DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

How to explain the Nazi obsession with Jews

197 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 3 2005 17:57
wld_rvn wrote:
Doesn't meanoldman's last post rather prove our point?

All that proves is that you've got no sense of humour roll eyes

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Nov 3 2005 20:09

ohhh shit .... your are incredibles the ICC...

First : the ICC seem to not understand and don't want understand what i said 2 months ago...

and Yeah ... i prefer to sleep in the same bed with a dog than with a rat ; and i hate dogs just less than rats.... and conclusion i'm a fan of dogs ?

If you see in the street an accident, and if a doctor help the guy Do you ask the doctor if he is a revolutionary or a bourgeois ? The important is what the doctor is doing not in what he believe, no ?

In 1941 it's the same , i have respect for stalinians, for gaullists , for all the others who helped people and particulary jews to fight against the persecution.

Try to understand that your ICC bullshits and lies about history is shocking and scorning for the memory of thousands and thousands families who suffered during this period .

And yes i have more respect for a stalinist , a christian, a bourgeois who helped persecuted than a revolutionarie who keeped this doors closed and leave the racial persecution continue... (but your are right : do a leaflet against the resistance a month before the final insurrection is what you call "opposed the imperialist war on both sides" )

Second : the ICC i will be happy if in your next publications you could quote me once again. Mr. T I love it ! i want to be your official Anarcho-stalinist ...

Third : for moderators . I don't understand why you don't ban Baboon or at least erase the revisionnist posts when he say : "not least around the "the Great Alibi" of democracy to cover up its own wholesale massacres and its complicity in the Jewish genocide). " And all the others bullshit of him and others pseudo revolutionaries.

Fuck you Baboon, You are just one of the assassins of Memory (ooooh me too i can quote a title of a book... )....

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 4 2005 09:08

L’agite snarls “Fuck you, Baboon”. Isn’t that flaming? Didn’t the Libcom collective take a position against this kind of thing?

But more important than this crude abuse are the bourgeois political positions L’agite defends. He calls for Baboon to be banned from Libcom for “revisionism”. Let’s go back a bit. On June 8, 1996, the French bourgeoisie, on the august pages of Le Monde, launched a campaign against “revisionism”. Directly citing Bordiga’s pamphlet Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi, it tried to make an amalgam between the communist left - which denounced the barbarism of both camps in World War 2 with equal vigour - and people who deny or minimise the existence of the Nazi death camps (the “revisionists” or “negationists”, mainly ideologues of the extreme right). This line – echoed in Liberation on 21 August 1996 - was a rehash of the classic Stalinist slander against the internationalists during the war: those who refuse to support the Allies and the patriotic Resistance are agents of Hitler. This is the company that L’agite keeps.

Yes indeed: democracy covered up “its own wholesale massacres and its complicity in the Jewish genocide” as Baboon put it. The massacres were called, among others, Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The complicity was called, among others, the 1943 Bermuda Conference where the USA and Britain took the conscious decision to close their doors in the face of European Jewry. According to L’agite, that makes not only Baboon, but the ICC as well, revisionists who should be banned from this site. We’d like to hear some opinions about this.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 4 2005 13:44

L'Agite's last post is the essence of supporting a possible "lesser evil" of capitalism and thus positioning oneself against the working class.

L'Agite prefers to sleep with a dog rather than a rat because, while he doesn't like dogs, he likes rats a bit less.

Why does he have to sleep with either of them? If someone had a gun at his head you might understand him sleeping with a dog he doesn't like (though not quite as much as a rat).

He can make a conscious decision not to sleep with either. But rather than this L'Agite has made a (not so) conscious decision to support one murderous expression of capitalism - Stalinism - against another - Fascism. And like any good Stalinist, L'Agite wants to stifle any discussion and dissention from his point of view.

You don't have to lay down with either. You don't have to choose one of the opposing camps of the ruling class.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 4 2005 16:42

The assertion that I, or any other anarchist, supports stalinism, is a pretty serious one -- I'd like the ICC posters to back this one up, or withdraw it, please.

