[Peace-discuss] He who controls the past, controls the future

[C. G. Estabrook]

Mort--

We were all rightly offended when it was suggested that opponents of the
Iraq invasion were sympathetic to terrorism or perhaps secretly funded by
Saddam Hussein.  Yet you seem to have no trouble believing that opponents
of US involvement in WWII were necessarily Axis sympathizers, which is to
say anti-Semites.

There was in fact a strong anti-war Left in the US in 1939.  The
Communists abandoned it suddenly with the invasion of Russia, but it still
existed, and it certainly took a position on the European war -- the US
should stay out of it. Anti-war sentiment was such that FDR had to
maneuver the country into war, probably arranging for other side to fire
the first shot (as Lincoln had), which turned out to be Pearl Harbor.  As
you say, "the decision to enter the war had already been made."

But to say "The anti-war folks would have been happy to see the Axis
powers prevail," is roughly equivalent to the current administration's
claim that we'd like to see Saddam Hussein still in power.

And the US did "profit mightily" from the war: as the only undamaged
country in 1945, it organized the world -- picking up the British Empire
in the process, as the Brits recognized -- for the benefit of its
capitalist class.  This was the triumph of the state capitalism that the
major countries had pioneered in response to the Depression.

Regards, Carl


On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Morton K.Brussel wrote:

