Evil liberalism stems from the guilt of survivors of German ancestry.
The Third Reich affected not only lives but also minds destructively.

The decaying corpses of Nazi traitors signals a change in history.
The fiery light of national liberation explodes for occidental glory.
Buildings hasten to fall in harmonic rhythm, story by story.
The Third Reich dismantled in gory haste,
For the viability and stability of the white race.
Germans, Jews and Slavs rejoice.
The Reich will capitulate in disgrace.

Hitler is to blame
For neo-liberalism’s reign.

The scapegoat has changed, and the Nazis have become the Jews.
Ideology rearranged. Only an idiot would refuse to chose.
HAIL the Fire Bombing of Dresden!
Hail the New Nationalism!

The line of thinking that suggests Marxist-Leninists should only support those governments, organizations or Parties that lead directly to a socialist (or even more absurdly, communist) society is not only impractical, but categorically unMarxist. This is base opportunism in its most vile form, perhaps just as bad as those right-opportunist “communists” who endorse the NATO-led occupation of Afghanistan or the US-led occupation of Iraq. This same revisionist line, when applied to the question of Iran, manifests itself in support for the so-called “velvet revolutionaries” and other opportunist (or outright treasonous) sects within the Iranian bourgeoisie, who (either directly or indirectly) become the unwitting tools of US-Western imperialism inside the Islamic Republic.

Anybody vaguely familiar with Marxism-Leninism knows that our position on these questions should be determined by close, thoughtful scientific analysis, and not as opportunities to simply regurgitate tired slogans or maxims. In fact, maxims are antithetical to Marxism. Denouncing the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran is in no way, shape or form different from endorsing US imperialism. To say that you support peaceful regime change inside Iran, but oppose US imperialism, is a contradiction. The United States, through its foreign intelligence services, in the past have shown absolutely no qualms when it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of a country it deems “hostile.” 

Similarly, the expression of perceived “discontent” by these riotous protesters in Iran’s capital are fomented in part by a desire for less stringent government regulations on the economy (a desire for economic liberalization) and in part fomented by British and US intelligence services (Iranian judiciary organs have already exposed the degree to which British and French intelligence serves have attempted to undermine the Islamic Republic following the June 12 Presidential election). Therefore, supporting this movement is disadvantageous to the Iranian proletariat, who at the current time, is bound to the Iranian bourgeoisie in a defensive struggle against imperialism.

Likewise, there is nothing more obnoxious than when self-described Marxists mistakenly take the view that only those organizations or Parties that fight directly for socialism should be supported. This is idealist and fundamentally in contrast to Marxist dialectical materialism. Stalin argued this point perfectly in Foundations of Leninism, where he argued that the anti-imperialist struggle of the Emirate of Afghanistan versus British imperialism was progressive, in that it both undermined contemporary British imperialism and furthered the cause of proletarian revolution. It should also be known that Stalin argued that the national struggle of the people of Afghanistan should be supported by workers, independent of any perceivedreactionary tendencies within the Emirate’s ideological position. This is how a Marxist analyzes geo-political events.

It’s on this same token that genuine Marxist-Leninists support the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran, the Taliban mujahideen resistance forces in occupied Afghanistan, Islamic resistance to US interference in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, national resistance forces in occupied Iraq and anywhere else where national resistance against an imperialist aggressor takes form.

After reading the politics forum thread, “how did you become a fascist” (note that I don’t like the term Fascist), I am posting here to encourage people to comment on how they developed their ideology over time. My answer is quoted below.

I became convinced that racial and ethnic differences are “real.” I noticed that society was in a collective state of denial about them and got interested in anthropology websites. However, I do not consider this as important as national socialists do.

I became convinced that the free market doesn’t “work” and needs patching and repairing. You define this as socialism. It made me reject libertarianism.

I still believe competition is a good thing but it needs intensive regulation. The needs of the state must be superior to the needs of business. Both should complement each other.

I got involved with populist politcal parties.

I realized true technocracy requires big government to manage dissent from religious and business groups.

I started to blame outsourcing for difficult job searches (it is relevant in my field). I started to equate liberal capitalism with globalism. I realized that liberal capitalism is more responsbile for globalistic extremism than Marxism-Leninism is. Stalin, Mao etc. were not radical globalists. I became disgusted with other “dissidents” who focused on “the Jews” and “Communists” instead of liberal capitalism as the problem.

I read Benito Mussolini. I agreed with most of it but I advocate more of a pan-nationalism fascism and less of an imperialistic fascism.

I read Karl Marx. I became convinced that he was well intentioned but outmoded. He made interesting materialistic observations, but they turned out to be wrong and he focused too much on class conflict. Yet I dislike liberals more than Marxists.

I started a website and wrote articles about how the two party system is a false dichotomy in America. I realized Democracy was just an opiate for idiots. The Democratic system is minor league politics. Real rebels think outside of the Democratic system. When it is all said and done, Republicans and Democrats are on the same side.

Even though I have an ideology similar to fascism, I believe Hitler (not a true fascist, an economically illiterate judeo-obessive) ruined fascism and Mussolini was WRONG to get behind Hitler.

One of the most important aspects of the political work of any communist or workers’ party is to perfect its political agitation and propaganda mechanisms aimed at recruiting support among the working population and raising the level of the political consciousness of the proletariat. To that end, one of the most effective means of achieving the revolutionary consciousness needed in the just struggle against the exploiting class is direct, face-to-face agitation.

Establishing political dialogue between the Party and the working class is inextricably linked to the victory of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing the foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The benefits of establishing close and direct relationships between the party and members of the working class manifest themselves in numerous ways; but it should be noted that the most important of these advantages is the building of a trusting relationship between the Party, its cadres and the working class, and fomenting this relationship to be strong and unbreakable in light of the efforts of the enemy classes to sow discord among the working peoples.

To that end, the duty of every communist party is to strengthen its relationship to the masses through agitation, political education and propaganda. Notwithstanding limitation of resources, every Party cadre should dedicate his time and commitment to becoming an excellent agitator and propagandist for the benefit of elevating the class-consciousness of all working peoples.

At the most basic level, strong development of direct agitation should be the responsibility of the Party to train cadres in effectively communicating and building direct, face-to-face relationships with workers on an individual basis. To do this, we’ll examine some aspects of successful direct agitation work that should serve as a model for directing agitation campaigns for any responsible Marxist-Leninist organization.

For starters, successful agitation must begin at the cellular level. Local cadres understand the issues relevant to the members of the working class in their respective towns, cities or regions. Depending on the extent to which the Party has cadres available, all efforts should focus on directing face-to-face agitation campaigns at the most basic local level possible, whether in specific neighborhoods, communities or municipalities. This provides the agitator with several advantages than what would be experienced by an “outsider.”

Secondly, successful agitators must ingratiate themselves in the environment of the workers themselves. Unlike ultra-leftist Trotskyites, genuine Marxist-Leninists don’t seek to “preach” from above at the workers, but instead, to communicate on a horizontal level among them. The disdain of so-called coffee-shop pseudo-intellectual Trotskyites for the common worker is testament to the anti-Marxist position of the leading ultra-leftist revisionists, whose actions demonstrate their disconnect from the concerns and plights of the working man. Therefore, successful agitation must be conducted at the level of the workers themselves, with co-workers, colleagues for whom the agitator and audience share a common interest.

Thirdly, each Party representative at the local level must assume the responsibility of accurately conveying the Party’s stance on given issues. The Party is the vanguard of the working class, and as such, it is the duty of all cadres to unequivocally promote particular areas of the Party platform on specific issues, while simultaneously selecting which issues are of most importance to the local members of the working class. This means that the agitator is the representative of the Party at the most local level, and is working to not only organize and ingratiate himself with the local workers, but also convey the attitudes, ideas and beliefs of Marxism-Leninism. The relationship between the central organs of the Party and the local cell and regional branches should be multilateral. In other words, the meta-messaging must be provided by the leading organs of the Party, and diffused and disseminated at the regional, local level in order to maintain consistency in messaging, while allowing adequate room for tailoring messages, as needed, for the local audience. Thus, the Party may find it beneficial to coordinate tasks at the central organizational level to take responsibility for Party and nationwide agitation-propaganda efforts, and create a unique and separate body responsible for managing these important tasks.