And l'agite -- please don't swear at them, even if massively provoked wink

I'd like to hear more about this kerfuffle over the 'Grand Alibi'. Was it basically a book that equated the holocaust with colonialism?

l'agité
Offline
Joined: 28-07-05
Nov 5 2005 11:00

why you are revisionnist ? because all what you are saying about nazisme is in the line of the "Great Alibi" , here explicity quoted by Baboon, wich is considered as a revisionnist book by anti-revisionnists and anti-negationnists historians.

Pierre Vidal-Naquet, specialized on revisionnism and negationnism, writed many books. About the "great Alibi", we can read on A Paper Eichmann - Anatomy of a Lie :

Quote:
Thus it was that in 1970 La Vieille Taupe published a brochure entitled Auschwitz ou le Grand Alibi, the reprint of an anonymous article which had appeared in 1960 in Programme Communiste, the organ of another Marxist sect (founded by Amadeo Bordiga). The "grand alibi" of the antifascists was the extermination of the Jews by Hitler. That crime alone establishes the distance separating the democrat from the fascist. And yet, according to the Bordigists, this is by no means the case. For the anti-Semitism of the imperialist era must be given the requisite economic and social explanation. "As a consequence of their prior history, the Jews today find themselves for the most part in the middle and petty bourgeoisie. But that class stands condemned in advance by the irresistible advance of the concentration of capital."[7] The reaction of the petty bourgeoisie to that condemnationlay "in sacrificing one of its segments in order to thus save ensure the existence of the others." The German petty bourgeoisie "thus threw the Jews to the wolves in order to lighten its load and save itself." Large capital, for its part, was "delighted by the boon; it could liquidate a section of the petty bourgeoisie with the agreement of the petty bourgeoisie."[8] As for demonstrating how the "petty bourgeoisie" was more threatened in 1943 than in 1932, the brochure does not choose to take up the question. But at least it attempts to account for the methodical nature of the endeavor: "In normal times, and when only a small number are at stake, capitalism can allow those it ejects from the process of production to die on their own. But this was impossible to do in the middle of a war and for millions of men: that much disorder would have issued in a general paralysis. Capitalism had to organize their death." But with what profit? "Capitalism cannot execute a man it has sentenced if it does not extract some profit from that very punishment." Profit will thus be sought through the exhaustion of workers, and those incapable of working will be massacred directly. But is it profitable? "German capitalism could resign itself to murder pure and simple only with difficulty . . . because it brought no revenue."[9] The authors of the brochure this expatiate on the famous mission of Joël Brand, who left Hungary with the blessings of Himmler, to exchange the Hungarian Jews slated for the "mill" of Auschwitz for ten thousand trucks.[10] The authors do not for an instant appear to notice that we are then in 1944, not 1942, that Himmler had good reasons to realize that the war has been lost, and that the time has come to attempt to make use of the legendary "Jewish influence" on the Western allies. The Jews, despite such attempts, were destroyed "not as Jews but as rejects from the process of production, useless for production."[11]

Notes:

7- Auschwitz ou le grand alibi, p. 5. The italicized passages are underlined by the authors. This document was republished by its authors at the beginning of 1979, after the scandal provoked by Darquier de Pellepoix's statement to the effect that the only victims gassed at Auschwitz were lice (Express, October 28, 1978). A new preface clarified the position held at the time by the "Bordiguistes." I quote from the Vieille Taupe edition, and it is insofar as it expresses the Vieille Taupe position that the brochure interests me in this context.

8-Ibid., pp. 6-7.

9-Ibid., p. 9.

10-For the history of Joël Brand's mission, see the (quite personal) testimony of André Biss, Un million de Juifs à sauver (Paris: Grasset, 1966) and the analysis by Y. Bauer, The Holocaust in Historical Perspective (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1978), pp. 94-155.

11-Auschwitz ou le grand alibi, p. 11

You will probably say it's a stalinist slander against the internationalists....

