Arthur Herman has a short but powerful remembrance of the ending of WWII 60 years ago this week. He sums it up like this:
This is in fact the basic lesson of the Second World War: that political freedom unleashes a material and spiritual power that dictators only dream about. That dream of power ended for Hitler in the rubble of Berlin; it would end for Stalin’s successors 44 years later in that same city, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Today it is ending for Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere. They should have learned the lesson of their predecessors: that the future still belongs to freedom.
(via McPhillips)
Comment
We must not forget how war was won
Richard Overy: It was the Soviet and Chinese sacrifice that made victory possible
Saturday May 7, 2005
The Guardian
Imagine for a moment that around half the population of Great Britain – men, women and children – died in the second world war. What kind of extraordinary trauma would this represent? How would "victory" in 1945 now be viewed, or even celebrated? Yet 27 million is the estimate of Soviet deaths by the end of the war. Actual British losses represented around 0.6% of the population; American losses were smaller, around 0.3%. But Soviet losses, from war, starvation and repression, represented about 14% of the pre-war population.
Article continues
These losses were the brutal product of German invasion in 1941 and the Soviet determination to resist that aggression and expel the Germans from their territory. The scarcely credible level of sacrifice exposes just how vast and savage the war on the eastern front was. It was here that the great majority of German casualties occurred. It was here that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all the odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire.
By 1945 the material strength of the allies was, of course, overwhelming. The critical point came in the middle years of the war, with the Soviet Union teetering before Stalingrad, Rommel poised to take Egypt, the battle of the Atlantic not yet won and American rearmament in its early stages. Victory was not automatic. Soviet resistance meant the difference. Uncertainly, sometimes incompetently, the Soviet armed forces learned the lessons imposed on them by Germany's panzer armies in 1941. A hasty, improvised set of reforms and an economy geared almost exclusively to armaments turned the feeble efforts of 1941 into the vast setpiece battles from the summer of 1943, every one of which the Soviet side won.
German forces were defeated not by the sheer numbers (by 1943 millions of Soviet soldiers were dead or captive and the Red Army was desperate for men), but by the inventive tactics and sturdy technology of their enemy. If this had not been the case, Hitler's armies would have gone on winning, and a huge German-dominated economic empire in Eurasia would have confronted the western allies with a strategic nightmare.
Of course, it is now argued in the west that Soviet victory left a sour taste. Rather than the liberation brought by the western powers, Soviet liberation ushered in the trappings of the Stalinist state. The cold war after 1945 made it difficult to integrate the Soviet contribution into the collective western memory of the war, while it also allowed the Soviet Union to write the contribution of its allies out of the script.
In reality they needed each other. Soviet efforts required the flow of resources under the "Lend Lease" programme. Weapons were few, and the Soviets regarded them as second-rate. But the supply of raw materials, food and communications equipment was essential. It allowed Soviet industry to concentrate on weapons to fight back with. Without Lend Lease the rail system and food supply might well have folded up as they had in the first world war.
The sour taste has become more marked with the fall of communism 15 years ago. The opening up of Soviet archives has shown a system that for some critics makes it almost indistinguishable from the totalitarian enemy it was fighting. This makes it more difficult to embrace the Soviet contribution to victory. The ordinary Soviet people were not only numberless victims of war, but they failed to achieve any political reform as a result of their triumph. Yet it is their exceptional sacrifice that we should remember as we look back over 60 years. And in the end the peoples of eastern Europe were unquestionably better off under the new communist regimes than under German imperial domination. German plans by the middle of the war foresaw the deliberate starvation of at least 35 million people in the east as "useless eaters", and the genocidal destruction of the Jewish and gypsy populations. The eastern peoples were described in German documents as the "helots" of the new empire. This grotesque imperial fantasy was won or lost on the eastern front, and who can regret its defeat?
