Michael Parenti, “The Sword and the Dollar”, Thunder Bay, Ontario, 10.27.89 (Russian propaganda – Russian historical perspective, and the truth behind the Second World War)

People who read my work know that one of my biggest heroes is Michael Parenti. However, in this post, I would like to argue against him because he views history through the lens of Russian propaganda. It’s understandable—he despised the West and knew that much of Western historical narrative was false. Since he didn’t have access to the information that I do today, he could only subscribe to the alternative view he was presenting, which was the Russian perspective. Here is a part that illustrates this:

36:14

“The first and biggest threat has always been the Soviet Union, and that has consistently been on people’s minds since the day it came into existence. From the first invasions of the Soviet Union aimed at strangling Soviet Russia in its infancy to the failed expeditionary force and a civil war supported and financed by white mercenary armies—similar to what happened later in Nicaragua—all these efforts failed. Afterward, there was a long period of diplomatic and economic isolation, followed by an attempt to sic the Nazis onto the Russians, which, by the way, succeeded.

I am among those who no longer believe that Chamberlain was engaged in appeasement at Munich. I do not believe Chamberlain’s goal was to pacify Hitler. I know what appeasement is, and that was not it. Chamberlain actively collaborated with Hitler and was essentially an ally. At Munich, when they gave away Czechoslovakia and the Czechs declared they would fight anyway, Chamberlain intervened, warning them that if they tried, Britain would cut off their supplies. Furthermore, when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain ensured that the Czech money held in English banks was handed over to the Nazis.

Chamberlain and those who shared his views regarded Hitler as a bulwark. Nazism was seen as a safeguard against the rise of socialism in Germany, and Nazi Germany was perceived as a barrier to the spread of socialism throughout Europe. At Munich, those individuals saw Hitler as an ally in their ideological struggle. Interestingly, it is always referred to as “Munich” rather than the “Chamberlain-Hitler Pact.” Meanwhile, people are quick to point out the Hitler-Stalin Pact, even though Stalin had been actively and strenuously trying to form an alliance with the U.S., France, and Great Britain against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Chamberlain, however, worked in the opposite direction. Litvinov, the Soviet Ambassador, made numerous attempts to secure an alliance but was repeatedly rebuffed. It was only in the summer of 1939, after realizing that the West was setting him up, that Stalin turned the tables and signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler, an act that infuriated the West.”

First I would like to point out to one of my post were I explain it:

Did Poland Bring on Her Own Destruction in 1939 Because of Her Aggressive Foreign Policy? (and History of WW2 as I see it and question were Nazi Socialists)

This explains how “Stalin turned the tables and signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler” calling it non-aggression is bullshit. This was part of a plan Russia had.

Here is great Polish documentary showing you part of history which is not shown (but remember this is also pro capitalist propaganda):

12:41

“At one point during the 1920s, during a meeting of the Comintern, the executive committee of the Communist International, Communist leader Karl Radek made a proposal that Communists and Nazis should cooperate, encouraging German Communists to collaborate with the NSDAP. For a short period, there was indeed cooperation. After all, National Socialism is socialism; it was a workers' party, so the alliance seemed somewhat natural, with its ultimate aim being to eliminate all capitalist states.

Entire units of the Communist Party joined the NSDAP, bringing their banners with them. People saw little difference between the Communists and the Nazis. Even the symbolism was similar—both used red flags. There were joint meetings and joint declarations, though all of this was later hushed up.

Tactics at the time depended on exploiting the differences between various capitalist countries, playing one off against the other, following Lenin's advice. The Soviets consistently supported Germany, the biggest loser of the First World War, circumventing the bans imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. The Reichswehr secretly trained on Soviet grounds.

Another key decision that irreversibly altered history was Stalin’s order forbidding the German Communists from forming a coalition with the Social Democrats. This enabled Hitler's National Socialist Party, which otherwise would have remained a minority force, to form a government. In doing so, Stalin paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933, and exactly one week later, the Soviet Union announced a plan to ensure collective security in Europe.

When the civil war broke out in Spain, Stalin immediately dispatched thousands of military advisers, intelligence agents, generals, tank crews, and pilots to fight. He urged Great Britain and France to intervene, saying, "There are children dying out there; you must intervene." However, Great Britain and France did not take action, and it became clear that the Second World War would not start in Spain.

By March 1939, Stalin understood that war could not be started in Spain. After three months, he dismissed Litvinov, who was Jewish and therefore deemed unsuitable for negotiations with Hitler, and appointed Molotov in his place. Stalin decided, “If we can't start the war there, we will start it here in Poland.”

Of course, this Polish documentary is pro-capitalist propaganda, but it’s not lying. It merely omits certain facts, which can lead to some conclusions. Yes, Stalin followed Lenin’s advice and sought to start a war in Europe. However, the documentary contradicts itself by labeling the Nazis as socialists while simultaneously stating that “tactics at the time depended on exploiting the differences between various capitalist countries.” Since Germany started the war, this implies that it was one of those “various capitalist countries” Lenin referred to. Additionally, if you are aware that J.P. Morgan attempted to organize a fascist coup in the U.S., this provides further context.

Business Plot - Wikipedia

The Business Plot, also called the Wall Street Putsch and the White House Putsch, was a political conspiracy in 1933, in the United States, to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install Smedley Butler as dictator.

The Nazis created a fascist state, and J.P. Morgan wanted a fascist state, while Lenin planned to start a war involving “various capitalist countries,” one of which was Nazi Germany. This only makes sense if we understand that the Nazis represented the final stage of capitalism, where capital takes control of the state. That’s why J.P. Morgan supported fascism, and that’s essentially what Nazi Germany was. This interpretation also makes Lenin’s plan for a war between “various capitalist countries” logical, given that Nazi Germany was capitalist, not socialist.

Assuming that fascist Nazi Germany was the final stage of capitalism, it also makes sense that it was built on the ideology of eugenics, which originated from capitalist oligarchs in the U.S. Nazi Germany was labeled socialist, but many aspects of its treatment of people, particularly its racial policies, were modeled after the American treatment of indigenous peoples. This argument holds more weight if Nazi Germany is viewed as a capitalist state rather than a socialist one.

Later, this was further confirmed by the secret negotiations between Allen Dulles and the Nazis. Dulles, representing capitalist American interests, made peace with the Nazis against the wishes of the American president. Officially, the U.S. was allied with the Soviets, but in reality, they began collaborating with the Nazis as soon as they surrendered.

The fact is that it was hard to hide how the Soviets genuinely punished the Nazis, while the U.S. openly collaborated with them. One of the clearest presentations of this was that the alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan was fundamentally an anti-Communist pact. After World War II, instead of punishing the Nazis, the West collaborated with them. The U.S. and Japan, along with Western Europe, essentially formed another anti-Communist pact. From this perspective, it seems like a continuation of the same conflict—only this time, the U.S. led the alliance, which included all of Western Europe, half of Germany, Italy, and Japan. We also shouldn’t forget that by this point, the U.S. had taken over much of the British Empire. Officially, the British Empire had ended, but it transformed into the American empire, a neocolonial empire that operates more discreetly.

This led people like Parenti to conclude:
“I am among those who no longer believe that Chamberlain was engaged in appeasement at Munich. I do not believe Chamberlain’s goal was to pacify Hitler. I know what appeasement is, and that was not it. Chamberlain actively collaborated with Hitler and was essentially an ally.”

In my opinion, this is incorrect. First, the fact that Britain officially declared war when Poland was invaded shows that Chamberlain’s collaboration with Hitler was a desperate attempt to appease an unpredictable Hitler and prevent war, not an act of alliance. This wasn’t because the British were pacifists or wanted peace for the sake of humanity, but because the First World War had weakened Britain and strengthened the U.S., turning the U.S. into a serious rival. The British understood that if another war broke out in Europe, even if they won, they would be further weakened, allowing the U.S. to surpass them, which is exactly what happened. Thus, their attempts to appease Hitler were driven by self-interest.

However, what Parenti overlooked is what was shown in the Polish documentary—that Lenin also planned to start a war. U.S. capitalists wanted a war in Europe to take control of the continent and the British Empire, while the Soviets wanted a war to spread their revolution. This aspect is often ignored by the Russian narrative, where they portray themselves as victims. In reality, the Soviets were preparing for an attack because and like the U.S., they wanted a war. When Hitler realized this, he launched a preemptive strike against Russia while he still had a chance. Hitler wasn’t irrational in opening a second front; he simply understood that he was being used and that Russia was preparing for war.

Both the Russian and Western views of history are false. Officially, both sides deny involvement in provoking the war, yet unofficially, they blame each other. The truth is that both sides were complicit.

Thus, the Russian perspective is represented by people like Parenti, who acknowledge the capitalist nature of Nazi Germany and therefore blame the West. However, Parenti and others overlook the fact that the Communists also wanted to start a war to spread their revolution. Meanwhile, in the West, we falsely attribute socialism to the Nazis, using that to connect and blame the Communists.

In truth, the Nazis were capitalist, and the Communists were correct in identifying them as such. However, that doesn’t mean the Communists were innocent, since they also wanted a war.

This, then, is the reality behind the history of the Second World War. Neither the West nor Russia tells the full truth, as both were complicit and continue to blame each other.