SPIEGEL ONLINE: Another Smear Photo - Another Perversion of the Facts

(...Or the War over Vietnam and Historic Revisionism...)

Skimming the web - I came across this typical smear photo on SPIEGEL ONLINE. It is one of hundreds selected over the years by various members of the media to firmly reinforce the stereotype of Bush as the arrogant-stupid-religious-zealot:

Bush with cross in background: A popular motif at SPIEGEL...

Later I received an email from our reader Helian with the following observations on the SPIEGEL ONLINE article in question, entitled: "Bush's Vietnam Comparison Outrages Democrats and Ex-Military":

"According to the article...

Auch der ehemalige US-Brigadegeneral John Johns bemängelte im "Wall Street Journal" die historischen Interpretationen Bushs. "Was ich von Vietnam gelernt habe, ist, dass die US-Truppen nicht in der Lage waren, die Operation gegen Aufständische zu führen. Je länger wir blieben, desto schlimmer wurde es."

(Translation: The former US Brigadier General John Johns also found Bush's historical interpretation to be lacking in the "Wall Street Journal." "What I learned in Vietnam is that U.S. forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation.  The longer we stay there, the worse its going to get.")

Guess we should congratulate this loser.  He's suddenly been promoted to spokesman for all the "ex-military" in the U.S., and has jointed SPON's stall of "experts."  Of course, Johns couldn't have "bemängelte" anything in the Wall Street Journal, because he didn't write the article in question.  In fact, his opinion was merely cited by John McKinnon in a one inch paragraph of an article that appeared at the bottom of page A5 today.  You have to hand it to SPON, they don't miss a trick.  After all, they have plausible denial.  Johns' opinion was really in the Wall Street Journal, and he was quoted correctly.  Of course, the nature of the article and the context of the paragraph make SPON's implication that Johns was the author and is somehow representative of "ex-military" in the U.S. a complete lie, but their readers are used to being bamboozled by now.  Johns' paragraph reads,

"Bush is cherry-picking history to support his case for staying the course," said Ret. Army Brig. Gen. John Johns.  "What I learned in Vietnam is that U.S. forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation.  The longer we stay there, the worse its going to get."

The logic here is jaw dropping.  In spite of the fact that we have successfully fought insurgencies several times in our history, notably in the Philippines, we "cannot conduct a counterinsurgency operation."  We are the greatest superpower the world has ever seen, with resources beyond anything the Romans could ever have imagined as they successfully fought "insurgencies" for centuries, but for mystic reasons known only to Johns, all that is impossible for us.  Other countries in more modern times, including the Brits quite recently and on numerous occasions, have successfully conducted counterinsurgency operations, but somehow, for some odd reason known only to Johns, miraculously predicated and "proved" solely by his experience in Vietnam, "U.S. forces cannot conduct a counterinsurgency operation."  It's self-fulfilling defeatism at its best."

Helian is on the money. And the left-wing American and British media elite have done much the same - busily revising history to minimize their own historic guilt over the genocide and refugee flood caused directly by their demands that the United States abandon key allies in Southeast Asia. They disingenuously attempt to shift the blame from the communist thugs who actually perpetrated the killings to American foreign policy - despite the fact that the United States spent decades, billions of dollars and tens-of-thousands of its soldiers' lives desperately attempting to push back the communists! The conclusions reached in recent commentary by the Angry Left on Vietnam truly contort history to the point that reality is made to stand on its head like a cheap circus clown.

Most notable is an article by Michael Hirsch of Newsweek - which flagrantly omits nearly two decades of Southeast Asian history (1973 to 1990) - a period in which millions died at the hands of communist dictators. I emailed this response to Newsweek:

To Whom it May Concern:

I couldn't help but notice Mr. Hirsch's glaring failure to mention the mass death and flood of refugees that followed America's withdrawal from Vietnam in the mid to late 1970s. Calling the withdrawal a "success" and claiming the "dominoes fell the other way" is a disingenuous manipulation of history that denies the suffering of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians at the hands of communist dictatorships for decades on end. Publishing an article that ignores nearly two decades of genocide and oppression and flagrantly distorts history to fit the author's obvious anti-war leanings does nothing to add to your publication's credibility. On the contrary.   

