Re: [sixties-l] Re: Nader Fiasco

From: William M. Mandel (
Date: 12/03/00

  • Next message: Peter Levy: "Re: [sixties-l] The future meaning of this electoral crux"

    This one calls for an apology from Jeff, with no further explanation on my part
    Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    >  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 : 12/04/00 EST