To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cartoon illustration on a white background and two colors: black and magenta-reddish. Three people in the centre share the magenta-reddish color with an industrial building in their background. From left to right: a worker, an intellectual and a peasant are seen trampling on a large black snake with a swastika inside white circle inscribed on its head.
Cartoon depiction of a popular front in the Romanian leftist and anti-fascist newspaper Cuvântul Liber, 1935

A popular front is "any coalition of working-class and middle-class parties", including liberal and social democratic ones, "united for the defense of democratic forms" against "a presumed Fascist assault".[1][2] More generally, it is "a coalition especially of leftist political parties against a common opponent".[3][4]

The term was first used in the mid-1930s in Europe by communists concerned over the ascent of fascism in Italy and Germany, which they sought to combat by coalescing with non-communist political groupings they had previously attacked as enemies. Temporarily successful popular front governments were formed in France, Spain, and Chile in 1936.[2]

Not all political organizations who use the term "popular front" are leftist or coalitions formed to defend democratic norms (for example Popular Front of India), and not all leftist or anti-fascist coalitions use the term "popular front" in their name.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    41 220
    1 922
    6 738
  • 17. The Popular Front
  • Leon Blum, the Matignon Agrements, & the Popular Front
  • How Popular front of India (PFI) got banned -- The Complete 3 years long story!

