Why Noam Chomsky...

[sologdin]

The Allies didn't want anything to do with Vlasov. They didn't want to upset Stalin and thought Vlasov was totally unreliable and unpopular into the bargain.

i believe that they didn't want to upset stalin, during the war, anyway. afterward, it seems to me that bloodstone took priority. not sure if vlasov was personally involved with bloodstone (may have died prior to it), but fairly certain that his troops were invovled.

there is no evidence that the few ROA troops who actually engaged the Soviets ever got supplies from the allies, and it would have been logistically impossible.

no evidence during the war, you mean? that might well be true. like i said, it's my best guess of what NC is saying. because, you know, bloodstone, etc.

How would the Allies have gotten supplies specifically to a couple of small, scattered ROA units on the eastern front? The only point at which they were in close enough proximity to have done that was in May 1945, after Hitler was dead, when those troops already had switched sides and were fighting against the Nazis in Czechoslovakia.

I suspect the logistics would’ve been difficult. But the axis was driven from Greece in 1944. I can’t see the difficulty, really, in supplying groups in the Ukraine from airbases in hellas, especially when italy was fallen and the Mediterranean was controlled by the allies.

And Chomsky's whole point on this is asinine given that the U.S. continued Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union even after Germany surrendered. Why the hell would it have done that if it was trying to slow down the Red Army?

Plausible deniability, aye? But it does strike me as unlikely, yeah.

This is just a pure smear by Chomsky.

well, not really, all things considered.

given the precision of the anti-chomsky writers that we've been discussing, i'm not sure if the quoted langauge is reliable. i have however found this, wherein NC is reviewing simpson's blowback during an interview with barsamian:

The US left behind armies the Nazis had established in Eastern Europe, and continued to support them at least into the early 1950s. By then the Russians had penetrated American intelligence, so the air drops didn't work very well any more.

it doesn't include the bit about supplying nazi armies prior to the end of the war. maybe the citation is wrong on the other site, but maybe, more likely, NC said that stuff about arming enemies prior to the end of the war, or whatever. that may well be wrong. i don't think it's impossible, as supra, but it's not something that i've ever heard--about the eastern front--except for when the US & UK armed nazi collaborators and other criminals in greece in order to suppress the leftwing greek liberation movement which had already kicked the fascists out of parts of greece by their own efforts, and whom stalin had agreed to ignore--which he did, even while the UK and US slaughtered them for not being fascists, apparently--and all prior to V-E day. In the pacific, I’m reasonably certain that the US rearmed Japanese to fight mao as soon as the war ended, and rearmed Japanese to put down huk resistance in the Philippines actually prior to the end of the war. (Need it be said how shameful this is?)

i.e., if it is an error by NC, it is harmless--the US sympathized with the fascists well enough before the war, and rescued them after the war, giving jobs to thousands of war criminals during the cold war. The apartheid system in the US makes them ideological cousins. The native genocides makes them ideological siblings. US cappies hid stolen Nazi assets, and it’s reasonably obvious to me that the alleged west german “miracle” of the 1950s occurred because stolen jewish moneys were smuggled back into the economy through the usual US business contacts, bringing them from argentina or sweden or wherever the dulles boys hid them. The US turned away jewish refugees, and hoped that its mad dog would destroy the soviet union. Collaborators and war criminals continued to exert influence on US policy well into reagan’s regime, and the US sent these war criminals all over the world in making coups, organizing death squads, running drugs, whatever.

really not seeing the smear--all’y’all hip-deep in Nazis up in this motherfucker. there’s plenty on which the US might be convicted for nazi associations & conduct, even if NC is wrong on the particular point about vlasov or whoever. Accordingly, this petition for a new trial is HEREBY DENIED.

[sologdin]

he looks at US aid in poor countries as us trying to mold them so they can't grow on their own and present a better alternative to capitalism.

missed this the first time through.

assuming that NC's position is sufficiently presented here, the thesis is generally correct, though i suspect the presentation is a commingling of several points--namely that the US uses foreign aid for several foreign policy purposes and that the goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the existence of a successful example of an alternative to the version of state capitalism that it prefers.

we should bear in mind the requirements of the foreign assistance act, sec. 604:

Sec. 604 Procurement.

(a)(1) LIMITATIONS ON PROCUREMENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Funds made available for assistance under this Act may be used by the President for procurement—

(A) only in the United States, the recipient country, or developing countries; or

(B ) in any other country but only if—

(i) the provision of such assistance requires commodities or services of a type that are not produced in and available for purchase in any country specified in subparagraph (A); or

(ii) the President determines, on a case-by-case basis, that procurement in such other country is necessary— (I) to meet unforeseen circumstances, such as emergency situations, where it is important to permit procurement in a country not specified in subparagraph (A); or

(II) to promote efficiency in the use of United States foreign assistance resources, including to avoid impairment of foreign assistance objectives.

the same section was amended in 1993, and had previously read, during the cold war:

Procurement.—(a) Funds made available under this Act may be used for procurement out-side the United States only if the President determines that such procurement will not result in adverse effects upon the economy of the United States or the industrial mobilization base, with special reference to any areas of labor surplus or to the net position of the United States in its balance of payments with the rest of the world, which outweigh the economic or other advantages to the United States of less costly procurement outside the United States, and onlyif the price of any commodity procured in bulk is lower than the market price prevailing in the United States at the time of procurement, adjusted for differences in the cost of transportationto destination, quality, and terms of payment.

in practice, this means that foreign aid moneys of the US will procure in the US and transship on US vessels (as required in a certain proportion by another section IIRC)--though the post cold war version has been a liberalized a bit. the agricultural trade development act specifically is premised on the policy of "increasing the consumption of United States agricultural commodities in foregin countries." the process is essentially a transfer of public US moneys to foreign gubmints (whose CIA-installed thugs take their cut) and then back to private US corporations, whose otherwise potentially unmerchantable surpluses are taken abroad. the nastiest part is that the statute includes loans in its definition of aid--so the foreign states are on the hook for the "aid" much of the time, and thus we're into proto-debt-leverage imperialism (DLI proper comes with IMF structural adjustment, natch).

i've underscored also the bit above about the US balance of payments--foreign aid has always been a means to manipulate the balance of payments. the agricultural trade development, supra, authorizes dumping of US agricultural surplus on foreign states, more or less without regard for local agricultural & currency markets. wrecking those local markets may not be the intentional purpose of the act, but it is the foreseeable consequence.

the main focus has however always been defense-oriented protocols. this CRS study is slightly out-of-date, but lays out the percentages of allegedly humanitarian-type aid vs more traditional forms of overt military provision and more nebulous "security" aid, which amounts to something very similar.

much aid went to the cordon sanitaire ringing the USSR during the cold war, especially to places run by unsavory rightists, as in greece, turkey, korea--all places that had been subject to manipulation of the local constitutional order by CIA interference.

ETA--

the imperialist implications of all this are twofold:

1) as the 1970 peterson report noted, the cost of foreign assistance to foreign states from the US was about 15% higher than market rates for the same goods and services, once debt service and other costs were taken into account. (some states had to withdraw from US assistance because it became too expensive.) at the same time, such foreign assistance by the US, even though it was public moneys, actually offset other costs that the US had to incur (such as warehousing costs for agricultural produce held by the commodity credit corporation). not sure if the numbers ended up as a wash, but by a certain point in US history, receipts on debt service began to exceed current outlays in "aid."

2) once "assistance" was centralized under USAID, it became tied to non-aid foreign policy objectives, such as acquisition of military basing abroad (classicly roman, this), agreement on variosu treaties or votes at the UN, and geopolitical loyalty of the pertinent client regime. the notion criticized above that NC is pandering to tinfoil-hats by suggesting that "aid" is used to thwart indigenous political development manifests under this caption, as mcnamara explained in congress in the 1960s--that fighting the commies required assistance as the "best weapon" to avoid overt military conflict because actual development (itself a good thing, surely) would counter the growth of revolutionary movements internal to the client states in question. (the peace corps is actually a minor portion of this, though its main effect was domestic insofar as it captured persons who might otherwise be opposed to US empire and put them to work for it.)