> To continue the dialog on Kaufman's view of history, and Roth's:  
> Comments appended below.  Apologies to the list for submitting them to
> all this.
> 
> On Sep 24, 2004, at 9:01 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> > Mort-- > > Kauffman attacks Roth's characteristically chauvinist
> support for one > of > the great myths of 20th-century US history --
> that an innocent US, > unexpectedly attacked by Japan, responded by
> putting a stop to Nazism, > in > order to bring the Judeocide to an
> end -- and therefore those who > opposed > the US war were necessarily
> crypto-fascists and anti-Semites.
> 
> This is beside the point. I have no illusions that the U.S. was an
> innocent, or that it put a stop to Nazism. On the latter point, it
> certainly helped. But from what I recall, those against the U.S.  
> becoming embroiled in the ongoing war in Europe in the years 1939 to
> 1941 tended to be Axis sympathizers. 
> 
> > Virtually none of that is true.  You ask what Chomsky would say
> about > Kauffman's "scurrilous" review.  A good place to start would
> be > Chomsky's > essay "On the Backgrounds of the Pacific War,"
> recently republished in > a > collection with an introduction by
> Howard Zinn.  Chomsky concluded > that, > in regard to WWII, "The lack
> of a radical critique ... was one of the > factors that contributed to
> the atrocity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as > the > weakness and
> ineffectiveness of such radical critique today will > doubtless > lead
> to new and unimaginable horrors."
> 
> I've no arguments here with Chomsky. It is not relevant to my points.
> I am clearly sympathetic to a radical critique of U.S. policy preWWII.
> I would still like to know what Chomsky thinks of Kaufman's review. I
> still wonder (and doubt) that he would go along with it. 
> 
> > Kauffman sketches such a critique in his review of the Roth's
> typically > propagandistic novel.  There are certainly things that can
> be argued > about, but the point is that in the manufactured consent
> to America's > 20th-century story, no real argument takes place.
> (Note, e.g., the > furious > defenses of Hiroshima that appear in the
> local paper every August.)
> 
> OK, but Kauffman's critique is wrong. I'll have to read Roth's book
> (Have you read it?), but the "left" (If there is such a coherent
> thing)  in the U.S. before U.S. entry into WWII was certainly not on
> the side of the people Kauffman lauds. To the contrary. 
> 
> > You say that being pro-war was the "right left" position in 1939-41
> > because "the world was already at war."  But you know as well as I
> do > that > the US joined the war only because of the contest with
> Japan over > control > of the Pacific; the US declared war against
> Germany only after > Germany, as > Japan's ally, had declared war on
> the US.  The fall of France, the > Battle > of Britain, and the
> invasion of Russia had already taken place before > the US officially
> joined the European war.  As in World War I, a > Democratic
> administration had to subvert the strong anti-war opinions > of > the
> American people -- which after the war had to be continually >
> excoriated as "isolationism."
> 
> My point was that there was already a war going on in Europe (not that
> the U.S. was in it), and one had to take a position on that war: For
> the Allies or the Axis? Moves had already been made by FDR
> administration to help the Allies (Lend-Lease, etc.), oppose the Axis.  
> FDR wanted to bring the country in on the side of the Allies. No
> doubt, Pearl Harbor and immediate subsequent events made the case for
> him, but I believe that the decision to enter the war had already been
> made.  The anti-war folks would have been happy to see the Axis powers
> prevail. That says a lot. 
> 
> > And the myth that the US defeated Nazism is false.  The Soviet Union
> > did. > Even after the Normandy landings to the very end of the war,
> the > majority > of the German army was on the Eastern front.
> 
> No argument here. I don't know what Roth says about this, but it is
> true that without the U.S. contribution, the outcome would have been
> very dicey. The USSR would not have been able to resist so well, and
> the "liberation of Europe (France, etc.) would not have been possible.  
> So, clearly, the U.S. contribution was essential, if not dominant.
> 
> > In the years 1939-41, the US certainly didn't "forget about Hitler
> and > the > German war machine" -- it did business with them.  Nor did
> the US > forget > about fascism in Italy --
> 
> Business is business, unfortunately. U.S corporate interests were
> clearly partially aligned with German interests. IG Farben et al. 
> 
> > "...the State Department hailed [Mussolini's] 'magnificent >
> achievements' > in Ethiopia, and his 'astonishing contributions' to
> the welfare of the > masses in Italy itself. FDR in 1939 wrote
> internally that the efforts > of > the man he had called 'that
> admirable Italian gentleman' were > corrupted by > Hitler but
> otherwise they were okay. As for Hitler and Sudetenland, > again > the
> records are ambivalent. A.A. Berle, who was one of Roosevelt's > chief
> > advisers, after the Sudeten takeover said that it was 'not
> alarming,' > and > that it was 'probably necessary' for the Austrian
> Empire to be > reconstituted under German rule. The State Department
> -- again > internally > -- was more supportive. They described Hitler
> as a moderate who > stands, in > 1937, between extremes of right and
> left and they said that Hitler must > win or else the masses now
> supported by the disillusioned middle > classes > might turn to the
> left and that would be a tragedy..." (Chomsky again).
> 
> My guess is that the State Department was not of one mind. I'm not
> that informed about the matter. Joseph Kennedy, a Nazi sympathiser,
> was lobbying there. So these anecdotal remarks don't explain the
> general direction in which the FDR policy was moving after 1939. 
> 
> > It was FDR's administration that was "Pro-fascist and pro-Nazi,
> against > the Bolshies," as you say -- as much or more than the
> anti-war > movement, > as Kauffman points out. Remember the FBI
> phrase, "premature > anti-fascist"?
> 
> Did I say this?? 
> 
> > In fact, Germany, Russia, and the US all approached the real problem
> of > the age -- the collapse of capitalism in the Great Depression --
> by > similar means: a national socialism (which meant roughly
> Keynesian > economics)  brought in under the moral suasion of the
> Leader (Hitler, > Stalin, and Roosevelt (the German Fuehrerprinzip).  
> But for the US, > only > the Great Patriotic War could solve the
> Depression, and the great fear > after 1945 was that the Depression
> would come back, so the war had to > be > continued by other means.
> 
> I can't agree that FDR was the equivalent to Hitler,Mussolini or
> Stalin. They may have all confronted the economic problems of the
> depression and the after effects of WWI, but their policies were only
> similar in trying to overcome those problems. FDR was no angel, but he
> didn't set about with illusions of master races or even empire like
> the others. To conflate them is crazy.
> 	As to whether the Great Patriotic War was necessary to get us
> out of the depression --- I've heard the arguments, but they do not
> convince me. The U.S. could have profited mightily even if it hadn't
> entered the war.  This is a complicated issue.
> 
> > You support the the American mythology about WWII by insisting that
> > opponents of the Roosevelt administration must have been
> unprincipled: > "Burton Wheeler, Gerald Nye, et al and their followers
> morphed into the > House Unamerican Activities Committee after the
> war." > > But as Kauffman points out, "Nye criticized the New Deal
> from the Left > for > its timorousness.  Nye had made his name as the
> scourge of the > 'merchants > of death' who profited from the
> disastrous U.S. entry into the First > World > War, and he always
> feared a replay."
> 
> I'll have to do some research here. You may be right as to these overt
> criticisms. But I suspect if there were other motives behind Nye's
> opposition to an impending war with the Axis powers. . 
>
> > And "...the real Burton K. Wheeler was an anti-draft, antiwar,
> anti-big > business defender of civil liberties: in Roth's world, this
> great > American > -- a 'brilliant, incorruptible, courageous man,' in
> La Follette's > glowing > tribute -- must be depicted as pro-fascist.
> (The closest thing to a > real > live fascist in American politics in
> 1940 was FDR brain-truster > Rexford G. > Tugwell.)"
> 
> Ditto. 
> 
> > During the Vietnam War I came to know some conscientious objectors
> from > WWII.  I thought then -- and still almost think -- that their
> position > was > wrong. Being in the American military during Vietnam
> was immoral; I'm > not > sure it was, during WWII.  But the
> almost-universal propagandistic > misrepresentation of the history and
> issues, which Roth continues, > Kauffman rightly opposes.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right. 
>
> > Regards, Carl
> 
> Regards, Mort