You are revisionnist because there are no historians who defend your pseudo-interpretations of nazism and capitalism. Why you are incapable of understand that nazism can't be reduced to a economical phenomenal ? Pretend that Nazism is just a form of capitalism is totally absurd , it's revisionnist because you reject all the others aspects of nazism.

Can you understand that : the idea of a "Third Reich" ; of creating a "New Man" ; of militarising the entire society on all the aspect ; that nazism is also a reaction against incapacity of the burgeoisy to resolve the social and political crisis ; a reaction to regenarate the germany ; the mystic of a millenium germany ; a politicy of hate against "minorities" and "interiors enemies" ; the mystic of a providential man , a reactionary revolution to protect and purge Germany etc etc etc .... you want more ? read a historitical book !

You are also revisonnist because you put on the same plan Nazism and the Allies on the destruction of european jews. It's absurd and contemptible. You can quote the Bermuda Conference, all historians know the responsibilities of allies in not saving a lot of jews, but the incapacity and atrocities of allies in the war don't make this allies responsible of the policy of extermination of the jews. And the Bermuda Conference can't do forget that allies bombarded the railroads, that Resistance helped many jews... But for you the jews in the FTP-MOI (a communists urban guerrilla goup in France of immigrants and jews) are responsible as much than Nazies in the genocide...

I'm curious to know your bibliography on the WWII ...

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 7 2005 12:14

Lazlo: is the onus really on us to prove that there are anarchists who support Stalinism, when you’ve got l’agite’s posts in front of you? And not just Stalinism, but the whole democratic imperialist camp during the second world war?

L’agite’s quote from the good democrat Vidal-Naquet does not in the least prove that Bordiga was a revisionist or holocaust denier (to quote Vidal-Naquet from the beginning of his Theses on Revisionism: “I shall call ‘revisionism’ the doctrine according to which the genocide practiced by Nazi Germany against Jews and Gypsies did not exist but is to be regarded as a myth, a fable, or a hoax”). Bordiga’s pamphlet Auschwitz or the Grand Alibi seeks to develop a materialist explanation for why the extermination of the Jews took place, which is totally different. But what enrages the defenders of bourgeois democracy is the fact that the pamphlet also denounces the cynical way the democratic powers exploited the genocide to cover up their own war-crimes. We support Bordiga’s attempt to put forward a materialist analysis of the holocaust, against the bourgeoisie’s tendency to portray Nazism as an essentially spiritual phenomenon, as an outburst of ‘pure evil’. Above all, we support the internationalist position on which the pamphlet is based: a refusal to line up with the democratic imperialist camp.

We don’t agree with every aspect of Bordiga’s analysis. There is a certain tendency to economic reductionism in his approach, and he seems to underestimate the profound irrationality of capitalism in its decadent period, in particular, the irrationality of war, which no longer serves the global expansion of capital but is an active factor in its ruin. The extermination of the Jews certainly has to be understood in this context, as do the more bizarre features of Nazi ideology.

We have already seen on other libcom threads a real resistance to accepting how irrational the bourgeoisie has become in its epoch of senility. On the ‘1939 and all that’ thread, for example, meanoldman argued that Nazism could no longer be called bourgeois because it was irrational, apocalyptic, founded on all kinds of occultist mythologies and conspiracy theories. By the same argument, you’d have to say that Pol Pot, Bush and Bin Laden have also transcended capitalism. Given that the system has lost all historical validity, all sense of a perspective for the human race, this retreat into unreason is characteristic of all factions of the capitalist class in this epoch.

L’agite informs us that “historians” don’t support our view of the second world war. The majority of historians are not revolutionaries. So it’s not really surprising that most of them are unable to question the democratic justification of the second world war, which is a kind of founding myth of the entire post-war world order (1). Nor is it surprising that the few who do start to question this mind-numbing consensus can easily be misled into the revisionist aberration.

The proletarian, internationalist position rejects both poles of this false alternative. This is the same false alternative as the one between democracy and fascism, for which tens of millions were sacrificed in the vast organised butchery of world war two.