[Colder Hands]

this thread has now far passed me by in terms of being interested. i enjoyed reading Solo and FLoW's posts though.

i'll just touch on a few things to clear up where i stood back when i had to exit the thread.

i never said Chumsky denied the holocaust, just that he used it as a tool in poor taste.

in terms of his finances, Raids did a nice job digging up exact details on his accounts, and while they may not seem to be a bad conflict to some, nor worth anger over n terms of what he says and does, i myself control my investments and bypass 401k matching plans so i can be assured my money only supports causes and beliefs that match my own.

while i respect not everyone can have this option in life, i feel Chumsky has enough money to easily control what investments are made on his behalf.

i still think he is a hypocrite over this, as minor as it may seem to some, and i just cannot forgive the Lebanon support and Palestine support while he attacks the US and Israel. I have read nothing in this thread that sways me on either.

i will keep my opinion of Chumsky as i am sure his supporters will regardless of anything I say, quote, link or force out of Chumsky's own mouth by means of torture.

i am impressed at the mostly civilized nature this thread maintained despite strong opposing views, i am not sure i can maintain the same level of dignity moving forward so i bow out in terms of replying, but i greatly hope this thread continues on for my reading enjoyment.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

yeah, unquestionable private support from industry, banking, rightwing NGOs, various personalities, media outfits, &c., in both states.

Do you have any evidence that Hitler would not have obtained power but for this support? I mean, people in the U.S. sent money back to the old country to lots of different people. But Chomsky tossed out this point in his lecture as if it was a given that U.S. and British "support" enabled Hitler to be what he was.

no evidence during the war, you mean? that might well be true. like i said, it's my best guess of what NC is saying. because, you know, bloodstone, etc.

Which still provides absolutely zero support for Chomsky's claim that the U.S. supported Nazi-created armies that slowed the allied victory and prolonged the Holocaust. But the real point is that even a knolwedgeable guy like you has to come up with a "best guess" (which even you know doesn't fit) at what Chomsky meant in this lecture he gave to hundreds of mushy headed college students. This is a really nasty historical smear because it implies deliberate U.S. complicity in the Holocaust, yet I think we both suspect he's just talking out of his ass.

And that circles back around to why he is so despised by so many people.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

FLOW, can you honestly name a single human being who doesn't regularly talk out of their ass?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, can you honestly name a single human being who doesn't regularly talk out of their ass?

Sure. And of course, it's also a matter of degree, the purpose of such communication, how deliberate it is, etc. A boarder talking out of his/her ass on an issue is not the same thing as when it is done by a prominent intellectual/academic whose views are supposedly worthy of respect, particularly when they're imparting their assspeak to hundreds of students in an academic setting.

But if you just want to say that Chomsky is just like most other people and regularly talks out of his ass, well, doesn't that explain he's not as popular in the U.S. as some think he should be?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

But if you just want to say that Chomsky is just like most other people and regularly talks out of his ass, well, doesn't that explain he's not as popular in the U.S. as some think he should be?

No, because I would therefore expect the inverse, especially considering the "public intellectuals" to whom the American Conservatives sing praises on high.

[sologdin]

in terms of his finances, Raids did a nice job digging up exact details on his accounts, and while they may not seem to be a bad conflict to some, nor worth anger over n terms of what he says and does, i myself control my investments and bypass 401k matching plans so i can be assured my money only supports causes and beliefs that match my own.

a very reasonable position. your investment principles are the gold standard, rather than the basic standard, sadly. perhaps it does make some sense to ask NC WTF regarding his portfolio, given his positions. i suspect, though, that it may quickly lead to a conclusion that only complete divestment is 100% consistent.

cannot forgive the Lebanon support and Palestine support while he attacks the US and Israel.

i was for a time under the spell of the far left's arguments about israel/palestine. those arguments now strike me as blinkered, but not wholly without merit--which means that the israeli state's position is also not wholly without merit. i suspect that the position of NC, finklestein, and other jewish persons in the US is based on the same principle of internal critique that is otherwise absent from goyish leftwing critiques of israeli policy, which makes those critiques at times appear to be simply based on antisemitism, and therefore indistiguishable from far right overtly anti-semitic positions (except for the manner and tone of the presentation, of course).

power but for this support?

i doubt we can locate a sine qua non for the rise fo the NSDAP. to the extent that NC implied or stated that the US or the UK (either public or private interests) is the sole or primary cause for that rise, i think he is manifestly erroneous. whether it is willful misrepresentation, sloppy overreaching during an oral argument, or simply good faith error is not really relevant to me (it's pure ad hominem), and shifts the inquiry from examination of US conduct to an examination of whistleblower conduct; suffice it to say that he was wrong in that instance. it's a standard defense tactic, and i understand why it appears in discussions about NC's work; i prefer to avoid getting in the weeds with the defense though, and keep the lens focused on US foreign policy.

