The Treachery of Repeating Historical Falsifications

Hoisting the Banner of Peace and Democracy
Red Army soldiers raise the red flag over the Reichstag in Berlin on May 2, 1945,
signifying the victory over fascism in Europe.

• The Treachery of Repeating Historical Falsifications
• Causes and Lessons of the Second World War - Two Speeches by Hardial Bains, September 1989

70th Anniversary of the Invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany

The Treachery of Repeating Historical Falsifications

September 1 marks the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. This anniversary and the 70th anniversary of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact August 23, are occasions for the most reactionary elements in society to repeat the historical falsifications initially spread by the Nazis themselves and their allies around the world. History itself has refuted these falsifications time and time again so why are they spread again today? It can only be the same reasons they were spread 70 years ago -- to create massive ideological confusion so that people accept their domination and reject progressive and democratic ideals.

In this vein, on August 22 the Globe and Mail newspaper published an article entitled "The treachery that won't stop haunting Europe" by Robert Lawson. Lawson's article was published the day before the Council of Europe's proposed new "Europe-wide day of remembrance for victims of Stalinism and nazism." Using lies and disinformation, mainly from Nazi sources, the article tries to make the case that the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939 "caused" World War II, specifically by giving "free rein" to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Interestingly, the article neglects to mention that Poland had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934 and Britain and France had issued a joint declaration of non-aggression with the Germans in 1938. If it was fine for Poland, Britain, and France to sign non-aggression pacts with Germany, why not the Soviet Union?

The Lawson article says nothing new. It simply trots out the same-old anti-Stalin, anti-communist propaganda which has been disseminated for decades. In Causes and Lessons of the Second World War (1990), Hardial Bains points out: "What the commentators of various kinds are trying to suggest is that Hitler and Stalin, or Germany and the Soviet Union, were equally to blame for the invasion and destruction of Poland....There is nothing new about this propaganda. It is the same as was carried out by the Nazis during the war itself and by the Polish reactionaries and the appeasers of Hitler in England, France, and the United States at that time." (p. 47-48)

The Lawson article tries to make its case by picking out isolated events without relating them to a coherent account of the historical context, as if the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact simply fell from the sky, which led to the invasion of Poland, another mysterious event with no reason other than for Hitler to "secure his eastern flank." In contrast to this ahistorical approach, in Causes and Lessons of the Second World War, Hardial Bains explains: "The factors which created the conditions for Hitler's attack on Poland, are several. Their origins can be found in the conclusion of the First World War, which was a war between imperialist robber barons for the redivision of the world. With the victory of the Anglo-French forces, the Treaty of Versailles was imposed on Germany, in order to strengthen the hand of the Anglo-French imperialists in the domination of Europe and the colonies. The unjust and punitive war reparations imposed on Germany led to economic collapse and tremendous hardship for the German people. Hitler seized on the discontent of the German people in his rise to power." (p. 55-56)

After clarifying how the American monopoly capitalists systematically rebuilt Germany's economic and military might following the Treaty of Versailles, seeing in Nazi Germany their "pistol to terrorize and dominate all of Europe and destroy the socialist Soviet Union," Hardial Bains goes on to explain: "In attacking Poland, Hitler was merely obliging the Anglo-Americans' policy of going East (note: to attack the Soviet Union), and implementing his own plan, outlined in Mein Kampf, to increase Germany's living space by taking over the Ukraine, as part of his plan to enslave the entire world. After all, by September 1939, Germany was a country which already had a history of aggression. It had already occupied Austria and taken over Czechoslovakia, emerging as the most powerful single country in Europe as a result. The Soviet Union was calling upon the two main European non-aggressive powers, Britain and France, to sign a collective mutual assistance pact, which, had it been signed, might have saved Europe from the Second World War, or, at least, ensured that the war was shorter and less destructive. This was not to be a non-aggression pact. It was to be a treaty which would guarantee mutual assistance in the event of any of these countries being attacked by Hitler Germany. All efforts made by the Soviet Union, at that time, to establish this mutual assistance pact, failed." (p. 57-58)

An inkling of the agreement that actually did seal the fate of the peoples of Europe is included in the Lawson article but only as a mere aside. The article states: "A series of diplomatic blunders during the 1930s, most notably the Munich Accord of 1938, failed to appease Hitler." So the infamous Munich Pact between Hitler, Mussolini, Britain and France, which supposedly was to bring "peace in our time," was just a blunder? No, it was a conscious continuation, as even the Lawson article mentions, of the long policy of appeasement of Hitler that Britain and France followed during the years leading up to the invasion of Poland. The Anglo-French appeasement policy was in sharp contrast to the Soviet Union's continuous efforts to build collective security against Hitler through treaties of mutual assistance, as well as the rapid development of the people's united front against fascism in many countries.