Sincerely,
Raymond D.

Remarkably - many among the Angry Left actually reacted to Bush's comments by claiming that Pol Pot's regime was primarily the result of the "destabilizing" foriegn policy of the United States. This despite the fact that the Khmer Rouge were directly aided by the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam until they took over in 1975 and despite the fact that the North Vietnamese communist regime essentially illegally occupied entire swaths of Cambodia (and Laos) for decades and trained and armed Mr. Pot's thugs through the early to mid 1970s with the aid of their Soviet and Chinese allies.

In the Leftist-elitist world of 'Blame-America-First', however, no perversion of history seems too outrageous - particularly when it serves to cover the streams of blood staining the hands of those who advocated the disastrous withdrawal policies that lead to the brutal communist takeover of much of Southeast Asia. Fortunately, the blatant revisionism has not gone unanswered. Peter Rodman writes the following in National Review Online:

"...When Congress, in the summer of 1973, legislated an end to U.S. military action in, over, or off the shores of Indochina, the only U.S. military activity then going on was air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught. “Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier,” Tip O’Neill declared. By 1975, administration pleas to help Cambodia were answered by New York Times articles suggesting the Khmer Rouge would probably be moderate once they came into power and the Cambodian people had a better life to look forward to once we left.

Trying to debunk the president’s VFW speech, the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place. This claim, alas, is not supportable. What destabilized Cambodia was North Vietnam’s occupation of chunks of Cambodian territory from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Cambodia’s ruler Prince Sihanouk complained bitterly to us about these North Vietnamese bases in his country and invited us to attack them (which we did from the air in 1969-70). Next came a North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March-April 1970, to which U.S. and South Vietnamese forces responded by a limited ground incursion at the end of April.

So the president has his history right. The outcome in Indochina was not foreordained. Congress had the last word, however, between 1973 and 1975.

The strategic consequences of defeat in Indochina were also serious. Leonid Brezhnev crowed that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Demoralized allied leaders in Europe as well as Asia feared the new Soviet aggressiveness and lamented the paralysis of American will. When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as evidence that U.S. warnings did not need to be taken seriously.  That’s what it means to lose credibility.  Once lost, it has to be re-earned the hard way.

No analogies are ever complete, but — given our global leadership and the number of allies and friends that rely on us for their security — the consequences of an American defeat can be counted on to be terrible. How can anyone seriously think otherwise?"

These conclusions seem obvious. Unfortunately, some media observers and political elites have become so obsessed with defeat for the United States that little else matters. For these individuals, being "right" about Iraq and proving Bush "wrong" takes precedent over human life, sane foreign policy, geopolitical stability and historic truth.

UPDATE: Helian takes on the revisionists with this comment:

"They’re hardly alone. Leftist apologists for totalitarianism the world over, and particularly the baby boomer stooges of Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, have been frantically trotting out the same specious “destabilization” alibi, demonstrating by their very overreaction to Bush’s speech the guilt they feel. They know the blood of victims of the killing fields and the re-education camps is on their hands, and that history will not ignore it. The world was full of Lady Macbeths yesterday, and how well her words apply to them!

“Out, damned spot! out, I say!-- Here's the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes
of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.”

It’s unbelievable, really. Think, for a moment, of the “logic” behind this miserable gambit that the Stalinist collaborators have been hysterically insisting we swallow for so many years. Did the Khmer Rouge, who fought a relentless, fanatical war against the Cambodian government, destabilize that government? N-o-o-o-o! Did the Viet Cong, who cynically and blatantly used Cambodia as a sanctuary after their attacks on South Vietnam destabilize that government? N-o-o-o-o! Did the North Vietnamese, who flagrantly violated Cambodia’s sovereignty, setting up supply depots, weapons caches, and roads in that country to fuel their aggression in the south destabilize her? N-o-o-o-o! Why, then, who really “destabilized” Cambodia. We all know the answer by now. It was the Americans, who finally, after years of restraint, fought back against those who were killing their soldiers with impunity. THEY destabilized Cambodia! It was the Americans, who finally tired of watching their troops be butchered by stores of weapons they couldn’t touch in a region completely out of the control of the central government. THEY destabilized Cambodia! It was the Americans, who finally tired of enduring attacks by North Vietnamese, who, flaunting every rule of international law, were using Cambodia as an open supply route, immune to interdiction. Again, THE AMERICANS destabilized Cambodia.