Which still provides absolutely zero support for Chomsky's claim that the U.S. supported Nazi-created armies that slowed the allied victory and prolonged the Holocaust. But the real point is that even a knolwedgeable guy like you has to come up with a "best guess" (which even you know doesn't fit) at what Chomsky meant in this lecture he gave to hundreds of mushy headed college students. This is a really nasty historical smear because it implies deliberate U.S. complicity in the Holocaust, yet I think we both suspect he's just talking out of his ass.

And that circles back around to why he is so despised by so many people.

agreed that NC is wrong about US support for nazi-established armies that fought the USSR during the war and thereby prolonged the holocaust. and agreed that i don't think what we know about early cold war operations by the US does not authorize a finding that the US used the same elements prior to the cold war proper.

even if the US did in fact support armies that fought against the soviet advance on berlin, that fact in itself does not authorize a finding of direct US complicity in the holocaust. i recall that assistant war secretary mccloy wrote a memorandum during the war on the question of bombing the lines of communication & transit to the death camps in poland, and concluded that it didn't benefit the allied war effort in terms of cost/benefit. that conclusion might very well be warranted and correct, and i have no reason to dispute it. my impression is that the best way to alleviate the holocaust at the time was to destroy the fascist state, and that bombing the rail lines to auschwitz would've delayed destruction of persons routed thereto in the short term, but would've entailed some long-term cost vis-a-vis compelling the unconditional surrender of the third reich, which would've itself prolonged the holocaust to the extent that the germans were able to kill jews in places other than auschwitz.

does, therefore, the fact that the US respectfully declined to bomb the auschwitz rail lines indicate complicity in the holocaust? i really doubt it, though of course it's a cheap propaganda point for soviet apologists and others in debates like these. for the same reason, i'm not sure if hypothetical support for anti-stalinist armies, employed for the sole purpose of preventing the stalinization of berlin and the faux liberation of areas subject to soviet imperialism, and not for the destruction of european jewry, warrants a finding that the US, under the terms of the hypothetical, is directly complicit in the holocaust. to the extent that NC made such an inference, even if based on correct factual allegations, that inference is erroneous. it is essentially the same wrongful inference drawn from the mccloy memorandum. is it in bad faith? (i'm persuaded that it is not, but wtf does my opinion matter, really?)

i suppose it is not entirely unreasonable to despise a person because of a single factual error; i despise the whole horde of rightwing commentators and bush regime officials for the single factual allegation that iraq had WMD. the difference, of course, is that NC's opinion on US complicity in the holocaust has no effect beyond potentially influencing a hundred or so dumbass university students who, i assume, retain their critical faculties and are subject to persuasion the other way, as i have been--whereas the bush factual allegation led to the invasion of a sovereign state and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human persons, contrary to international law, the alleged principles of the united states, and basic decency.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

i'm not sure if hypothetical support for anti-stalinist armies, employed for the sole purpose of preventing the stalinization of berlin and the faux liberation of areas subject to soviet imperialism, and not for the destruction of european jewry, warrants a finding that the US, under the terms of the hypothetical, is directly complicit in the holocaust. to the extent that NC made such an inference, even if based on correct factual allegations, that inference is erroneous. it is essentially the same wrongful inference drawn from the mccloy memorandum. is it in bad faith? (i'm persuaded that it is not, but wtf does my opinion matter, really?)

But you've got not only the poor inference, but an utter lack of support for the facts upon which the inference is based. Given Chomsky's rotely predictable critiques of the U.S., are you truly persuaded that this was just an innocent mistake? Seriously? I mean, when was the last time you saw Chomsky make an error, exaggeration, or slanting of facts that favored the U.S.?

i suppose it is not entirely unreasonable to despise a person because of a single factual error;

I suppose the difference is that I don't see it as "a single factual error". It was just such a clear distortion that it was worth my time to point it out. To me, it is just one of the more clearcut examples of his deliberate efforts to distort the factual record so as to lead people to the conclusion he wants them to reach. I am hardly alone in pointing to Chomsky's creative use of language to create inferences that can later be denied. That's his genius, really. He can give a speech that leads people quite inescapably to his desired conclusion, but he does it with such nuance that he can always claim that he didn't actually say anything false, even though the speech was crafted so as to encourage the making of false inferences by his audience.

i despise the whole horde of rightwing commentators and bush regime officials for the single factual allegation that iraq had WMD. the difference, of course, is that NC's opinion on US complicity in the holocaust has no effect beyond potentially influencing a hundred or so dumbass university students

But apparently, he's one of the most widely-respected thinkers in the world. So his influence goes a good deal beyond just those folks who were there that day.

whereas the bush factual allegation led to the invasion of a sovereign state and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human persons, contrary to international law, the alleged principles of the united states, and basic decency.

