RtO won't be celebrating the men on the Moon along with everyone else, although I will how long will pause to remember the 30,000 people who were murdered in order to make it happen.
The first and trivial reason that I won't be celebrating is that it was pointless, as is demonstrated by the fact that no one has gone back to that dead rock for the past half century. It was impressive all right, but so is a Chinese acrobat spinning 20 plates on rods.
The second and important reason to avoid celebrating is that at the bottom of the achievement was crime. Many many crimes in fact, crime that continued long after the Moon men came home. Balzac wrote behind every great fortune is a great crime. This indictment is too broad if there is something to his thought.
Although there was no scientific point in going to the Moon, the crime had a political point: the United States was desperate to prove our moral superiority to the Commies, which we did by hiring Nazi war criminals to build a rocket.
A friend of mine was as a young Air Force officer given the job of calculating the orbits of Air Force satellites. In that job he came to know the Nazis in Huntsville. They were very very happy to be there, he once told me. Indeed. They were aware that if there were any justice in the world they would've been swinging from gibbets.
All this was known or knowable to the public at the time. The public chose and still chooses not to care.
Why, in your view, would von Braun be any worse than all the people who made Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible?
ReplyDeleteFirst, slave labor. 30,000 were murdered at Dora-Mittelwerk. Second, designing a terror weapon that could not, even in theory, be aimed a a military target. Third, the A-bombs did end the war, a military objective that saved millions of lives. (The Japanese were stripping Korea of its rice harvest; famine would have been immense that fall; Chinese were also dying by the hundreds of thousands.) Fourth, Hiroshima was (contrary to antibomb myth) a military target (HQ of 2nd Army and central logistical port for the war against China. Fifth, Japanese industry was integrated with housing so it was impossible to try to avoid civilian areas.
ReplyDeleteThe last stage of the war against Japan presented unique circumstances that probably could never be reproduced.
If you wish to present a western counterpart to Braun's depravity, you would be better off with Lindemann.
I published a commentary on the conspiracy theorists in a review of 'Racing the Enemy' in 2007:
ReplyDelete"Racing the Enemy" makes a strong, though very strange, contribution to the endless controversy about the end of World War II, the use of atomic bombs, the deals cut between the democracies and Communism and -- not the least interesting in the early 21st century -- how repressive societies can be turned around.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is unusually well equipped to investigate this complex issue, beginning with a command of most of the relevant languages and extending to access to archives, mainly Soviet, that have not been used before.
He makes the least of his advantages, starting with the incomprehensible title. The dust jacket shows Harry Truman and Josef Stalin, and the subtitle singles them out. The book is about an alleged race between enemies -- who are never specified.
It looks as if he means the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., though they were not enemies at the time. Japan was the enemy of the United States, yet it is ridiculous to claim, as Hasegawa does, that in May 1945, America began "racing" Japan to wind up the war.
The United States had been going all out for three and a half years by then, especially in producing an atom bomb, which was planned to be used against Germany.
Hasegawa makes a better case that the U.S.S.R. hoped that Japan would not surrender before it got itself redirected from crushing Germany and could start grabbing provinces in East Asia.
His case, though, is tendentious. The words he applies to the United States and especially Truman, are absurd: "Diabolical" might rightly be applied to any of several national policies in the 1930s and '40s, but not to America's. Nor does he offer any evidence to support his repeated allegations that Truman was motivated by "revenge."
Hasegawa's contention that the A-bombs did not shock the Japanese into surrendering is more interesting. He contends that it was the sudden attack by the U.S.S.R. on Japan's army in Manchuria two days after the Hiroshima bomb that was decisive.
This point has been argued before. It isn't a question that demands an either/or answer.
Like all controversialists who are determined to fault the use of the A-bombs, Hasegawa has to contend that Japan would have surrendered without them. The usual argument, and the one Hasegawa favors, is that the men controlling Japan would fight no matter how hopelessly to defend the "national polity" so long as the alternative was unconditional surrender.
Hasegawa does a good job of exploring the ambiguities of the term "national polity," which was not merely preservation of the emperor system.
But his own evidence explodes the idea that an American offer to accept less than unconditional surrender would have shortened the war.
It is not overstating the facts to state that, with one exception, all the leaders of Japan in mid-1945 were barking mad. The exception was Naotake Sato, Tokyo's ambassador in Moscow.
