Maybe we can stop thinking too while we're at it? While some of this list are probably to be expected, like the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf I wonder how much relationship they had to do with the crimes they are being blamed for? Surely the urge to ban books has a strong relationship with the evil ideology of Mein Kampf and I imagine the mass media which didn't speak out against the bookburning has more to do with its rise than those that read the book. I think the far right's distrust of books has more to do with their totalitarian similarity to the Khmer Rouge's rejection of 'intellectuals' than it does to history.
Their approach to historicism can be gleaned from a quote on Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt." The blind ideology of the far right always makes me laugh. A Keynesian government (to some extend) left power with balanced books - a non-keynesian government took power and spends to death. The difference is that their spending is assumed to be sustainable as it seeks to acquire foreign wealth for America. No source other than imperial pillage will make the federal budget of the US sustainable. Never had that much time for Lenin, but he sure got that one right. Imperialism bolsters unsustainable capitalism. The anti-FDR attacks from the extreme right wing in America (that is, BTW the centre of the Republican party) are also beautifully ahistoric. FDR was a traitor to the world for signing the Yalta agreement? Well sure Yalta kind of sucked for Eastern Europe and we're all sorry about that. But what should he have done? Taken on the Red Army? That fantasy depends on non-examination of the second world war. The Western front was irrelevant, all the people that died there did not bring down the Nazi government. The Soviet Union did it. The sacrifices and battles on the Western front saved some of Europe, no more. If the allies had decided to take on the Red Army it would have rolled on to Calais and taken the whole of Europe with very little resistance. I suspect Stalin regretted not doing it while he had the chance. They had all the oil. They had the troops, airforce, and a frightening battery of artillery. They had many more tanks. Their tanks weren't rubbish (they did receive tanks as aid from the US but used to shoot themselves rather than drive them - the Soviets used rather risky tactics which was fine if you were driving one of their steel mostrosities, but not in one of the US suicide machines - I must do a footnote on US tanks in the second world war, the cynicism of their manufacturers [putting the magazine in the turret to ensure instant death if you got hit] and failure to rectify the design faults on the basis that they could produce more for cheaper without changing the factories, and they could, is markedly similar to car manufacturers. The failure of this economics is that it in cars it doesn't account for those maimed and requiring permanent care or support, in tanks it would have been demonstrated in fighting an economic base you should defeat which would roll over you by having built proper tanks). Western Europe has a lot to thank FDR's US for - they didn't save us from the Nazis; they saved us from the Soviets. And they saved as much of Europe as could have been expected: more than they could militarily have claimed.
1 comment:
There was a similar thing with one of the bombers the RAF flew in WWII too. If the turret under the fuselage had been removed, the thing would have flown much faster, and fewer would have been shot down. Can't remember if it was the Halifax or the Lancaster off the top of my head. Although the reasons for not doing that were apparently "psychological".
Post a Comment