Re: [sixties-l] Re: Nader Fiasco

From: Jeffrey Blankfort (
Date: 12/02/00

  • Next message: "[sixties-l] To those on this Website who can only see half empty cups..."

     As I recall, the totals for WW  were 60 million with one-third of those
    being Russian. The actual estimated figure for Jewish deaths, according
    to Raul Hilberg, the acknowledged expert in the field, was 5.1 million.
    A million and a half Pole were also supposed to have been killed by
    Hitler but any mention by Poles of the subject invariably elicits
    accusations of "anti-Semitism." The number of dead as a result of wars
    since end of World War 2 must have passed the 30 million mark since 10
    years ago the total was already 26 million and the number of deadly
    conflicts has only escalated. We do not even know how many Laotians died
    under the deadly US bombing raids because US criminality in that country
    has been obscured by the reference to the war as the Vietnam War, when
    the actual tonnage exceeded that dropped on Vietnam and was greater than
    that dropped on all of Europe in World War Two. If there had been the
    equivalent of Nuremberg trials after the war, would the US presidents
    and US generals, etc., who were responsible for that war which we know
    took the lives of two million Vietnamese, been any less guilty than the
    Nazis because the death totals didn't match up? What degree of
    culpability does the US and its officialdom have for openly supporting
    with weapons, money, and political cover the murder of hundreds of
    thousands in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Of abetting the
    Pinochet coup in Chile? Of indirectly supporting Pol Pot? Does the
    difference in the numbers dead make their crimes any less worse?
    One does not need to be a Nazi apologist to make an argument that
    Germany had been unfairly treated by the Western powers after World War
    I, and that Germany had suffered severely economically. What excuses for
    their behavior can be made for the US decision-makers, presiding as they
    were, over a mineral rich and agriculturally rich country, untouched by
    war, who were either directly or indirectly responsible for the heinous
    crimes and murders that have been committed in Southeast Asia and Latin America?
    Mandel's reference to democracy reminds me of Eisenhower's statement
    that the world had only two choices, US-style democracy or communism, an
    attitude infrequently echoed by know-nothing editorial writers. But
    Mandel's bitter disillusionment over the collapse of the USSR and it
    satellites and what incorrectly passed as socialism along with it,
    blinds him to the fact that the US has less political democracy than any
    other developed country and we didn't need this latest presidential
    ballot flap to prove it, although it helps.  In no other developed
    country with a nominally democratic system do the corporations so
    control every aspect of society and its body politic as in the US. In
    sum, Mandel's defense of the system reminds me, sad to say, of the
    position of David Horowitz, sans the hyperbole.
    Jeff Blankfort
     William Mandel wrote:
    > Evidence presented at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial documented about 50,000,000
    > deaths due to World War II, for which I would argue Hitler was unequivocally
    > responsible, despite the role of imperialist rivalries. Incidentally half of
    > those deaths, according to the evidence, consisted of civilians, almost entirely
    > in Europe. One-quarter of those civilians were Jews, the rest Russians and other
    > peoples of the USSR, Gypsies, gays, the mentally and physically disabled, and
    > civilians of western and southern Europe.
    >     The Cold War powers of the West, of which the U.S. is the most important,
    > are responsible for many millions of deaths, both in unending local wars, in
    > civil wars stimulated and/or prolonged by American and NATO policy, hunger in
    > Iraq and elsewhere, the genocidal drop in population of the former Soviet
    > countries (consequent upon idiotic adoption of economic policies promoted by the
    > U.S., but not the result of American military action or blockade as of Iraq and
    > Cuba). Take all these together, and they do not approach the holocaust (small
    > "c": not the Zionist appropriation of that word) for which Hitler was
    > responsible.
    >     Democracy is an easier way for capitalism to rule because it is better (or,
    > if you wish, a great deal less worse) than fascism. If you reject democracy, the
    > alternative is, at "best" a patriarchal form of rule under an absolute monarch
    > or one or another form of dictatorship, of which fascism is the worst. Is that
    > really what you prefer?
    > Bill Mandel

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/03/00 EST