The Anglo-French imperialists rejected the Soviet Union's repeated proposals for collective security because they hoped that by conciliating with the Nazis, they could egg on Hitler to attack the Soviet Union. Even after the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, British "support" for Poland was no more than condemnation of Germany over the radio and a declaration of war; in fact, the period of the next 8 months was actually known as the "phoney war." Further, no British troops set foot on Polish soil for six years! As for France's assistance to Poland, due to internal treachery, within less than a year France had surrendered to the Nazis literally without a fight, even though France's troops outnumbered Germany's by 4-1.

The four countries of Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain composed and signed the infamous Munich Pact in Germany on September 29, 1938. The pact between these four countries continued the Anglo-American policy of appeasement by securing Britain's and France's agreement to Adolf Hitler's demands. It was publicly denounced even by some of Britain's own leaders, including Churchill, who called it "an unmitigated defeat," and Lloyd George. Hardial Bains explains: "This infamous episode in the history of these countries is not the object of such propaganda as is carried out today about the non-aggression pact signed between Stalin and Hitler. It is in the betrayal, carried out by Britain and France at Munich, that the fate of the people's of Europe was sealed. The subsequent annexation of the Sudetenland by Hitler destroyed Czechoslovakia's defence system and made the occupation of all Czechoslovakia by Hitler inevitable. The sacrifice of Czechoslovakia was, for all intents and purposes, the declaration by Britain and France that they would not enter into an alliance with the Soviet Union. The policy of Britain and France, and even Canada at the time, to which the Diaries of then Prime Minister Mackenzie King testify, was to get Hitler to go east and finally attack the Soviet Union." (p. 58)

The Lawson article also dredges up the so-called "secret protocols" to the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which supposedly contained an agreement on how Stalin and Hitler were going to divide Poland and allot certain "spheres of influence" to each country. This again is old Nazi propaganda. If there was a "secret agreement" to divide Poland, how was it that the Soviet Union was the only country which withdrew its armed forces from all areas which it had liberated during the Second World War, including Poland? Hardial Bains points out: "The Hitlerites brought an alleged Protocol to the Nuremburg Trials to justify their aggression against Poland but it was rejected as a fraud. The signatures of Molotov were obviously a forgery and the Soviet Union rejected these 'secret' documents with utter contempt as did others. Now these same documents are being dredged up as 'authentic' and a 'discovery' which allegedly exposes the 'diabolical schemes of J. V. Stalin.'" (p. 27) The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact simply stated that Germany would not attack the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union would not attack Germany. The Soviet Union had no illusions about Nazi intentions and signing the pact allowed the Soviet Union another 22 months to build up its defenses. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the pact was immediately voided, and, as history shows, the Soviet Union then played a major role in ending the twisted Nazi dreams of world conquest.

The Lawson article further underlines its true purpose by omitting the stark fact that the Nazi invasion killed 6,000,000 Polish citizens. This apparently is an event of no consequence, unworthy of discussion. Instead, it trots out the well-known lie that the Soviets executed 15,000 Polish officers (the Lawson article calls them "intellectuals"!) in the Katyn Forest. This story has been repeated over and over just as Goebbels said "big lies" should be told. As Hardial Bains points out: "The entire story about the Soviets shooting Polish officers and burying them in mass graves at Katyn Forest was presented to the world in mid-April 1943 by Goebbels' propaganda machine...During the war, the allies accepted as fact that the Nazis committed the crime. U.S. Ambassador Harriman sent his daughter Kathie Harriman to Katyn during a Soviet inquiry into the executions in 1944. She endorsed the Soviet findings. The circumstantial evidence alone cried out against the Nazis. The method of extermination was a standard nazi method. Mass graves dug by the victims, and then mass shootings. The Poles were shot with German bullets. No one could explain why the Soviets would shoot these men in 1940 when the Soviet Union was at peace." (p. 31-32)

The imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie have a number of reasons for repeating the falsification of history and trying to make "Stalin" the issue. First, they are desperate to preserve the status quo and are terrified by the prospect of their downfall. Modern communism is their greatest fear. Their fear is so great that they are afraid of anyone even discussing modern communism. Second, they are trying to disorient the workers and youth and block them from grasping the prospect of a bright future and the means to achieve it. They want to scare the gullible, justify reaction, and promote reactionary reforms in the name of change. Their hope is that they can terrorize the people into renouncing their desire for revolutionary change. Third, it is part of their world-wide anti-social offensive against change and the new. This includes forging an unholy alliance with whoever will join them, including the most reactionary elements from the past and the present. Fourth, it is an attempt to divert attention from their own crimes committed in the name of "democracy," as well as a pretext to commit further crimes against the people. Fifth, it is an attempt to put anti-communism back on the pedestal it was knocked off during WWII due to the huge contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of fascism. They want to use J.V. Stalin, the Soviet Union, and communism as a scapegoat for the world's problems which they themselves have caused.

Hardial Bains, in the course of setting the historical record straight, provides us with a fitting counter to the attempts by those who try to falsify history with their anti-communist tirades: "Today the so-called democratic governments in Canada, the United States, and other countries are repeating all the fascist accusations against communism, against those respected people in the world who actually fought the scourge of fascism, those people who have been loved by all the exploited and oppressed people on the world scale, those who were the bulwark against the Nazi scourge, especially J. V. Stalin. In spite of this the people in those countries which saw the scourge of Nazism remember J. V. Stalin's name with great respect. They remember the exploits of the Red Army and the anti-fascist forces. They saw what the Red Army and the anti-fascist forces did to protect the peoples." (p. 29)

(Bains, Hardial. Causes and Lesson of the Second World War. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Institute, Toronto, 1990)

Causes and Lessons of the Second World War

- Two Speeches by Hardial Bains, September 1989 -

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by Germany under Adolf Hitler, Hardial Bains delivered two important speeches, one in Montreal on September 1, 1989 and one in Halifax on September 21, 1989. The speeches were published in pamphlet form under the title Causes and Lessons of the Second World War, MELS Institute, Toronto, 1990.

Addressing the gathering in Montreal on September 1, 1989, Comrade Bains began his speech by characterizing the war which began fifty years earlier on that day when Nazi Germany invaded Poland; Great Britain declaring war on Germany two days later. It was, he said, a great tragedy for the people of the world. Great Britain had not declared war when the Axis forces of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or militarist Japan had earlier intervened in Spain or invaded Abyssinia, China, Albania, Austria, or Czechoslovakia. It had followed a policy of appeasement, hoping that Germany would attack and decimate the Soviet Union. The war thus had the character of an inter-imperialist war for the re-division of the world, up to the time in June 1941 when Germany attacked the Soviet Union and the war took on the character of an anti-fascist war of national liberation.

Fifty years later, Comrade Bains said, the same clouds of inter-imperialist war were gathering yet the lessons of that great tragedy which cost as many as 50 million dead are lost on the imperialist powers.

Why did the tragedy happen and who was responsible? The U.S. wanted hegemony over Europe against its rival and so-called ally Great Britain. It refinanced and rearmed Germany, hoping that strengthening Germany would open a market for U.S. finance capital in Europe. Great Britain, meanwhile, wanted to get Nazi Germany to go East and attack the Soviet Union. It was a self-serving, short-sighted policy which, followed too by France, later led to the disaster of the Second World War.

Today the same short-sighted policy is being followed, Comrade Bains said. The US, under the hoax of safeguarding democracy, wants to form a united front under its leadership comprised of all the fascist forces in the world, with the reactionary classes and strata as its main force, and the working class as a bulwark against revolution, independence, freedom and progress. The U.S. began this right after the Second World War with the Nazis and fascists of different countries including Germany and using West Germany as the field of operation. Today, he said, those they put forward as democrats in Poland, the Soviet Union or Hungary are the Nazi-collaborationist forces doing the bidding of U.S. imperialist policy.