Transcription

Professor John Merriman: Okay, obviously France in the 1920s and '30s has to be seen in terms of the international situation in Europe, and particularly the rise of fascism. It's easy to describe the 1920s and 1930s as the Europe of extremes, and that is certainly the case with the Soviet Union, but above all with the rise of the extreme Right in Europe. By 1939 only in central and eastern Europe, only Czechoslovakia, which would soon be munched by Germany, had not--only Czechoslovakia remained a parliamentary regime. And when you think of fascism, you obviously think of Mussolini and you think of National Socialism in Germany, but one must also remember that all of the other states in central and eastern Europe became authoritarian states and parliamentary regimes disappeared one after another. And then, of course--I'll mention this in awhile--but the Spanish Civil War brought Franco to power and we could debate long into the night whether Franco was a fascist or just an authoritarian, rightwing murderer. But it was part of the general scheme of things. And even in countries in which democracy survives, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, France, which we're going to talk about obviously, and Great Britain, there were active fascist movements; although that in Britain, led by Oswald Mosley, was quite small. So, what I want to do today is discuss the rise of the Right in France, and then talk about the Popular Front, which some people still view today as sort of a magic moment in French history, and the efforts of Léon Blum to create a new political world, and finally its failure. And, so, for the political details of the national block that came to power immediately after the war and the cartel des gauches, the cartel of the Left which won the election in 1924, I will leave that to your reading. But one must remember that in all of these countries, and in France among them, the 1920s seemed to be--the temptation of the far Right was certainly there. Mussolini was on the cover of Time Magazine eight different times in this country. He became known as the man who got the Italian railroads to run on time, even if they only ran on time to the ski resorts to which American journalists tended to go. Hitler doesn't come to power until January 1933. And, of course, Hitler was the most successful of a whole bunch of rightwing leaders in Germany, all determined to overthrow the Weimar Republic. So, to many people tempted, for example, by corporatism, the idea that somehow you could eliminate social strife by organizing industries in a vertical way--Mussolini talked a good game about that, and they actually made some efforts--there was this flirtation, this temptation with the extreme Right. In the case of France, what happens in the 1920s and 1930s, and particularly culminating on this day that I'll talk about, February 6th, 1934, you can see the origins of that before World War One, in Boulanger and in the case of the anti-Dreyfusards. So, fascism is a European phenomenon and it became a French phenomenon as well. The kind of official spokesman who represented sort of the canon of fascist thought was Drieu la Rochelle. There's an extremely good biography of him, or several of him. He was a novelist whose work was obsessed, whose life was obsessed with suicide, and he became the first sort of spiritual leader of French fascists. He wrote an autobiographical novel called Gilles, in which he praised fascism as being capable of affecting a spiritual revival of what he considered to be medieval Christianity. And this would be a scene that would be very important under Vichy, in the collaborationist years of World War Two as well. Charles Mauras, whom you've read about, who was the founder of Action Française and who was a monarchist, he also gets into the act and he urges France to expand to what he considered its truly natural frontiers, that is including the left bank of the Rhine River. Action Française is not really a mass movement the way that some of the other ones would be--the Croix-de-Feu--there were plebian members of Action Française, it was more tied to monarchism than it was to the quest for the kind of Mussolini or Hitler kind of dictator, but nonetheless it had considerable influence. And in France the extreme Right and Catholicism were closely linked, though obviously all practicing Catholics were not members of the extreme rightwing movement. But Mauras's sort of view was that a monarchy would restore that kind of Christian medieval virtue that was largely imaginary and that all this would come to pass, hopefully in his lifetime. And so they begin to create a paramilitary unit--that's exactly what happens with the Nazis and with the squadris of Mussolini, in the early 1920s, that bring him to power in 1922. And, so, these soldiers, as in the case of the German freikorps, continue basically just to march. And, so, the Action Française takes the kind of tactics that were associated in the early stages with the Boulanger movement, an argument I made earlier, and carry them now into the streets. And with the growth of trade union members, in France and in other countries with this sort of flocking of people to the CGT, the Confédération Générale du Travail, the General Confederation of Labor, you had the growth of these rightwing groups who, as the German counterparts, wanted to end parliamentary rule in France. This, by the way, the Action Française is so over the top that it even scares the Pope, and Action Française is condemned by the Pope in 1926. And indeed, lots of members of Action Française who were faithful Catholics leave the movement, fearing that they're going to be excommunicated. And a number of other groups who are even more radical start up. There's one group called Faisceau, f-a-i-s-c-e-a-u, which had begun in 1919 but increases its membership and believes in violent struggle, this kind of action, this kind of will to power that characterized national socialism as well. Another, the Croix-de-Feu, the Cross of Fire, attracted war veterans. Not all of the war veterans ended up supporting the radicals, or the socialists, or the communists, a good number of them go into rightwing groups, and this is certainly the case with the Croix-de-Feu. It was founded in 1928 as a nonpolitical organization and its membership swells to about 60,000 members. Now, there has to be money behind these movements, as well as ideology. And it's kind of interesting that some of the sort of big money people behind these movements were in luxury production. Coty, for example, the perfume maker was a big donor and believer in these far-rightwing causes and anti-Semitic causes. So was Taittinger, Taittinger the champagne producer--obviously another luxury good. I once took a bunch of Yale alumni, we went to Épargne and to Reims because they wanted to taste champagne; it was one of these Yale trips. And they were a very nice group, and we were being taken around the cave of Taittinger and I couldn't stand it, they were telling us about what a great patriot Taittinger was and all this business, and his portrait up there. And I said, "well, what happened during the 1930s?" I couldn't contain myself any more, what happened in the 1930s in World War Two? And the woman looked terribly embarrassed and passed on to see if we would like to taste yet another glass of champagne, and the answer was a resounding yes. But, so the money, a lot of the money came from folks like that. And then because the newspapers, as in the case of Germany and most places, were controlled by the Right, they have lots of ability to reach a large public. Taittinger himself--the name, the spelling is t-a-i-t-t-i-n-g-e-r--he founds the Patriotic Youth Movement in 1924, which has by the end of the decade 100,000 members. So, these are not small groups. Now, you have to--the attraction of particularly middle-class people to the far Right is characteristic of Germany and Italy as well. And this too has to be seen in the context of the hard times of the 1920s and the 1930s, that Europe is basically in depression during the whole time, except for 1924 to the big crash in 1929. Eastern Europe is in depression, agricultural depression, very severe agricultural depression during the entire time. And, so, with the kind of rampant inflation--in France you didn't have anything similar, nothing comparable to what happens in Germany. Everybody's seen pictures of people pushing shopping carts down the street full of millions, and millions, and millions of deutschmarks, and attempting to buy one single turnip. But the people who get burned in inflation are particularly--are middle-class people who are on pensions and who have saved their whole lives for retirement, and with inflation their savings are wiped out in one single moment. In the case of Germany it's quite clear because in the early, hyper-inflation of '22 and '23 you had these German bourgeois families who had to sell silver that had been in their families for generations, or had to sell antique armoires that had been in their families for generations, in order to have enough to eat, and they hate, and they're going to blame somebody for this. And who they're going to blame are the Weimar Republic and, in the case of France, they're going to blame the very existence of the Republic. And this lapses in, this elides into, moves into various components of fascist ideology that were shared by all of these movements everywhere, is that they're virulently anti-socialist, anti-communist. Hitler began by hating--before he hated Jews he hated social democrats. They're anti-Bolshevik, they're anti-socialist. They're frightened by the revolution in Russia, they're frightened by the fact that these communist parties are doing very well in these states. They're also virulently anti-Semitic, and they're, as I'll argue in awhile, xenophobic, and they run those two together because there was a large percentage of the people who have come into France, particularly into Paris before World War One are Jews from Eastern Europe and from Russia. And in the 