The Soviet Union is not the only state to be written out of the victory story in the west. The Chinese people also lost an estimated 20 million as a result of Japanese aggression. Just as the Soviet armed forces held down the Germans, so the less effective but numerous Chinese armed forces kept the Japanese bogged down in Asia. This is a record that is still almost unknown in the west, yet if Japan had achieved quick victory in China, large resources would have been released for an assault on the rear of the Soviet Union, or a larger military presence in the Pacific. In this case, too, western allied casualties would have been much greater without the stubborn resistance of their Asian ally.
In the end, the western freedom to plan and execute a global strategy depended on the ability of the Soviet and Chinese forces to hold the main enemies at bay while western air forces bombed the Axis motherlands flat. When victory is celebrated tomorrow, it is important that we pause to remember the almost 50 million Soviets and Chinese who perished to contain the imperial aggression of Germany and Japan.
Nor should we forget, when condemning Soviet repression in eastern Europe that allied airforces bombed German and Japanese cities up to the very end of the war, inflicting the deaths of more than 600,000 civilians and opening the nuclear age. After 1945 Britain and France re-imposed undemocratic imperial rule in Africa and south-east Asia. None of the victors has anything to feel smug about. The pursuit of victory made all the allies do things they might never have imagined themselves doing.
One question that almost certainly will not be asked as the world indulges in what is probably the last great bout of victory nostalgia is why those states that viewed themselves as the bearers of progress and the modern age descended between 1914 and 1945 into a hideous orgy of war, civil conflict, repression and genocide. Mercifully, 1945 marked a real break with that 30-year crisis, but the nagging issues remain. If they could do it then, what are the restraints that prevent the developed world from once again plunging into the madness of mass war and state violence? Perhaps 1945 is a lesson learned, but those restraints need to be well understood. Next time the millions of dead may not be for our allies alone to bear.
· Richard Overy's book The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia appeared in paperback last month
dav,
I wouldn't use The Guardian to line a bird cage, it would corrupt the bird. "… those states that viewed themselves as the bearers of progress and the modern age descended between 1914 and 1945 into a hideous orgy of war, civil conflict, repression and genocide." Typical of the Guardian to see no difference between those fighting to defend themselves and those initiating a war of aggression. Between those fighting to free people and those fighting to enslave them. Between those who pretended to be the bearers of progress and those who actually were.
The USSR was indistinguishable from the Nazis only to "some critics"? The "peoples of Eastern Europe were unquestionably better off under the new communist regimes than under German imperial domination" ?! (emphasis mine) The Germans had plans to deliberately starve 35 million – well the Soviets actually did deliberately starve tens of millions. What makes the Nazi regime worse? The only thing I can think of is that the Soviets were equal opportunity mass murderers, they didn't target specific ethnic groups. Perhaps, to some people, that makes the greater numbers slaughtered under the name of socialism more palatable than the numbers slaughtered under Naziism. Me, I can't see any fundamental difference.
The Soviets' contribution to the war was basically limited to that of an inexhaustible supply of cannon fodder, and a few gifted generals. But communism cannot produce, it can only consume. It consumed American technology through Lend-Lease, it consumed lives by the millions on the front, it consumed economic reasources that it could not hope to replace.
Only the US economy was strengthened rather than consumed by the incredible effort needed to supply the front. Only the US and Western allies sent men into battle with the intention that they'd come back someday. Only US capitalism provided the means to rebuild a destroyed continent afterward. Only the US, as a matter of policy, but even more, as a matter of unquestioned right, rebuilt its former enemy and left it, as well as the allies it liberated, free and unoccupied.
"… those states that viewed themselves as the bearers of progress and the modern age descended between 1914 and 1945 into a hideous orgy of war, civil conflict, repression and genocide."
Germany was considered on eof the most advanced countries in the world.
"Between those fighting to free people and those fighting to enslave them. Between those who pretended to be the bearers of progress and those who actually were."
Was America attempting to do this, if so, why was their entry to the war only after an attack on Pearl Harbour. If this ill advised venture hadn't occured, would they have "fought to free people." How does the economic dealings of US companies with the Nazi party fit into your scenario?
"But communism cannot produce, it can only consume."
I can't defend communism, however capitalism is the same cycel of consummerism.
"Only the US economy was strengthened…"
Why was this? Could it be that Europe and the USSR were in ruins? The US did not suffer to the extent that Europe did, it undertook re-building, how could it not have benefited?
The purpose of the article is to remember that in all our self congradulatory guff, that our success was due in a huge part to the sacrifice of millions of commies.
"it is important that we pause to remember the almost 50 million Soviets and Chinese who perished to contain the imperial aggression of Germany and Japan."
dav,
"I can't defend communism, however capitalism is the same cycel of consummerism."
Really? Who produces those things that are consumed?
"Consumerism" is a term empty of content. It sounds good when used to bash capitalism. That's the usual function of contentless terms.
"…our success was due in a huge part to the sacrifice of millions of commies."
And that's all the commies could do – sacrifice. I'm not worried about the past, I'm only interested in the lessons it has for the future. Sacrifice can't be continued indefinitely, production can.
Noun: consumerism:
The theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically beneficial.
A little less empty of content than:
"But communism cannot produce, it can only consume."
Really? Who produces those things that are consumed?
Where are most computers and electrical goods made?
Where are most textile industries located?
What natural resource sustains the majority of production?
"Sacrifice can't be continued indefinitely, production can."
arse talking of out
dav,
"What natural resource sustains the majority of production?"
If you knew the answer to that, your whole attitude would change. You wouldn't believe me if I told you, so you can discover it for yourself, maybe.
I'll leave you and your arse to have a nice day.
humans
plank
dav,
You're surprisingly close. Now the question is, do you really understand what it is about humans that makes for the ultimate resource? It's not labor, not directly. It's consciousness – conceptual, reasoning consciousness – that produces all other resources. Which means that, with the application of reason, resources are unlimited.
Every voluntary exchange increases the overall value in the system (both parties get more value than what they gave up), and voluntary exchange requires that values be produced. Without reason, value is not produced. Without markets, value can only be moved around, not increased. Communism precludes the use of reason and markets for producing resources, and therefore can only consume.
That's why, as Marx pointed out, communism can only come after capitalism, so there will be something to consume. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed, it ran out of things, people, and countries to consume. In a mixed economy, such as the US and China, the capitalist part produces (on net), the collectivist part consumes.
I believe you meant "plonk"
no, it reads correctly
"That's why the Soviet Union collapsed, it ran out of things, people, and countries to consume."
Now there's a very wide-scope identification. It really sums everything up quite nicely.
(And if you define 'production', you'll be most of the way to the answer.)
Oh, I see how this works.
"only one thing that sustains *all* production."
and if you find the answer to this, you'll be a melon.
"It's consciousness – conceptual, reasoning consciousness – that produces all other resources"
ultimate, but not only.
"voluntary exchange requires that values be produced. Without reason, value is not produced."
"Nearly 4 weeks ago Criminologist John Ruiz Dempsey filed a Supreme Court action in Canada on behalf of the People of Canada alleging that the commercial banks were counterfeiting, or creating a money substitute, and lending it as money to borrowers, when actually they did not have legal money to lend."
"The most aggressive experiment in monetary policy ever conducted is
now under way. Japan is printing yen in order to buy dollars in such
extraordinary amounts that global interest rates are being held at
much lower levels than would have prevailed otherwise. In essence, the
Bank of Japan is carrying out the unorthodox monetary policy that the
US Federal Reserve intimated it was considering in mid-2003. In other
words, the BoJ is creating money and buying US Treasury bonds, which
is helping to drive down US interest rates and underwrite US economic
growth – and, by extension, global growth."
dav:
"What natural resource sustains the majority of production?"
Hint: your question works without "the majority of" in there, there is only one thing that sustains *all* production.
(And if you define 'production', you'll be most of the way to the answer.)
dav,
You think money is a resource?
dav:
the 'money' you are talking about is fiat money. Basically, it's money because the state says it's money. Now, I'm not a gold-standard or monetary kook like some libertarians, but this money is not being produced in the sense values are produced. It's being willed into existence, backed by the force of the state.