In direct contrast, Comrade Bains pointed out, was the Leninist-Stalinist policy of the Soviet Union. He says:

"Under the Leninist-Stalinist policy of the Soviet Union, there never was a country which was invaded by the Soviet Union. There was never a country occupied or annexed, to the extent that right after the October Revolution, just for the sake of having peace, the Soviet Union agreed to hand over large parts of Russia to Germany. The Soviet government made great sacrifices so that the European people would not have to face the spectre of war. The entire Leninist-Stalinist policy was built on supporting the people on the world scale for liberation, not enslaving them, or making any country their colonies. Far from it, it was the Leninist-Stalinist policy which granted Finland and the Baltic states their independence. No bourgeois or czarist Russian government ever agreed to recognize the rights of these nations to independence. It was the Leninist-Stalinist constitution which recognized as a principle the right of nations to self- determination including secession. It was the Bolshevik government which published all the secret treaties and exposed the real goals of the British, French and others to acquire colonies which they could rob. It renounced all the imperialist agreements entered into by the Czar and the Provisional Government. Under the leadership of Stalin, the Soviet Union was the only country which withdrew its armed forces from all the areas which it had liberated during the Second World War. It did so on its own after the war."

Comrade Bains emphasised that the Leninist-Stalinist policy was the policy of freedom, independence and progress. It was not a policy to enslave others. If the Leninist-Stalinist policy was not to enslave others, not to divide the world according to their own interests, then under that policy there cannot be a war for the redivision of the world. Such a war takes place between contending imperialist states. That is why when the Second World War started, it was a war between imperialist powers and it only took on an anti-fascist character once the Soviet Union entered the war as the defender of freedom and democracy. Hitler took advantage of Britain's and France's policy of appeasement and their refusal to form a mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union to further his own inter-imperialist contention with Britain and France. He attacked and occupied their eastern ally, the Republic of Poland which was itself imperialist. Britain's and France's refusal to take advantage of the Soviet Union's policy of peace and good neighbourly relations and refusal to sign a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union led to one of the greatest tragedies for the Polish nation.

Events, he pointed out, proved the true nature of the guarantees Britain and France had given their ally Poland. As Hitler's forces destroyed the Polish state and massacred the Polish people with unprecedented barbarity, Britain dropped leaflets on Germany and not one single British soldier stepped on Polish soil, or was to, throughout the entire war! France, with 4 million troops facing a million Germans, sat on its hands. Today it is claimed that the US, Britain and France "defended Poland" while Stalin "occupied Poland"! The fact is, however, that on September 17, 1939, the Polish state having collapsed, its leaders having fled to Rumania, the Soviet Army marched into territories of the Ukraine and Byelorussia annexed by Poland in the Polish-Russian war of 1919-20, thus saving the population from Nazi persecution and moving its forward defensive line several hundred kilometres west.

Once Poland was under the clutches of Hitler, Comrade Bains said, the Nazis perpetrated one of the worst crimes history has ever known against any nation. Poland suffered the largest number of casualties, in numbers killed per thousand, of any country in Europe, with 6 million killed, including 2.7 million Polish Jews, 50,000 gypsies, 12,000 mental patients, thousands of POWs, and in the first six weeks some 40,000 intellectuals and political personalities.

Looking at the history of the Second World War, especially the inter-imperialist phase, Comrade Bains said, we find the cynicism of the U.S. and British policy. They did not want to have a treaty of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union because this would mean their pistol, Hitler, would not be able to move anywhere. Right to the last minute they refused to enter serious negotiations with the Soviet Union; they diplomatically insulted the Soviet Union many times; carried on discussions without involving the Soviet Union and so on. But what happened to this unprincipled and dangerous policy of theirs? The Leninist-Stalinist policy of safeguarding the Soviet Union, its policy of peace, of good relations with its neighbours, smashed the plans of the Americans, British and French to direct Nazi Germany against it.

On August 24, 1939, the Soviet Union signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Germany after Britain, France and Poland made it clear they did not want a treaty of mutual assistance, they did not want a collective defence with serious military commitments which would have strengthened the Soviet Union as well as themselves. In those circumstances, the Soviet Union very much needed time to further fortify and defend itself. As a result of signing the Non-Aggression Pact, for a time at least, Hitler would not attack the Soviet Union. The Soviet western border was safe for 22 months, as events unfolded. The Pact and improved commercial relations with Germany proved to be in the interests of the Soviet people. History also proved later during the anti-fascist war that the interests of the USSR also coincided with the fundamental interests of the peoples of other countries.

Today, Comrade Bains said, it is claimed that there were secret protocols to the Pact for the division of Poland and spheres of influence. No such protocols existed. Documents of this nature presented by the Nazis to the Nuremburg Trials were rejected as forgeries.