Fourthly, self-criticism in the work of direct agitation is fundamental, as it is elsewhere in the works of communists and Marxist-Leninists. Regular meetings to discuss the successes of particular campaigns should be evaluated at all levels: local, regional and national. Agitation campaigns that are ineffective in organizing the working class should be abandoned, and Party cadres should make all effort to keep the messages and communications of the agitator up to date, pertinent to the lives and thinking of the working class given his material conditions and consistent and reflective of the Party’s overall platform. Local functionaries of the Party should continue activities that promote the growth of building close ties between the Party and the working class, and discontinue those activities which are either inconsistent with the Party’s aims, or ineffective in mobilizing, organizing and raising the overall political consciousness of the proletariat.

Supporters of collective authoritarian movements native to America should make it a high priority to demonize Hitler for ruining fascism, instead of demonizing America for ruining Hitler. Just like Hitler blamed Jews, new nationalists should blame Nazis. It isn’t enough to claim to reject the nazi label on grounds that one is advocating a North American ideology. One must actively blame Hitler for the War and take the position that he had it coming. Nazis should become the new Jews. Blame Nazis for ruining fascism. This is the attitude I see a lot on politics forum (an exceptionally high quality forum) regarding the right wing section and I agree.

Hitler ruined fascism, even if it was an imperfect ideology to start with. He wasn’t even a true fascist but everyone thinks he was. And Mussolini can be blamed for throwing his hat behind Hitler, even though greed (as opposed to ideology) was the clear motivation for that. Hitler and Mussolini were as different as Night and Day, but Mussolini got too greedy.

Pragmatically, “morally” and logically, this is the way to go. Portray Hitler as a deviant oppositionist the way Trotskyites and Stalinists do to each other.

We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they crush us. – Josef Stalin

When Stalin issued the five year plan, he meant business. The USSR was a primitive peasant country and he was going to change that at gunpoint. Before USSR, Tsarist Russia fought in WWI with swords, shields and horses. During WWII, USSR fought with tanks and advanced weaponry. Trotsky’s army (even though he was a scumbag) won the war largely because of better use of railroads and communication.

It is a clear that from a technology perspective, USSR advanced Russia further than the Tsarist regime in a shorter amount of time. I credit a few factors. The controlling of religion as Communism is an atheistic ideology, the controlling of macroeconomic action and the willingness to push the limits (especially under Stalin). Also Stalin’s acceptance of harsh reality, but a determination to change the reality. Many rulers deny problems and hope they will go away, but not Stalin. Stalin had a five year plan and if you weren’t on board, you got purged. Those who see quick results, those who turn things around, those who make a difference, are those who are ruthless.

That is my future vision for America. The USA is eliminated and replaced with the CPPS. The Democratic and Republican parties are laughed at and the founding fathers viewed as outmoded (but respected). A one-party state takes place with one technocratic Populist Party. However the party has state divisions and a federal division.

Powerful technocratic state governments are imposing their ideology brutally against reactionaries (oppositional religious and political groups) while making populist appeals to progressives (secular) people. Notice that the division is based on religion and ideology; not based on class. People who use religion or ideology to slow down technological progress are the scapegoat, not the bourgeois as whole. Religious people who are moderate enough to embrace science may survive the purge, but “fundamentalists” who call for counter-revolution are definitely and without apology getting purged. If business interests oppose technocracy, then they are suppressed too, but I anticipate that most opposition would come from religious movements rather than business movements (amish, muslims, catholics).

