spoiler alert: i linked this
- Member for
- 6 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|7 weeks 2 days ago||The Able book||
was an indirect primary source for a quotation. I have been taught to cite primary sources where available even if they aren't the proximate source for cited information.
Most people I know are unaware of the interwar consequences of the British Blockade and famine, let alone the existence of a bibliography of titles on the subject. I picked the element thereof already connected with other cited sources. I can't tell if you would rather I had not mentioned it.
You're right, this is fun.
PS. Thanks for the movie link.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||In the midst||
I invented "cannot" when I was told 900,000 deaths = 400,000...
I don't know where this comes from; but it appears that are pointing a finger at me. Here is what I said:
I have trouble believing that a reader of MgoBlog like you is innocent of the concept of approximation, ranges of estimated values or extraction of data from conflicting sources. This statement is therefor plainly astonishing. At any rate, if you are hoping therewith to transmit the blame for your manufacture of "cannot" to my humble self, I don't think this will do it.
Two: (edit). Reading comprehension failure on my part. I was totally totally wrong. Nevermind.
I think you are manufacturing denial by equating atrocities here
This is too vague to contest, but it comes close to calling me a liar, and I object. "Manufacturing denial" is a locution perilously homophonic to the metaphorical Third Rail of "Holocaust Denial." Just in case, I refer to the Edwin Black books I linked above if there is any thought of laying that slander at my feet.
In any case, if you are going to call someone a liar, you need to at least make your accusation clear enough to permit an answer.
I don't like spending time justifying and defending myself, but the only thing worse is not doing it when it is clearly called for.
Since you bring up Noam Chomsky, I hope you don't mind if I express amazement at the idea that Chomsky is less read than the late Howard Zinn. (Maybe I look at it in a different way than you do.) Zinn's bibliography runs to dozens of titles, but I have always imagined that the bulk of his fame is from his People's History, which has sold, per WIKI, 2,000,000 or so copies in its first 36 years. Chomsky is from a more purely academic background, and his bibliography runs to hundreds of titles dating back more than sixty years; his published political commentaries date back to ca. 1967. I think the MSM are more rigorously controlled now than they were back in the day; it was not unknown to see Chomsky or his contemporary Gore Vidal on primetime television facing off against mainstream figures like William Buckley. According to the NYT, a single of Chomsky's titles, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, was in a print run of 250,000 books after two-and-a-half years, albeit with the help of a mention at the UN in a speech by Hugo Chavez. I knew of Chomsky before I knew of Zinn. I don't know how to begin to acquire the data to test your comparison objectively; it doesn't appear to be readily available. Given a reputation well-established in certain circles and a catalog of published political commentary going back four-and-a-half decades, I wouldn't dismiss the range of Chomsky's influence that lightly.
I would like to end on the note that "there are good people on all sides of history." I don't think imperialistic governments are that different from one another as people seem to want to think they are. I also don't think that people are that different from one another as imperial governments seen to want us to think they are, either. WIKI has attributed the essense of their following paraphrase to Viktor Frankl: "He often said that even within the narrow boundaries of the concentration camps he found only two races of Men to exist: decent and unprincipled ones."
To second your point, I'd like to finish by naming three "good people" on different sides of history: John Rabe, Managing Director of the Siemens offices in Nanking at the time of the Japanese invasion, who used the swastika flag as a shield against occupying forces to save 250,000 Chinese from Japanese atrocities (diaries recently discovered and published); Japanese Consul-General Chiune Sugihara in Kaunas, Lithuania, who considerably exceeded his authority in extending Japanese transit visas to thousands of Jews threatened by the tenuous state of the Soviet-German relations in July 1940, an action that saved maybe 6000 lives and, finally, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, a helicopter pilot who blew the whistle on the My Lai massacre while in progress and personally rescued 12 individuals from the midst of the slaughter by posing his helicopter in front of intended victims and confronting the pursuing members of 2nd Platoon, C Company directly.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||PS.||
If you will post a diary book review of Abel's book when you are finished, I promise to up-vote it first thing after I see it.
I have to confess I only know of it via secondary sources.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||"Which one is it?"||
Let's pick one and ask "Which one is it?"
If you go back to the original wording:
you will find that your representation "cannot" is your own invention; I never said any such thing. I said "harder." "Harder than what?," you might ask.