The policy of the Soviet Union, he pointed out, the policy of progressive and democratic humanity at the time, in fact created the conditions for the destruction of Hitler. When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, the character of the war changed. The Soviet Union had no claims on any country in the world. It had no colonies. It was not calling for the redivision of the world. So that when on June 22, 1941, Hitler violated the Non-Aggression Pact, he was attacking not an imperialist power, a rival for colonies, but a socialist state. The struggle necessarily became an anti-fascist struggle. Millions upon millions were inspired on the world scale to participate in this anti-fascist war. This was the main factor for the victory of the anti-fascist forces over German Nazism.

Today, Comrade Bains said, the whole history of this period is falsified. The object is to egg on the fascist forces, to give them every support to get organized. The object is to groom the fascist forces and present to the world a totally fabricated and groundless falsehood which they call the "Stalinist policy," presenting it as the most dangerous, aggressive and fascist policy. Everything which the imperialists and their apologists do is blamed on the name and work of Stalin. They are trying to suggest that Stalin and Hitler are the same. This doesn't work because the collaborators with Hitler were with the U.S. and not with Stalin. The entire propaganda is to put the people to sleep and give them a false sense of security, to think that there is no danger of fascism.

Fifty years after the disaster of the Second World War, Comrade Bains pointed out, the lessons cry out that first and foremost we must be ideologically clear as to who is the enemy. Who can bring about disaster to the people of the world. Who can organize a cataclysmic war. The attacks on the name and work of Stalin are designed to create a kind of psychology and a massive ideological confusion so that the people accept fascism and reject the progressive and democratic ideals, that the people, especially the younger generation, should be reared on Nazi and fascist ideals. The same self-serving policies followed by Britain and the U.S. before and after the Second World War will give rise to a Third World War.

Comrade Bains argued that the people of the world should fight the U.S. policy. They should defend the Leninist-Stalinist policy. It is not, he said, an ideological question but one of defence of peace, freedom and progress. He said:

"The defence of the Leninist-Stalinist policy means to defend a policy against imperialist war. Is it not a fact that after the Bolsheviks took over Russia they ended the inter-imperialist war? They brought about peace. They were a factor for peace in Europe at the time of the First World War. They were a factor for peace at the time of the Second World War. As long as Stalin was alive, not a single nation had to worry about the Soviet Union. No evil could ever come from there."

"All those who are freedom-loving, all those who wish to have peace in the world should raise their voices. They should defend the Leninist-Stalinist policy of peace, against aggression, against intervention, against occupation, against the imperialist re-division of the world. This is what the history of the last 50 years should teach everyone. They are the only lessons one can draw."

He argued that to be defensive on these questions will give rise to the same kind of tragedy as took place fifty years ago, but on a much greater scale than before. Wisdom and sanity teach us that we should be prepared for any eventuality, even if the force may be small in the beginning. We must wage the ideological struggle to tell the world where we stand, to express our motives, to express our principles, to express our Marxist-Leninist convictions. The working class and the people who love freedom do not want us to be quiet. They want us to clarify what these historic events and the present-day reality mean.

He pointed out that the mentality of the British, the U.S. and France in the 1930s was to consider communism a greater enemy than fascism. This was the mentality of the U.S. and others in the 1980s. Communism is the one thing they want to oppose not fascism. But, he said, they will face the same debacle as in the Second World War.

The Party, he stressed, will always speak the truth on these matters, will always oppose the advent of imperialist war. If war breaks out it will call for the overthrow of any government which leads the country into war and fight for peace and security amongst the peoples. On this basis it will fight for peace.

The Need to Smash Historical Falsifications

Speaking in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on September 21, 1989, Comrade Bains further elaborated some of these points. He emphasized that the Nazi destruction of Poland, beginning September 1, 1939, was one of the most perfidious and barbaric activities in the history of humankind, whether modern or ancient. Within a matter of a few weeks more than a million people had been captured and killed in a systematic manner.

He emphasized the crucial importance of opposing the lies concerning what was behind the German Nazi attack on Poland, principally the lie that it was Stalin whose aim had been to "give free rein" to Hitler to attack Poland and then attack Poland himself. If a climate of historical falsifications is allowed to develop, he said, it will assist the same kind of Hitlerite and fascist forces which arose in the 1930s and 1940s. The truth can be verified by the widely available documents of the time, he said, not to speak of the outcome of the war itself, in which the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the losses in order to save itself and the peoples of Europe from destruction at the hands of the Hitlerites.

