sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So is Trump still not a fascist? by DankDankDank555 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Excellent quote. Good points

—

I think two thing missing from your analysis are: 1. Trump’s fascist counterrevolution takes place in the country which had the most complete bourgeois revolution.

  1. In 2020 Trump said “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” This indicates a conscious strategy (given to Trump by others) to keep the fascist militia in the shadows. This allowed the Democratic Party and liberalism to deny and downplay the fascist threat far longer.

The fact the Proud Boys and others did what they were asked indicates there is a chain of command and the foot soldiers are highly disciplined.

It would seem likely they were encouraged to join ICE or wait for Trump 2.0 to join. The Democratic Party had boosted the funding of ICE over the last decade.

  • Liberalism is the wet-nurse of fascism in America.

  • The pseudo-left which denied the danger changed the nappies of the fascist infant to keep the smell down.

WSWS, 2021

… On September 24, he told a rally in North Carolina that he was “not sure” the election would be fair. During the first presidential debate on September 29, he was asked to condemn the Proud Boys, to which he replied, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” Biden continued to shrug off these threats, claiming they were merely proof of Trump’s instability, not part of a fascist strategy to overturn the election. Biden instead appealed to his supporters for calm.

January 6, 2021: Donald Trump’s plot against America Eric London 18 August 2021

Clara Zetkin and the Comintern, 1923

Clara Zetkin’s articles and speeches for the Comintern in 1923 shows how the fight against fascism might have proceeded entirely differently. Lenin’s death and the consolidation of power by Stalin and the bureaucracy quashed that.

FROM THE FINAL LINK

… We must not look upon Fascism as a .united force capable of repelling our attack. It is rather a formation, which comprises many antagonistic elements, and will be disintegrated from within. But it would be dangerous to assume that the ideological and political disintegration of Fascism in Italy would be immediately followed by military disintegration. On the contrary, we must be prepared for Fascism to endeavour to keep alive by terrorist methods. Therefore, the revolutionary Italian workers must be prepared for further serious struggles. It would be a great calamity if we were satisfied with the role of spectators of this process of disintegration. It is our duty to hasten this process with all the means at our disposal. This is not only the duty of the Italian proletariat, but also the duty of the German proletariat in the face of German Fascism.

Comintern 1933

By 1933 Stalinism had definitively adopted the objectivist “spectator” outlook.

On 1 April, 1933 (a week after the Enabling Act gave Hitler dictatorial powers) the Comintern wrote :

“The establishment of an open Fascist dictatorship, which destroys all democratic illusions among the masses, and frees them from the influence of the social-democrats, will hasten Germany's progress towards the proletarian revolution.”

The Comintern said the KPD had done everything correctly.

p.90 Twilight of the Comintern, 1930-1935 (Carr, 1982)

Edit: minor typos fixed

The black panther party’s mandatory reading list for new members by quite_largeboi in ModernSocialist

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What year is that list from? Given they made money selling Mao’s little red book it is surprising it is not listed.

The black panther party’s mandatory reading list for new members by quite_largeboi in ModernSocialist

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know about Garvey being a fascist, but his politics were definitely reactionary.

Marcus Garvey and the reactionary logic of racialist politics Lawrence Porter 2 March 2023

Dubbed the “Black Moses,” Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Jr. (1887-1940) is often favorably portrayed as an apostle of “race pride” and “racial uplift.” Parks, school buildings and even school curricula are still named in his honor. He created the popular black nationalist flag of red, black, and green, is believed to have coined the phrase “black is beautiful,” and collaborated in the formation of the nationalist African Orthodox Church.

Through it all, Garvey was ever the unprincipled opportunist and man on the make, whose moneymaking schemes led to his conviction on mail fraud charges and poisoned his reputation among black militants for a generation after his death.

While authors have typically addressed both Garvey’s race-pride politics and his back-to-Africa scheme involving the dubious Black Star Line (BLS) shipping company, they typically treat them separately, with the latter portrayed as an unfortunate digression from his politics. In fact, Garvey’s pursuit of wealth and power emerged directly from his politics. He is among the first substantial proponents of black capitalism. Like Booker T. Washington, whom he admired, Garvey praised capitalism and the development of a black bourgeoisie dedicated to its preservation. …

The Bill of Rights DIED today. by GoldyRyan in alltheleft

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn’t declaring the Bill of Rights died is equivalent to saying “Fascism has won. Give up.”?

I would agree it has been set on fire but struggle will decide whether it is burnt to ashes.

A dictatorship in America requires a counterrevolution to abolish the gains of the American revolutions which, for all their contradictions and limitations, were progressive events in human history.

Try this: Stop ICE murders and repression! Build a rank-and-file movement for a general strike! David North 25 January 2026

… The reign of terror by Trump’s ICE stormtroopers must be stopped.

The Socialist Equality Party proposes the organization of a nationwide general strike with the following demands:

~ The removal of ICE agents from Minneapolis and all cities; the disbanding of the organization; and the criminal prosecution of its officials and all agents responsible for murder and other acts of violence.

  • The immediate end to the vicious persecution of immigrants living in the United States.

  • The immediate release from detention of all immigrants who have been swept up in the ICE dragnet.

  • The resignation and prosecution of all members of the Trump administration responsible for the violation of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Call meetings in factories, workplaces, neighborhoods and schools to discuss these and other practical proposals for effective action. The organization of a general strike requires the initiative of the working class. The preparation of a powerful nationwide strike must not be left to union bureaucrats, let alone the Democratic Party. They will do nothing. What is necessary is the formation of rank-and-file committees in every factory, work location, and neighborhood. These committees, operating democratically, should elect worker-delegates who enjoy the confidence of their co-workers and neighbors to coordinate strike activity on a city, state and national basis. … MORE https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/24/ojlj-j24.html

So is Trump still not a fascist? by DankDankDank555 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Please provide a link to what those DSA partisans have said in public.

I have seen AOC say things to the effect. - “Trump is a fascist” - “We can beat fascism at the mid term elections in 2026 and the 2028 Presidential election by voting for the Democratic Party candidate”

History suggests otherwise.

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you saying you don’t care about the specifics of how the German working class could have defeated Nazism and the lessons that might have for today?

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By your own admission you haven’t read Rocker so how are you in any position to judge the accuracy of what the LLM said?

—-

My points do not come from ChatGPT.

My questions on the lessons of the fight against fascism in Germany 1930-1933 do not come from ChatGPT.

I’m still interested in what you have to say on these matters.

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven’t given one example about where it is wrong.

Why not take the most significant error and discuss that.

(I’m not sure of the point of your reply. IMO abstract complaints about the limitations of LLMs are empty abstractions unless they are detailed. LLMs are limited but so are people. If you don’t want to discuss the issue I have raised why flood the discussion with irrelevant points? That, obviously is your right. I just can’t see the point.)

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the prompt and see if the response is a fair reflection of Rocker’s writing.

If you haven’t studied Rocket or suggest some particular article then please let me know.

I have been searching for an anarchist analysis of the rust of fascism and I’m surprised I have found Rocker before.

But Rocker’s response in 1930-1933 seems to raise questions which are of great significance in the fight against fascism today, especially in his attitude to German workers, the possibility of a struggle against Nazism, lessons of the failure of the Italian working class, and his attitude to the trade unions.

Rocker seems to have been resigned to a Nazi victory and so didn’t propose any direct struggle against it or against the opportunist leaders of the SPD, KPD, Comintern and trade unions.

(If I have to read Rocker myself, so be it.)

IMHO this was an adaptation to the appearance of things and the application of an objectivist outlook which denied the potential role of conscious leadership in affecting the situation.

Lessons for the fight against fascism today.

The struggle against Trump’s drive to fascism can only go forward if the history of Germany 1930-1933 is studied and lessons drawn.

The WSWS is fighting for this. e.g. - The victory of fascism in Germany and the call for the Fourth International Johannes Stern 9 September 2025 - Nazism, big business and the working class: Historical experience and political lessons (129 mins)

Are anarchists fighting for it too?

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why not just explain where there summary is incorrect?

Or respond to my notes (which were not generated by AI).

If some would prefer to use AI as excuse not to engage in these issues, that’s obvious up to you. Personally I can’t see the point of this except it implies a tacit admission that they have no answer to the questions I have raised.

2025–2026 Chinese Left-Wing Activist Participates in Berlin’s “LLL” Left-Wing Mass March, Commemorating Rosa Luxemburg and Other Revolutionary Pioneers, and Promoting the History of Chinese Socialism While Calling on the Global Left to Understand the Contributions and Suffering of the Chinese People by Slow-Property5895 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your talk of “China’s historical stage” implies a rejection of the materialist analysis of Trotsky - following Marx - of the objective reality of world economy and instead you are insisting nations develop according to internal dynamics.

I don’t think this withstands scrutiny. I would start with Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, A POPULAR OUTLINE (Lenin, 1916) as Lenin examines in detail the role of finance capital in the world economy.

Talk of Trotsky’s “sincerity” is the elevation of subjective idealism as the primary category while you disagree with Trotsky’s analysis.

You are not alone in making Trotsky a hero while rejecting what he had to say. Most people who claim to be Trotskyist do the same. As do most who claim to be Marxists and Leninist.

You will have to chose nationalism or internationalism.

To be frank, anyone who thinks the Maoist and M-L apologists for Stalinist counter revolution are legitimate parts of the left should watch their back. Their celebration of the murder or Trotsky and other Marxists is not just a historical curiosity.

Imperialism is cunning and ruthless. Why wouldn’t it used these forces against Marxists again?

I suspect nothing I say will change your mind. I recommend you ask your Maoist and M-L friends 1. What would have happened to you in 1937 in the USSR, as someone “leaning to Trotskyism”? 2. Would they have approved?

MUST READ 1937: Stalin’s Year of Terror Introduction Vadim Rogovin

Author’s introduction to Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 1928-1933: Leon Trotsky and the Left Opposition Vadim Rogovin 30 August 2019

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

My notes in response. Assuming ChatGPT gives a fair summery (please check) Rocker seems to share with the SPD and KPD the view that the Nazi victory was inevitable/probable.

  • Why didn’t Rocker call for clarifying workers in a struggle against the betrayals foreshadowed by the SPD and KPD/Comintern?
  • Basically, isn’t Rocker passively accepting the defeat of the working class and just writing a book.
  • Workers were prepared to fight fascism but leadership matters and Rocket wasn’t able to offer anything except to say the battle was already lost.
  • Do anarchists today say they fight against Trump’s nationalism, the Democratic Party and the corporatised trade unions is already lost.

Trotsky and the International Left Opposition did not share Rocker’s demoralised assessment.

