the nature of the war and, conveniently for Carter's "periphery to the centre' view of world revolution, writes off the role of the European working class. The conclusions about the outcome of the war are utterly one-sided and schematic.
Carter seems to imply that the basic character of gle between Germany and USA dominance — thus he says LIC period described as 'the struggle, for world supremacy ween Germany the USA - 1914-45. But at it was also primarily a war against the soviet and Communism. Come off it Dick, make up your mind.
Of course, the war was part of the struggle of German imperialism to free itself from the shackles imposed on it by American, British French perialism. allu through the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. But Hitler's primary mechanism aong tais nad always Deen expounded many times poln pudliciy and his secret speeches before 94 — expansion to tne East, a war of conquest against Bolshevism. That because their overall aims were different to those of Hitler. Theirs was a simple inter-imperialist war, primarily against the United States, for control over the Pacific, which was vital for Japanese imperial expansion. To hecome bogged down the Soviet Union would utterly DECI tional in this war.
Now, it is quite true that the primary conquerors fascism were Loe over masses. victory showed not a lucky Luca break rectru they weren't invaded by Jananese) DUL their commitment to the postsocial relations established by the Bolshevik revolution. The heroism of the Soviet masses, their unbelevable sacrifices, cannot be explained outside of this central political factor. But the Soviet were not the only ones who fought against, SUllIC instances defeated, fascism. very odd for a Trotskyist, the 'West' working class! i even odder category before the division ot Europe!
Virtually everywhere that was subject to fascist occupation there was armed struggle, waged by this poor, useless working against fascism. Waged generally, let it be noted, by forces under the polacaener ship of the Communist parties precisely those who, incidentally, had not 'broken with Moscow' Contrary to the lies mytholog of the apologists for Western im perialism, virtually every major city and capital in Europe was liberated by the armed masses, as the ways a model of the relationship between society's political aims and its ability to provide adequate services for its people. Compare the prepara ana perloriance ul East European athletes for examole with the heroic in dividualism of many those from the capitalist countries.
Any attitude on sport therefore needs to be comwill Cicdi understanding of the contradictory role it can Dat in forming that necessary collectivity.
The second part of Frank's piece compounds the error by lapsing into some al drivel. crude sociological His reference to scabs is sadly misplaced confuses waal are solute verti within the mei. people prepared to jeopardise and sell people's with violence on the terraces, albeit between the Germans collapsed under the impact of defeat by the ked Army.
In Italy Communist-led general strikes brought down Mussolini in 1943. The whole of northern ItaGaribaldi was liberated by the brigades under the leadership of the Communist Party Paris, between 19-26 August 1944, the Communists organised an insurrection against the Germans. Greece the italians Germans were defeated by the CP-led ELAS In Yugoslavia Tito's forces defeated the Nazis. So why does Dick Carter write off this struggle of the European working class? Only The Heizel stadium after the slaughter majority those who organise and get done for football violence see themselves as, and act like, an elite, defending some of the most reactionary ideas in society. It costs a lot of money Casual' to doctor the facts to fit his thesis that all serious struggles have during the twen tieth century taken place "periphery' of the at the world imperialist system.
The CP-led struggles in Europe did not result the posing of the question pollica. power revolutionary except in Yugoslavia. because o thee of Stains out ly role of Stalinism. But was these uprisings, the struggles between the end of the war and 1949 in Europe and in many other parts of the world which in at a moment's notice?
expose the hypocrisy of the bourgeois state at this point in time by demanding dual power our guardians agals! theirs. were the 'post-war revolutionary wave' which Trotsky had expected Carter lists revolutionary victories since World War seems to imply that they are all in some way Caltributable to the victory the Nicaraguan Cuban which haD pened 14 and 34 years after the end of the war resper tively other words, War II led to revolutionary struggles and victories.
that "s only one side of it. Trotsky had ex.
that Stalinist DECICU would not survive the Se cond World War, but it creating islands of socialism in a sea of reac.
socialism Bans and identity cards are not the solution either - it will only iransfer the problem elsewhere post-war imperialist economic boom which was also an outcome World War Il, and which helped delay revolution in the West. But such contradictions and problems find no place in Carter's schemas in which 'revolution' goes back and forward across the decades reference to real facts, rea without even passing movements, or real people