Going into the factors behind the Nazi attack on Poland, Comrade Bains pointed out that their origins can be found in the conclusion of the First World War. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded that war between imperialist robbers for the redivision of the world, was imposed on Germany in order to strengthen the hand of the Anglo-French imperialists in the domination of Europe and the colonies. The unjust and onerous war reparations imposed on Germany caused tremendous hardship to the German people, something seized on by Hitler in his rise to power. Meanwhile the U.S. pursued a policy of rebuilding Germany, both economically and militarily. The U.S. saw Nazi Germany as its pistol to terrorize and dominate all of Europe and destroy the socialist Soviet Union. The British government, faced with the choice of building up fascism against socialism at the risk of their own destruction, or of making a military alliance with the USSR to the benefit of both, chose the former. Hitler, however, as events proved, had no intention of sparing either Britain or France in his aim to conquer the world. In attacking Poland, he was merely obliging the Anglo-American encouragement to "Go East," as well as implementing his own plan outlined long before in Mein Kampf of increasing Germany's Lebensraum ("living space") by taking over the Ukraine.

Against the Hitler menace the Soviet Union called upon Britain and France to sign a collective mutual assistance pact, with military clauses. Had this been signed, Comrade Bains pointed out, it might have saved Europe from the Second World War or at least ensured it was shorter and less destructive. Britain and France, however, chose instead to sign the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, a betrayal which sealed the fate of Europe, specifically ceding Czechoslovakia and its powerful armaments industry to Hitler and egging him on to go East and attack the Soviet Union. The Polish government, imperialist itself, took the same stand, for which it was to pay so dearly, refusing mutual assistance with the Soviet Union, encouraging Germany East and even seizing part of Czechoslovakia itself. All these powers dreaded communism and the liberation struggles of the people more than they feared fascism.

Comrade Bains quoted Stalin as saying in March 1939 that the apparent lack of resistance of Britain, France and others to Hitlerite aggression was not due to weakness. Combined they were far stronger than Germany, economically and militarily. In reality their policy was one of connivance at aggression, giving free rein to war, egging the Germans on to march further east, and thus transforming war into a world war.

Comrade Bains emphasized repeatedly that the claims of the Anglo-American historians that Britain "saved the day" by declaring war on Germany were completely untrue. Britain, France and the U.S. had done nothing to oppose the earlier aggressive activities of Germany, Italy and Japan against Ethiopia, China, Albania, or Spain, not to mention Austria and Czechoslovakia. They had brutally ignored all the appeals of the Soviet Union for collective security against aggression. Communists answering the call of the Communist International at its 8th Congress for a United Front Against Fascism were hounded in the so-called democratic countries. The Anglo-American historians claim that Stalin wanted to conquer the world. Yet there was no single example of annexation by the Soviet Union while Stalin was alive. By contrast after the Second World War the U.S. incited the fascist forces in Greece and established a fascist regime there with the help of British and U.S. forces. It reinstated and organized the Nazi forces in what it called West Germany in direct violation of the Potsdam Agreement. It established the fascist dictatorship of the Shah in Iran, of Syngman Rhee in South Korea, of Bao Dai in Vietnam, among numerous others. Similarly they claim Stalin crushed his ideological enemies. He did no such thing. It was the U.S. which carried out the McCarthyite witch-hunt, sponsored regimes which massacred communists, instituted the brutal policy of "containment of communism," setting up NATO as an instrument of aggression and imperialist war.

Dealing specifically with Poland and the lie that Stalin both gave free rein to the Nazis and then attacked Poland himself, Comrade Bains pointed out that when the Soviet Red Army entered Poland on September 17, 1939, Poland was already conquered, the government had fled, and the Red Army took over primarily Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands, thereby saving millions from the fate Hitler had reserved for the rest of the Polish people.

In conclusion, Comrade Bains pointed out that the entire propaganda on the Second World War has an aim. Its object is to organize a fascist movement, to condone fascist aggression. If the Anglo-American bourgeoisie is successful in this, he said, it will cause a disaster for the peoples of the world, just as the Anglo-American policy caused the disaster of the Second World War. A repetition of this policy will bring the disaster of a Third World War which must be opposed.

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca