Fighting on all Fronts Read online

  FIGHTING ON ALL FRONTS

  Popular Resistance in the Second World War

  Edited by Donny Gluckstein

  ABOUT THE AUTHORS

  Kieran Allen is a lecturer in sociology in University College Dublin. His books include Marx and the Alternative to Capitalism and The Politics of James Connolly.

  Kaye Broadbent is a senior lecturer in industrial relations at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. She has published on women, insecure work and unions in Japan and Korea.

  William Crane has been an active socialist campaigner and writer in the USA and Britain, and a researcher on nationalism, labour and the left in South Asia. He is currently working on a PhD in Migration Studies at the University of Sussex.

  Donny Gluckstein is a lecturer in history at Edinburgh College and a member of the Socialist Workers Party. His previous publications include The Nazis, Capitalism and the Working Class and A People’s History of the Second World War: Resistance Versus Empire, the predecessor to Fighting on All Fronts.

  Ben Hillier is an editor of Red Flag, a socialist newspaper in Australia.

  Mark Kilian is deputy editor of the Dutch monthly paper De Socialist, and the grandson of a communist partisan, Peter van Sloten, who was executed on 7 March 1945 in Haarlem. He is preparing a people’s history of the Dutch empire in the Second World War.

  Tom O’Lincoln has been active as a Marxist since 1966 in Germany, the USA and Australia. He is the author and/or editor of eight books including Australia’s Pacific War and The Neighbour from Hell: Two Centuries of Australian Imperialism.

  Frank Renken contributes regularly to Marx21, a socialist magazine in Germany. He has worked and lived in North Africa. His books include Frankreich im Schatten des Algerienkrieges.

  Janey Stone has written and presented on resistance to the Nazis during the Second World War in Germany, Poland and by Jews. Her mother, who migrated to Australia from Poland in 1938, lost a large part of her family in the Holocaust. As an anti-Zionist Jew, Janey has written about Jewish resistance to anti-Semitism and about the radical Jewish tradition.

  Tomáš Tengely-Evans is a journalist on Socialist Worker and a socialist activist in east London.

  FIGHTING ON ALL FRONTS

  Popular Resistance in the

  Second World War

  Edited by Donny Gluckstein

  Fighting On All Fronts: Popular Resistance in the Second World War

  Edited by Donny Gluckstein

  Published 2015 by Bookmarks Publications

  c/o 1 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3QE

  © Bookmarks Publications

  Designed and typeset by Peter Robinson

  Printed by the Russell Press

  Cover picture: Jewish partisans near Vilna, just after the liberation

  ISBN print edition: 978 1 909026 92 6

  ISBN kindle: 978 1 909026 93 3

  ISBN ePub: 978 1 909026 94 0

  ISBN PDF: 978 1 909026 95 7

  Contents

  Introduction: Understanding the Second World War

  Donny Gluckstein

  Part One: War in the West

  1 Algeria: Victory but not liberation

  Frank Renken

  2 Ireland: They called it “The Emergency”

  Kieran Allen

  3 Jewish resistance in Eastern Europe

  Janey Stone

  4 The Netherlands 1940-1945: War and Liberation

  Mark Kilian

  5 Russia: Stalin and the People’s War

  Donny Gluckstein

  6 The Slovak National Uprising of 1944

  Tomáš Tengely-Evans

  Part Two: War in the East

  7 Australia: A war of racism, imperialism and resistance

  Tom O’Lincoln

  8 Burma: Through two imperialisms to independence

  William Crane

  9 China: Revolution and war

  Donny Gluckstein

  10 Japan: Against the regime

  Kaye Broadbent

  11 The Huk rebellion and the Philippine radical tradition

  Ben Hillier

  Index

  Introduction

  Understanding the Second World War: practice and theory

  Donny Gluckstein

  Seventy years separate the end of the Second World War from 2015 and yet the issues it raised remain fundamental to our understanding of the world today.

  It was supposed to be the moment when the dark days of the Depression were set aside and the forces of fascism and dictatorship that fed on them were definitively overcome. But the 1929 Wall Street Crash that sparked the Depression has its counterpart in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the persistent economic crisis since 2008. In the 1930s the establishment diverted attention from the crisis-ridden nature of capitalism by targeting ethnic minorities, and the Nazis and other racists reaped the benefits. Nowadays the European extreme right—from the populist United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to the outright fascist Front National in France or Jobbik in Hungary—is again gaining in confidence. International tensions, always present when there is a system of competing capitalist states, reached a new intensity in the 1930s, culminating in world war. Today imperialist rivalries that were supposed to have been banished by the fall of the so-called communist regimes of Eastern Europe in 1989 and “The End of History”1 are reviving.

  At the same time the Second World War showed that there could be a different trajectory. It ushered in huge mass movements that tore down the colonial empires that dominated the globe, defied and destroyed fascist dictatorships and authoritarian rule and drove forward the development of welfare states. These too have their parallels today, whether it be in the challenge to the established political parties witnessed in places like Spain and Greece, the Arab revolutions or mass struggles against austerity, privatisation, oppression and exploitation.

  The impact of the Second World War was so profound and so widespread that for a long time it was difficult to achieve the sense of distance and perspective needed for an effective analysis. On the whole only the surface phenomena—the military campaigns, the biographies of individual leaders and suchlike—have received attention. This book is an attempt to go beyond that. Understanding the complex political and social processes of the Second World War is important not only so that we can establish the truth about a major past event but also to furnish lessons for today.

  This book covers a wide range of countries and situations from major protagonists, such as Japan and Russia, to colonies like the Philippines and Burma, to the sub-imperialism of Australia. It also looks at European resistance, the Jews, and even a neutral country, Ireland. However, the global reach of the Second World War means that even these numerous examples cannot provide a full picture. To achieve a broader overview the rest of this chapter provides a point of comparison for the various situations discussed in the book by considering the pattern of events in centres of resistance not otherwise covered here. It then offers a theoretical framework within which the conflict can be set.

  The road to war

  Contrary to later claims of anti-fascist intentions on the part of Allied governments, the Second World War began as a naked conflict between the haves and have-nots of imperialism. Britain and France had appeased Hitler when he seized Austria and Czechoslovak territory because they wished to enjoy the fruits of their empires in peace. This desire to maintain class domination (and consequent fear of communism) led Britain’s ambassador to Berlin to publicly applaud Hitler for “gigantic progress in the military, industrial and moral reorganisation of Germany”. Furthermore, the ambassador warned against war with Nazism because “Moscow’s chief aim was to embroil Germany and the Western Powers in a common ruin”.2

  As a backbench MP Churchill criticised appeasement because he saw German expansion as the greater threat to Britain’s empire. But he had no principled objection to fascism, telling Mussolini in 1927: “if I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle…against Leninism”.3 When Hitler invaded France in May 1940 its commander-in-chief feared armed resistance might unleash “anarchy and revolution”. He was ready to capitulate once he could be “sure the Germans would leave me the forces necessary for maintaining order”.4 For its part Russia signed up to the Hitler-Stalin pact in August 1939, cynically agreeing to secret clauses that would partition Poland with Germany and give it the Baltic states.

  The minor Allied states adopted a similarly unprincipled point of view. Poland’s authoritarian regime signed a pact with Hitler in 1934, its leader having stated: “I would like [Hitler] to remain in power as long as possible”.5 This ran alongside a pre-existing pact with Stalin. The Yugoslav government also negotiated between Axis and Allies. As one British official put it: “Rumour has it that several Yugoslav generals have built themselves villas with money supplied by the Germans. Perhaps we could help them to add wings?”6 Greece’s fascist dictator was perplexed that his country became an Axis target, complaining: “if Hitler and Mussolini were really fighting for the ideology they preach, they should be supporting Greece with all their forces”.7 In the 1930s Albania was dominated by Italy but when still greater control was demanded King Zog replied to Mussolini: “The King is devoted. The people are grateful. Why do you want anything more?”8 To general disgust, he abandoned his countrymen when the invasion began.

  The step-by-step descent into all-out conflict showed how one government after another only opposed the Axis wh
en there was no alternative to opposing the new contenders for imperialist dominance. Britain was compelled to declare war when Germany left it no choice by invading Poland in September 1939. Even then what ensued was a “phoney war” (Britain), “drôle de guerre” (joke war, France), or “Sitzkrieg” (sitting war, Germany). London’s bombing raids consisted mainly of dropping propaganda leaflets. By contrast, the British and French governments showed much greater enthusiasm for aiding Finland, a future Axis satellite, against Russia’s offensive. This “winter war” ended before help could be provided. Russia’s war began after Hitler reneged on a non-aggression pact in the summer of 1941 and attacked. The US entered the fray after Japan’s raid on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

  Ordinary people found the outbreak of war equally unwelcome but for very different reasons. In Paris “the mood, despite the rhetoric with which the newspapers were filled, was sombre, resigned, serious; there were too many memories of the enthusiasms of July 1914 and the terrible rolls of the dead”.9 In Britain at the outbreak of war one of the team of Mass Observers gauging popular moods remarked: “There is no gushing, sweeping-away dynamo of ‘patriotism’”.10 Another noticed how many were “equating the employer with the friend of Fascism”.11 If there was to be war it must “put right first…the things that went wrong last time… Chief among these is certainty of a job, and then certainty of a decent house to live in”.12

  Given years of propaganda glorifying armed combat and the militarisation of Axis societies one might have expected a different response there. Yet according to Hitler’s munitions minister, the population of Germany in September 1939 was:

  Noticeably depressed… None of the regiments marched off to war decorated with flowers as they had done at the beginning of the First World War. The streets remained empty. There was no crowd on the Wilhelmsplatz shouting for Hitler… Not a soul on the street took notice of this historic event: Hitler driving off to the war he had staged.13

  Mussolini’s decision to join Hitler in June 1940 was even more unpopular. As Spriano explains:

  Above all there was a general mood of aversion to Italy’s entering the war…exemplified by innumerable individual testimonies… The Italian secret police reported with a single voice, unanimously and spontaneously, from September 1939 virtually right until June 1940, Italy did not want the war.14

  Resistance in the west

  Yet something extraordinary happened as the war progressed. Instead of the usual waning of militaristic ardour after initial euphoria, and despite millions killed and maimed at levels unprecedented in human history, backing for the fight against the Axis grew. Opinion polls in the US showed rising approval for the war and President Roosevelt while support for peace initiatives declined.15 In Britain Mass Observers noted the same phenomenon. Since there had been little sympathy for imperialist war, this mood must have had a different source. Between 1939 and 1945 the meaning and character of the conflict had been transformed in the minds of many ordinary people. The way this happened varied from place to place according to the circumstances.