In essence, this 'money' represents nothing more than the state's future ability to rob its citizenry in the form of taxes. That's a far different matter than when you take on credit that's unsecured by a tangible asset (analagous to fiat money). You're not selling your future ability to steal from people in order to pay back, you're selling your future labor, your ability to work and produce value.
"voluntary exchange requires that values be produced. Without reason, value is not produced."
"You think money is a resource?"
are you a melon?
"the 'money' you are talking about is fiat money. Basically, it's money because the state says it's money. Now, I'm not a gold-standard or monetary kook like some libertarians, but this money is not being produced in the sense values are produced. It's being willed into existence, backed by the force of the state."
what compels you people to attempt to 'teach'?
dav:
isn't it obvious? i mean, after all, one could only say some of the things you do either being somewhat ignorant, or dumb. i certainly don't think you're dumb, and i'm happy to admit my ignorance about a whole host of things.
knowledge is a funny thing in that it's quite often the case when one does not know that one does not know. even more ironically, just a little knowledge in an area, properly applied, will expose a person to their own breathtaking ignorance.
it happens to me from time-to-time, and I love it, because it spells opportunitiy. just trying to pass along the good will.
if that all sounds condescending, it's not meant to be, and i'm sure there are a whole number of things that you could teach and instruct me. unfortunately, here, it's quite the other way around, and that's just the simple truth.
dav,
"what compels you people to attempt to 'teach'?"
Obvious ignorance.
What compels you to spout it if you don't want to be taught? Or do you think you're teaching us?
obviously you haven't been reading any of this.
both of you have attempted to correct things that I haven't said.
you have tried to usher me into defending communism or what is communism.
if you re-read these posts, you will notice i asked questions, then you assumed answers, then attempted to answer them.
the point of this, being to get the required response from me.
hence:
"You think money is a resource?"
"the 'money' you are talking about is fiat money."
i never said money was a resource.
what i did say:
"Germany was considered one of the most advanced countries in the world."
"Was America attempting to do this, if so, why was their entry to the war only after an attack on Pearl Harbour. If this ill advised venture hadn't occured, would they have "fought to free people." How does the economic dealings of US companies with the Nazi party fit into your scenario?"
"Why was this? Could it be that Europe and the USSR were in ruins? The US did not suffer to the extent that Europe did, it undertook re-building, how could it not have benefited?
The purpose of the article is to remember that in all our self congradulatory guff, that our success was due in a huge part to the sacrifice of millions of commies."
"I can't defend communism, however capitalism is the same cycle of consummerism."
that is, capitalism as it exists.
I am not against capitalism, those of us who are priviliged enough to be using the internet are well aware of its benefits.
"Every voluntary exchange increases the overall value in the system (both parties get more value than what they gave up), and voluntary exchange requires that values be produced. Without reason, value is not produced."
In a practical sense the exchange's 'value' changes depending on who is involved. The myth of free trade, free for us, but not for them.
"In a market system people interact by entering into written and unwritten voluntary exchange contracts with each other."
Therefore capitalism as we know it falls short of the exchange of values you refer to. For one, the sale of property that one does not 'own'. Forced exchange, possibly by military pressure. Mis-representation/lies. Theft.
Why did communist China's manufacturers pose a threat to England's production in the 1860's? (this is an honest question)
""major capitalist countries" have been using their fictitious capital to finance consumption of “other countries'” material goods."
"“Fictitious capital is no more than a piece of paper, or an electric signal in a computer disk. Theoretically, such capital cannot feed anyone no matter how much its value increases in the marketplace. So why is it so enthusiastically pursued by the major capitalist countries?”"
"“While [fictitious capital] has been bringing to America economic prosperity and hegemonic power over money,” he suggests, “it has its own inborn weakness. In order to sustain such prosperity and hegemonic power, America has to keep unilateral inflow of international capital to the American market…If America loses its hegemonic power over money, its domestic consumption level will plunge 30-40%. Such an outcome would be devastating for the U.S. economy. It could be more harmful to the economy than the Great Depression of 1929 to 1933.”"