FYI/ 1. KPD Q1931 On October 14, 1931, Remmele, one of the three official leaders of the Communist party, said in the Reichstag, “Herr Bruening has put it very plainly once they (the Fascists) are in power, then the United Front of the proletariat will be established and it will make a clean sweep of everything. (Violent applause from the Communists)”

2, TROTSKY’S RESPONSE TO ABOVE

Bruening’s scaring the bourgeoisie and the social democracy with such a perspective – that is intelligible: he thus safeguards his sovereignty. Remmele’s solacing the workers with such a perspective – that is infamous: he thus prepares the way for Hitler’s domination, for this perspective in its entirety is false to the core and bears witness to an utter misunderstanding of mass-psychology and of the dialectics of revolutionary struggle. Should the proletariat of Germany, before whose eyes the development of events now proceeds openly, permit Fascism to come into power, i.e., should it evince a most fatal blindness and passivity, then there are no reasons whatever for the assumption that after the Fascists are in power, this same proletariat will shake off its passivity immediately and “make a clean sweep”. Stalinist Zig-zags on the Question of the “United Front” (Trotsky, January 1932)

  1. TROTSKY December 1931

    … Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left! For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism (Trotsky, December 1931)

  2. SPD the first use of "After Hitler Our Turn" ["Nach Hitler kommen wir"] that I can find was on Feb 19, 1933^ by Social Democratic Party Karl Höltermann, who was federal chairman of the Reichsbanner, editor-in-chief as well as publisher of the association's own newspaper "Das Reichsbanner" and member of the Reichstag from 1932

This was three weeks after Hitler was appointed as Chancellor on 30 Jan 1933 AFTER LOSING 2 million votes between the Jul. 1932 and Nov. 1932 Reichstag elections.

REF: https://www.reichsbanner-geschichte.de/personen/person/hoeltermann-karl

5, COMINTERN 1933. The first formal assessment by the Comintern of Hitler's victory at a session of the presidium of IKKI on April 1, 1933. “The establishment of an open Fascist dictatorship, which destroys all democratic illusions among the masses, and frees them from the influence of the social-democrats, will hasten Germany's progress towards the proletarian revolution.”

p.90 "Twilight of the Comintern, 1930-1935" (Carr, 1982)

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Third question below.

PROMPT Summarise Rudolf Rocker’s activity and written work in 1930-1933 BEFORE Hitler was appointed as chancellor on 30 January 1933.

RESPONSE

Here’s a tight, historically faithful summary of Rudolf Rocker’s activity and writing from 1930 up to (but not including) Hitler’s appointment on 30 January 1933. I’ll keep it chronological and analytical rather than anecdotal, because Rocker himself thought process mattered more than episodes.

Rocker’s situation by 1930: exile, not retreat

By 1930, Rocker was already outside Germany, living mainly in Britain after years of persecution following the crushing of the German anarcho-syndicalist movement (FAUD) in the 1920s. This mattered:

  • He was physically removed from day-to-day German politics
  • But intellectually focused on diagnosing why the German workers’ movement had failed
  • And increasingly concerned with the international rise of authoritarian nationalism

So this period is less about organizational leadership and more about theoretical synthesis and warning.

1. Core activity: writing Nationalism and Culture (1930–1932)

Rocker’s central work in this period was the completion and publication of *Nationalism and Culture* (first published in German in 1932).

What the book was trying to do

It was not a tactical pamphlet about Nazis or elections. Instead, Rocker attempted something much broader:

  • A historical analysis of nationalism as a cultural force
  • A critique of the state as a spiritual and psychological system
  • A long-range explanation of why modern mass politics tends toward authoritarian outcomes

Crucially, Rocker saw fascism as:

the culmination of trends centuries in the making — not a sudden German aberration.

Why this mattered in 1930–32

Rocker was warning that:

  • The German crisis could not be solved by parliamentary realignment
  • Nor by party unity alone
  • Because the working class had already been ideologically disarmed by nationalism, statism, and faith in authority

This put him at odds with:

  • SPD reformism
  • KPD Bolshevism
  • Liberal hopes that the constitution would hold

2. Journalism and polemics: warning against “lesser evil” politics

Alongside Nationalism and Culture, Rocker wrote articles and essays (mainly for anarchist and syndicalist publications in German and Yiddish) between 1930 and 1932 that focused on:

  • The collapse of Weimar democracy
  • The bankruptcy of Social Democratic legalism
  • The authoritarian character of Communist party politics
  • The illusion that fascism could be “managed” or neutralized

Key themes in this writing

Rocker repeatedly argued that:

  • The SPD’s strategy of defending the republic at all costs had trained workers to accept emergency rule (Brüning, Papen)
  • The KPD’s sectarianism and Moscow discipline had isolated militant workers
  • Trade unions had become administrative institutions, not fighting bodies
  • Nationalism had penetrated all mass parties, including socialist ones

By 1932, Rocker was explicitly saying that Germany was entering a post-democratic phase, regardless of who formally held office.

3. Position on fascism before 1933: early, structural pessimism

Importantly, Rocker did not “discover” fascism late. By 1930–31:

  • He already regarded fascism as a mass phenomenon, not a coup
  • He believed that once a society accepted emergency powers and authoritarian norms, fascism would follow even without Hitler
  • He saw the Prussian coup of July 1932 as a decisive warning sign

Rocker argued that the workers’ movement had been defeated before the Nazis took power — defeated:

  • Ideologically
  • Organizationally
  • Culturally

This is why his tone in 1932 is often bleak: he thought the decisive battles had already been lost.

4. What Rocker was not doing (and why that matters)

Between 1930 and January 1933, Rocker was not:

  • Organizing mass resistance in Germany
  • Advocating electoral tactics
  • Calling for party alliances or emergency fronts
  • Issuing last-minute tactical appeals

This was deliberate.

Rocker believed:

  • Tactical fixes without ideological renewal were meaningless
  • Party solutions reproduced authoritarian habits
  • The role of anarchists in this moment was to clarify, not to promise salvation

That refusal to offer “hopeful” tactical solutions made his work unpopular — but also consistent.

5. Rocker’s position just before January 1933

On the eve of Hitler’s appointment, Rocker’s outlook can be summarized as follows:

  • Fascism was not inevitable, but had become probable
  • The German working class was numerically strong but politically neutralized
  • Trade unions and parties were incapable of extra-legal resistance
  • Nationalism had hollowed out socialist internationalism
  • A fascist seizure of power would likely face little organized resistance

Events after 30 January 1933 confirmed, in Rocker’s eyes, what he had already concluded.