1930s, of course, during the Spanish Civil War, you have a huge immigration of Spanish refugees fleeing Franco's death squads, and the civil war. And, so, they share those characteristics as well. Moreover, the French Right--I've already made it clear--they hate parliamentary regimes. The Europe of the 1920s and the '30s was the Europe of dictators, and they wanted one. And if Charles Mauras and the other Action Française people wanted a king, there weren't very many likely candidates. It wasn't--there were pretenders in both lines but it wasn't going to just happen through some act of God, and they too could come to believe that dictatorship was the only way of solving the social and economic problems. And they're all virulently nationalist; when you're talking about the annexation of the left bank of the Rhine or when Hitler's talking about elbow's room, lebensraum, elbow room, expansion room, for the German population, it is part of this theme of aggressive nationalism, and that also ties into the kind of xenophobia that is behind this entire movement. And, so, xenophobia emerges as a characteristic of the far Right in France, as well. Now, because the French population had stopped growing--constant theme--it only grows by 72,000 between 1931 and 1936; and, as I said before, two-thirds of the départements in France had a smaller population in 1939 than they did in 1851. France has relatively few people under the age, under twenty years of age; only about thirty-one percent, which is an extremely low percentage compared to countries that have really a high rate of population growth, and relatively more people who were elderly. And beginning in 1935, more people die each year in France, and not just in big cities, than are born there. So, who makes up the difference? Well, Italians, 720,000 in France in 1936; Poles, 425,000; Spaniards, 255,000, and there'll be lots more by 1939, for obvious reasons; and Belgians, 195,000. But also Jews, the Jewish population of France is about 320,000, and half of them had come to France since 1918. So, this immigration of very poor Jews from Poland and from Eastern Europe continues. And, so, 7.5 percent of the French population in the late '30s consists of immigrants--it was the highest populate percentage of any country in Europe. Now, if you want to also argue why, with the exception of Oswald Mosley strutting around Hyde Park in his black military-like uniform, Britain doesn't have much appeal to the far Right, and one of the reasons was that immigration, which is always this sort of lightening rod for xenophobia, was relatively small in London, in England, compared to these other places, despite the fact that it was only in London and not in Paris where, as early as the eighteenth century and even before that, you would run into people of color, because of the British empire; so, xenophobia is seized upon by these parties as an issue to rally support, in elections, but also on the streets. And if you think that's not the case now, look at the success of the National Front in the 1980s and 1990s in France and the kind of violent discourse of the far Right in France today, something to which we will come back to. Now, also let me just say and let me just add that it's not--the parties of the Left, too, are not exempt from xenophobia, but not anywhere to the same extent that the parties of the far Right built their base upon xenophobia. I have a former dissertation student who now teaches at Penn State who has a wonderful thesis on the police, the way they tracked immigrants who were supporters of the Communist Party in Paris in the 1930s, particularly people from West Africa and from Guadalupe. And, so, the flirtation of some immigrants to Paris, particularly people of color, with the far Left, intensifies the hatred by the parties of the far Right of immigrants. And their idea of what they called "true France," that is this true, Catholic, medieval France rooted in the soil did not include, in their fantasies of aggressive nationalism, did not include immigrants. This is, it's an obvious theme from the 1920s and 1930s; though Hitler with his own not uniquely but over the top, pernicious, biological view of race was the one who took it to its extreme, saying that he, the Fuhrer, the leader, the equivalent of the Duce, that's what they called them in Italy, or the Cadillo in Spain, he would have the right to say who lives and who dies, who is part of the German volk, the German people, and who is not. And, of course, Hitler runs into some difficulty, very minor, with German populations because he begins to use euthanasia as a tool of the state and to kill people who are handicapped or mentally retarded, as well as Jews, and gypsies, and gays, right along the way. And then a lot of Germans say, "wait a minute, but these poor people who are mentally retarded that you're killing or that you're letting your doctors experiment on, they're real Germans. Do what you want with the others, do what you want with the immigrant Jews or the Jews who were born there and assimilated, but leave the real Germans alone." So, this is an awful kind of discourse even to consider but it is really part of this great movement, this groundswell, in France as well as in other countries, against parliamentary rule. Now, this culminates--this is making a very long story short--but this culminates, of course, February 6th, 1934, in the Front Populaire, the Popular Front. A political scandal gives the extreme Right an opportunity for action. Now, this is a country that had all these political scandals before, that they'd survived; and not just the Dreyfus Affair but the Wilson Affair and all of this business that we talked about; and the Panama Canal scandal that we talked about before that discredited the Republic. And, so, now the Republic is accused of not only being soft, not virile, full of sort of quarreling, rotating ministries, a weak system without a strong executive authority, but again of being corrupt. And Drieu la Rochelle boasted, he says the France of camping out, that is getting up in the morning and plunging into frozen ponds in the Auvergne and being a boy-scout and all of this stuff, will conquer the France of the apero, that is the drink after, drink before meals. And the Rightists shouted, "down with the France of the aperitif!"--what an idea--down with the France of the before-meal drink. And, as a matter of fact, during 1934, during the heyday there were signs posted in cafés around the Chambre des Deputés, around the Palais Bourbon, that said no deputies served here, we just want--we want people who are against the Republic to come in and drink here, we don't want people who represent the Republic. And the police make it very difficult to--they look the other way as these sort of rightwing groups mobilize their forces in the streets. And again, I said this before but it's true, if you look at the whole period, 1914 to 1944 or '45, it's a thirty years war because basically Europe is still at war and it's a war waged on different levels--on the intellectual level, the newspaper violent headlines level, and battles in the street. And these people are playing for keeps. A very shady character called Serge Stavisky, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo in the film, was a Ukrainian Jew who had come to France with his family as a small boy. He made his living basically by cheating people. He was a con guy. His father committed suicide out of shame for the way that his son made his income. One of his cleverest projects, but most ill fated, was involving the sale of municipal bonds in that Basque town of Bayonne, down near the Spanish border in the Pyrén&eac ute;es-Atlantique, in the Basque country, in southwestern France. There was a dummy company that had been created to cover up the operation and lots of reputable insurance companies had invested and lost a lot of money. Stavisky had a lot of money, because of this, and he loved the good life. He loved fast cars, he loved fancy women and he loved spending other people's money. He loved great restaurants, having thirty-six roses delivered to his chosen lover of the evening, et cetera, et cetera. But gradually it all collapses on his head and in December 1933 he flees to the Alps, near Chamonix, and he rents a villa--he didn't just flee to a small room in Lavancher or someplace like that; you had to have a villa and let people know that you're still living very well--and revelations pile up, one after another. A minister of the government had written an enthusiastic letter recommending the bonds, but Stavisky had been protected by an obliging State prosecutor who happened to be the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister, a forgettable character called Camille Chautemps. And, so, Action Française's newspaper has a big headline on the^( )7th of January, 1934, "Down With the Thieves," or urging a large protest against the Chamber of Deputies. The police are on Stavisky's trail. They arrive in Chamonix, they find out what man carrying lots of flowers and dressed in white has rented a villa up in the hills. And they get--as they're moving into arrest him at this villa he blows his brains out. And this bursts into a full-fledged political crisis that came close to bringing down the Republic. Now, the police didn't bother to call a doctor until they were sure that Stavisky was dead; and this raises all sorts of concern because of the obvious issue that he might reveal highly-placed people with whom he was working. He left a suicide note, to his son, signed Your Unhappy Daddy--and it might have been forged, there was something not quite right about the writing. That Stavisky was a Jew caused all of the--and he might've been something else but he happened to be a Jew--caused the rightwing organizations to go wild, and the demonstrations became nothing less than an attack on the Republic and demonstrations turned into riots, particularly after another minister is implicated in the scandal; and Chautemps bags it on the 27th of January. And there's another coalition government, yet