By this distorted, despicable dodge, flogged untiringly by the Stalinist collaborators for years now, the very people who, in spite of scorn, slander and contempt, dared to fight back against the Communist butchers, the very people who, unlike the bleating sheep who stayed behind and shouted pious slogans at their “peace” demonstrations, were willing to risk their lives to stop the murderers, the very people who, in spite of the catcalls from the leftists collaborators, were steadfast and firm in carrying the battle to the enemy for so many years, THEY were the ones who “really” bore the guilt for the crimes of their enemies.

History will judge the lying collaborators who continue to spout this argument, and will point unflinchingly at the blood on their hands. Their hysterical reaction to Bush’s remarks demonstrates unmistakably they know the blood is there. Now, with incredible cynicism, they are doing their best to play the same game in Iraq. This time the Lady Macbeths are trying to wash the blood of the Iraqi people from their hands in advance. They will succeed no more than she did."

Let's hope Helian is right and the revisionism falls flat once and for all. Knowing that people often believe what they want to believe, however, it is difficult to imagine that it will ever completely disappear.

UPDATE #2: Max Boot adds more useful insight, and Brian Baird, a Democrat who initially opposed the war calls for rational policy:

"As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.

Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done. (...)

Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.

Without question, these gains are still precarious and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political regime and parliament at the national level.

The Iraqis are addressing these problems along with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into jeopardy.

Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased at such a dear price in lives and dollars."

Rational thought can trump raw politics - but only very rarely. Don't expect to read many of these voices in German media either. Why? Because the editorial ranks of German media are overpopulated by veteran Ho Chi Minh apologists and ex-Maoists.

Comments

[Tyranno]

Somewhat off topic but indicative of the "objectivity" of the German medias.

Deutsche Welle ran the story;

Business | 25.06.2006
Germany, Still a Land of Plenty
Germany is in the money

"The number of dollar millionaires in Germany rose last year by just 0.9 percent. Slight as that might be, there are still more millionaires here than anywhere else in the world apart from the US and Japan. The 10th World Wealth Report published by consultants Capgemini and US investment bank Merrill Lynch revealed that in 2005, Germany was home to a total of 767,000 High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) -- private investors with a fortune of over $1 million (791,000 euros) or property worth an equal amount. The report has Germany tailing the US, with its 2.6 million millionaires." DW staff (jp) 23 Aug 07

In the European media the work ethic and prosperity that flows from it in the U.S. is portrayed as "greedy" and proof of how "unfair" and "heartless" Americans are and their capitalist system is. Remember the "Die Aussauger" covers?
Oddly ... in ratio there are more millionaires in Germany (.00930) than in the U.S. (.00863) No doubt all of the German millionaires earned their money by accident and are more benevolent and altruistic than their 'money grubbing" Ami relatives. I know their hearts are too big to be earning those millions overseas and repatriating those profits like... money grubbing "Aussaugers"
Yet, when you look at charitable giving you discover that last year the "mean" and "greedy," "money obsessed" Americans gave away $295.02 Billion which is; double the amount given by Great Britain, 4 times the amount given by the Netherlands, 8 times the amount given by Germany, and 12 the amount given by France.

It has got to be tough being a progressive liberal these days. You just have to be willing to overlook so much to believe what you (need to) believe. Through their MSM fellow travelers, the preferred lies of progressive liberals are running circles around the world before the truth gets out of bed!

Skipping over the fact above the article's main point was "how hard it is to make money in Germany!" Perhaps this is why they are so miserly with it.