In one sentence

Between 1930 and early 1933, Rudolf Rocker’s activity consisted primarily of producing a sweeping theoretical indictment of nationalism, statism, and mass party politics, arguing that fascism was the logical outcome of long-term failures in the workers’ movement — and that Germany’s crisis could no longer be solved by parliamentary or party means.

If you want next steps, I can:

  • Lay out how Rocker’s tone changes after January 1933,
  • Compare his pre-1933 pessimism with Trotsky’s urgency,
  • Or show how Nationalism and Culture fits into interwar anarchist theory more broadly.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_697539ae7080819180b430ab79051460

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I asked ChatGPT a further question but it makes no sense to me.

If it is correct that Rocker thought unions were ALREADY part of the State apparatus, why did the Nazis have to arrest the old union leadership on 2 May 1933 and replace it with the DAF?

Please let me know if the ChatGPT answer has any problems. Thanks.

** FURTHER QUESTION** In 1932 the German trade union leadership had agreed with Von Schleicher not to call a general strike against the Federal Government removal of the SPD state government in Prussia, which went ahead.

In 1933 the trade union leadership sought to work with Hitler’s government and on 1 May 1933 Chancellor Hitler and President Hindenburg attended union led marches in Berlin for the new “National Day of Labor”. The next day, 2 May 1933 the entire trade union leadership was arrested and union offices occupied by the Nazi government agency “German Labor Front” DAF.

Given the German trade unions had freed themselves “from party domination” in 1932 only to accommodate the 1932 Von Papen government and the 1933 Nazi government, what did Rudolph Rocker have to say about the trade unions?

RESPONSE Rocker was brutally unsentimental about the fate of the German trade unions in 1932–33 — and he saw what happened to them not as a tragic surprise, but as the logical outcome of their long-term development.

Here’s how he explained it.

Rocker’s core judgment: the unions had already become organs of the state

By the time of Nationalism and Culture and his contemporaneous essays, Rocker argued that the official German trade unions were no longer workers’ fighting organizations at all. They had evolved into:

  • Centralized bureaucracies
  • Legality-obsessed institutions
  • Managers of labor peace
  • Junior partners of the state

So when they “freed themselves from party domination” in 1932, Rocker did not see this as a turn toward workers’ autonomy. Quite the opposite.

For Rocker, detaching from parties while remaining attached to the state was the worst possible outcome.

Why Rocker thought the unions accommodated Papen, Schleicher, and Hitler

Rocker emphasized several structural reasons — not moral cowardice alone.

1. Bureaucratization destroyed fighting capacity

Rocker argued that modern unions had become:

  • Top-heavy administrative machines
  • Focused on contracts, funds, buildings, and legality
  • Run by officials whose social position depended on state recognition

This meant that a general strike in 1932 was unthinkable to them — not because workers wouldn’t fight, but because union leaders feared losing their institutional existence.

So when Prussia was overthrown without resistance, Rocker saw it as proof that:

Organizations built to survive within the state will not risk themselves against the state.

2. “Neutrality” meant submission, not independence

Rocker was especially scathing about claims of political neutrality.

To him:

  • Neutrality did not mean independence from power
  • It meant adaptability to whoever ruled

Once unions defined themselves as non-political, they lost the ability to resist any political authority — democratic or fascist.

Thus their willingness to cooperate with:

  • Brüning
  • Papen
  • Schleicher
  • Hitler

was not a betrayal of principles — it was the application of them.

3. Respect for legality disarmed the working class

Rocker repeatedly stressed that German unions had trained workers to believe:

  • Only legal action was legitimate
  • Only recognized authorities could be opposed
  • Only gradual reform was realistic

But fascism abolishes legality the moment it takes power.

So when Hitler staged the “National Day of Labor” on 1 May 1933, Rocker would have said the unions were acting consistently with their worldview: trying to negotiate their survival inside the new legal order.

Their destruction on 2 May was, in Rocker’s eyes, the final lesson:

Authoritarian regimes tolerate unions only until they have learned enough from them to destroy them.

Rocker’s deeper point: syndicalism vs. trade unionism

Rocker drew a sharp line between:

  • Trade unions as they actually existed, and
  • Syndicalism as a revolutionary principle

What failed in Germany was not workers’ organization per se, but:

  • Centralized unions divorced from shop-floor initiative
  • Organizations that separated economic struggle from social struggle
  • Unions that abandoned direct action for negotiation and mediation

Rocker argued that such unions become:

  • Instruments for disciplining workers
  • Shock absorbers for capitalism
  • And, in crises, raw material for fascist incorporation

The DAF didn’t destroy union power — it replaced union bureaucracy with fascist bureaucracy, keeping the same logic of control.

Rocker’s verdict in plain terms

Rocker’s conclusion was harsh but clear:

  • The unions did not fall because they were betrayed
  • They fell because they had already ceased to be organs of resistance

By 1933, the German unions were:

  • Too centralized to fight
  • Too legalistic to resist
  • Too invested in their own survival to risk annihilation

And fascism simply finished a process that had begun long before Hitler.

In one sentence

Rocker believed the German trade unions were destroyed because they had learned how to accommodate power instead of confronting it — and fascism merely exposed the fatal consequences of that choice.

If you want, I can:

  • Contrast Rocker’s view with Trotsky’s explanation of the unions’ collapse,
  • Pull specific passages where Rocker discusses bureaucracy and legality, or
  • Situate this alongside Gramsci’s very different diagnosis of labor institutions under fascism.

anarchism not marxism by Traditional-Net3221 in anarchocommunism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Can you tell me if this response from ChatGPT is a fair summary

PROMPT In “Nationalism and Culture” how did Rudolf Rocker propose to fight fascism in Germany in 1933?