(1) However, now that more and more material is being released about the crimes of the Allies, there are honest academic historians who have got closer to the whole truth. See for example the article by Richard Drayton, a Cambridge history lecturer, published in the Guardian of 5 May 2005, ‘An ethical blank cheque’(The ‘good war’ against Hitler has underwritten 60 years of war-making. It has become an ethical blank cheque for British and US power”). http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480178,00.html

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 7 2005 13:29

Hi

Quote:
We have already seen on other libcom threads a real resistance to accepting how irrational the bourgeoisie has become in its epoch of senility.

This is why I love the ICC. How anyone can not find them endearing, I don’t know. Keep up the good work.

One of the best things about the ICC is their highly entertaining ability to propose wholly incorrect policy and programme even though their analysis is second-to-none.

Love

LR

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 7 2005 14:12

OK, so if our second-to-none analysis is that the second world war was capitalist, imperialist, and opposed to the interests of the international working class, we should be working out a 'correct' policy and programme of supporting it anyway?

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 7 2005 15:58
revol68 wrote:
a localised response to occupation by possibly the most ruthless state in history?

And it is this localised opposition that I, and l'agite, are clearly 'supporting'. Which therefore has nothing to do with anarchists' ideological support for the programme of Stalinism or Leninism.

Which is why I'd like the ICC to withdraw their very general and broad-brush accusation that I support stalinism.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 7 2005 16:21

Sorry, I was talking to the ICCers -- will edit post above embarrassed

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 7 2005 16:43

Hi

Stalin held the Spear of Destiny for a while after the fall of Berlin, before it fell into American hands. Something to do with the Marshall plan. Like Hitler, he too believed that it was held by a Jewish conspiracy, and accounts for his anti-Semitic outlook.

I don’t know why you lot bother with political analysis, the answer always lies in magick.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 7 2005 17:01
Lazy Riser wrote:
Stalin held the Spear of Destiny for a while after the fall of Berlin, before it fell into American hands. Something to do with the Marshall plan.

I doubt that very much. The USSR didn't get any cash from the marshall Plan.

I'd say a more believeable account would be that the Spear was taken by Hitler's aide Bormann, who fled the bunker before the Russian advance, and has never been accounted for.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 8 2005 10:34

Hi

Quote:
the Spear was taken by Hitler's aide Bormann, who fled the bunker before the Russian advance, and has never been accounted for.

Class War held it between 1986 and 1991, it was then stolen by a member of the Labour party and held by Peter Mandelson. It is currently in Finland, where Nokia are negotiating with the Norwegian ruling class to connect it to their impending Scandinavian power grid.

Which brings us to Norway’s plans for world domination, something which the ICC have spent much time analysing on our behalf.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 8 2005 11:32
Lazy Riser wrote:
Class War held it between 1986 and 1991

Presumably a trophy from an AFA action in the 1980s, where they kicked in some nazi curator of Hitler's relics?

I'd say the acrimony of the CW split can be explained as largely a quarrel over the fate of the Spear. Is it true that it eventually turns it's holder mad?

Guess who was the CW official appointed to that post wink

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 8 2005 12:43

The magick trick used here - apart from the terror of ever being caught taking politics seriously, and diverting this thread into a private chatline - is the term "localised". For anarchism, more often than not, describing something as "local" removes the tiresome responsibility of analysing the class nature of a social phenomenon. This was certainly the logic that dominated at the Community Action Gathering a while back: some of the self-professed anarchists and libertarians there could happily operate within the structure of the state as long as it was "local".

To understand the class function of the Resistance groups during the second world war, you have to look at the global picture. Globally speaking, they were militarily and politically subordinated to the war plans of the Allies. To a large extent that meant that they were directly manipulated by the military services of the Allied states. But even when "local groups" weren't subject to such direct control, they acted within the general framework of the imperialist conflict, not against it. There is a direct parallel with some of the armed Resistance goups in Iraq, who are not necessarily acting on the orders of any foreign power or even any international terrorist network. But everything they do serves one side of an imperialist war against the other.