Tyranno

PS: I always feel the need to qualify when I post one of these. I am not looking for a fight. I loved my time in Germany but I have lost my patients with the lack of objectivity and closed mindedness I encountered there, and still read daily in their newspapers.

[Tyranno]

Hit the send button too quickly. Here is the link for charitable giving.

http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf

[Tyranno]

General Johns is against the war too? Well, add him to the other eight. Which is indicative of . . . absolutely nothing among the 873 active duty Generals and Admirals, and even less when added to the approximate 7000+ retired flag level officers who are not speaking out against the Administration's policy in Iraq.
One in 99 disagree with the Iraq policy so for the American and Euro MSM it is necessary to change everything! 1% of THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! Contrast that to the 80%+ of the American people who want a fence on their southern border to stop a dysfunctional Mexico from hemorrhaging illegal aliens all over the U.S.A. But the MSM disagrees with "the people" on this topic so it is only brought up in terms of how it "proves" the "racism" of the lesser boobouisie. As Pauline Kael might have said, "How did we end up in Iraq? Nobody I know supports this war!"

1% and the progressive liberals are screaming about a consensus! Yet 80% doesn't buy the average American anything except vitriol and hate from the same compassionate progressive liberals.
The NEOPROGs want what they want, when they want it. "The people" are simply an inconvenient bumpersticker they must slap on the car to (hopefully) justify the damage their reckless driving always results in.

Tyranno

[DrBEN]

@ Ray

SPON wrote an article which, except for the Bush picture, contained no anti Americanism. They quoted general Johns correctly.
If you disagree with Johns statement thats fine - but maybe the topic of the whole posting should be
"SPON used a biased photo of Bush and I disagree with some left-wing guys."
instead of SPON bashing.
I told you before that a like the idea of this blog but please do not bash back and do not pillory any more people in your blog.

Furthermore I personally doubt that the US retreat from Vietnam had a significant influence on Saddam to occupy Kuwait. Saddam was more or less a self made problem. East and West did grave mistakes during the cold war. Even if the US wanted to secure democracy in the world - US policy was an important factor to allow new dictatorships to develop.

The US puppet government on Cuba which caused the Castro dictatorship
The US and UK puppet government in Iran which caused the Mullah dictatorship
How to get rid of the Mullahs? - Supply Saddam with weapons (not only the US but also UK and France) - and Saddam in those days was not more democratic than a few years ago. He was just convenient at that time.
OK now we have a Saddam problem....

Chile had a not very democratic government - the USA supported some convenient parties and candidates.
Then 1970 BOOOM!!! Chile got a communist president. From one extreme position to the other - like always.
But no problem lets kill the president and establish and tolerate a new dictatorship (with nice mass murders, concentration camps and torture)

to be continued...

I just want to say that it is easy to judge those things from our perspective (like I did)
The difference between all the cold war stuff and today is that there is no cold war and we should have time to think before we act.

So let us not suppress the fact that the world is no black and white with the absolute good guys on one side and thew absolute bad guys on the other.

DrBEN

[Kuni]

So how does the intermittent bombing of North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia from 1969 until 1973 even come close to equaling: “air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught” like the laughable article you posted claims?

[RayD]

@ Kuni,

The air support mentioned consisted of far more than strikes against communist forces. They also included shipments of aid and supplies.

@ DrBEN,

I never claim the SPON article is anti-Americanism - did you read my posting? I say I agree with Helian that SPON's use of John's quote - plucked from an article by another author in the WSJ - to represent "ex-military" in a very general fashion is more than questionable.

I am not sure to what degree Vietnam influenced Saddam - I find it hard to believe it had no influence. However, American retreat in Vietnam and Somalia certainly had an influence on Osama bin Laden in his view that the US was a "paper tiger". Perhaps the Angry Left - if successful - will still be able to partially validate that assessment.

[commonsense]

@DR Ben:
To say that Saddam Hussein got the majority of his weapons from US/UK/France is another leftwing myth. Let's see what the real numbers are:

The page Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power by The Heritage Foundation is almost five years old. However, it shows things as they were.
Besides all of the food and oil stuff it says: Saddam Hussein imported 50% (Fifty) of his weapons from Russia/USSR, another 18% of his weapons he got from China, and another 13% of his arms he got from France, totals 81%. Top that off with some components for weapons of mass destruction from Germany.
Actually, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was only the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq.