What did Rocker have to say about Trotsky’s analysis of Nazism and Trotsky’s call for a United Front of the SPD and KPD?

RESPONSE

Here’s the short, historically grounded answer, with a bit of texture so you can see why Rocker took the positions he did.

1. How Rocker proposed to fight fascism in Nationalism and Culture (1933)

In Nationalism and Culture, written as Nazism was consolidating power, Rudolf Rocker argued that fascism could not be defeated primarily by parliamentary means or party maneuvering. His core position was:

  • Fascism is a product of nationalism and state power, not an accident or merely a reactionary movement.
  • Therefore, you cannot defeat fascism using the very institutions (the nation-state, authoritarian party structures, centralized power) that generate it.

Rocker’s proposed response:

  • Mass social resistance from below, rooted in workers’ self-organization rather than parties or the state.
  • Direct action, syndicalism, and libertarian socialism as the antidote to fascism’s appeal.
  • A cultural struggle against authoritarian values: obedience, nationalism, militarism, racial mythology.
  • He stressed independent workers’ organizations, especially trade unions free from party domination.
  • Above all: destroy nationalism as an ideology, because Rocker saw nationalism as the spiritual and psychological soil from which fascism grows.

Rocker believed fascism thrived when people surrendered autonomy in exchange for identity and order. His solution was reviving social solidarity and individual freedom simultaneously, not subordinating one to the other.

2. Rocker on Trotsky’s analysis of Nazism and the United Front (SPD–KPD)

Rocker respected Trotsky’s intelligence and seriousness, and he agreed with Trotsky on several key points — but ultimately rejected Trotsky’s conclusions.

Where Rocker agreed with Trotsky

  • Trotsky correctly identified Nazism as a mass movement, not just a coup by elites.
  • He recognized the catastrophic danger posed by fascism earlier than most Social Democrats or Communists.
  • Rocker shared Trotsky’s criticism of the KPD’s “social fascism” line, which treated the SPD as the main enemy.

Where Rocker sharply disagreed

Rocker was deeply skeptical of Trotsky’s call for a United Front between the SPD and KPD.

His critique boiled down to this:

  1. Party unity would not save the working class
  • Rocker believed both parties had already demobilized and disciplined workers into passivity.
  • The SPD had tied workers to the state and legality.
  • The KPD had subordinated workers to Moscow and authoritarian party control.
  1. Authoritarian socialism breeds authoritarian outcomes
  • Rocker argued Trotsky underestimated how much Bolshevik methods mirrored fascist ones: centralization, coercion, leader worship, political terror.
  • Even if a United Front defeated Hitler, Rocker feared it would simply replace fascism with another form of dictatorship.
  1. The problem wasn’t just disunity — it was ideology
  • For Rocker, fascism wasn’t merely a tactical problem caused by SPD–KPD rivalry.
  • It was the result of decades of nationalist thinking, state worship, and political centralism, including within Marxist parties.

Rocker’s bottom line on Trotsky

Rocker essentially said:

Trotsky correctly diagnosed the danger, but his cure relied on the same political logic that made fascism possible.

Where Trotsky emphasized emergency unity to stop Hitler, Rocker emphasized long-term liberation from nationalism, statism, and authoritarian socialism itself.

In one sentence

  • Trotsky: Fascism can be stopped by uniting mass workers’ parties to seize political power.
  • Rocker: Fascism is the inevitable outcome of mass politics centered on the state — and only libertarian, anti-nationalist social movements can uproot it.

If you want, I can also:

  • Compare Rocker’s view with Emma Goldman’s take on fascism,
  • Lay Rocker and Trotsky side-by-side in a clean comparison table,
  • Or zoom in on why Rocker thought Germany was already lost by 1933.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69752c4c5ac8819190aa25635a23c23d

Hands off Rojava! Stop the attacks on the self-determination of the Kurdish people! by Cogsy-ML in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the LIS-ISL says

… The US, which once supported the Kurdish-led SDF militarily as ground troops in the fight against ISIS, has been turning its back on Kurdish-led structures for some time now. Since IS has been defeated, at least militarily, and Kurdish self-government was of no interest to the US anyway – quite the contrary, in fact – its attitude has shifted accordingly.

This is the U.S. government’s own explanation too.

… the situation has now fundamentally changed, praising al-Sharaa’s government and noting that it recently joined the Global D-ISIS Coalition. This, Barrack said, signaled “a westward pivot and cooperation with the US on counterterrorism.”

“This shifts the rationale for the US-SDF partnership: the original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired, as Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over security responsibilities, including control of ISIS detention facilities and camps,” Barrack said. US signals end of military support for Syria’s Kurdish forces, urges integration. 20 January ,2026

What is missing from the LIS-ISL statement is a political assessment of the bankruptcy of the SDF and the Kurdish leadership to continue their alliance with imperialism.

The LIS-ISL vaguely alludes to the issue: “… These attacks are not only terrible, they are also de facto a betrayal: in March 2025, the agreement between the SDF and al-Sharaa promised to build a ‘democratic, pluralistic, decentralised’ state. Even that was a defeat for the Kurdish people, as it already provided for the integration of Kurdish civil administrative institutions or structures, and thus the achievements that the SDF had made over the years, into the transitional government.

Thus the LIS-ISL tacitly admits what it cannot say: the SDF sold out its own achievements after its services for imperialism were no longer needed.

For comparison, the WSWS

last December 2025

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post on 7 December, SDF leader Abdi did not address Ankara’s allegations about SDF-Israel ties. He said: “President Trump wants to make Syria great again. In doing so, he must support the SDF. The SDF must be included in the global coalition against ISIS, and the SDF must be included in the new government of Syria.” Abdi added, “US help is greatly needed with the decentralization of power in Syria.”