As a side effect of technocracy, human biodiversity studies become mainstream and discussion of race and ethnicity becomes politically correct. The term “progressive” is now a populist technocratic term, not a crazy liberal term or a term to indicate love for the third world. Progressive means nation-building, not globalization idiocy.

A confederate form of communication exists between the states. All politics is local but there is federal regulation. The state and federal governments are free to “turn up the dial” on authoritarianism at any point. At any given point, the Governments can act like a referee. At any given point, the Government can dictate things the way Hussein, Stalin or Mussolini would. The Government however allows market forces in some instances because they are “quicker.” It sets clear boundaries and reserves the right to crash the party at any point.

One of the questions I routinely get from fellow travelers and friends is “how can you be so pro-technology and admire Pol Pot’s ‘Year Zero‘ idea at the same time?” “As a technocrat, you should realize that Pol Pot hated technology.”

Information about Year Zero

1.Envisioned a return to agrarian society
2.Banned modern technology and tools
3.Attempted to create a “Year Zero,” the beginning of a new history
4.Thought that a return to the land would allow a new communist society to emerge
5.Once the people were “purified” and a new society formed, a return to technology would be possible.

The truth is that Pol Pot was NOT anti-technology in an Amish sense; he just understood its power and did not want it in the hands of status quo civilization. While his subjects were denied the basic liberties of life as they picked rice, he ran the camps using trucks and industrial equipment. He stored information of his prisoners in s-21 prison. That involves an information system even if it is not a computer. Pol pot himself was an intellectual and he knew the potency of techno-power and wanted to remove that potency from national opponents (the Vietnamese) and regime opponents.

As a historical matter, no ruler worked harder to remove the idea of religion off of the face of the planet than Pol Pot. Marx may have been a materialist, but only Pol Pot murdered people just for not being an atheist. This means that Pol Pot resembles the Utopian Socialists that Marx describes in the Manifesto; not the Leninist socialists. Marxist-Leninism is a movement of class conflict; but Pol Pot’s movement was a utopian movement. He set up ideological litmus tests, and purged those who did not fit the litmus tests. That’s utopianism. That’s using ideology rather than class antagonisms as the basis of a movement. That’s what Pol Pot did in general.

A strong argument can be made that Stalin’s socialism in one country was a matter of pragmatism; not a matter of nationalism. Pol Pot was different. He was a nationalistic Maoist.

THE PEOPLE’S VICTORY OVER FASCISM, THE DECISIVE ROLE OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THE GREAT HISTORIC MERITS OF J.V. STALIN.

(Reproduced from the «ZËRI I POPULLIT» daily, dated May 9, 1965)

THE «NAIM FRASHËRI» PUBLISHING HOUSE
TIRANA, 1965

The correctness of Stalin’s military science and art was magnificently proved in the heat of the Great Patriotic War and in its historic battles.

The imperialists, the international bourgeoisie and world reaction have tried and continue to try to minimize the decisive role played by the Soviet Union in the war against fascism. In this respect they were given ample aid by the Khrushchevite and Titoite revisionists who launched attacks and piled slanders against the Commander-in- Chief of the Soviet Army, J.V.Stalin. But no gross falsifications of bourgeois scribblers who try to hold out «the vast economic and military potential of the USA and of Great Britain» as the principal factor, or to match the Stalingrad battle with that of El Alamein in Africa, and no mean slanders of the Krushchevites and Titoites against Stalin, against the Soviet Army and the Soviet people, can bedim a historical truth.

The correctness of Stalin’s military science and art, his great role as a prominent leader of the Soviet Union and of the Red Army, as an architect of the triumph over Hitlerite Germany, were clearly and forcefully proved in the heat of the Great Patriotic War, in its decisive battles. 

Stalin, relying on the principles of marxist-leninist science on the war and army, on the right policy elaborated by the Communist Party and the Soviet State, deeply cognizant of the objective laws governing the establishment of socialism and of the other moral and political factors, raised military science to a higher standard, linked the military problems with the moral and political ones tightly together and defined their reciprocal interdependence very clearly.

