(Last updated December 4, 1997) Welcome to the home page of
Research on Interesting Historical Questions

These pages have been set up to help organize information related to historical questions which are of interest to the communist movement. So far there are 4 questions here: two that relate to the development of German fascism and two that relate to the policies of Mao Tsetung.

There is probably an enormous amount of material (books, articles, etc.) on these subjects. The purpose of these pages is provide links to such material as may be important or useful in shedding light on these questions. Pages can also be easily set up for people to make comments or summarize research that they have done. Research and opinions representing a wide range of views may be able to help working class activists develop clear and decisive answers to questions such as these--which are important in terms of understanding the nature of our century--and preparing ourselves for the next one.

Science advances by examining, and accounting for, all relevant facts. Historical research makes use of people with different points of view to find, and call attention to, these facts--so that everyone can be aware of them. Readers who have interesting material on any of these topics can send email to me at: "ben@communism.org" with subject: "historical-research".

1) What were the forces that led to Hitler's rise to power ? The rise to power of Hitler has been blamed on many factors: the mistakes of the German Communist Party, the leadership of Stalin in the international communist movement, the backwardness or gullability of German workers, the strength of the German bourgeoisie and/or international imperialism in general. My own view is that Hitler was installed to power by the German bourgeoisie which felt acutely threatened by working class militancy. But there are lots of factors involved here and the various forces and their interrelationships are deserving of extensive exploration and discussion. As readers inform me of interesting material--I will link to it.

2) How much did Western imperialism support Hitler ? One historical question on which there are differences is the nature and extent of western imperialist support for German fascism in the period leading up to the second world war (ie: 1933-1939). This is a major question that carries great weight in terms of how we view this century. It is my conviction that the phenomenon of european fascism cannot be understood except as the response of world imperialism to the threat of Bolshevism. Without the spectre of the revolt of their own working class--the German bourgeoisie would never have felt compelled to play the Hitler card. Without the threat to world capital embodied in the Soviet Union--the western powers would probably have squashed Hitler like a bug--while he was still weak--as soon as he threatened disobedience. The support and encouragement given Hitler by the western powers took numerous forms. Probably the main forms of support and encouragement were the winks and nods given on many occasions--the occupation of the Ruhr, the alliance with Franco against the Spanish Republic, the occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia and so forth (which is taught, in most western history books, as the starry-eyed policy of "appeasement"--but which, in reality, was a series of cold-blooded advance payments for services to be rendered in Operation Barbarosa). The nature of what was being planned was evident even before Hitler was elevated to power. Note this speech--made 10 years and four months before June 22, 1941: "In ten years at most we must make good the distance we are lagging behind the advanced capitalist countries." "We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it or they crush us." -- Stalin, February 1931 Less clear to me are the other forms of support given Hitler by the western imperialists: support such as financing and armaments. I looked into this question more than ten years ago but my work was cut short by other events and did not get very far. Questions such as this are often quite complex. Many historians see the second World War as a continuation of the first one--as a "30 year war" for world supremacy, through which England passed it's testimony to the USA, jointly defeating the challenge of the continental european powers. In this view the main driving force of the arms build-up of the 30's was still the settling of the unfinished business of 1914-18. I believe, however, that such a view is, at most, only a very partial explanation for the rise of european fascism. I encourage any readers who may have significant information on anything related to this subject to write to me with historical info, book or article reviews, or links to web pages that may shed light on one or two pieces of this picture. I will link to anything that may be helpful or of interest.

3) How disasterous was "The Great Leap Forward" ? To this could also be added: How much was Mao responsible for what happened ? The "Great Leap Forward" began in 1958. Most of what I have seen indicates that it turned out to be something of a disaster for China. Just how much of a disaster is in dispute. "US News and World Report" printed an article 3 years ago claiming that 80 million people starved to death. This seems to me to be an extreme exageration by a source with little interest in the truth. I personally spoke to a Chinese national who estimated that the number of people who died in the resulting famine was probably closer to a million. An understanding of the magnitude of this disaster and the related question of who or what was responsible for it--is an important part of summing up the legacy of Mao. Supporters of Mao, who may have different views on "The Great Leap Forward" in terms of what happened--and its significance--are welcome to give their views also and may be able to provide facts that help us to develop a more complete picture.

4) What assessment can be made of the Cultural Revolution ? The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. It greatly influenced an entire generation of revolutionaries in China and the world. Enver Hoxha called the Cultural Revolution "a palace putch on an all-China scale". Mao said that the issue at stake was whether or not China could avoid a restoration of capitalist relations. I personally believe that there is some truth in both views. I think that Mao wanted to avoid the restoration of capitalist relations in China. I also think that Mao was confused about how this would be accomplished. Cynicism aside, the actions of millions of workers (with their practical experience) and young people (with their enthusiasm) are an essential ingredient for any mass social movement that would prevent the restoration of capitalist relations in a future socialist society. Mao is one of my heroes. But I believe it is clear that he was not a consistent Marxist. And the Cultural Revolution which he launched has (together with the movement against U.S. imperialist aggression in Vietnam) represented an immense influence on my life--and led to my becoming politically conscious and active. But all the same I must confess that the Cultural Revolution, bound up as it is so profoundly with so many other major events in this century, is not something that I understand very well. The Cultural Revolution contains a very large number of both positive and negative phenomena. It represents the intersection of a number of interesting questions--including the nature of capitalist relations and whether (or to what degree) China had ever escaped them. But all these questions must eventually be answered. And as working class activists grapple with this question--this page will attempt to link to their sites.

If these pages turn out to be a useful place to organize research--then other questions can eventually be added to these four.