another one that's caused to come into existence. Shakespeare's play Coriolanus, a play that has strong authoritarian implications, was wildly applauded at the Comédie Française and the young patriots vow to sweep away the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and dirty Jewish finance. The Prefect of Police is a guy called Jean Chiappe, c-h-i-a-p-p-e. He appeared quite unconcerned with the rightwing riots in the streets, but he ordered the bashing of any leftwing heads that could be seen. When the new head of the government, Daladier, whom you can read about, called Chiappe telling him of his dismissal the policeman refused to be sent to Morocco and promised that he would be in the street, suggesting to Daladier not a fear of unemployment, that he was going to be in the street because he is unemployed, but a promise to lead the overthrow of the Republic. And on February 4th, 1934, every rightwing group plans to meet before the Chamber of Deputies. They march down the Champs-Elysées or come from another direction. My favorite group in this is one small group of people are marching down the street, down, and they're all ready to go and join the others, and they look at--somebody looks at his watch and says, "well, it's 7:30, il faut manger quand même." And so they leave, they say it's time to eat, and so they leave the demonstration to go eat, and then they miss the whole thing because they're having some sort of lavish meal someplace. I wouldn't have been in a rightwing demonstration, but I would have left to go eat as well. And, so, what happens is they go charging across the Seine River, they're trying to literally overthrow the Republic. There are debates whether it was just a--it was a real coup d'état attempt, an overthrow, or whether just demonstrating. The police batter them back. I have an uncle who was a communist who was doing his psychoanalytic training in Berlin in those days, and was a very active communist, and he claims to have been in a counter-demonstration and to have been grazed by a bullet because the communists were there as a counter-demonstration; and I don't know, his stories became more and more lavish over the years. But he was a wonderful man, and he probably was there. So, there were fourteen demonstrators killed and several thousand injured. So, this is a very big event, and several hundred policemen also were hurt. Daladier resigns on February 8th. But the big significance of this event was that this is a real attempt to overthrow the Republic. And on February 12th the largest demonstrations in French history, until 1968, occurred in every single prefecture in France, outside of two or three, in defense of the Republic. And the Popular Front, that alliance between the radicals--whom you'll remember are socially moderate but very anti-clerical, but they had lost their raison d'être a little bit--the socialists and the communists. This alliance to save the Republic against fascism emerges out of this fait accompli of these popular demonstrations of people pouring into the street--millions of French men and women and children march in France. It's followed by a twenty-four-hour strike. The Stavisky Affair was kept alive by the discovery of the mangled body of the public prosecutor of the Paris Court which had been tied down on the railroad tracks so that he was caught by the 5:12 train between Paris and Dijon and cut in half. The Republic seemed to have a new lease on life but, as one of its critics said, it could also be called a new lease on death. But something had been changed because the three major parties had been frightened. Now, in 1920 you will know, you will remember, that at the Congress of Tours the Communist Party split away from the Socialist Party. And the Communist Party retained some elements of that old Guesdist Party, that you remember me discussing before World War One--I wasn't discussing it before World War One, but we discussed it before we got to World War One--in that it was sort of a top-down organization. The democratic centralism, decisions made at the top and then informing the party faithful of what they would be was an essential part of that. In 1921, '22 and '23, mostly '22, '23, if I remember correctly, the Communist intellectuals were thrown out of the party. The Communist Party quite slavishly obeyed every order that came from Moscow. Its leaders were miners like Torrez or industrial workers, but because they provided very good social services, particularly in the Red Belt, those suburbs around Paris, had the prestige that long predated the heroic role of communist resistance in World War Two. But they considered Léon Blum and the Socialist Party to be anathema--for one thing, Blum was a bourgeois himself--and the Socialist Party was willing to compromise with other parties, was a reformist party in the tradition of Jean Jaurès. Léon Blum, who was born on the Rue Saint-Dennis, in Paris--there's still a plaque there-- was an intellectual. He was a literary critic, he was a writer. He had written a pamphlet called "On Marriage" which was considered scandalous before World War One in which he said it was okay not to marry but simply be with somebody and all of that, for a long period of time; it was a recognition of the fact that in many places people weren't married, simply lived together, and particularly in large cities and particularly in Paris. And when Jaurès was killed on the 31st of July, 1914, Léon Blum was the logical successor of Jaurès. He had an ability to bring people in a room and to get them unified, and he becomes the dominant figure in the Socialist Party. But Léon Blum, there was something else about him that mattered as well, in the Popular Front in France before that, is that Léon Blum was also Jewish. And one thing that you heard from 1934,1935, 1936 is well-dressed students, probably from the fac d'Assas, in Paris, rightwing students, shouting, "better Hitler than Blum." And at one point Léon Blum was pulled out of his car, on the Rue des Écoles, near the Sorbonne, and almost beaten to death by rightwing thugs. Léon Blum was Jewish, and he was an intellectual. So, the Communist Party--in a way it was the case of the tail wagging the dog because it was the Communist militants that really demanded that there be a block against Fascism; but the Communist Party finds itself allied the Socialist Party. And these are not small numbers. The number of people in the Communist Party, by 1936 there were 330,000 members of the Communist Party. And, again, they're particularly powerful in the Red Belt around Paris but big influence in places like the Allier and the Nièvre, in the Bourbonnais essentially, in the industrial regions of the north they do very, very well--places where the Guesdists had done well in the nineteenth century. So, they do really well among industrial workers and above all among railroad workers. And that's still the case today. The cheminaux, the railroad engineers and the railroad workers still--the Communist Party has lost most influence, but the influence of the party in the General Confederation of Labor is still seen whenever there's a big train strike in France, and you're stuck in the station for hours and hours because the train is not coming. And, so, in the meantime government after government follows. And, so, in June 1934 the Communist Party repudiates what they called class versus class strategy, that is making possible--the alliance now was the bourgeois party, that is the Socialist Party; lots of workers supported the socialist parties, but the Communist Party, it was the Socialist Party, was inevitably the bourgeois party, that was their discourse. And the three parties meet and prepare a compromised program that incorporated tax reform, a shorter work week, increased unemployment benefits, international disarmament, support for the League of Nations and the dissolution of the fascist leagues--you can get this out of the book but basically that's it. So, on the 7th of March, 1936, German armies moved into the Rhineland, and now the threat to the Republic inside France seemed to have been marked by Hitler's winning the big bluff against the League of Nations and against the Allied powers after World War One. And, in fact, Hitler's generals said "mein Fuhrer, I wouldn't do this because army is weak now; we're re-building." They were already--their pilots are being trained by Soviet pilots already, way before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. They said, "mein Fuhrer, I wouldn't do this because the Belgian Army and the French Army"--it's hard to imagine the Belgian Army very strong, but the German Army, remember, had been demobilized essentially. And Hitler says we're going to do it anyway, and he gets away with it. So, what this does is it leads to, in the elections of May of 1936, a victory of the Popular Front--fifty-seven percent of the vote, with the Socialist Party now the largest party in France. And they have 386 of 608 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Now, the Communists refused to participate in the cabinet because they don't want to be associated with any failure, but yet their adding to this mix of three has made the victory possible. And, so, Léon Blum becomes prime minister on the 3rd of June, 1936, under threats all the time because of the fact that he was a Jew. Now, what happens next is that the largest wave of strikes in France until, that year again, 1968, breaks out, because workers, encouraged by the Popular Front's pre-election promises now go on strike. In June 1936 there are 12,000 strikes involving 2,000,000 workers, more strikers than any time. And for the first time ever--now, this happens also in Flint and in Detroit at the same time--workers occupied factories, they occupied factories. They put on guerrilla theater. They do performances in which they play--some guy plays the bad guy, the boss, or the contremaitre, the foreman, or the pinkerton, et cetera, et cetera. So, they're occupying these factories in places like Nantes and Boulogne-Billancourt, the big Renault factory outside