Stalin’s military ingenuity lies in his elaboration of many problems and principles of strategy, of operative art, of tactics, and especially in determining scientifically the permanent factors that are continually at work in the war like: the stability behind the lines, the morale of the army, the number and quality of divisions, the armament of the army and the organizational and managing efficiency of cadres. It is precisely in the determination of these problems that the essence of Stalin’s military science and art lie.

With these principles of military science in view the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet government took all the necessary measures beforehand, that is, during the period of peaceful reconstruction, to raise and strengthen the defensive capacity of the county, to enhance vigilance and build up all the categories of armed forces.

It was only thanks to these measures that the Soviet Union succeeded in withstanding the aggression of nazi Germany, which aided by the international bourgeoisie after having speedily prepared for war after having occupied all of Europe, taking possession of all its highly developed economic basis, directed its armed forces towards the East and threw them against the Soviet Union.

Assuming that the Soviet state made up of many nations and its army weak and would crumble at the first blow, the German High Command prepared its «Barbarossa» war plan which envisaged to smash the main forces of the Soviet Army with a few powerful and surprise attacks and put the Soviet Union out of action before winter. But the war confirmed that the predictions of the German high military command, based on the momentary factors of their «Blitzkrieg» were fundamentally wrong.

The «Blitzkrieg» of the German fascist army was confronted with Stalin’s idea of strategy which, under circumstances created at the initial period of fighting, aimed at weakening the striking power of the enemy through stubborn and active operations of defence, at gaining time to mobilize, at spreading out and concentrating reserves in order to create superiority in men and technique, at adapting all the industry and economy to the needs of war, so as to create favourable condition conducive to the complete smashing of the enemy forces.

In the major battles of defense undertaken by the Soviet Army in the summer of 1941 and in the fall of 1942 the fierce attacks of the superior German forces were resisted, considerable damage was inflicted on them and their advance was finally brought to a standstill. In bitter and bloody fighting ranging from the bordering regions to the interior of the country, the German army was encountered everywhere with the stubborn resistance of Soviet Army units which grew in numbers uninterruptedly.
The German army had never before met with such resistance. The enemy incurred great losses by the defensive operations at Tihvin, Rostov and Leningrad, at Odessa, Sevastopol and other less protected regions. The heroic defense of Moscow which became a stumbling block for the German army and the counter offensive worked out and directed by Marshal Zhukov according to instructions and ideas of the Commander-in- Chief, resulted in frustrating the amassment of the main German striking force and bringing their in this strategic direction to a final standstill.
The «Blitzkrieg» failed altogether. During four months of fighting Hitlerite Germany lost about four and a half million soldiers killed, wounded or captured in the Soviet front.

The final turn of the tide of the Second World War was brought about by the Soviet Army in the legendary battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. The battle at Stalingrad reflected in a most brilliant way J.V.Stalin’s ideas on launching a strategic counter offensive, on dealing deep blows to besiege and exterminate large groupings of the enemy, on setting up an internal and externally front of encirclement, on hurried and secret concentration of reserves, on selecting the direction of the main strike and on the perfect way of directing the troops in order to realize the objective of the operation.

The historical facts on the legendary battle of Stalingrad familiar to the whole world, discard the false assessment made by Marshals of the Soviet Union A.I. Jeremenko and V.I. Chuykov who, in a servile way and for deliberate reasons, distort historical facts, attributing the merits of this battle to people who have never deserved them.

If the Stalingrad operation was an unparalleled example of besieging and completely annihilating a very large group of enemy forces, the Kursk operation was the brilliant combination of classic defense and resolute counter-offensive, which brought about the annihilation of the most powerful army, mainly of tanks, of the enemy. 
The legendary battle of Kursk was carried out according to the proposals of the Commanders of the Central and Voronezh Fronts, Marshals of the Soviet Union K.K.Rokossovsky and Army Corps-General N.F.Vatutin.