When the (mostly irrelevant) Japanese Foreign Ministry attempted to maneuver Stalin into helping Japan extricate itself from its war, Sato "requested specific information about conditions that the Japanese government wished to present for the termination of the war. Sato put his finger right on the problem. But from (Foreign Secretary Shigenori) Togo's standpoint, what Sato requested was an impossible task. He could not give any concrete proposals, since there were none. Such proposals would surely split the cabinet, wrecking any chance for peace."
This happened on July 13, three weeks before Hiroshima.
In that one paragraph, Hasegawa consigns a shelf of revisionist histories -- and a good part of the subsequent chapters of his own book -- to the scrap heap.
Very strange but all the more valuable because of it.
Well Harry, it was a pretty interesting answer with many points I've not heard before. But you still end up contradicting yourself: all the points you list against von Braun ought to be equally applied to A-bombs.
ReplyDelete[OP:] RtO won't be celebrating the men on the Moon along with everyone else, although I will how long will pause to remember the 30,000 people who were murdered in order to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteAnd others will understand RtO to mean Ranting the Odious.
Let's consider the logic you employ. Wernher von Braun was the sine qua non of the US space program. Sure, he helped get a leg up at the start, but the absolutely essential ingredient, without which the moon landings don't happen? Really?
But more than that, you are exhibiting a particularly repulsive form of moral preening. What was the US supposed to do with von Braun's expertise when faced with a USSR even more morally repellant than the Nazis?
The second and important reason to avoid celebrating is that at the bottom of the achievement was crime. Many many crimes in fact, crime that continued long after the Moon men came home.
Some examples, please.
Although there was no scientific point in going to the Moon, the crime had a political point: the United States was desperate to prove our moral superiority to the Commies, which we did by hiring Nazi war criminals to build a rocket ...
Wow, is that must be the most perfect example of false equivalence ever.
The Americans were the first to land on the moon. The Communists said they had the better system, Krushchev shouted "we will bury you" at the UN, the Communists got a satellite up first in orbit, and then a man into space.
But then Kennedy rallied America for an effort and we, the leaders of the free world, were the first to land. That was very important in the historical context but it will always be a thing that is true.
Mankind won't land on the moon for the first time, a second time.
The country that did it wasn't in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America. It was in North America and it wasn't Canada. It was the USA. It was and is such a unique triumph that we feel like silly boasters glorying in it or even mentioning it.
It isn't something like food or art or music or a technological achievement or an economic system about which other countries can make a matching boast. We said we were exceptional and then we landed on the moon. We said a free people was capable of greater achievements than the cowed subjects of authoritarian rule and then we landed on the moon.
The Harry crowd, if they were to take over, would never match that achievement.
Progs can't even do the regular cultural stuff: run a university, write great books; or the regular government stuff: keep rats and disease out of the city, maintain the subways and the power grid.
They can't win an election without cheating and they can't even lose an election the right way. No, they cry and lie for years. And then memhole it all.
Harry, like all progs, hates America, hates Americans. You hate it that Americans landed on the moon first. And damage to themselves and to the US from that hatred is their achievement. But the rest of us we love America and what it stands for.
We, not you desiccated fans of collectivism, landed on the moon first starting from virtually nothing in, what, eight years?
Too bad, Harry. Communism is a vile system that produces nothing but terror and deprivation. That the Apollo program was a way to prove that point is all the justification needed.
All points, Clovis? Including the first one?
ReplyDeleteSkipper, who knws no history, wishes to hear about further war crimes. OK. From time to time (but not often) the American system worked the way we pretend it is supposed to work and the press exposed the history of one of the 'American rocket scientists' who made the proud feat possible. The US government then organized the criminal's escape to our ally, Argentina.
What does Americastand for, Skipper? Protecting heinous Jew-killers?
Oh, my mistake, I will except the first one.
DeleteThough, to be completely fair, even though no one AFAIK worked as a slave for the American nuclear effort, quite a number of people died as a consequence of the hazardous work with radioactive elements.
OK. From time to time (but not often) the American system worked the way we pretend it is supposed to work and the press exposed the history of one of the 'American rocket scientists' who made the proud feat possible. The US government then organized the criminal's escape to our ally, Argentina.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that's all true -- and we will of course ignore that there is no such thing as uncaused effects -- in what world does that constitute a US war crime?
What does America stand for, Skipper? Protecting heinous Jew-killers?
Since clearly America doesn't stand for Jew-killers, then you need to grapple with the why of the what.
But you will not do that, because, as a life-long communist, you stand for that hideous, humanity-killing ideology.
In my world it's a war crime. We know you belong to the USAF, which also commits war crimes, so no surprise your fellow-feeling for a Nazi Jew-killer
ReplyDeleteIn my world it's a war crime.
ReplyDeleteHarry, I know you fascist communists hate this, but words have actual meanings beyond your cranial echoes.
Whatever it was, a war crime it wasn't. And I can't help but notice that, as always, you use a smear to avoid the real issues. Same with fascist and racist. If those words were to suddenly vanish, progressive heads across the land would explode because they -- you -- would suddenly have to start thinking.
We know you belong to the USAF, which also commits war crimes, so no surprise your fellow-feeling for a Nazi Jew-killer.
You just went full asshole, Harry. Everybody knows you never go full asshole.
Everybody, that is, except you.
USAF terror bombed eastern Cambodia although every pilot knew that every mission would hit a peaceful village. In my world, that's a war crime. I am fully aware that in your world no one can be accused of a war crime unless he is commie.
ReplyDeleteShawcross, 'Sideshow'for evidence
Harry, why was the AF bombing eastern Cambodia?
ReplyDeleteClovis wrote: "Why, in your [Harry's] view, would von Braun be any worse than all the people who made Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible?"
ReplyDeleteBecause Japan was beating up on China, a soon-to-be Communist paradise, so therefore taking out Japan at any cost (i.e. moral issues unimportant) was critical, while Germany was beating up on Russia, that other Communist paradise so all Germans (especially ones who did joined the Nazi party) were evil beyond measure.
You've been reading Harry long enough to surmise that, no?
Yes, many of the Nazis who were associated their rocketry program were pretty evil, but it seems to me it was PRIMARILY those who were involved with the manufacture and deployment of the rockets who were by far the worst, with the scientists' judgments being (severely?) clouded by the stresses of war as opposed to them being inherently evil or even significant war criminals.
Bret,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I understand your point. You mean the people directly involved in building the V2 were primarily evil, while the scientists like von Braun were only mildly evil?
And are the same adjectives to be applied to the people working on the A-bomb in America?
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
[Skipper] We, not you desiccated fans of collectivism, landed on the moon first starting from virtually nothing in [but the most advanced expertise and technology we got from Germany], what, eight years [plus the other decade of developments from von Braun's team while working in America, plus the previous 3 other decades while he was working from Germany]?
----
There, fixed it for you. This one is free, but next time I will charge it, in euros.
There, fixed it for you.
ReplyDeleteThe V2, compared to Apollo, was virtually nothing. The Mercury program was virtually nothing compared to Apollo.
Boiling down the difference between them and landing on moon to von Braun is simplistic nonsense of the very first order.
This one is free ...
And a ripoff at a thousandth the price.
You mean the people directly involved in building the V2 were primarily evil, while the scientists like von Braun were only mildly evil?
ReplyDeleteLet's take as read that von Braun was, in fact, evil. Nazism was evil, and therefore everyone who worked to advance the regime's interests was willingly complicit in that evil.
Now what?
Imprison von Braun? Ok, sure, let's go with that. But if you insist that is the correct outcome, then you had better agree that everyone as, or more, complicit as von Braun be imprisoned.
How big do you want those post-war prison camps to be?
Let's also take it as read that without von Braun, we would never have made it to the moon.
Which means that we would never have enjoyed the material and moral benefits from the Apollo program. Moral benefits that were part of helping the USSR collapse.
The USSR, as with every other communist regime, was wholly evil. And therefore everyone who worked to advance the regime's interests (or who, now, act as its apologists) was willingly complicit in that evil.
Which makes them as evil as von Braun.
Yet somehow communists and their sympathizers haven't been awarded the label von Braun has seemingly earned.
Why is that?
(Speaking of apologists, I bet Harry doesn't know enough history to figure out why the US was bombing Cambodia.)
ReplyDeleteBret, the bomb was developed to use against Germany but Germany (thanks mostly to those evil commies) surrendered first. If you knew the history of antibomb ideology, you'd know that the narrative is that the bomb was used to forestall Stalin from grabbing Manchuria, Korea and the Kuriles (perhaps down to Hokkaido) before the US was in position to occupy that area.
ReplyDeleteAt the time the bomb was used Japan was indeed beating up on China, although according to American rightwing ideology when that ended the Kuomingtang, not the reds, would take over) but Germany was no longer beating up on Russia.
If Braun was truly unnecessary to the IUS space program, then best to have put him in a cage. Skipper's view makes the US use of Nazis more, not less reprehensible.
I do agree that every Nazi from Braun and worse should have been imprisoned. At the least, none should have been employed in the West German government. Adenuer's regime was stuffed with Nazis, especially the military and justice departments. The Russians were not wrong to doubt the reality of German democracy. They were wrong in the long run, but the doubts were not ridiculous.
I completely agree with this: And therefore everyone who worked to advance the regime's interests (or who, now, act as its apologists) was willingly complicit in that evil.
Contra Skipper, I have never done so. Turns out, Skipper is a McCarthyite.
I know exactly why the US was bombing eastern Cambodia's farming villages. We were already doing the same in Laos and South Vietnam. The USAF dropped more explosives on those countries than it did in all Europe during World War II. If even 1% of those bombs had hit a military target, the US would not have lost the war.
[Harry:] (thanks mostly to those evil commies)
ReplyDeleteWould that be the same evil commies that murdered their officer corps, ignored warnings of Hitler's impending invasion, and deployed their forces stupidly?
If Braun was truly unnecessary to the IUS space program, then best to have put him in a cage. Skipper's view makes the US use of Nazis more, not less reprehensible.
Harry, your reading comprehension is even worse than usual. Which most people would have thought impossible.
I do agree that every Nazi from Braun and worse should have been imprisoned.
Heck, Harry. Why didn't we just give them to the Soviets?
The US, unlike you, had to put a country back together. And, unlike you, couldn't engage in fatuous moral preening.
I completely agree with this: And therefore everyone who worked to advance the regime's interests (or who, now, act as its apologists) was willingly complicit in that evil.
Harry, you are a non-stop apologist for communism. To wit:
I know exactly why the US was bombing eastern Cambodia's farming villages.
Then tell us. On past performance, you won't.
If even 1% of those bombs had hit a military target, the US would not have lost the war.
On this subject you have proven yourself impenetrably ignorant. You really should stop advertising the fact, in as much as it amounts to Restating the Obvious.
At the time the bomb was used Japan was indeed beating up on China …
Bollocks.
'Would that be the same evil commies that murdered their officer corps, ignored warnings of Hitler's impending invasion, and deployed their forces stupidly? '
ReplyDeleteThe very same. It turned out that in the contest between two incompetent ideologies, Russian nationalism took over and prevailed. Aided by bitter hatred engendered by Geman racism.
It was a close run thing.
'The US, unlike you, had to put a country back together.'
It ought to have tried democracy. Democracies have proven completely resistant to communism (although not to fascism). The US policy of destroying democracies in order to prop up fascist regimes against communism was stupid.
As to Germany specifically, if it was so short of democrats then we should have followed Morgenthau's proposals.
The US was bombing Cambodia in support of a colonialist puppet regime that ad next to no popular support.
The US was bombing Cambodia in support of a colonialist puppet regime that ad next to no popular support.
ReplyDeleteWrong, Harry.
Try again, this time involving the real cause.
I'll help you if figuring it out is beyond your journalist, commie apologist, brain.
I have a better idea. How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
ReplyDeleteI predict prevarication.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[The US] ought to have tried democracy. Democracies have proven completely resistant to communism (although not to fascism).
ReplyDeleteVenezuela ring a bell?
Do you know anything, at all, about West German post-war history?
What you fail to take on board, no matter how overpowering the evidence, is that communism and fascism are two sides of the same murderous collectivist coin. Which once again raises the question of why those wearing Che t-shirts are tolerated, while those wearing MAGA hats get demonized.
It almost as if communists are too stupid to know what they are.
It turned out that in the contest between two incompetent ideologies, Russian nationalism took over and prevailed. Aided by bitter hatred engendered by Geman racism.
ReplyDeleteRussian depth and winter prevailed.
And, because you aren't keeping up, the Germans were at first welcomed as liberators.
That's because the newly differently conquered nations didn't realize that collectivism does what collectivism is.
Neither do you.
The Germans had lost before it turned cold. It is true, the Soviet minorities welcomed the Germans, with whom they shared a murderous hatred of Jews. Big surprise for them: the Germans treated them as badly as they treated Jews.
ReplyDeleteGerman racism was many things but it was not a form of collectivism.
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
ReplyDeleteI predict prevarication.
Clovis, going back to a point raised earlier, I wonder if you have read accounts of the non-atomic bombing. For example in the May 9 bombing of Tokyo thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people jumped in the Sumida River in order to escape the flames. They were boiled alive.
ReplyDeleteIn the Hamburg fire storm there are accounts of people fleeing flames. Witnesses reported seeing them on their hands and knees stuck in melted tar as a wall of flames swept toward them
I've never understood why some people single out the atomic bombs as especially horrible.
It is true, the Soviet minorities welcomed the Germans, with whom they shared a murderous hatred of Jews.
ReplyDeleteI am certain you informed me Ukraine was an indistinguishable part of Russia.
Bollocks, but in doing so you contradicted yourself: the Ukrainians did, indeed, welcome the Germans as liberators. Can't imagine why.
Oh, wait, I can: communism and nazism are murderous collectivisms (yes, redundant) differing in only meaningless details. Nazis have race enemies, communists class enemies.
Same results.
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
I predict prevarication.
I have all day.
In case you are ignorant of the history, I can help you out.
I did not inform you that Ukraine was an indistinguishable part of Russia. I informed you it was where the people spoke Ukrainian. I informed you that there was no Ukrainian political state until 1919. When the Ukrainians finally got a state, you might have supposed they had many important things to do. What they did first was murder Jews.
ReplyDeleteOf course they welcomed Germans, until they discovered that to Germans they were as worthless as Jews.
You need to learn some history.There are many courses available.
Harry, you informed me that a Ukrainian famine that happened in Russia was a Ukrainian famine was the same as a Russia famine because they are the same.
ReplyDeleteWhich is as much coherence as can be extracted from that stream of nonsense. I’m happy to provide a direct quote, but I doubt you’d wish that on yourself.
[Harry:] I did not inform you that Ukraine was an indistinguishable part of Russia. I informed you it was where the people spoke Ukrainian.
ReplyDeleteThere was an engineered famine in Ukraine 40 years before the red version, and you know about it because I've mentioned it before. Your refusal to acknowledge white terror tells us everything we need to know about you.
Except the "engineered" famine in Ukraine was in Russia. You whinged on cue:
Ukraine is where people who speak Ukrainian live, which is where the famine was. There was no political Ukraine in those days. I understand you know nothing whatever about Russia.
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
ReplyDeleteI predict prevarication.
Prediction confirmed.
Your obtuseness about Ukraine mtches your obtuseness about Congo. Ukraine has always been a place but not a political place until 1919.
ReplyDeleteJust as Congo was a colony of Leoplod but not a Belgian colony until 1909.
You obviously know -- and care -- nothing about Ukrainians, neither where they live nor their political organization nor their cultural proclivities.
No doubt you read a 500-word tendentious screed on a rightwing site and that's it. Otherwise you'd know that 1941 wasn't the first time Ukrainians welcomed the German army.
Your obtuseness about Ukraine mtches your obtuseness about Congo.
ReplyDeleteHarry, I provided a direct link to your ignorance. You referred to a Ukrainian famine that, in fact, happened in Russia.
Never mind your willful obtuseness that the distinction between a colony of Leopold and that of Belgium is without difference.
No doubt you read a 500-word tendentious screed on a rightwing site and that's it.
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" has a hell of a lot more than 500 words.
As does Manstein's "Lost Victories."
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
I predict prevarication.
Prediction confirmed.
You are clearly a red diaper baby who never lost his religion.
ReplyDeleteI have read both Shirer and Manstein. Manstein was lying throughout; curious you rely on him.
ReplyDeleteI realize you are too invested in exculpating capitalist crimes, but in 1892 even aid workers from America were shocked to see grain barges heading down the river to Odessa's export piers while Ukrainins (called Little Russians in those days) starved to death. They should not have been, since English rentiers had acted exactly the same way in the Irish famine.
The aid workers wrote books about their experiences, which you could still read but won't. They had no difficulty in determining when they were in Russian provinces and when in Little Russia.
I understand why you cannot accept the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony since it is the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism.
Manstein was lying throughout; curious you rely on him.
ReplyDeleteProve it.
Shirer was on point. And they weren't the only ones.
I realize you are too invested in exculpating capitalist crimes ...
19th century Russia was as far from free market capitalism as it is possible to be, which renders your judgment worthless.
I understand why you cannot accept the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony since it is the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism.
Try as I might, I couldn't find any source anywhere -- not even Marxism Today -- terming Leopold's colony as any form of capitalism, never mind unfettered.
So give me a link to one who does.
Otherwise, it is clear you are blowing it out your hat.
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
I predict prevarication.
Prediction confirmed.
Leopld's colony was a business -- a number of closely-held joint stock corporations -- and was not under any political government. So, capitalism, unfettered.
ReplyDelete[Harry:] I understand why you cannot accept the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony since it is the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism.
ReplyDeleteI'm calling shenanigans.
If this opinion is universal among historians -- despite the violence it does to the meaning of the word "capitalism" -- then I am sure you will be easily able to provide me no end of cites to that effect.
However, I bet you are lying once again, and no cites will be forthcoming.
Although either silence, or pathetic whingeing, will.
How about telling us what the targets were in Cambodia and Laos.
I predict prevarication.
Prediction confirmed.
Why is that, Harry? It's a simple enough question, after all.
Tsarist Russia had a free market in grain. Isaac Asimov's grandfather was a grain dealer in the black earth region and the first chapter of Asimov's autobiography has an amusing description of how that worked.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it does no good to cite things to you. The thread about Congo began with review of a history: this demonstrated that the government of Belgium had no connection with Leopold's business: it did not govern Congo, collect taxes there; it was not responsible for internal policing or external defense, did not legislate for Congo and was not responsible for the debts of Leopold's businesses.
Tsarist Russia had a free market in grain.
ReplyDeleteBollocks.
Again, it does no good to cite things to you. The thread about Congo began with review of a history: ...
Stop shifting the goal posts.
You claimed the universal opinion of historians is that Leopold's colony was the "... pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism."
1. Stop your whingeing, provide an example of at least one historian substantiating that claim.
2. Describing the Belgian Free Congo as a colony then within the space of phrase as unfettered capitalism is as good an example of a self-defeating sentence as I have ever seen. Even including all the bovine rectal extrusions with which you have littered your own blog.
3. Pluperfect. That word doesn't mean what you think it does. Not even close.
Surely you are not suggesting a colony cannot be a capitalist enterprise?
ReplyDeleteHarry, I'm stating your assertion that the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony [is that it is] the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism. is a lie.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet you can't cite even one historian that says so, never mind it being a universal opinion in the profession.
So let's start there, particularly because it would be so easy to prove me wrong.
Here is the opening graph of Wikipedia's article o the Congo Free State:
ReplyDelete"The Congo Free State also known as the Independent State of the Congo (French: État indépendant du Congo, Dutch: Kongo-Vrijstaat) was a large state in Central Africa from 1885 to 1908. It was ruled personally by Leopold II and not by the government of Belgium, of which he was the constitutional monarch. Leopold II was able to procure the region by convincing other Eurasian states at the Berlin Conference that he was involved in humanitarian and philanthropic work and would not tax trade.[2] Via the International Association of the Congo, he was able to lay claim to most of the Congo basin. On 29 May 1885, i.e. after the closure of the Berlin Conference, the king announced that he planned to name his possessions "the Congo Free State", an appellation which was not yet used at the Berlin Conference and which officially replaced "International Association of the Congo" on 1 August 1885.[3] The Congo Free State operated as a corporate state privately controlled by Leopold II."
That was the subject of my review way back when. You have stubbornly insisted that what I said the historians said was incorrect but you have never provide any evidence apart from the fsntasies in your head.
My father was fond of applying a term from Roman Catholic theology to behavior like yours: invincible ignorance
This review? The one that keeps invoking the word capitalism without once recognizing that the Belgian Congo was a creature of King Leopold, the head of government?
ReplyDeletePro-tip, Harry: learn what capitalism means. (Just like "pluperfect", "capitalism" doesn't mean what you think it means.)
Learn that it has a number of characteristics, virtually everyone of which was absent in the Belgian Congo.
Oh, and while you are at it, instead of providing a description of Congo Free State from an article that doesn't mention capitalism once, how about providing a cite of even one historian saying the Congo Free State was an example of capitalism.
Just one.
I stubbornly exist such a thing does not exist. Prove me wrong.
I predict further goal post shifting, or outright scarpering, because you are lying, and you know it.
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. Wikipedia"
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Skipper. Not all those were pres4nt in Leopold's Congo. He didn't pay wages (except to his police) and there was no free market since he expropriated what he wanted.
Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. Wikipedia"
ReplyDeleteIn addition to there being no wage labor, there was no voluntary exchange, price system or competitive markets within the Congo Free State.
Strike all those, and what's left? Serfdom. No, more accurately, another instance of chattel slavery.
'within the Congo Free State.' Leopold's companies were based in Europe. They were capitalist. In the Congo, they were robbers. The property they sold was turned into profits in a capitalist system.
ReplyDeleteChattel slavery is not only a part of capitalism, in the greatest capitalist success stories -- UK and US -- it was central to success.
'within the Congo Free State.' Leopold's companies were based in Europe. They were capitalist. In the Congo, they were robbers.
ReplyDeleteOh for pete's sake, Harry why does being progressive mean having to destroy language? Oh, wait. Orwell had the answer to that.
The existence of the CFS was meaningless to the "capitalist system". It existed before, and continued just fine after.
That the property was sold in a capitalist system doesn't make the CFS an example of capitalism, except to people who have absolutely no understanding of economics, or the implications of their silly imprecations.
If you are right about the Congo, then the USSR was capitalist.
Chattel slavery is not only a part of capitalism, in the greatest capitalist success stories -- UK and US -- it was central to success.
That is self-mocking nonsense.
Kind of like insisting the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony [is that it is] the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism is self mocking nonsense.
Why don't you get tired of trashing your own blog?
I meant to point out a technical error in your comment. There wos not chattel slavery in Congo; Belgians did not buy and sell individual Africans. It was more an extreme form of corvee (matched historically, as far as I know, only in Hawaii around 1810-20.
ReplyDeleteThe ownership of the Congo, internationally recognized, at least by all the capitalist states of Europe and the USA, was in Belgium, in numerous private joint stock companies. Congo was an asset of theirs.
My definition of capitalism is: an economic system which gives primacy to ownership of assets; which means, practically speaking, that the ideal situation for a capitalist is to get labor for nothing. That was what hapened in Congo. It was as capitalist as it is possible to be.
There was not chattel slavery in Congo; Belgians did not buy and sell individual Africans.
ReplyDeleteFine, although it is a distinction nearly without difference. Drop the chattel, and what remains is still slavery.
The ownership of the Congo, internationally recognized, at least by all the capitalist states of Europe and the USA, was in Belgium, in numerous private joint stock companies. Congo was an asset of theirs.
You keep focusing on this meaningless distinction. The Congo Free State was functionally indistinguishable from any other colony. That Belgium operated it more brutally is down to the King Leopold. That it was administered by private joint stock companies that were themselves creatures of the King does not change the fact that the CFS was a colony. If Leopold didn't want it, it wouldn't have happened.
My definition of capitalism is: an economic system which gives primacy to ownership of assets; which means, practically speaking, that the ideal situation for a capitalist is to get labor for nothing. That was what happened in Congo. It was as capitalist as it is possible to be.
My definition of self-defeating arrogance is redefining a perfectly good word to avoid the fact that the existing perfectly good definition of that perfectly good word blows your foolish argument right out of the water.
Capitalism gets a lot more capitalist when it includes rule of law, private property, wage labor, a price system and competitive markets.
None of which the CFS had. So please take your tendentious definition and park it right next to all the historians, practically beyond number, of whom you can't cite even one, who insist Leopold's colony [was] the pluperfect [sic] example of unfettered capitalism.
Behold the power of the direct quote.
You have for years asserted that it was Belgium's colony; now you agree it was the personal property of a Belgian.
ReplyDeleteProgress. At this rate in about 80 years you'll have it right.
The Congo Free State was neither free nor a state. It was an asset of several Belgium-based corporations, akin to the gold mine owned by Freeport McMoran in New Guinea, for example, although Papua is a state and does put some restrictions on Freeport. Unlike Leopold's companies, which answered to no one.
Leopod's businesses did operate in a price system, sold their rubber in competitive markets. There is no record that any of their customers refused to trade because of the slavery.
Just as, today, it would be difficult or impossible to find any capitalist business refusing to buy the products of Ivory Coast or Equitorial Guinea. Capitalism and Slavery get along just fine, always have.
You have for years asserted that it was Belgium's colony; now you agree it was the personal property of a Belgian.
ReplyDeleteThe hell I did, Harry. Stop making stuff up.
The CFS was a de facto colony. Capitalism didn't create it, a head of government did.
By the way, your claim was this: [it is] the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony [is that it was] the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism.
Aside from you not knowing what pluperfect means, the rest of the claim is rubbish, too.
Capitalism and Slavery get along just fine, always have.
The first countries to prohibit slavery were capitalist. The only places slavery survives today are not; in fact, some of them are you your ideological brothers. Communists, like you, have always gotten along just fine with imposing slave labor.
i realize you know nothing of economic history, but you did just define the US as a non-capitalist country. At e time of Leopold's crimes, much of the US did not use wage labor and all of it did not have free markets.
ReplyDeleteSigh.
Leopold did not create his businesses as part of government, any more than Queen Elizabeth's cattle ranch makes Nebraska a colony of Britain.
I realize you know nothing of economic history, but you did just define the US as a non-capitalist country. At [the] time of Leopold's crimes, much of the US did not use wage labor and all of it did not have free markets.
ReplyDeleteHello, Capt Obvious. Of course the slave states departed from the definition of capitalism in every area of economic activity deriving its labor from slavery. Also, Capt, if you were to compare the economies of the slave states vs. the free states, you would quickly see how nonsensical the ideal situation for a capitalist is to get labor for nothing. this is.
I realize that you, as a red-diaper baby, no nothing about economics, but the absence of a comprehensive pricing system -- essential to capitalism -- is ruinous. You'd think the history of socialism, without exception, would have proven that well beyond the need for any further examples.
You'd think.
"... all of the US did not have free markets?"
That sentence is nearly meaningless. Try again.
Leopold did not create his businesses as part of government, any more than Queen Elizabeth's cattle ranch makes Nebraska a colony of Britain.
Argument from analogy is almost always a bad idea, as you demonstrate perfectly here.
Shall we discuss why it's a bad idea? Or are the intellectual travesties sufficiently obvious?
The manifest shortfalls in your analogy illustrate exactly why the CFS was a colony.
BTW, you haven't provided even a single historian asserting the CFS was an example of unfettered capitalism. In other words, you were relying upon argument from (nonexistent) authority.
Well done.
You don't even know when Leopold was running Congo; you know nothing whatever about the situation there, but that hasn't stopped you from having opinions, has it?
ReplyDeleteYou also don't know anything about the economic history of the US, but we already knew that
You don't even know when Leopold was running Congo; you know nothing whatever about the situation there, but that hasn't stopped you from having opinions, has it?
ReplyDeleteHarry, I know all those things.
And because I know those things, I can safely conclude you are unable to intelligently employ the word "capitalism".
Just as I can even more safely conclude that a universal opinion among historians is you blowing it out your hat.
What is far more mystifying is why you continue to traffic in such obviously risible nonsense. One would think you'd have gotten tired of self inflicted wounds long ago.
Guess who has the same definition of capitalism as Harry does.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/19/lobbying-group-powerful-ceos-is-rethinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/
They are having second thoughts, though, which will last until 15 minutes after the first Wall Street analyst downgrades their stocks.
Capitalism's apologists love to cheer its flexibility, but on this, it is sclerotic.
[Harry:] Guess who has the same definition of capitalism as Harry does.
ReplyDeleteI have often rubbished the few links you do provide as being either being wholly irrelevant or self-defeating.
I'll go with the former here.
But, by all means, prove me wrong. Provide your definition of capitalism, and where that link mentions capitalism at all.
Of course, as CEOs they are entitled to change their corporations' purposes. Who knows, it might work better. Or not.
Sounds like capitalism's inherent flexibility to me.
Are you arguing the Busuness Roundtable is anticapitalist?
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing the Busuness Roundtable is anticapitalist?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm arguing that your definition of capitalism is rubbish, and that your references are nonsense.
And, while I'm at it, I'm also arguing that you are utterly incapable of comprehending any but the most trivial points.
Try again.
Quote my argument. Don't create some nonsensical strawman.
Oh, and I’m also arguing that “[it is] the universal opinion of historians about Leopold's colony [is that it was] the pluperfect example of unfettered capitalism” is a lie.
ReplyDeleteSilence speaks volumes.
ReplyDelete