of Paris. And, so, there are pre-existing grievances--conditions of work, Taylorism. A worker remembered, "there are two factors in this slavery that we face-- speed and orders. One must, while putting myself in front of the machine, kill one's soul eight hours a day, one's thoughts, one's feelings, everything." Workers in France still refer to the factory as a bagne; a bagne is a prison, b-a-g-n-e-- again the idea that you're a prisoner there while you're there, and you're under the direct orders of the foreman or the boss, et cetera, et cetera. And what is interesting is that the strikes take the labor federations and the Communist Party by surprise. The Communist leaders say wait a minute, what are you doing, what are you doing, is the tail wagging the dog? And they say, memorably, "everything is not possible." And the workers reply, "everything is possible." And they don't want to lose the influence of the party. And this isn't the last time this would happen because it happens in 1968, also. The Communist Party said, "why are you people striking? We didn't give you orders to go on strike. What do you think you're doing?" What they thought they were doing was representing their own interests. And, so, L'Humanité, the Communist newspaper, has a huge title, gros titre, "Everything is Not Possible." But now should Léon Blum have called on the workers and the peasants to initiate a more radical form of Popular Front? Well, probably not. But what he does is he calls the government and the employers, they're all going to get together and meet, and they form the--they do what are called the Matignon Agreements--I'm sorry I didn't write this on the board, I should have, m-a-t-i-g-n-o-n--which were a great victory for the workers. The employers accepted the unions as the representatives of their workers, and would negotiate with the unions, and give them a raise of twelve to fifteen percent. They promised the forty-hour week--and we take that for granted; in France there's a big issue over the thirty-five-hour week, as I'm sure you know--and they give paid vacations; and the paid vacation of a month, which many people now in France can't afford to take, comes out of the Popular Front. They also open up the Louvre, free, certain days of the week, on Sunday. There's sort of a cultural revolution as well. And you see--oh God, there's some amazing, I wish we had three hours to talk about this; but you probably don't, but I do. There are these great postcards, pictures of people that had never seen the ocean that live fifty miles or fifty kilometers from the ocean, people from Reims and they go to Malo-les-Bains, which is near Dunkirk, which is a cold, frozen beach, and they're so proud, and they're there in their bathing suits, very modest bathing suits, and they have their pictures together with the sea behind them; something they'd never seen before. And lots of sort of working-class resorts developed during that time. Not everybody could afford to go Saint Tropez, or Deauville, or Biarritz, or San Rafael, or, God forbid, Cannes, places like that. So, the working-class vacation begins then. And that's a great moment, that's a magic moment, that's an important moment. We live in a country in which nobody ever takes vacation. People that are rich can't afford to take vacations. They make all this money, where are they going to spend it? Well, let's get another five-hundred video games, or something like that. What are they going to do? In France the right to a vacation, even if you can't afford to take--now people just take smaller vacations than they could before. But that's an important conquest, and it came from the Popular Front, and it's a great, great, great thing. Now, the wealthy French families don't like this very much. What happens if these people come to our resorts, speaking like they do, looking like they do? They don't like it--what kind of Republic is this? Une Republique populaire, after all. And, so, the strikes gradually end. But why does the Popular Front fail in the long run? In a way everything wasn't possible, it wasn't possible. One of the reasons it fails is because, of course, the employers have no idea of holding to what they'd agreed to, and they violate every conceivable contract they can as quickly as possible. But the economic crisis--if you're trying to make France more productive and put people back to work, at the time the strategy of having people work less, or for that matter going out on strike, economically didn't really work. France was a more agricultural country than, say, Germany, or the United States, or Britain, and so the Depression comes later and it stays longer; though the U.S. doesn't get out of the Depression really until the armistice of World War Two. And the export of currency, what wealthy people do in France and other countries is they start taking money, cash, gold, silver, out of the country. They take them to Switzerland--they still do that, and especially in the 1990s they were having to control the trains to Switzerland and Brussels, to Belgium, because people were taking money out of the country and all that, and not declaring what they had as income--it just happens all the time. So, Blum does not put controls on currency, constraints on currency, because of opposition from the British and the United States and other places. And, so, at this point the Popular Front begins to unravel. Ideologically, the reformist Socialist Party and the Communists remain a world apart. Léon Blum is not going to say, "occupy permanently the factories; take over the means of production, that's all there is to it"--no, he wasn't going to do that. In March 1937 the police fire on workers demonstrating against the Croix-de-Feu in the Parisian suburb of Clichy and the Communist Party denounces the government. The French stock market goes into a tumble; various advisors resign reducing confidence in Léon Blum's economic policies, and the government had to devalue the franc several times because of the flow of gold abroad, and the French financial community denounces Léon Blum. But there's another reason, too, that undercuts the Popular Front. And this of course is Spain, because those people who lived in the late 1930s, people who were intellectuals, people who were students at Yale, and Columbia, and Mighty Michigan, and Cal, and other places, the war in Spain was seen as a war of civilization. At the time people realized that it was a dry run for another big war that was going to come along, that sometime fascism had to be stopped. And Franco, his military allegiance, he was actually number three on the list but the first two were killed, one in combat, I guess, and the other one in a plane accident flying from Portugal into Spain. The revolution, counter-revolution really starts in 1936 in Morocco and then in Spain, and by 1939 in a very bloody atrocity-filled war on both sides, though the atrocities were overwhelmingly on the side of the fascists, no question about that. The question was what was going to happen in Spain? And some of the great literature that came out of that period--obviously George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia or Borkenau or Brennan--there's all sorts of great books on Spain from people who were there. The International Brigades were full of people from Yale, and Columbia, and Oxford, and Cambridge, and the unions in Detroit going over to fight the good fight against fascism. But nobody gave arms to Spain, nobody gave arms to Spain except the Germans gave arms to the authoritarians of Franco. The Italians tried out their tanks there. The Guernica, the most famous painting of the period of Picasso--you should visit Guernica some time--came when they strafed and bombed the civilian population--it was German planes doing it on behalf of Franco. And Léon Blum goes to the Place de la Republique and there are thousands and thousands of people, and they're screaming, "Arms for Spain! Arms for Spain! Arms for Spain!" And with tears pouring down his cheeks he said, "I can't, I can't." Well, why couldn't he? Because the British and the Americans didn't want him to do that. They viewed this as being an internationalization of a war which had already become internationalized, and Spain did not get the weapons it needed to survive, and Franco's regime lasts until 1975, November 1975, when he finally expired. The War on Spain was one of those moments--you can look back, and I already suggested this, that maybe if they'd stopped Hitler when they invade the Rhineland maybe history would've been different--could have been, you never know. And maybe if they'd stopped Franco in 1936 to 1939, and in doing so stopped the Germans and Italians, maybe history would've been different and all these fifty--who can count?--fifty million or sixty million people who died wouldn't have died. Who knows, it's looking back. But, so far as the Popular Front it survived, but in name only, until 1939. The economic crisis, the strike movement and all of that, which only was counterproductive, and the war of Spain; and the international situation came to represent--to bring about the defeat of this government. And Léon Blum, as most of you know, ends up in jail. He's lucky during Vichy not to have been assassinated, he survives--or not to have been murdered or executed; he survives the war and is active in politics again at the very beginning of what would become the Fourth Republic. But we live in a world of nostalgia, of historical nostalgia, too, and people of my generation--I wasn't born then, I assure you, not even near being born yet then--but we grew up listening to tales of Spain and "Arms for Spain." And if one lives in France, lots of the things that are good about France and sort of the protective State in giving people the right to decent conditions--decent healthcare, museums that are actually open and paid vacations--are something that came out of that period. And, so, one looks sort of back with a certain bit of nostalgia. So, next Wednesday we will move on to the fall of France and to collaboration of World War Two.