Let's consider the backdrop for flu deaths in the US in 1918-9. If you go to Gutenberg[dot]com, "WWI casualties," column headed "Excess civilian deaths (due to famine, disease & accidents)," the entry for the US is blank, which a glance at the rest of the table will tell you means "0." In an epidemiological setting like this one, it can be accepted in a general statistical sense that sometimes a flu death is just a flu death.
What about a more complex setting for for overall demographic disease etiology, say the combined flu pandemic and blockade-induced famine in Germany in 1918-9? I think it would be justifiable to say "It is harder."
As illustration of this general concept, here are the words of James P. Grant from The 1982 [UNICEF] State of the World's Children Report (PDF), p. 3, describing the living conditions of the poorest quarter of the human race at that time:
Now, going back to the situation in Germany in 1918-9, does this mean that no public health officials or other experts attempted, then or later, to separate the composite strands of morbidity and mortality? That nobody made the effort to parse the question, "Would this child have died of flu due to the flu pandemic absent malnutrition due to the famine, or not?"
It appears (World Library) that a December 1918 report by the German Board of Public Health and two studies by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in 1928 and 1940, all reported numbers both for "civilian deaths over the pre war level primarily due to food and fuel shortages in 1917–1918" and for "Spanish flu deaths in 1918." Not all numbers agree, for methodological or political or whatever reasons, but this distinction is made in each of the three.
If you look back at my original language, I said:
So now, regarding your question, "Which one is it?," I think you will have to agree that not just one or the other but both of my statements are exactly correct as originally formulated, as unbelievable as it may seem.
I am not going to go through your entire comment line by line in this way; even if I had the endurance to write it no-one would have the patience to read it. If you read both my and your comments carefully, I think you can deconstruct your argument yourself using the above as a model.
To speak generally now, this whole comment situation arose in the midst of a conversation in which the rise of Hitler was being discussed as a more or less abstract question of political science as if it were a discussion of a typical American election year. "In a vacuum," to use your own words, reflecting, I think, a generally low level of awareness of the British Blockade and of its immediate and long-term effects both inside and outside Germany on the part of the general American public.
I don't propose to expound on whether the Blockade was a legitimate tool of war or not (the experts have argued this point for 100 years), but I suggest that the rise of Hitler is one of many historical judgements on the long-term consequences of this kind of warfare against civilian populations.
If you consider the word "domino," I think you can conceptualize how the NS government can be held accountable for its own deeds without implying that Nazism came out of a vacuum, to use your word again.
I did refer to some of the omissions in the mainstream historical record of the US in response to the challenge, "to give the Nazis and their allies a pass because we did bad stuff is ludicrous." It works both ways; I point out that the US narrative of the US role in the victory over NS Germany serves as the opening to a larger system of obscurantist manufacture of consent.
You do a service pointing out the profitable involvement of much of the US big business community in the darkest dealings of the NS government. Edwin Black has done yeoman work in bringing this era out of the shadows of the historical record, for instance in his book IBM and the Holocaust. I didn't enter into this because it doesn't apply directly to the question of how Hitler came to power in the first place.
|8 weeks 6 days ago||"O'Maize"||
|9 weeks 2 days ago||PS.||
Kudos to your grand-dad.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I don't think||
we're as far apart as you make it sound.
First of all, I didn't:
"You're blaming the gawdawful flu on Anglo-American policy? And the Armenian genocide?"
In case it's not clear from the above, the flu pandemic was an intercontinental catastrophy that killed somewhere around 21 million people in the US alone in 1918-9. It is harder to separate those deaths in Germany from those caused by the famine because malnutrition frequently serves as a backdrop while opportunistic diseases pick off those who have been weakened by hunger; nevertheless, the public health officials of the time have made that distinction.
The Armenian genocide, of course, was the outcome of the state policy of the Young Turks ruling the Ottoman Empire in the WWI era.
"You're also letting Nazi supporters off damned easy by saying that Hitler was the only voice advocating restoring Germany to pre-war status that we destroyed."
Let us say, the only practical choice. Even in the election of 1932 against Hindenburg, Hindenburg was more concerned with transferring blame for the loss of the war onto others ("dochstoss") than with challenging the post-war international regime. If you know of any other prominant and influential (Austro-)German politicians publicly and unashamedly advocating directly for the nullification of the Versailles Treaty at that time, I have overlooked it; I welcome correction on that point. By the way, Hitler came in second in that election. It was Hindenburg who elevated him to power as a political appointment.
"Look at the stats on unemployment in New York alone and tell me that Germany was so devasted . . ."
This is an expression of first-world incomprehension of the extremity of the condition that warfare can reduce people to, something the European immigrants to the US continent have never experienced directly at home. Unemployment is not the same as general famine. For a grim description of the condition Germany was in in 1919 after 5 years of English, and then Anglo-American blockade, more like that of the Biafran famine in the Nigerian civil war or the Bangledeshi famine of 1971 during the war of Bangladeshi independence than New York in the Great Depression, we can turn to page 164 of Herbert Hoover's The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson. (By the way, Hoover, who we can see was obviously touched by the misery he witnessed, is letting Wilson off easy here; Wilson was the primary architect of the tightening of the blockade after the armistice. Banglesh had another major famine in 1942-3 as a direct result of English colonial economics under the direct hand of Churchill. WWI UK PM David Lloyd George, who presided over the "hunger blockade," later became an enthusiastic advocate for Hitler; excepting Churchill, the UK ruling class didn't turn against Hitler until he took himself out of their plans for the encirclement of the Soviet Union with the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939.)
"And to say what the Nazis did is a mirror to what was inflicted on them?"
No. What I said was that the latitude Germans gave the NS regime was a reflection of the scars inflicted on the people of Germany during the hunger blocade and kept raw by the aggressive postwar regime and occupation of Germany. And yes, the policies of the NS German government are the responsibility of -- the NS German government.
BTW, the US itself approached insurrection in several local events such as the San Francisco waterfront strikes and the auto strikes in Detroit. FDR kept an authoritarian lid on these while himself surviving at least one coup attempt. Remember that Hitler ultimately made it to power as part of a government power play, not by a vote of the people. The Nazi share of Reichstag deputies was actually diminished in the last election prior to Hitler's appointment by Hindenberg.
"to give the Nazis and their allies a pass because we did bad stuff is ludicrous."
I don't think I did. I'm just saying that our mainstream conformist historians and journalists have a tendency to shade the picture a little bit, consciously or otherwise, for reasons they may not even understand.
On the other hand, to give our own leaders a free pass for massive aerial bombings killing millions of civilians in North Korea or Laos, indirect involvement in atrocities such as the genocide in East Timor, and much much more than most people realize over the course of the last 70 years because the Nazis did bad stuff is equally ludicrous but a lot easier to get away with.
"And tell me that American-Anglo history has been "scrubbed" when we have Zinn's "People's History" readily available? No."
The presence of literature by dissident intellectuals does not negate the effect of a coherent narrative in the mainstream media and in state-sanctioned teaching materials. Per Wiki, Zinn's book has sold 2 million copies since 1980, a span of 36 years. Time and Newsweek combine to deliver something like 5 million copies each week. I dare say there is little in either of them to resemble the content of People's History. Comparing even relatively popular books like Zinn's to the reach of the MSM, concentrated in, by now, about five major corporations reaching over 90% of US readers and viewers, I think it is fair to say that Zinn's ideas are the property of a thin sliver of the American public, and that, for the vast majority, our history and the reflections of it in conformist media are fairly well "scrubbed."
"Saying that Anglo-American policy is part of the story is defensible. Saying it is all of the story is not."
That's what I think I did:
I merely point out that each national world-view has its own filter; for instance, if you go to France, I bet it is difficult to find anything in print blaming Mitterand for the Greenpeace vessel bombing of 1986. This is part of ours.
By the way, I think the US and the UK should be thought of as more influential and, to some extent, more culpable than the rest of the world's countries for the state of the global economy. There are many things that go into this, but among them is the "exorbitant privilege" conferred on a national currency by global reserve status. If we look at the world in the early 1860s, about 60% of global transactions were taking place using the English Pound Sterling. This privileged position pertained until the effects of WWI debts to the US effected a transition to the US Dollar as the global reserve currency, enshrined in the Bretton Woods agreements from July 1944. Much global intrigue (see Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard) is rooted in the question of control over the global financial system; by this measure, the only global hegemonic powers since the US Civil War era have been the UK and the US.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||I was expecting||
|9 weeks 6 days ago||There is a tendency||
in Anglo-American accounts of the interwar years to discuss Hitler's rise to power in an historical vacuum which conveniently leaves the behavior of the Anglo-Saxon powers out of the historical discussion.