That may make Bush a scumbag to you, but it really doesn't have anything to do with Chomsky.

[sologdin]

That may make Bush a scumbag to you, but it really doesn't have anything to do with Chomsky.

not concerned about the incongruity between getting one's panties in a bunch over a stray remark by NC that may overstate the case against US imperialism, on the one hand, and blithe acceptance of misrepresentations by the US empire, on the other? or is it that critque of the empire must be 100% accurate, but imperial pronouncements, even if 0% accurate, are just fine, even if--or perhaps because--they are used in war?

I am hardly alone in pointing to Chomsky's creative use of language to create inferences that can later be denied. That's his genius, really. He can give a speech that leads people quite inescapably to his desired conclusion, but he does it with such nuance that he can always claim that he didn't actually say anything false, even though the speech was crafted so as to encourage the making of false inferences by his audience.

that's fine. we'll do it this way:

admit or deny that the US hired thousands of nazi war criminals after WW2 for use against the USSR.

admit or deny that US personnel as an act of state policy aided in smuggling out and then repatriating to germany looted assets on behalf of nazi war criminals.

admit or deny that the US armed nazi war criminals and collaborators to strangle the greek liberation movement prior to the end of the war.

admit or deny that the US repatriated anti-soviet groups, themselves complicit with einsatzgruppen crimes, to the USSR for low intensity warfare.

admit or deny that the US shipped such humanitarians as otto skorzeny and klaus barbie to the third world for use in making coups d'etat against wayward clients.

if we feel compelled to admit any of these, i can't see the harm in NC's error that we've been discussing. US aiding the holocaust? no. hiring the guys who are responsible for it, when it knows they're responsible for it, and precisely because they are responsible for it? FFS, yes. the holocaust was just a line on an employment application for a job with the CIA.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

not concerned about the incongruity between getting one's panties in a bunch over a stray remark by NC that may overstate the case against US imperialism, on the one hand, and blithe acceptance of misrepresentations by the US empire, on the other?

It's not an either/or. Both can be wrong. You're just introducing Bush into this as a red herring to get the focus off Chomsky. But since this is a Chomsky thread, I see nothing wrong with keeping the focus on his actions. If you want to start a "Bush lied/people died" thread, feel free. Or are you making the argument that it is justified for Chomsky to deliberately misrepresent history in his speeches because Bush's statements about WMD's were false?

or is it that critque of the empire must be 100% accurate, but imperial pronouncements, even if 0% accurate, are just fine, even if--or perhaps because--they are used in war?

It's neither. It is perfectly possible for lies either way to be worthy of condemnation. I'd say the impact of Bush's clearly was greater. On the other hand, I think he did have a good faith belief in the truth of what he was saying, whereas I believe Chomsky's misrepresentation was both knowing and deliberate. But again, if you want a bash Bush thread, feel free to start one.

that's fine. we'll do it this way:

admit or deny that the US hired thousands of nazi war criminals after WW2 for use against the USSR.

admit or deny that US personnel as an act of state policy aided in smuggling out and then repatriating to germany looted assets on behalf of nazi war criminals.

admit or deny that the US armed nazi war criminals and collaborators to strangle the greek liberation movement prior to the end of the war.

admit or deny that the US repatriated anti-soviet groups, themselves complicit with einsatzgruppen crimes, to the USSR for low intensity warfare.

admit or deny that the US shipped such humanitarians as otto skorzeny and klaus barbie to the third world for use in making coups d'etat against wayward clients.

Red herrings again.

if we feel compelled to admit any of these, i can't see the harm in NC's error that we've been discussing.

So it's okay to deliberately misrepresent history so as to make the U.S. look badly, because because the U.S. did other bad things? Why not just stick with the truth? I suspect Chomsky doesn't choose that option because, master propagandist that he is, he realizes the impact of those additional allegations. Because at least in the case of the Cold War actions, there is an argument that those actions were intended to prevent the worse harm of communist takeovers. I mean, the Soviets also used their share of Nazis, not to mention they actively cooperated with the Nazis in the partition of Poland. But if you can make the U.S. complicit in the Holocaust, well, then you're really got something, huh?