Terminology and similar groups

When communist parties came to power after World War II in the People's Republic of China, and the countries of Central, and Eastern Europe, it was common to do so at the head of a "front" (such as the United Front and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in China, the National Front in Czechoslovakia, the Front of National Unity in Poland, the Democratic Bloc in East Germany, etc.) containing several ostensibly-noncommunist parties. While it was the communist party—not the fronts—that held power in these countries, the alleged coalitions gave the Party the ability to maintain that it did not have a monopoly on power in that country.

Another use of the word "front" in connection with communist activity was "Communist front". This phrase used "front" not in the sense of a political movement "linking divergent elements to achieve common objectives",[5] but as a facade "used to mask" the identity/true character/activity of "the actual controlling agent",[5] (examples being the World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, World Federation of Trade Unions, Women's International Democratic Federation, and the World Peace Council). Communist front was a label frequently applied to political organizations opposed by anti-communists during the Cold War.

The strategy of creating or taking over organizations that would then claim to be expressions of popular will, and not manipulation by the Soviet Union or communist movement, was first suggested by Vladimir Lenin. These would not be political coalitions seeking power in opposition to fascist movements, but groups designed to spread the Marxist–Leninist message in places where the Communist party was either illegal or distrusted by many of the people the party wanted to reach.[6] It was used from the 1920s through the 1950s, and accelerated during the popular front period of the 1930s. Eventually there were large numbers of front organizations.

Comintern policy: 1934–1939

Cover of an American communist pamphlet from the Popular Front that used patriotic themes under the slogan "Communism is the Americanism of the 20th Century."

The international communism, in the form of the Communist International (Comintern), the international communist organization created by the Russian Communist Party in the wake of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, went through a number of ideological strategies to advance proletarian revolution. Its 1922 congress called for a "United Front" (the "Second Period") after it became clear proletarian revolution would not sweep aside capitalism in the rest of the world,[7] whereby the minority of workers who supported communist revolution would join forces against the bourgeoisie with workers outside the communist parties.[8] This was followed by the "Third Period" starting in mid-1928, which posited that capitalism was collapsing and militant policies should by rigidly maintained,[9]: 395–6  As the Nazi Party came to power in 1933 in Germany, and annihilated one of the more successful communist movements in that country, it became clear fascism was both on the rise and saw Communism as an enemy to be destroyed, and that opposition to fascism was disorganized and divided.[1] A new, less extreme policy was called for whereby Communists would form political coalitions with non-Communist socialists and even democratic non-socialists – "liberals, moderates, and even conservatives" – in "popular fronts" against fascism.[1][2][how?]

Germany

Until early 1933, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was regarded as the world's most successful communist party in terms of membership and electoral results. As a result, the Communist International, or Comintern, expected national communist parties to base their political style on the German example. That approach, known as the "class against class" strategy, or the ultra-left "Third Period", expected that the economic crisis and the trauma of war would increasingly radicalise public opinion and that if the communists remained aloof from mainstream democratic politics, they would benefit from the populist mood and be swept to power. As such, non-communist socialist parties were denounced as "social fascist".

After a series of financial crises in 1926, 1929 and 1931, public opinion in Europe was certainly radicalising but not to the benefit of left-wing anticapitalist parties. In the weeks that followed Hitler's rise to power in February 1933, the German Communist Party and the Comintern clung rigidly to their view that the Nazi triumph would be brief and that it would be a case of "after Hitler – our turn". However, as the brutality of the Nazi government became clear and there was no sign of its collapse, communists began to sense that there was a need for a radical alteration of their stance, especially as Adolf Hitler had made it clear that he regarded the Soviet Union as an enemy state.

In several countries over the previous years, a sense had grown within elements of the Communist Parties that the German model of "class against class" was not the most appropriate way to succeed in their national political contexts and that it was necessary to build some alliance to prevent the greater threat of autocratic nationalist governments. However, figures such as Henri Barbé and Pierre Célor in France and José Bullejos and Adama in Spain, who advocated greater flexibility by co-operating loyally with social-democratic parties and possibly even left-wing capitalist parties, were removed from positions of power. Predecessors to the Popular Front had existed, such as in the (later-renamed) World Committee Against War and Imperialism, but they sought not to co-operate with other parties as equals but instead to draw potential sympathisers into the orbit of the communist movement, which caused them to be denounced by the leaders of other left-wing associations.

It was thus not until 1934 when Georgi Dimitrov, who had humiliated the Nazis with his defence against charges of involvement in the Reichstag fire became the general secretary of the Comintern, and its officials became more receptive to the approach. Official acceptance of the new policy was first signalled in a Pravda article of May 1934, which commented favourably on socialist-communist collaboration.[10] The reorientation was formalised at the Comintern's Seventh Congress in July 1935 and reached its apotheosis with the proclamation of a new policy: "The People's Front Against Fascism and War". Communist parties were now instructed to form broad alliances with all antifascist parties with the aim of securing social advance at home as well as a military alliance with the Soviet Union to isolate the fascist dictatorships. The "popular fronts" thus formed proved to be successful politically in forming governments in France, Spain and China but not elsewhere.[11]

France

SFIO demonstration in response to the 6 February 1934 crisis. A sign reads "Down with fascism"

In France, the collapse of a leftist government coalition of social-democrats and left-liberal republicans, followed by the far-right riots, which brought to power an autocratic right-wing government, changed the equation. To resist a slippery slope of encroachment towards authoritarianism, socialists were now more inclined to operate in the street and communists to co-operate with other antifascists in Parliament. In June 1934, Léon Blum's socialist French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) signed a pact of united action with the French Communist Party. By October, the Communist Party had begun to suggest that the republican parties that had not sided with the nationalist government might also be included, and it accepted the offer the next July after the French government tilted even further to the right.

In May 1935, France and the Soviet Union signed a defensive alliance, and in August 1935, the 7th World Congress of the Comintern officially endorsed the Popular Front strategy.[12] In the elections of May 1936, the Popular Front won a majority of parliamentary seats (378 deputies against 220), and Blum formed a government.[10] In Fascist Italy, the Comintern advised an alliance between the Italian Communist Party and the Italian Socialist Party, but the latter rejected the idea.

Great Britain

There were attempts in Great Britain to found a popular front, against the National Government's appeasement of Nazi Germany, between the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Independent Labour Party, the Communist Party and even rebellious elements of the Conservative Party under Winston Churchill, but they failed mainly because of opposition from within the Labour Party, which was seething with anger over communist efforts to take over union locals. In addition, the incompatibility of liberal and socialist approaches also caused many Liberals to be hostile.[13]

United States

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) had been quite hostile to the New Deal until 1935, but it suddenly reversed positions and tried to form a popular front with the New Dealers.[14] It sought a joint Socialist-Communist ticket with Norman Thomas's Socialist Party of America in the 1936 presidential election, but the Socialists rejected the overture. The communists also then offered support to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The Popular Front saw the Communist Party taking a very patriotic and populist line, later called Browderism.