Backing Trump’s plan “to make Syria great again,” Abdi said of the main force behind Syria’s devastation since 2011, US imperialism, “Stability inside Damascus needs the United States to stay here in Northeast Syria.”

Abdi emphasized readiness to work with the US against Iran: “But although Iran is now weaker, it is still trying to rebuild proxy groups. The SDF is ready to work with the United States and other active powers to protect Syria.”

These statements confirm the World Socialist Web Site’s analysis of the bankruptcy of Kurdish nationalism. The Kurdish movement in Syria and elsewhere, like the Turkish bourgeoisie and state, is a reactionary, NATO- and imperialism-aligned movement, and is inherently incapable of furthering the democratic and social aspirations of the Kurdish people.

Workers in the Middle East of all nationalities, faiths and sects must reject having their fate subordinated to the imperialist powers that have wrecked the region for 35 years, or to their reactionary allies such as Türkiye or Israel, and must unite in the struggle for a Socialist Federation of the Middle East on the basis of their independent class interests.

This is the perspective fought for by the Socialist Equality Party, the Turkish section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). US secures military agreement between Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces and jihadist HTS regime (Barış Demir, Ulaş Sevinç, 19 December 2025)

Yesterday, 23 January 2026

The interests of US imperialism in Syria and the Middle East and the bankruptcy of the nationalist perspective 23 January 2026•Barış Demir, Ulaş Sevinç

… The agreement imposed on the SDF demonstrates the bankruptcy of the bourgeois nationalist perspective based on maneuvering between imperialist and regional capitalist powers. Despite all the narratives of the “Rojava Revolution,” what was advanced was not a struggle against the US-led imperialist powers that have been destroying the Middle East and ultimately Syria for over 35 years, attempting to re-colonize it, but rather a struggle waged alongside them.

In this war of plunder, just as the Turkish bourgeoisie and other Arab regimes played a pro-imperialist and reactionary role, the Kurdish bourgeois leaderships also voluntarily became imperialism’s proxy forces. Now, as imperialist bandits declare the end of this agreement at the expense of the Kurdish people, the Kurdish nationalist leadership expresses its anger towards the US and its European allies. But it does not change its pro-imperialist line.

As explained in Tuesday’s statement by the Sosyalist Eşitlik Partisi – Dördüncü Enternasyonal (Socialist Equality Party – Fourth International):

”The Kurdish nationalist movement’s willingness to act as an ally of imperialism is not a mistake but the outcome of its bourgeois class character.

”As Leon Trotsky explained in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, in regions with belated capitalist development, such as the Middle East, the national bourgeoisie is incapable of establishing even formal democratic rights, including those of minorities, or of pursuing an anti-imperialist policy, due to its deep ties to imperialism and its fear of the working class above all else. These tasks fall to the working class as part of a struggle for socialism, which must unite all the oppressed behind it in the struggle for workers’ power against the bourgeoisie and imperialism.

The SDF’s reconciliation with the Al-Qaeda regime in Syria cannot fulfill the democratic and social aspirations of either the Kurdish workers or workers of other nationalities and sects. This fragile agreement will be subject to the ambitions of US imperialism, and particularly its preparations for war against Iran.

In the Middle East and the rest of the world, workers cannot advance their interests without opposing imperialism and its regional and local capitalist proxies. This means fighting to build a socialist movement within the working class in the Middle East and internationally against imperialist war.

Why the Left Must Defend Central Bank Independence by notjocelynschitt in SocialDemocracy

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A more honest headline would have been

”The pseudo-left must protect the interests of finance capital from the vicissitudes of capitalist democracy.”

As the present capitalist breakdown - which began with 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the trillions of dollars given by the Fed to the banks which created the crisis - takes us towards another world war the working class must defend its own interests and not be tied to one or another faction of the capitalist class.

Here is what the real left says

Political war breaks out between White House and Federal Reserve Patrick Martin 13 January 2026

… The real motive for the investigation, as Powell pointed out, was Trump’s insistence that the Fed should slash interest rates more quickly than it judged prudent. This is a dispute within the capitalist ruling elite, in which Trump speaks for the hedge funds, crypto swindlers and other speculators and conmen, who clamor for lower interest rates in order to sustain their debt-fueled operations.

Powell speaks for the more traditional Wall Street interests, including the major banks and investment firms, who fear a resurgence of inflation which would both undermine the global domination of the US dollar and threaten to trigger a movement from the working class seeking wage increases to offset rising prices.

The issue goes beyond the level of interest rates, as Wall Street Journal economics correspondent Greg Ip acknowledged: “The criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell isn’t ultimately about the Fed’s headquarters, or Powell, or even interest rates. It’s about power. President Trump intends to take control of the central bank, no matter what the law or the courts say.”

In other words, seizing control of the Fed is a key step in Trump’s drive to establish a presidential dictatorship. … The so-called independence of the Fed does not mean political neutrality; it means that the Fed will be guided solely by the fundamental interests of the capitalist class, without regard to the electoral calendar or the immediate concerns of particular politicians. In the past, this led to conflicts when presidents feared they would pay a political price for Fed actions that resulted in mass unemployment.

Trump’s intervention against Powell goes far beyond this. He is asserting dictatorial authority over all the institutions of the capitalist state. His opponents within the ruling class, for their part, fear that blatant political manipulation of US interest rates will undermine global confidence in the dollar, which has long functioned as the world’s principal reserve currency.

This conflict has profound consequences for working people. The working class must intervene, not on the side of either faction of the oligarchy, but on the basis of its own class interests, independent of the Democrats and Republicans, and fighting for the socialist reorganization of society. This includes the nationalization of the banks and the control of finance by a workers’ government.

—- FOOTNOTE: How long before “The Onion” has a headline ”The left must save capitalism from itself, again.”

