. Asia industrialising under fascist rule, thus a new pole of imperialist capital that would probably win in the next imperialist conflict.

Very ironically, they chose 1 and we finally got 2, but in the middle we got the Golden Age of Capitalism, so it's not all that bad, is it.



against the Soviet Union, sorry

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / ausneets / doomer / leftpol / lovelive / marx / sw ]