The Popular Front has been summarized by historian Kermit McKenzie as:

...An imaginative, flexible program of strategy and tactics, in which Communists were permitted to exploit the symbols of patriotism, to assume the role of defenders of national independence, to attack fascism without demanding an end to capitalism as the only remedy, and, most important, to enter upon alliances with other parties, on the basis of fronts or on the basis of a government in which Communists might participate.[15]

McKenzie asserted that to be a mere tactical expedient, with the broad goals of communists for the overthrow of capitalism through revolution remaining unchanged.[15]

Cultural historian Michael Denning has challenged the Communist Party-centric view of the US popular front, saying that the "fellow travelers" in the US actually composed the majority of the movement. In his view, Communist party membership was only one (optional) element of leftist US culture at the time.[16]

End of popular fronts

The period suddenly came to an end with another abrupt reversal of Soviet or communist policy, where the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany in August 1939, dividing Central and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, and leading to the Soviet takeover of the Baltic Republics and Finland.[17] Comintern parties then turned from a policy of anti-fascism to one of advocating peace with Germany, maintaining that World War II (until Germany invaded the Soviet Union and the Communist party line reversed yet again) was not a fight against Nazi aggression, but "the Second Imperialist War".[18][19] Many party members quit the party in disgust at the agreement between Hitler and Stalin, but many communists in France and other countries refused to enlist in their countries' forces until June 1941 since until then, Stalin was not at war with Hitler.[citation needed]

Critics and defenders of policy

Leon Trotsky and his far-left supporters roundly criticised the strategy. Trotsky believed that only united fronts could ultimately be progressive and that popular fronts were useless because they included bourgeois forces such as liberals. Trotsky also argued that in popular fronts, working-class demands are reduced to their bare minimum, and the ability of the working class to put forward its own independent set of politics is compromised. That view is now common to most Trotskyist groups. Left communist groups also oppose popular fronts, but they came to oppose united fronts as well.

In a book written in 1977, the eurocommunist leader Santiago Carrillo offered a positive assessment of the Popular Front. He argued that in Spain, despite the excesses attributable to the passions of civil war, the period of coalition government in Republican areas "contained in embryo the conception of an advance to socialism with democracy, with a multi-party system, parliament, and liberty for the opposition".[20] Carrillo, however criticised the Communist International for not taking the Popular Front strategy far enough, especially since French communists were restricted to supporting Blum's government from without, rather than becoming full coalition partners.[21]

Soviet bloc

After World War II, most Central and Eastern European countries were ruled by coalitions between several different political parties that voluntarily chose to work together. By the time that the countries in what became the Eastern Bloc had developed into Marxist–Leninist states, the non-communist parties had pushed out those members not willing to do the communists' bidding and were taken over by fellow travellers. As a result, the front had turned into a tool of the communists. The non-communist parties were required to accept the communist party's "leading role" as a condition of their continued existence.

For example, East Germany was ruled by a "National Front" of all parties and movements within Parliament (Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Liberal Party, Farmers' Party, Youth Movement, Trade Union Federation etc.). At legislative elections, voters were presented with a single list of candidates from all parties.[22]

The People's Republic of China's United Front is perhaps the best known example of a communist-run popular front in modern times. It is nominally a coalition of the Chinese Communist Party and eight minor parties. Though all parties had origins in independent parties prior to the Chinese Civil War, noncommunists eventually splintered out to join the Nationalists, and the parties remaining in Mainland China allied with either Communist Party sympathizers or, in some cases, actual members.[23]

Soviet republics

In the republics of the Soviet Union, between around 1988 and 1992 (when the USSR had dissolved, and the republics were all independent), the term "Popular Front" had quite a different meaning. It referred to movements led by members of the liberal-minded intelligentsia (usually themselves members of the local Communist Party), in some republics small and peripheral but in others broad-based and influential. Officially, their aim was to defend perestroika against reactionary elements within the state bureaucracy, but over time, they began to question the legitimacy of their republics' membership of the Soviet Union. It was their initially cautious tone that gave them considerable freedom to organise and to gain access to the mass media. In the Baltic republics, they soon became the dominant political force and gradually gained the initiative from the more radical dissident organisations established earlier by moving their republics towards greater autonomy and then independence. They also became the main challengers to the communist parties' hegemony in Byelorussia, Moldavia, Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan. A Popular Front was established in Georgia but remained marginal, compared to the dominant dissident-led groups, since the April 9 tragedy had radicalised society and so it was unable to play the compromise role of similar movements. In the other republics, such organisations existed but never posed a meaningful threat to the incumbent party and economic elites.[24]

List of popular fronts

Popular fronts in non-communist countries

The French Front populaire and the Spanish Frente Popular popular fronts of the 1930s are the most notable ones.

Popular fronts in post-Soviet countries

These are non-socialist parties unless indicated otherwise:

Republic Main ethnonationalist movement (foundation date)
Russian SFSR Democratic Russia (1990)
Ukrainian SSR People's Movement of Ukraine (Narodnyi Rukh Ukrajiny) (November 1988)
Byelorussian SSR Belarusian Popular Front (October 1988), Renewal (Andradzhen'ne) (June 1989)
Uzbek SSR Unity (Birlik) (November 1988)
Kazakh SSR Nevada Semipalatinsk Movement (February 1989)
Georgian SSR Committee for National Salvation (October 1989)
Azerbaijan SSR Azerbaijani Popular Front Party Azərbaycan Xalq Cəbhəsi Partiyası; (July 1988)
Lithuanian SSR Reform Movement of Lithuania (Lietuvos Persitvarkymo Sąjūdis) (June 1988)
Moldavian SSR Popular Front of Moldova Frontul Popular din Moldova; (May 1989)
Latvian SSR Popular Front of Latvia Latvijas Tautas fronte;(July 1988)
Kirghiz SSR Openness (Ashar) (July 1989)
Tajik SSR Openness (Ashkara) (June 1989)
Armenian SSR Karabakh movement (February 1988)
Turkmen SSR Unity (Agzybirlik) (January 1990)
Estonian SSR Popular Front of Estonia (Eestimaa Rahvarinne) (April 1988)
Autonomous Republic Main ethnonationalist movement (foundation date)
South Ossetian AO Adamon Nykhaz (1988)
Tatar ASSR Tatar Public Center (Tatar İctimağí Üzäge) (February 1989)
Checheno-Ingush ASSR All-National Congress of the Chechen People (November 1990)
Abkhaz ASSR Unity (Aidgylara) (December 1988)

[33]

These were established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991:

  • All-Russia People's Front Общероссийский народный фронт, created in 2011 by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to provide United Russia with "new ideas, new suggestions and new faces" and intended to be a coalition between the ruling party and numerous non-United Russia nongovernmental organizations.