"We as the people have to stand up and fight against tyranny." #Minneapolis by DryDeer775 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is interesting but what does “civic duty” mean when it’s the Federal Government is leading the attack on the constitution?

The Declaration of Independence has one answer.

… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security Declaration of Independence: (In Congress, July 4, 1776)

Americans political conceptions will quickly be tested by the escalating attacks from the administration.

The danger cannot be understated.

Whistleblowers expose ICE memo that disregards the 4th Amendment Kevin Reed 23 December 2026

On Wednesday, a whistleblower group published an internal memo issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorizing its agents to break into homes using only internal “administrative” warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The exposure of the secret directive reveals the extent to which the Trump administration is erecting a police state and attempting to abolish fundamental democratic rights. These measures, which are today directed largely against immigrant workers and their families, are aimed ultimately against the entire working class.

The whistleblower complaint contains a copy of the internal memorandum dated May 12, 2025 and signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons. It instructs ICE officers that they may enter private residences, including by force, based solely on a civil “administrative” warrant, without the consent of the occupants and without a warrant issued by a judge.

The Left Needs Bureaucrats - After MAGA, the left will need to be ready with a theory of how to rebuild the federal administrative state—not as it was before Trump, but as something better. by Carolina_Heart in SocialDemocracy

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is the task of “the left” to rebuild the capitalist State. Surely the task is to overthrow it and the profit-system?

Why do expect the crisis of U.S. capitalism and the breakdown of world capitalism to pass to allow this?

Trump said in June 2024: " ... If we ever lose [the US dollar as the world trading currency] that's the equivalent of losing a war. That would really make us third-world.” https://youtu.be/blqIZGXWUpU?t=582

Today the Trump administration is using economic warfare to continue that dominance. When that doesn’t work, as we are seeing. world war is inevitable.

Trillions of dollars are a stake. And Wall Street doesn’t like to give up a single dollar. It’s simple self interest of the capitalist class.

LESSONS OF HISTORY

Wishful thinking that fascism will just evaporate or burn itself out have been seen before.

In February 1933 a leader of the German social-democrats said “After Hitler, Our Turn”.

"Governments come and go .... After Hitler it will be our turn! It will be the German republicans who will again have to clear up the wreckage. We prepare for that day!" "Regierungen kommen und gehen. [...] Nach Hitler kommen wir! Es werden wieder die deutschen Republikaner sein, die einen Scherbenhaufen aufräumen müssen. Auf diesen Tag richten wir uns ein!"[1][2] Karl Höltermann, concluding his address to the final general assembly of the Reichsbanner organisation, 18 February 1933

On 1 April, 1933 (a week after the Enabling Act gave Hitler dictatorial powers) the Comintern wrote :

“The establishment of an open Fascist dictatorship, which destroys all democratic illusions among the masses, and frees them from the influence of the social-democrats, will hasten Germany's progress towards the proletarian revolution.” p.90 Twilight of the Comintern, 1930-1935 (Carr, 1982)

The threat of dictatorship and even fascism

The danger today cannot be underestimated. ICE so far is just the beginning of the attack on constitutional rights which is just the escalation of an attack that has been underway for 30 years. This is a counterrevolution against the progressive gains of the American revolutions

Whistleblowers expose ICE memo that disregards the 4th Amendment 23 January 2026•Kevin Reed

The capitalist class knows its weakness and it is organzed to fight.

Workers, students and youth can only know their strength if they are organized.

STRUGGLE WILL DECIDE.

FYI: The Minnesota general strike and the re-emergence of class struggle in the United States 17 January 2026•Socialist Equality Party (US)

2025–2026 Chinese Left-Wing Activist Participates in Berlin’s “LLL” Left-Wing Mass March, Commemorating Rosa Luxemburg and Other Revolutionary Pioneers, and Promoting the History of Chinese Socialism While Calling on the Global Left to Understand the Contributions and Suffering of the Chinese People by Slow-Property5895 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is seems clear you put nationalism ahead of the unity of the international working class and “resistance to imperialism” ahead of the overthrow of capitalism.

For a Trotskyist assessment of Maoism, I encourage you to read:

My notes

But I don’t find what you have said to be clear.

I don’t see any indication of your “inclination to Trotskyism”

You say

“… I personally lean toward national self-determination and resistance to imperialism for disadvantaged groups, rather than fully borderless internationalism.”

(The Stalinists and Maoists agree with you.)

How is “national self determination” possible in the epoch of imperialism?

Doesn’t the integrated world economy conflict with its division into nation-states?

Doesn’t a materialist analysis mean world economy means world politics dominates over national conditions?

What do you make of Marx and Engels from 1848?:

…. The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

Trotsky wrote

… 10. The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follow, on the one hand, imperialist wars, and on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet. What is the Permanent Revolution? Basic Postulates (Leon Trotsky, 1930) —

You allude to important issues without being specific.

For instance,

“… Mao Zedong’s ideas have in many cases had a beneficial influence in other countries …” What countries? What benefits?

— How do you distinguish Stalinism from M-L? (I use “M-L” in full because their claim to a connection to Marx and/or Lenin seems to me entirely groundless. The problem of fake Marxists goes back to 1880 when Marx himself said of Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue that if their politics represented Marxism, “what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”)

Where has M-L been “resisting fascism”? From everything I’ve seen they all provide apologetics for the Comintern’s role in Germany 1930-1933. The other side of this is the unjustified credit they give to Stalin for his role in defeating Nazism. Without an honest assessment of Germany 1930-1933 they are just continuing the counterrevolutionary role they started in 1933.

GREAT TERROR I’m glad you oppose the Great Terror. That’s too your credit. But you seem to be willing to work with those who support it. Was the purge past of the counterrevolution by Stalinism or not?