The UK-US naval blocade of the European continent from 1914 to July, 1919 killed approximately 5 million Europeans, including Turks, not including the deaths from the influenza pandemic nor the Turkish Armenian massacre of 1915. Approximately 400,000 to 900,000 of these were German citizens, 250,000 of whom died between November 1918 and July 1919 after fighting stopped as the Allies continued to use starvation as a weapon to force the non-combatant German nation to sign the Versailles Treaty which essentially abolished German sovereingty and gave control to the Western powers.
Czarist Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey all lost governments as a result of general insurrections rooted in the breakdown of the civilized order expected in any modern nation state as a result of the general famine. As always, the death toll is only the tip of the iceberg for estimating the impact of the famine on the lives and mental states of the generation of Europeans who were children.
Following the war, the US took a self-defeatingly hard line on collection of war debts, most notably from the UK. These debts eventually destabilized the Pound Sterling as a global reserve currency, leading to US dollar hegemony by the end of WWII. In the mean time, the UK and France passed on this hard line of debt collection to Germany, pushing it harder into the abyss of economic and potential social failure. Germany also had no regulatory resources to control the banks whose uncontrolled lending and speculation drove the hyperinflation of 1923.
The general German condition of the interwar years was a direct experience of the mortal threat of starvation followed by the constant threat of the breakdown of the structure of lawful society that is taken for granted in a modern industrial state. In 1934, Columbia University sociologist Theodore Abel went to Germany with a grant to obtain autobiographical essays from Hitler supporters, 600 of which he published in his 1938 book Why Hitler Came into Power: An Answer Based on the Original Life Stories of Six Hundred of His Followers. Peter Loewenberg, "The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohorts," American Historical Review 76, no. 5 (December 1971): 1457–502, writes, based on Abel's documentary work, that "the most striking emotional affect expressed in the Abel autobiographies are the adult memories of intense hunger and privation from childhood."
There is no need to go to any great lengths to explain Hitler's appeal to this generation of people. Hitler was simply the only widely-known political figure then talking about fundamentally overturning the post-war order and restoring German sovereignty, ie, removing the mortal threat to the most basic requirements of human life that had been unaddressed since the teeth of the UK blocade started to bite, resulting in widespread malnutrion sometime around 1916.
The brutality that Germans ceded to Hitler is a mirror of the brutality inflicted on them during Germany's attempted rise to true sovereignty in the WWI era. This kind of brutality was also part of European colonialism in general, especially in the WWI era and continuing at least up to the UK murder of 300,000 Kenyan civilians during the independence struggle of 1948-63.
Anglo-American critiques of history, economics and politics have a tendency to be scrubbed of the role of state coercion, brutality and mass murder in shaping the modern world in those cases where the US or the UK is involved. A think there is an argument to be made that reducing the rise of Hitler to an isolated intellectual socio-political narrative falls into this category.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Your argument is well-crafted,||
but everyone knows that the transitive property doesn't work in college football.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||NCAA obsession||
with amateurism on and off the field doesn't extend to professional criminals.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||When you||
acquire MgoPoints, you become mainstream.
|10 weeks 3 days ago||Smooth idea||
to build a dating site around it.
|12 weeks 6 days ago||Oh.||
At first, I thought you meant "someone in the United Kingdom," but your anecdote didn't make any sense.
I think I get it now. Now it reminds me of an old joke about "Kentucky Jelly."
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Someone||
must have told you not to run with a scissors, or history would read differently.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||Douglass Blackmon,||
among others, has written a book about the re-enslavement of black americans in the Deep South after the collapse of tepid federal reconstruction efforts at nation-building efforts. The continued practice of involuntary servitude was finally addressed by FDR's Attorney General Francis Biddle's Circular no. 3591, which directed the feds to prosecute peonage offenses under laws that had gone unused since the Reconstruction Era. Based on the announcement date of December 12, 1941, it is hard to see this as a purely humanitarian concern apart from it's function as war propaganda.
I think a similar situation arises in the MLK era as US efforts to push the US neocolonial regime of indebtedness and service economy on Africa through AID and local ambassadors was beset by (literally) inflammatory images from the US Deep South. At this point, with a global empire including Africa on the line, it is no surprise that MLK and other organizers started to find help from the feds in Oxford, MS and Tuscaloosa and Selma, AL.
Any propaganda value MLK offered to the high-level interests of the USG would have come to an end with MLK's "Beyond Vietnam" speech at Riverside Church in Manhattan on April 4, 1967. He charactered the thoughts of his critics -- "Peace and civil rights don't mix." This was the reaction in editorials in the NYT (pdf) on 4-7-67 and the WaPo on 4-6-67, as well as those of the NAACP and Ralph Bunche. The WaPo title, "A Tragedy," contains almost an element of threat. MLK was dead a year later.
|14 weeks 5 days ago||The old parties||
before 1964 were governing coalitions composed of disparate components; this is a consequence of the winner-take-all non-proportional system of apportioning representation under the US system.
As a sign of this inconsistency in each party, the roll call for the 1964 Voting Rights Act, HR 7151 was: R: Aye 136, No 35; D: Aye: 152, No 91; and the roll call for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, HR 6400 was: R: Aye 111, No 23 and D: Aye 221, No 62.
This inconsistency was part of what made the party platform in presidential election years so significant and contentious.
When Goldwater sought to expand the Republican voter base in the Deep South by cashing in on white supremist backlash to the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the 1964 presidential election (this was an early abortive trial run of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of 1968), he met spirited resistance to the idea of turning the Republican Party into an overtly conservative party from Mit Romney's dad, George, governer of Michigan. Romney abstained from campaigning for Goldwater, and later wrote a letter (scroll to end of article for full text) to him on December 21, 1964 detailing his concerns about the nascent "Southern Strategy"; it was published in the NYT on 12-26-66. Romney's feelings about a whites-only strategy are summarized below:
A different kind of cross-party split is emerging in modern times, after the Democratic Party moved under the Clintons to re-establish its status as a fully establishment party with financial contributor lists increasingly similar to those of the Republican Party (eg D, R). This new split is highlighted by the roll call for the (Justin)Amash Amendment, H-Amdt. 413 to HR 2397 (Defense Appropriations) on 7-27-13, immediately post-Edward-Snowden era. The amendment sought to end NSA mass data collection on US citizens without warrant, and failed by 15 votes. The vote was R: Aye 94 No 134 and D: Aye 111 No 83.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||The lesser-known King:||
Beyond Vietnam (recording and printed text);
Mountaintop (recording and printed text).
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Despite||
the AL's adoption of the DH in 1969, baseball has been an essentially one-platoon sport, as was football until Fritz Crisler intiated the shift to the two-platoon system ca. 1945. Baseball has not made this transition despite the asymmetric and hybrid institution of the DH starting in 1969 in the AL only.
Otherwise, this aspect of baseball remains essentially the same it has been for the last 167 years. Perhaps this is just a holdover; it makes the professional game look more like the sport Americans grow up playing in the streets and in their back yards.
If the argument is that people don't want to watch adult professionals pretending to be amateurs, then why stop with the pitchers? Why should a terrific batter be held back because he can't throw or catch at any position. The ultimate reduction of your argument would be a complete two-platoon system such as there is in professional and college football (although, to my knowledge, not among 10-year-olds playing in their back yards and in the streets).
Why not basketball as well? Who wants to watch a magical 3-point shooter flounder on defense?
|15 weeks 3 days ago||I was waiting||
for this one. Has it been that long?
|15 weeks 3 days ago||If he took personel control||
of the 49ers, they could save on Baalke's salary.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Shouldn't "while"||
have been "whilst?"
|15 weeks 3 days ago||I had no idea||
such a thing existed.
What the fuck kind of rule is that?
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Sounds like||
you've read your Chuang Tzu.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Seduced her||
with his Michigan gear.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||I thought||
Kuwait was slant-drilling Iraq's oil.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||You mean||
|15 weeks 4 days ago||SEC crocodile tears.||
I nearly threw up in my mouth:
It should say "pwecious." And what about the football players' "pwecious" rights to actually receive the scholarships they committed to, this being the LSU of Elliot Porter and all that?
|15 weeks 4 days ago||I'll do it instead.||
This is the football version of voter suppression.
|15 weeks 4 days ago||I like the campaign speech||
he gave for those who wanted to draft him to run for president in, I think, 1868:
"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."