First Published: The Call, Vol. 7, No. 37, September 25, 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Many of our readers have asked us for further explanation about the term “appeasement” regarding the policies of certain sections of the U.S. ruling class towards the Soviet Union. They have asked that we give some historical account of this term, some present day examples and some theoretical justification for its use.
Our readers have also requested that we respond to the revisionists who charge that to criticize appeasement is synonymous with “class collaboration” or “supporting one superpower against another.” In response to these questions we will first give some historical background.
* * *
One need only go back some 40 years to the pre-World War II period to see how the U.S. ruling circles, along with other Western-bloc imperialists, practiced the policies of appeasement in the face of Hitler fascism. In a situation that was in many ways similar to today’s, the rise of fascism represented in part a growing rivalry among the different imperialist powers, all of whom were locked in a severe economic crisis and stepping up their attacks on the people and against one another.
Like the Soviet Union today, Hitler’s Germany and fascist Japan were imperialist powers on the rise, challenging the old Western powers for world supremacy.
France, Britain and the U.S., on the other hand, were less afraid of the growing aggressiveness of the fascists than they were of the world revolution. Most importantly, they were single-mindedly bent on destroying the then-socialist Soviet Union.
The most important events of that period were as follows:
•The seeds of World War II were sown with the Japanese invasion of China in 1931.
•Two years later. Hitler overthrew the German Republic.
•In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia, Africa’s first independent country.
•In 1936, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland; Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Agreement; and German and Italian troops invaded Spain, crushing the newly-won democratic republic.
•In 1937, Italy joined with Germany and Japan in their Anti-Comintern Agreement; Japan attacked China, seizing Peking, Tientsin and Shanghai.
•In 1938, Germany seized Austria and the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis was formed.
In every case–from the invasions of China, Ethiopia, and Spain to the formation of imperialist alliances–these moves were made in the name of “saving the world from communism.” But of course, the real purpose was contention with their rival imperialists in the West.
Confronted by this rising menace, the people of the world had two alternatives–to fight aggression or become enslaved. The communists, leading the struggle against aggression, rallied broad support for a worldwide united front against war and fascism.
The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Stalin, warned the Western powers that they should not be taken in by the rhetoric against communists, that the Axis would inevitably turn against the West in order to carry out their dream of a new redivision of the world. But Stalin’s appeal for Collective Security was rejected by the imperialists, who still entertained hopes that Hitler could be placated and turned against the “common enemy,” the USSR.
If the Western powers had agreed to a Collective Security Pact with the Soviet Union, Hitler, Mussolini and the rest could have been smashed before their massive military machine got rolling. The world could have been saved from the destruction and loss of life that followed.
Instead, the imperialist line was that of appeasement. When Ethiopia called for help, the imperialists turned a deaf ear. When Spain was falling to the Franco fascists, the imperialists once again pleaded “isolationism” and phony pacificism, not much different from today’s rhetoric about “detente.” It was the communists who organized the international brigades to fight the fascists in Spain.
In 1938 the Munich pact with the German and Italian fascist chieftains. Hitler and Mussolini, was signed by British Prime Minister Chamberlain and French Premier Daladier. This agreement opened the door to German occupation of Czechoslovakia and approved the annexation of Austria.
France and Britain, with support from the U.S. imperialists, cherished illusions that they could save themselves at the expense of Czechoslovakia and push the fascists eastward towards the homeland of socialism.
Furthermore many of the biggest Western imperialists were making gigantic profits in deals with the Nazis, in effect helping Germany prepare for war. They used the biggest media circles and makers of public opinion such as the Hearst papers and fascist sympathizers like aviator Charles Lindbergh to promote “America First” jingoism and isolationism. Even the Troskyites were brought into play, who attacked the calls for a united front as “class collaborationism” and “Stalinism.”
Who were these appeasers? There was, for example, the Rockefeller family, partners with the I.G. Farben chemical monopoly in Germany, one of Hitler’s staunchest backers. Their business relationship continued long after Hitler’s rise to power. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil renewed its cartel agreement with the Nazis in Holland in 1939.
Henry Ford financed the fascists heavily, even going so far as to sponsor the publication of dozens of books attacking the “communist-Jewish conspiracy.” He also bankrolled the main pro-Hitler organizations in the U.S., operating many of them right out of the Ford Company headquarters in Detroit.
Reflecting the view of the biggest, reactionary imperialists, U.S. Ambassador to Berlin J.W. Gerard declared in praise of Hitler:
“Hitler is doing much for Germany; his unification of the Germans, his destruction of Communism, his training of the young.. .are all good; and after all what the Germans do in their own territory is their own business...” (N.Y. Times, Oct. 15, 1933)
At best, the majority wing of the ruling class certainly felt that, as compared to the fascists, the Soviet Union was their main enemy.
But the laws of imperialism exist – independent of anybody’s will. It was only a matter of time before Hitler turned on Britain and France, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Finally the truth came out. The communists were proven correct. The “great powers” were plunged into a new world war.
The rest is history. When Hitler finally invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the whole course of events changed.
With the socialist Soviet Union in the forefront and the international working class playing the leading role, a united front movement was forged that defeated fascism. This was a great victory for the people and for the strategy of people’s war that led to great advances for socialism and democracy in many countries.
Today the same laws are in operation. The two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, are contending for world domination. The Soviet Union, like the Hitlerites, is the power on the rise, while the U.S. is trying to hang on to its fading empire. These two greatest enemies of the world’s people are bound to go to war some day.
Now once again circles in the West are trying to pacify the aggression of the Soviet fascists, who have taken over that once-socialist country and turned it into an imperialist superpower.
There are still those among the U.S. imperialists who cherish hopes that Brezhnev can be turned against socialist China. Others believe foolishly that if the USSR is allowed to occupy Eastern Europe with no contention from the West, the new czars will be satisfied and give up their designs on the rest of Europe. There is also the view that through the SALT talks or other summit meetings, the two superpowers can come to an “understanding” of their “common” interests.
Still other imperialists hope to benefit directly from expanded trade with the Soviet Union in the same way that Rockefeller, General Motors and others benefitted from trade with Hitler 40 years ago.
The U.S. ruling circles are once again employing their best spokesmen, including today’s Trotskyites and phony “communists,” to pacify the people and pretend that the war danger doesn’t really exist.
From this bit of looking back, we can see that there is a history to this cover-up and the appeasement that goes along with it. Imperialists appease aggression because they themselves are aggressors. They appease the fascists because they admire fascism and instinctively gravitate towards it as a “solution” to the problems of the economic crisis and the labor movement.
Finally we can see that the real communists have played a central role historically in rallying the people of the world against aggression, fascism and world war just as they are doing today. Appeasing aggression doesn’t bring peace; it hastens the outbreak of war. It is resistance which slows down the pace of the imperialist war machine and delays the outbreak of world war.
Appeasement is a form of rivalry among the big powers, a way of using the peoples and countries of the world as pawns in their battle for hegemony.
* * *
Next week, The Call will take up the question of modern-day appeasement and show examples of it in today’s situation.