Neither is this a discussion about the subjective intentions of those who joined the Resistance. Many of the rank and file were indeed courageous people motivated by outrage against the horrors of the occupation. Many of them thought they were fighting for socialism at the same time. But this argument about subjective intentions, like the use of "localist" ideology, is a means of avoiding the fundamental question: whose class interests are you really serving?

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Nov 8 2005 12:53
revol68 wrote:

I suppouse when workers go on strike for higher wages you refuse to back them on the basis that they are still within a capitalist framework?

As far as I can tell, that's exactly what they do say.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 8 2005 12:55
the button wrote:
revol68 wrote:

I suppouse when workers go on strike for higher wages you refuse to back them on the basis that they are still within a capitalist framework?

As far as I can tell, that's exactly what they do say.

That sums it all up, really sad

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 8 2005 13:34

This is a totally false argument. Read our press. We clearly support struggles for higher wages, defensive struggles on a class terrain, one which can allow the workers to move from defensive to offensive struggles against capitalism. The Resistance was on a different, opposite, national, nationalist terrain. We can go much further into what we mean by the workers' class terrain; we can explain further why the partisan struggle was not on the workers' class terrain; but at least relate to what we really do say.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Nov 8 2005 13:38
wld_rvn wrote:
at least relate to what we really do say.

.... in much the same way as you lot did in your famous (not to say hilarious) assertion of anarchists' support for Stalinism. roll eyes

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 8 2005 13:39
wld_rvn wrote:
We can go much further into what we mean by the workers' class terrain; we can explain further why the partisan struggle was not on the workers' class terrain

You already have, and it has been said, many times, that you're talking nonsense.

Was it right for Dutch communists to organise strikes against deportations of Jews? If so, then why was it not right for partisans to blow up train tracks that were used to deport jews?

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 8 2005 15:25

I don't think we've heard from 'meanoldman' for a while. He explicitly said that he would support the Stalinists, one of the most murderous regimes engendered by capitalism, against a voice of the working class, the ICC. Someone intervened afterwards to say this was "a joke". This is not a joke by any stretch of the imagination of someone with a totally over the top sense of humour. It is not a joke at all. This "Jokey-wokey, we're all boys together, just having a laugh amongst ourselves" attitude permeates all these posts from what can loosely be called "anarchists". It's more accurate to describe them as supporters of democracy and stalinism (with no sense of humour). Was it a "joke" meanoldman?

You can't take what you see as the good bits of stalinism and ignore the overall reality. That's just wishful thinking and fantasy. The "bleeding hearts" arguments about the nazi massacres would have a little more credibility if you condemned the slaughter of the innocents undertaken by stalinism and democracy. It's not a numbers game (if it was the latter two would come out way in front either one on their own) but, from a working class perspective, all these expressions of a decaying capitalism have to be condemned by serious revolutionaries. That's not something that a jokey boys club can rise to if it stays in that form.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Nov 22 2005 11:54

Nothing from Meanoldman for days. Is he too shy to answer a simple question? In the absence of an answer we can only assume that when he say that he supports Stalinism, that he supports Stalinism.

On a wider level, I can understand the emotion expressed in some previous posts about - let's say - "saving lives". Expressions of humanity, wanting to save lives in warfare, for example, helping people to escape, capture, torture and death is noble whatever the political affiliations of the individual. But it's a long, tenuous jump to say that because some Stalinists helped some people during the war then we will not hear Stalinism denounced (as it should be). Some Nazis, at great risk to themselves and their families, helped people to escape their deadly fate. We know of some eamples and this is not the sort of thing the democrats want to publicise. But saving these individual lives, these individual acts of bravery from wherever, pales into absolute insignificance in the face of the innocents slaughtered. It really is little better than nothing and takes away from pointing the finger at the real culprits and scale of the butchery undertaken. The Second World War has to be one of the most obvious and striking confirmations of the decline and irrationality of the capitalist system. In the face of such an event it is pointless to look for "silver linings" (as important as these were to the individuals involved). Any support for any of the protagonist factions in the morass of barbarism can only support the war aims of one imperialism or another. And support for anti-fascism certainly constitutes support for the democratic and Stalinist camps.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 23 2005 12:49

rednoize,

The Moishe Postone essay was fascinating. He sort of left out the the link in the Nazi mind between marxism and jewry. I'm guessing the workers' movement against industrial capital was seen as an attack on the "concrete".