List of national fronts

In current communist countries

In former communist countries

See also

Notes

  1. ^ There are varying definitions for a Popular Front in Finland, both historically and in modern use. For example, Aimo Kaarlo Cajander's III Cabinet of the Agrarian Union, Social Democrats, National Progressives(Liberals) and the Swedish Folks Party was called the first "Red-Brown Coalition"(Punamulta), a coalition where the two largest parties were the Agrarian Union/Centre Party and the Social Democrats, but the coalition could have the National Progressives(Liberals) and/or the Swedish Folks Party supporting the coalition. Post WW2 however, as the Communist SKDL became a large player in the parliament of Finland, there started to form a three-way coalition between the Agrarian Union/Centre Party, Social Democrats and the Communists, by format the actual "Popular Bloc", such as Mauno Pekkala's Cabinet or Mauno Koivisto's I Cabinet. What makes the definition more confusing is that in 2019 Antti Rinne's government was formed of the Social Democrats, Centre Party (Agrarians), Greens, Left Alliance (Left/far-left parties) and the Swedish Folks party. Rinne himself called the new 5-party coalition a "New Red-Brown Coalition", but many in the media called it a "New Popular Bloc"[31]
  2. ^ The DPRK officially moved away from the ideology Marxist Leniinism under former leader Kim Il-Sung who criticized Marxism–Leninism and historical materialism in favor of "Juche". Juche, the official state ideology, differs from Marxism–Leninism in considering human beings in general -- rather than the relations of production or class struggle -- to be the driving force in history, and "the great man" in particular to be "the leading force of the working class". The country then removed all references to "communism" from the constitution in 2009 under former leader Kim Jong-il.

References

Citations
  1. ^ a b c "popular front European coalition". Britannica. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
  2. ^ a b c "Popular Front". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  3. ^ "popular front". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  4. ^ Barrett, James R. (7 September 2009). "Rethinking the Popular Front". Rethinking Marxism a Journal of Economics, Culture & Society. 21 (4): 531–550. doi:10.1080/08935690903145671. S2CID 143043228. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  5. ^ a b "front noun". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  6. ^ Theodore Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia (2003) p 172
  7. ^ Worley, Matthew (2000). "Left Turn: A Reassessment of the Communist Party of Great Britain in the Third Period, 1928-33". Twentieth Century British History. 11 (4): 353–378. doi:10.1093/tcbh/11.4.353.
  8. ^ "Theses on Comintern Tactics". 1922. Retrieved 20 February 2008..
  9. ^ Kozlov, Nicholas N.; Weitz, Eric D. (1989). "Reflections on the Origins of the 'Third Period': Bukharin, the Comintern, and the Political Economy of Weimar Germany". Journal of Contemporary History. 24 (3): 387–410. doi:10.1177/002200948902400301. JSTOR 260667. S2CID 144906375.
  10. ^ a b 1914-1946: Third Camp Internationalists in France during World War II, libcom.org
  11. ^ Archie Brown, The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009) pp 88-100.
  12. ^ The Seventh Congress, Marxist Internet Archive
  13. ^ Joyce, Peter (Autumn 2000). "The Liberal Party and the Popular Front: An assessment of the arguments over progressive unity in the 1930s" (PDF). Journal of Liberal History (28).
  14. ^ Frank A. Warren (1993). Liberals and Communism: The "Red Decade" Revisited. Columbia UP. pp. 237–38. ISBN 9780231084444.
  15. ^ a b Kermit E. McKenzie, Comintern and World Revolution, 1928-1943: The Shaping of a Doctrine. London and New York: Columbia University Press, 1964; p. 159.
  16. ^ Denning, Michael (2010). The cultural front : the laboring of American culture in the twentieth century ([2010] ed.). London: Verso. ISBN 978-1844674640.
  17. ^ "German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact". Britannica. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  18. ^ García, Hugo; Yusta, Mercedes; Tabet, Xavier (2016). Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922. Berghahn Books. p. 189. ISBN 9781785331398. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  19. ^ Haynes, John E. (December 2000). "Did Communism Give Peace a Bad Name? (Book review)". H-Net online. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  20. ^ Santiago Carrillo, Eurocommunism and the State. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1977; p. 128.
  21. ^ Carrillo, Eurocommunism and the State, pp. 113–114.
  22. ^ Kindell, Alexandra; Demers, Elizabeth S., eds. (2014). Encyclopedia of Populism in America: A Historical Encyclopedia. Abc-Clio. p. 542. ISBN 9781598845686.
  23. ^ Judicial politics as state-building, Zhu, Suli, Pp. 23–36 in Stéphanie Balme and Michael W. Dowdle (eds.), Building Constitutionalism in China.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  24. ^ Wheatley, Jonathan. Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution, pp. 31, 45. Ashgate Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-7546-4503-7.
  25. ^ David R. Corkill, "The Chilean Socialist Party and The Popular Front 1933-41." Journal of Contemporary History 11.2 (1976): 261-273. in JSTOR; John R. Stevenson, The Chilean Popular Front (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942).
  26. ^ Hilal, Jamil. "The Palestinian Left and the Multi-Layered Challenges Ahead | The Institute for Palestine Studies". oldwebsite.palestine-studies.org. Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  27. ^ Halliday, Fred (4 April 2002). Revolution and Foreign Policy: The Case of South Yemen, 1967-1987. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521891646.
  28. ^ "الجبهة الوطنية التقدمية". pnf.org.sy. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  29. ^ Hennigan, Tom (29 November 2014). "Uruguay set to return left-wing Broad Front movement to power". The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  30. ^ "Venezuelan opposition leaders jailed, accused of planning escape while under house arrest | CBC News". CBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  31. ^ Karvonen, Kyösti (12 May 2019). "Uusi kansanrintama vai uusi punamulta? – Suomi kaartaa vasemmalle". Kaleva.fi.
  32. ^ "Antti Rinne: Tämä on uusi punamulta" (in Finnish). 5 August 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2022.
  33. ^ Tsygankov, Andrei P. Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity, p. 46. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, ISBN 0-7425-2650-X.

Further reading

  • Graham, Helen, and Paul Preston, eds. The Popular Front in Europe (1989).
  • Haslam, Jonathan. "The Comintern and the Origins of the Popular Front 1934–1935." Historical Journal 22#3 (1979): 673–691.
  • Horn, Gerd-Rainer. European Socialists Respond to Fascism: Ideology, Activism and Contingency in the 1930s. (Oxford University Press, 1997).
  • Mates, Lewis. "The United Front and the Popular Front in the North-east of England, 1936-1939." PhD dissertation, 2002.
  • Priestland, David. The Red Flag: A History of Communism (2010) pp 182–233.
  • Vials, Christopher. Haunted by Hitler: Liberals, the Left, and the Fight against Fascism in the United States. (U of Massachusetts Press, 2014).
This page was last edited on 27 March 2024, at 18:35
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.