The truth about the "unnatural" alliance between the USA and the USSR, against the Third Reich
USA and USSR, protagonists of the Cold War, sworn enemies since the birth of the Soviet Union, the two exponents of two opposing, alternative and totally incompatible worldviews, and also, in the 40s, during the Second World War, USA and USSR , put aside their differences to fight a common enemy, the Third Reich.
But why this unnatural alliance?
With hindsight, we know that the crimes of Nazi-fascism were among the most abominable and heinous of which history has memory, but at the time of the alliance, no one knew of the death camps, and the ghettoization of some minorities existed, both in the US and in the USSR, yet, there was something that pushed Roosvelet , Churchill and Stalin and pool their forces and coordinate their actions, in the war against the axis.
But what is it?
The answer, my friend, does not blow in the wind, but it is well known in history and you can find out by watching this video, or, in this article, in which I will say the same things I will say on video.
Let's start by saying that the eternal rivalry between the USA and the USSR was the daughter of the incompatibility between the two different interpretations of the world, the two different systems of organization of the state and society, and the two different interpretative keys of the individual in society
The Borghese Society
In the US world, in bourgeois capitalist society, the individual is placed at the center of society and everything he manages to achieve in his life is perceived (simplifying a lot ) as his individual success or as his responsibility, otherwise, in the Soviet world, the individual is inserted within a wider collectivity, made up of many individuals, whose existences are in some way related, and it is the task of the state, to provide all individuals with an equal set of essential services. Services that, to a lesser extent, the state also provides in the bourgeois capitalist world, but which, in that world system, are accompanied by private services and structures, non-existent in the Soviet world, which, founded and powered by private capital, are placed on a higher level, and are not accessible to anyone, but only to those in possession of certain economic prerequisites.
However, these two different organizations of society present a common underlying principle, the principle that all men (universal generic masculine) are equal and endowed with inalienable rights and which are disconnected from any system of social predetermination imposed at birth, unlike what happened in the ancient " feudal system ", In the ancien regime, in aristocratic, static and stale structures, in which social dynamism was non-existent and the life of men was predetermined by the social conditions of their birth.
In that universal system, prior to the advent of Enlightenment theories and ideas, those born of a peasant family, lived in poverty and died as a peasant, those born as a prince, lived in luxury and died as a prince, who was born from a bourgeois family , of merchants, he died as a merchant and even when, for some reason he managed to obtain wealth superior to those of the imperials of his time, he would never enter the restricted circle of the elite, in that closed world in which it was possible to access only by right of birth.
The American war of independence, in the second half of the eighteenth century, the subsequent French revolution and then the Napoleonic age, put that ancient system of values into question. With the American Revolution, the first nation totally free from the ancient aristocracies was born, the first bourgeois nation in history was born, whose existence, in a more or less direct way, would have strengthened Enlightenment thought in Europe, fueling the French Revolution, and forming, in Napoleonic age, a new European leadership, alien to the ancient aristocratic families. Then, as we know, the congress of Vienna brought back the ancient preconstituted order to Europe, and brought the ancient families back to the thrones of Europe, but something was broken, and the existence of a bourgeois nation, on the other side of the Atlantic , represented a constant threat, which hovered over Europe and the ancient regime.
Between Napoleon and 1848, as we know, several revolutionary waves crossed Europe, albeit, in most cases, without success. The failure of the uprisings of 20/21 and 30/31 was the effect of a partial revolution, which, unlike the French revolution of 1792, did not see a large participation of the popular masses, in fact the revolutionary uprisings of the first half of The nineteenth century were above all bourgeois uprisings, they were bourgeois revolutions, to quote Hobsbawm, and it was precisely in that context that attention began to be paid to the weight and role of the popular masses in history.
In the fifties of the following century we start talking about the irruption of the popular masses of history, a theoretical irruption in reality, which never happened, in fact the popular masses, some observers would have observed in those years, have always been present in the history and their involvement in the great events of the past was crucial.
In any case, the awareness of the enormous weight and strength of the popular masses in history and in society is condensed in the thought of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx , and in what would become the manifesto of the Communist Party, a political party founded on the principle of human universality, on the equality of rights for all men and on the fact that economic and social distinctions are an artifice built to protect privilege of the few on the many. Exactly the same principles that, a little more than half a century earlier had inspired the French revolution, and even before that of the American one.
The American bourgeois capitalist society and the Soviet society of real communism are daughters of the same world, Karl Marx and Samuel Adams, at least virtually, fight the same battle and defend the same ideals, if well then they diverge in the application of those ideals and it is in that divergence that would subsequently have formed the rivalry between the USA and the USSR, but, however rivals, the two historical and political realities share a common root and atavistic enemy, the traditional aristocracy, whose existence implies the acceptance of social structures predetermined at birth, a social immobility that does not fit either with American individualism or with Soviet collectivism.
The Second World War
When the Second World War began in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the United States and even more, the Soviet Union, identified Nazi-Fascism as the ancient enemy common to both systems of values. , Nazism was perceived by the USA and the USSR as the specter of that ancient world in which social hierarchies were static and determined at birth, and this is the main threat that the two realities, daughters of the Enlightenment, see in the third reich. Not in the internment camps, also present in the USSR and in the USA, not in the ghettos for minorities, also present in the USSR and the USA, not in the extermination camps, of which nothing was known at the time, but in the fact that through their own values, the third riech was reconstructing that now obsolete world, of an almost feudal matrix, in which blood is decisive in defining the role of individuals in the world and in society.
The third Reich is perceived, both by the US and the USSR, as an attempt to reaffirm the traditional aristocracy and it is no coincidence that what remained of the ancient "nobles" families, in Germany they were close to the reich, and in Italy they supported fascism, and in the specific case of Italy, this element becomes particularly evident if we look at the outcome of the referendum of 2 June 1946, when Italy and the Italians were called to choose between Monarchy and Republic.
The unnatural alliance between the US and the USSR during the Second World War, in the light of this "common root" appears clear, evident, and there is no doubt about its nature which is anything but unnatural.