The major importance of these battles of the Great Patriotic War is also pointed out in the assessment Stalin made of them when he said: «If the Stalingrad battle announced the sunset of the German fascist army, the Kursk battle pushed it to the brink of catastrophy».

1944 which has gone down in the history of the Great Patriotic War as the year of ten Stalinite attacks, finally decided the fate of the Second World War. In these operations the Soviet Army carried out in a brilliant way the operational and strategic manoeuvre dealing repeated blows, breaking through the German Lines in many directions and depriving the German Command of the ways and means of using its reserves in the directions under threat, besieging and annihilating large groupings of the enemy one after the other.

These gigantic blows, typical of the offensive strategy of the Red Army, brought about the complete liberation of the territory of the Soviet Union, knocked out of battle the satellite states of nazi Germany, carried the war into enemy territory and created in this way favourable conditions for a general assault on all fronts, for the complete annihilation of the enemy in his own territory. These successes of the Soviet Army gave a further impetus national-liberation war of the oppressed peoples of Europe.

The realization of the operational strategic plans by the Soviet Army in last stage of the war was characterized by a general simultaneous attack on all fronts stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea on a breadth of 1200 kilometers, by the high tempo of attack, by the rapid onward advance over fortified belts and vast water obstacles, by the occupation of big cities and major industrial centres and by the unparalleled massive use of all kinds of weapons and military technique.

The Berlin operation, the greatest classic offensive operation during the whole Second World War, was characterized by the massive participation of forces and means, by the simultaneous assault on many directions, by the continues day and night offensive, by the creation of the internal and external front of encirclement, by the isolation and extermination of enemy groupings one at a time and by the high tempo of attack against a very deep and fortified system of defense of the enemy. After this operation the German army ceased to exist as an organized military power. 

During the Second World War the Soviet Army annihilated or captured 507 nazi divisions and about 100 divisions of its satellites.

The achievements of the Soviet Army in the operation of the Second World War confirmed the superiority of the Soviet military art and the application in a creative way of permanent factors that decide the fate of the war.

The stability and power of the Soviet rear ranks based on the Soviet social order, on socialist economy, on the organization of the working masses, on ideology, science and so forth demonstrated its great vitality all along the Great Patriotic War.

The industrial basis of defence in the Soviet Union was set up as a result of the correct farsighted policy of the Communist Party and of the Soviet Government of the socialist industrialization of the country, of the collectivization of farming and the all-round development of science and culture.
Through the fulfilments of five-year plans the economy of the Soviet Union succeeded in solving many complicated problems which enabled equipping the army with all the necessary military means and techniques.

During the Great Patriotic War the unity and high sense of duty of the people and of the Soviet Army were manifested as never before and turned into an irresistible force. 
This gigantic and inexhaustible force sprang from the just war which the Soviet people waged in defense of their socialist homeland and from the historic internationalist mission of the Soviet Army. This factor enhanced the patriotism, the spirit of sacrifice, the revolutionary impulse and multiplied in this way the power of the Soviet people and Army to overcome the enormous difficulties and vicissitudes of war and to achieve final victory over the enemy.

The scientific manner of solving the problem of the number, quality and technical equipment of divisions and the proportional development of the kinds of arms and of the armed forces, increased the defensive and offensive power of the Soviet Army. 
The successful achievements of these measures enabled the Soviet Union to create the necessary superiority over the enemy in military forces and technique. Soviet military art succeeded also in solving the problem of reserves and masterful use, a thing which influenced a great deal at the decisive moments of the war.

The skilful application of these key-problems of strategy enabled the Soviet Army, during all the stages of the war, to fulfil plans, both during the period of the general counter-offensive for smashing the enemy altogether.

Special attention had been devoted eversince the creation of the Soviet state to the selection, training and educating the cadres of the Soviet Army. These cadres, trained in marxist-leninist science and Soviet military art, directed, with consummate skill, the Soviet troops in the fields of battle. During the Great Patriotic war a whole generation of cadres of the Soviet Army were trained and tempered to combine personal courage and valor with the art of leadership in the fields of battle. It was precisely these cadres and the pleiades of distinguished military leaders that constituted one of those permanent factors that brought about the great historic victory of the Soviet Union.