  At its height the Nazi regime encompassed around 350 million people, from Norway to Crete. Although this fell short of the 450 million under the British Crown, it was still a considerable number. Bloody though the history of the British and French empires was, they had been built up over a considerable period and configured for long-term plunder of resources and provision of markets for goods. The Nazi empire by contrast was formed in the midst of all-out world war and, whatever the long-term ambitions of Hitler’s “thousand-year Reich”, its victims were expected to sustain that effort immediately and wholeheartedly. The pillage was naked and immediate. German policy was to seize labour (by 1945 there were some 11 million slave labourers in the Reich) and resources from invaded territories. For those who remained “the costs of occupying a given area are to be borne by the area itself” by what was euphemistically termed making a “contribution for military protection”.16 As one historian explains:

  These financial tributes soon exceeded the total peacetime budgets of the countries in question, usually by more than 100 percent and in the second half of the war by more than 200 percent.17

  Apart from the extreme violence meted out to those conquered, the consequences of this economic policy showed up in appalling famines. In the Netherlands some 4.5 million people were affected. In Greece 250,000 died (out of a total population of 7 million). Although these figures fell short of the Bengal famine produced by British wartime policy,18 Axis occupation provoked resistance movements in country after country.

  These were politically differentiated from their official governments for several reasons. The pre-war period had been dominated by the Depression during which governments everywhere pursued economic policies of austerity leaving a vast gulf between rich and poor. This was often accompanied by repression to crush any possible opposition. For example, in Yugoslavia parliament was abolished in 1929. The Metaxas dictatorship in Greece was established in 1936 and immediately arrested 50,000 communists. While formal democracy limped on in France, when the war began hundreds of communist-controlled councils were suspended and seven communist parliamentary deputies were condemned to death.19 If ordinary people had reason to distrust their erstwhile governments, these in turn were unwilling to wholeheartedly back domestic resistance. Whatever resentment the establishment felt towards the Axis for usurping their right to exploit, they dared not endanger that system by arming their own people.

  That is not to say there were no supporters of governments-in-exile (or in the case of France of a segment of the old ruling class) in Axis-occupied lands. “Official” resistance movements included the Chetniks led by Mihailovich in Yugoslavia, the EDES (National Republican Greek League) in Greece and de Gaulle’s Secret Army in France. They were well supplied by the Allies but made little progress. The aim might be to rid the country of Axis control but this must not put the rule of the establishment at risk. Two things followed: the arms they held could not be distributed to ordinary people and any serious military challenge against the Axis must await the arrival of Allied armies with enough strength to guarantee restoration of the old regime. This latter tendency has been called “attentism”.

  These constraints largely condemned the official resistance movements to impotence or worse. In Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent in Greece, they even collaborated with the enemy against left wing resistance movements. The Chetnik leader, for example, declared that: “His main enemies were the partisans…and only when he had dealt with them would he turn his attention to the Germans and Italians”.20 The Axis appreciated this stance and not only supplied the Chetniks with weapons but coordinated operations with them.21

  The mass popular resistance movements had quite a different purpose. Liberated from the pressure of their own ruling classes and backed by popular hatred of the Axis invader, they were able to draw huge numbers behind them in spite of appallingly difficult circumstances. Largely denied arms by the Allies and threatened by the Gestapo, Wehrmacht and the full weight of Axis imperialism, they achieved significant results at a terrible personal cost.

  In Yugoslavia Tito’s partisans held down 200,000 Germans and 160,000 auxiliaries, suffering 300,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.22 In Greece EAM-ELAS (National Liberation Front–National Popular Liberation Army) killed 19,000 German soldiers and tied up significant Wehrmacht strength.23 In France a wide variety of radical resistance bodies launched large-scale heroic struggles. To assist the Allies with the D-Day landings the French resistance took on 12 German divisions and shortly afterwards liberated Paris against Wehrmacht opposition. Italy’s resistance mobilised some 200,000 to 300,000 partisans, kept some 25 Wehrmacht divisions occupied and cost them tens of thousands of soldiers.24

  It was not just the impressive scale of the popular resistance that differentiated it from the official Allied war effort. While the latter wanted restoration of pre-war conditions (including all the repression and exploitation this entailed), the former wanted economic, political and social liberation. Tito, whose forces withstood not only the full force of German, Italian and quisling Croat forces (the Ustashi) but deadly Chetnik attacks and years of indifference from the Allies (including London, Washington and Moscow), wrote: