ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Defending Sadism

Dear ETS!,

No, World War II isn't accurately portrayed in the media, or in textbooks, either. Still, Media Watch's "The 'Good' War" (August 12) makes me think someone should be watching them. They're as guilty of distorting and obscuring the truth as anyone else. Consider:

Asking if bombing Nagasaki can "be considered anything other than pure sadism" is sensationalism; it demonizes not only those responsible for the decision but also anyone who supported it then or who agrees with it now; anyone, that is, who disagrees with Media Watch's point of view. In other words, it's propaganda--hardly what you'd expect from people working to promote honesty and objectivity. Asserting that the Allies and Axis had an unwritten agreement not to destroy each other's war production capabilities is also propaganda: The Big Lie kind, impossible to disprove directly, pandering to people's fears and worst instincts, and refutable only with some knowledge and effort. Carefully praising Orwell's pre-war writing but implying that he decided to support the war only after succumbing to hysteria is still more propaganda: when Orwell agrees with Media Watch, he's invaluable; when he doesn't, he's nuts.

This just in, Media Watch: we dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki because Japan didn't surrender after we dropped the first one on Hiroshima. It was a horrible choice among horrible alternatives in a thoroughly horrible situation, but that's a far cry from "pure sadism," you pious assholes.

In other news, between 1943 and 1945 we undertook a massive strategic bombing campaign against German industrial targets. That unavoidable fact and a little common sense should convince most reasonable people that it's quite unlikely that the combatants ever agreed to spare each other's weapons factories.

Finally tonight, a few words on George Orwell, who has long been a favorite of mine. His honesty and clarity make all his writing worth reading, whether you agree with him or not. Too bad the same isn't true of Media Watch.

Yours truly,

--Paul L. Both

M.T. replies: Claiming that a specific act is "sadistic" is far from calling any specific people "sadists." The first condemns the action, the second condemns or "demonizes" the people themselves. This is not splitting hairs, it's an important distinction often missed by our mainstream media, and one that you've also missed in your reading of the Media Watch article.

The "massive strategic bombing campaign against German industrial targets" that you mention above consisted mainly of high-altitude carpet bombing campaigns against population centers (i.e., cities), while, yes, the Allies were careful not to destroy most German weapons facilities--because the Allies simply wanted to appropriate that technology as part of the spoils of war. For example, the Allied forces raced each other to capture specific German military installations and factories after the war; the main U.S. prize was German missile technology, which paved the way for our own space program. To read more about this, you can find books about Werner Von Braun, Concentration Camp Dora, the repatriation of former Nazis to the U.S., etc. It's not a secret. Of course, you could also read some of the other sources listed in the Media Watch article (besides just Orwell). In spite of your accusations, ETS! is not in the business of propaganda--we aim to challenge our readers, get them to do their own reading, and hope that they search for more knowledge on particular topics (not a bad thing, as you claim above). It's too bad you chose to dismiss the article out of hand, instead of attempting to address its arguments.

Connections

Dear ETS!,

RE: Forgotten History (ETS! 8/26/98)

Maria Tomchick's pointing out that "(Arno) Mayer maintains that the war itself may have brought on the Final Solution," through "'the frenzy of war acting on distorted minds'" sent a cold chill up my spine.

An empty gully near my childhood home was called "Jap Gulch." No one lived there--or had, since its population had been loaded onto trains. Their property was seized, and they were forgotten, except in the brutish nickname given their former home. For all my hometown cared about these missing citizens, they might as well have been burnt. Only lately has a small reparation been paid to the actual survivors--and that only after a bitter court struggle, and the mouthing of the nonsensical and inhuman "Wartime Expedition" excuse.

I have long speculated what could have happened to those missing citizens if Japan had actually succeeded in invading this continent. Arno Mayer may have made a similar speculation.

--Donna Barr, Bremerton, WA

And It's An Ugly Sofa, Too

ETS!,

Ikea's founder just recently admitted in his autobiography that he was a big-time Nazi supporter back in the '40s during WWII. Maybe he just liked the idea of forced labor--before it could be exported to the third world. It's kind of scary to think that this guy would like us all to buy the same sofa from him.

--Chuck Dmitrovich, Seattle

Personal Reminiscences

Eaters,

I served my apprenticeship as a machinist under Herr-Meister Heinrich Muller (umlaut unavailable) at Everett Tool & Die back in the 1960's. I studied the German language under Mr. Erwin Brockmann at Everett High School. My father worked his way through college and law school at the UW working summers as a miner and ROTC and, due to circumstantial timing, ended up as a Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy on Pearl Harbor Day. These are my "sources" and how I know them.

Herr-Meister Muller fled Germany in 1932 after the Reichstag fire, as he could see the "handwriting on the wall" (even though he wasn't Jewish). He saw the propaganda techniques being used on the German people and realized that Hitler would bring a gottersdamerung down on them. He watched with horror as Americans marched in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles IN SUPPORT of Hitler's government as late as 1940--a fact that we prefer to gloss over today.

Mr. Brockmann's father was a colonel in the German Army who signed the Fahneneid. He turned 17 in 1943 and was inducted into the Waffen SS as a "good German" should. He grew up with "Hitler Youth" and all the other "trimmings" that Hitler's Germany brought to the German people. [He also served his two years of post-war "retraining" (read: work camp) for his "crime" of having served in the Waffen SS. Other than serving his "basic training" at Sachshausen (concentration/death camp), he spent his year and a half of war fighting at the "fronts".] As a youth (9 or 10 years of age, I'm not clear exactly how years and birthdays "match up") in 1936, Erwin came to the U.S. with his father who was reviewing production and testing of tanks being built for Nazi Germany by Ford Motor Company. The Brockmanns were met in New York by "a Rockefeller" (I was never clear as to who this was), and wined and dined their way west in private rail cars--including a stop at a "hunting lodge" in western Pennsylvania where they met Andrew Carnegie. Obviously, a 9 or 10 year old youth was NOT included in the "discussions" that went on between his father and the "financial elite" his father met with, but Mr. Brockmann was convinced (in retrospect, at least) that a number of "deals" were made during this trip.

I got Herr-Meister Muller and Mr. Brockmann together one night in 1970. They sat around drinking beer (they are Germans after all) and talking about the "past". Now my German used to be pretty good for an American, but they quickly sank into "dialect German" that I could not follow (I wish I had been able to tape record their conversation). What I DID pick up from their conversation was that Hitler got much of his "funding" from foreign sources, including: Ford, Carnegie, and many other American and British "corporate interests." This appears to be something that was fairly widely known by "average Germans" prior to WWII. My travels in Germany in the early to mid-70's have confirmed this.

My father was in uniform before the American involvement in WWII began. When American soldiers were coming home from Viet Nam and hiding their uniforms, my father noted that he had done essentially the same thing when he was "on leave" in the pre-war years. The "non-interventionist (anti-war) movement" was strong enough that those serving in the military did NOT advertise their occupation when in civilian company. I have confirmed this with a number of other people who were serving in the military prior to WWII. We prefer to forget this today. The Basil Rathbone series of "Sherlock Holmes" movies used to be shown (as late as the mid-60's) along with "commercials" supporting the "Lend-Lease Act." We rarely realize today the amount of propaganda that had to be created to get the American people "in the mood" to support American involvement (militarily) in WWII. Hollywood worked hard to build the "solid support" that we prefer to believe "came naturally." Everything from "Sherlock Holmes" to "Bugs Bunny" was brought to this effort.

Underlying all this was the ECONOMIC SUPPORT "financially elite" Americans and British gave to the Nazi regime BEFORE the "good war" became possible. This is the "trend" that the CIA (and other "black" agencies) have followed carefully in the post-war years.

Bill Clinton has shown his preference for aerial attacks to risking the lives of American servicemen in enforcing American policy. The main problem with this is that attacks with bombs tend to strengthen opposition to those doing the bombing. Britain's willingness to "stand by and observe" Nazi aggression was halted by the Blitz. Germans who survived the saturation bombing of their cities turned out by the thousand to volunteer for the "Home Guard" and actually attacked Allied troops who otherwise would have been welcomed with (nearly) open arms. We are well-aware how much good our "bomb them back into the Stone Age" policy did for us in Viet Nam.

The FACT is that "strategic bombing" has ALWAYS (at least since first widely used during the "Spanish Civil War") been a military disaster. Yes, "tactical bombing" as "close support" for ground troops IS an effective military tool. THAT is completely different from "strategic bombing". You will not find one military tactician who will admit privately (they are often required to publicly state they "support" various actions) that strategic bombing has EVER done much good. The only exception to this is when discussing the bombing of transportation systems in support of denying the opposition access to SPECIFIC BATTLE SITES (which, under my definition, falls in the class of "tactical bombing" rather than "strategic bombing").

There are those who suggest that military action is NEVER justified. I do NOT fall in that category. However, the use of military power is something that I believe should be done more DELIBERATELY (formal definition) than we (and most other nations) do today. Even ignoring the loss of life that is the PURPOSE of war, military action is almost always an uneconomical means of achieving an end. Strategic bombing is the least efficient means, militarily or economically, to achieve an "end".