Postone links the concept of fetishisation, as Marx describes it in Capital Vol. 1, to modern anti-semitism.

Anyway rednoize, is there a link to the article or did you type that whole thing out from a book? Please post a link if you can.

Thanks

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 23 2005 13:43
baboon wrote:
it's a long, tenuous jump to say that because some Stalinists helped some people during the war then we will not hear Stalinism denounced (as it should be).

It is a long jump -- but you're the only one arguing, tenuously, that anyone is making it. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that if one makes fun of the ICC -- a laughable UK-based sect of political anoraks -- then one is suppressing anti-stalinist speech.

You have alledged, several times, that anarchists are in some way supporting stalinism. This is simply not true. Please retract it, as it is highly insulting. For one thing, it flies in tha face of the history of anarchist (armed and unarmed) opposition to stalinist governments. Another piece of revisionism on your part, maybe?

Regarding 'silence' and refusal to answer questions -- why has no one from the ICC answered my question? If it is fine for Dutch communists to orgfanise strikes against deportation, why is it not fine for them to organise blowing up railways used for deporations?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Nov 23 2005 13:51

The ICC are mainly based in France. You're right about them otherwise though!

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 23 2005 14:06

OK, so the lot we've got on libcom right now are 'World Revolution', the UK branch of ICC?

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Nov 23 2005 15:38

Ok so you don't support stalinism. L'agite might, meanoldman might, but you don't. I would say that support isn't necessarily about conscious support per se. If your actions advance the interests of stalinism, while retarding the interests of workers, that is support for stalinism.

About blowing up tracks. A strike that shuts down the railway system will stop a whole bunch of trains. Were workers organised to blow up tracks? NO!

Imagine if striking workers had shut down the war economies in the occupied areas. Imagine if they had formed workers militias. Imagine if they had worked with proletarians in German uniforms. Imagine if all the energy, imagination, and courage wasted on the resistancem were spent in these ways. Imagine how many Jews could have been spared. Imagine soviets in the middle of the war. It would have shut down the war effort and might have struck down the system. That would have been a truly anti-stalinist course.

The resistance was just another front in the war.

I'll let the ICC answer you if they want to, although I don't know why they are intervening on these forums. I think I understand why the IBRP and the Bordiguists stay clear.

Anyway I wanted to know why the Nazis were so obsessed with the jews, instead I got another anti-ICC fest. It's getting old.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Nov 23 2005 15:46
alibadani wrote:
Ok so you don't support stalinism. L'agite might, meanoldman might, but you don't. I would say that support isn't necessarily about conscious support per se. If your actions advance the interests of stalinism, while retarding the interests of workers, that is support for stalinism.

Neither MoM or 'lagite supports stalinism. You've admitted, yourself, that they are not 'conscious' supporters. If you want to avoid these 'old' debates, than I suggest you stop making unfounded smears about other posters' politics.

wld_rvn
Offline
Joined: 22-04-04
Nov 23 2005 15:50

On Lazlo's question:

The Dutch left communists didn't carry out armed actions because that is not the task of a revolutionary political organisation. If armed actions are not the expression of an organised, general movement in the class, they quickly degenerate into substitutionist terrorism. The KAPD made some serious errors on this score in the early 20s. To fall into the trap of armed actions by isolated groups is to invite massive repression on a class that is not organised enough to defend itself.

This leaves aside the question of the 'Resistance' groups. The war aims of the Allies did not include 'diverting' valuable military resources towards saving the Jews. Since the Resistance groups put themselves in the service of the Allied imperialisms, they took on their war aims as well.

As Baboon says in his recent post, that doesn't mean that individual acts of heroism aimed at saving victims of the massacres didn't take place throughout the war, and on both sides. If you read our review of Polanski's film The Pianist in the International Review no. 113 you can see what we have written about this.