The heroic war against fascism enhanced a lot the authority and prestige of the Soviet state and of the Bolshevik Party, it brought J.V.Stalin to the fore as a great political leader as well. It confirmed the correctness of the Leninist policy pursued by the Communist Party and the Soviet Government under J.V.Stalin’s guidance both in socialist construction as well as in directing the war for cleansing the Bolshevik Party of Trotzkites, Bukharinites, bourgeois nationalists and other enemies. The onslaught of Hitlerite Germany against the Soviet Union found a very sound Communist Party, of a steel-like organizational and ideological unity, bound as flesh to bone with the people.

Pursuing a Leninist foreign policy the Communist Party and the Soviet Government frustrated all attempts of the imperialist powers to set up a single front of the capitalist states against the Soviet Union. 
J.V.Stalin discovered in time the strategic and tactical schemes of these states, made a correct assessment of the contradictions between these states, utilized them thoroughly in the interests of defending and fortifying the Soviet Union.

J.V.Stalin’s great merit lies in setting up the anti-fascist coalition and in preserving the solidarity of this coalition up to the victory on fascism. Under the circumstances when Hitlerite Germany, fascism was the principal enemy of the freedom and independence of peoples, the Communist Party and the Soviet Government did not only accept to ally themselves with England and the United States of America, but made that alliance to serve the interests of all the peoples enslaved by fascist states.

Although the immediate strategic aim – the demolition of fascist states – was the same for all, collaboration with England and the USA was not so light. The British and American governments did not give up their imperialist aims, their aims to weaken the socialist state as much as possible and to establish their sway on every country of the world so as to be able to dictate their own conditions of peace to both the vanquished and the winners once the war was over. 
If these aims of England and the USA failed to mature a great merit belongs personally to J.V.Stalin.

The Communist Party and the Soviet government, headed by J.V.Stalin, carried out the principles of collaboration of a socialist state with capitalist countries in a true Leninist way. J.V.Stalin honoured with strictness all inter-allied commitments, maintained sincere military relations with England and the USA, but he never struck up bargains and allowed no one to strike up bargains to the detriment of the Soviet Union and of the enslaved peoples.

J.V.Stalin always maintained a firm stand of principle in his relations with the USA and England during all the war period. At the tripartite Moscow Conference (September 1941), at the Teheran Conference (November 1943), at the Second Moscow Conference 
(October 1944), at the Yalta Conference in the Crimea (February 1945) and at the Potsdam Conference in Berlin (July-August 1945) J.V.Stalin distinguished himself as a great statesman, as a fiery champion of the interests of the Soviet Union and of the oppressed peoples, as a wise, far-sighted and capable diplomat of matchless authority.

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government, headed by Stalin, rescued the socialist state from impending destruction, drew the Soviet Union out of the war as a victorious state enjoying great international authority and prestige. The say of the Soviet Union in solving international issues at the end of the war and after became decisive.

After the war American and English politicians and generals together with other servants of imperialism cursed Roosevelt and Churchill who seem to have made impermissible concessions to J.V.Stalin, who have allegedly allowed him to throw dust on their eyes; they reproach them with grave mistakes and with political short-sightedness; they chastise them for having failed to carry out Klausewitz’s familiar principle on «the war as a continuation of politics», for having observed the principle of «unconditional surrender» of the fascist states, for having failed to open the second front in the Balkans, for having helped the Soviet Union with more armaments and strategic materials than needed, for having failed the Soviet Union into the war with Japan before the capitulation of Germany, for having overestimated the Soviet Union as an ally and so on.

It is futile for the imperialist bourgeoisie to lay the blame on and hold responsible their own leaders for the failure of their aims in the Second World War. This failure was inevitable, it was not brought about by the «inability» of the leaders of imperialism but by the heroic war of the Red Army, it was brought about by the national-liberation war of the peoples enslaved by fascism.