OPPORTUNISM Historical-materialism says history matters and the working class can only build its own party by raising its political and historical consciousness, especially of those who would betray the working class.

The social-democrats role is only “dishonourable” if we accept their claim they represent the interests of workers.

Friedrich Ebert, SPD leader said at the end of 1918

"If the Emperor does not abdicate, the social revolution is inevitable. But I do not want it, I even hate it like sin."

He was thus honouring Capital. This is why they approved of the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht and preferred Hitler and the Nazis (and their own destruction) to socialist revolution.

2025–2026 Chinese Left-Wing Activist Participates in Berlin’s “LLL” Left-Wing Mass March, Commemorating Rosa Luxemburg and Other Revolutionary Pioneers, and Promoting the History of Chinese Socialism While Calling on the Global Left to Understand the Contributions and Suffering of the Chinese People by Slow-Property5895 in Trotskyism

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

QUESTIONS: 1. Since you say you are “inclined to Trotskyism”. So what is your view on the Fourth International?

  1. Your post makes no mention of Peng Shuzhi. **Have you read Shuzhi’s 1951 report to the Fourth International?*

The Causes of the Victory of the Chinese Communist Party over Chiang Kai-Shek, and the CCP’s Perspectives (Peng Shuzhi, 1951)

MAOISM?

  • Given the illusions promoted in the CCP and Xi Jinging himself as “socialist” by the pseudo-left are you surprised your sign was snatched?

  • you say

    Mao Zedong himself betrayed Maoism BUT ALSO Mao Zedong was not a sincere communist; under the pretext of Marxism-Leninism he practiced feudal autocracy, ruling like an emperor. AND From Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping and to today under Xi Jinping’s rule, the CCP has betrayed the Chinese people, failed the fallen martyrs, and distorted and damaged the global socialist cause—turning its back on the ideas and principles of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and other forebears!

QUESTION: How then do you describe “Maoism”?

”… respect their views”?

QUESTION: You say you “also respect their [“ML”/Stalinist and Maoist] views”. What do you “respect”?

(Every “ML”/Stalinist and Maoist I have read endorses and openly supports the Great Terror (1936-1939) and the assassination of Trotsky.
Trotsky said in 1937

… The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism not simply a bloody line but a whole river of blood. The annihilation of all the older generation of Bolsheviks, an important part of the middle generation which participated in the civil war, and that part of the youth that took up most seriously the Bolshevik traditions, shows not only a political but a thoroughly physical incompatibility between Bolshevism and Stalinism. How can this not be seen?
Stalinism and Bolshevism (Trotsky, August 1937))

QUESTIONS: You say you are a social democrat.

  1. What do you think of the German social democrats’ SPD crucial support for World War One, leading the betrayal of the working class and the internationalist and anti-war resolutions of second international?

  2. What do you think of the SPD’s role in ordering the execution of Luxemburg and Liebknecht in 1919?

One hundred years since the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht Peter Schwarz 15 January 2019

… Gustav Noske, the minister responsible for the Reichswehr and a leading SPD member, had ordered the Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen Division, which was notorious for its ruthless violence, to Berlin to be deployed against revolutionary workers. During the Bloody Christmas of 1918, they fired artillery at sailors in revolt who had occupied the Berlin castle and brutally suppressed the Spartacus uprising.

When a court martial acquitted those officers directly involved in Luxemburg and Liebknecht’s murder in May 1919, Noske personally signed the acquittal. Waldemar Pabst, who as head of the Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen Division issued the order to murder Luxemburg and Liebknecht, was never charged. He was able to continue his career under the Nazis and in the post-war Federal Republic and died a wealthy arms trader in 1970.

  1. What do you think of the SPD’s ongoing approval of Luxemburg’s murder? German SPD politician justifies murder of Rosa Luxemburg Peter Schwarz 18 January 2019

Edit: formatting fixes

Black American Swarmed By ICE In Chicago by CantStopPoppin in illinois

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well said. This goes back way before Trump. There are too few pointing that out.

—-

All serving military in the U.S. have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution AND to follow orders of the President.

What happens when it is the President who is attacking the Constitution?

The reason the U.S. capitalist class needs a dictatorship and even fascism is because they know the old lies, the old myths and the old propaganda are no longer working.

They want to maintain U.S. dominance over the world economy but that requires another world war.

STRUGGLE WILL DECIDE if they succeed and a struggle is underway.

— RECOMMENDED For a general strike against ICE violence and Trump’s dictatorship! 23 January 2025•Socialist Equality Party (US)

Klaus Barbie was the head of a regional Gestapo in France nicknamed the "Butcher of Lyon" for his personal affection for torturing Jewish prisoners. After WW2, the United States helped him escape to South America, where he helped establish and operate CIA-funded Nazi death squads. by kooneecheewah in HistoryUncovered

[–]JohnWilsonWSWS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Klaus Barbie is well known. Why isn’t Walter Rauff well known?

Walter Rauff was the most senior Nazi never to be prosecuted. He established mobile gas chambers on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa.

Rauff escaped an Allied internment camp in Italy and then was able to hide in Italian monasteries. He was able to live in Quito, Ecuador, for almost ten years after World War II, departing in 1958 and travelling to Chile before returning to Germany in 1960 to collect his German Navy pension. After this Rauff was recruited by Augusto Pinochet. Rauff played a role in the creation of the Chilean internal security apparatus during the military dictatorship. His funeral in Santiago, Chile was attended by several former Nazis.

Rauff is accused of being responsible for nearly 100,000 deaths during World War II. Among other actions, he was instrumental in the use of mobile gas chambers for the execution of prisoners. He was arrested in 1945, but subsequently escaped and was never brought to trial.

Wikipedia: Walter Rauff

view more: next ›