[Buckeye Abroad]

@DrBen

"Even if the US wanted to secure democracy in the world - US policy was an important factor to allow new dictatorships to develop."

Lesser of two evils. Chile peacefully became a demcratic state afterwards and is now the strongest ecomonic power in South America (with a socialist woman prime minister).

"Then 1970 BOOOM!!! Chile got a communist president. From one extreme position to the other - like always. But no problem lets kill the president and establish and tolerate a new dictatorship (with nice mass murders, concentration camps and torture)"

Good to see you got a solid leftist eduction. You should read up on Allende and what true communist tool he was and how Chile was being destabilized with lots of external communist support. You hate Pinchot? You only got one side of the story. Alot of illegal weapons pouring into the country to red thugs who were seizing property off citizens, 600% inflation, food shortages, lots of Cuban politcal "advisors" in country-- welcome to Chile 1973. After losing the paliment election in 73' he refused to relinquish power and then tried to enitce senior military officers into his cabinet. A majority of parliment was begging the military to intervene as Allende was outside of the confines of the law. Oh, before you cry abou those "missing" 3,000, many were found living in abroad over the years. I have known enough Chileans who were there in 1973 to know better.

Oh, urban legend has it Allende shot himself with an AK47 presented to him by Castro-- local legend has it Allende wanted to surrender (after the planes nailed the palace) but was shot in the head by a Cuban attache.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read doc.

"The difference between all the cold war stuff and today is that there is no cold war and we should have time to think before we act."

You are trying to equivocate the Gulf conflict today with the Cold War? Think harder and take all the time you need.

[garydausz]

@Dr. Ben
"So let us not suppress the fact that the world is no black and white with the absolute good guys on one side and thew absolute bad guys on the other."

Yeah right, not eveything is black an white but there are things which are definitely black and there are things that are definitely white. This is something which the "grey" fraction in the world seems to ignore.

[Helian]

“SPON wrote an article which, except for the Bush picture, contained no anti Americanism. They quoted general Johns correctly… I told you before that a like the idea of this blog but please do not bash back and do not pillory any more people in your blog.”

Another fine specimen for the cognoscenti, like a butterfly on a pin. We’re becoming increasingly familiar with the type, aren’t we? Claim that the content of the article is actually true – CHECK! Strike pious poses and lecture a blog that has been effective out of all proportion to its size about the “correct” way to fight media propaganda – CHECK! Claim mechanically that there’s really no anti-Americanism in the article – CHECK! Indeed, like a toy mechanical car bumping against a wall, DrBEN makes the latter point in spite of the fact that Medienkritik never suggests the article in question is anti-American, and is, in fact, as identical to coverage of the same topic in the WaPo and NYT as two peas in a pod. The DrBEN’s of the world are nothing if not well-drilled and trained, and they mechanically raise the same old talking points over and over whether they actually apply or not.

As Peter Rodman notes in the article cited by RayD,

“Trying to debunk the president’s VFW speech, the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place.”

and, true to form, DrBEN and Kuni trot out this threadbare, pathetic rationalization on queue:

“The US puppet government on Cuba which caused the Castro dictatorship
The US and UK puppet government in Iran which caused the Mullah dictatorship”

and:

“So how does the intermittent bombing of North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia from 1969 until 1973 even come close to equaling: “air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught” like the laughable article you posted claims?”

They’re hardly alone. Leftist apologists for totalitarianism the world over, and particularly the baby boomer stooges of Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, have been frantically trotting out the same specious “destabilization” alibi, demonstrating by their very overreaction to Bush’s speech the guilt they feel. They know the blood of victims of the killing fields and the re-education camps is on their hands, and that history will not ignore it. The world was full of Lady Macbeths yesterday, and how well her words apply to them!

“Out, damned spot! out, I say!-- Here's the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes
of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.”

It’s unbelievable, really. Think, for a moment, of the “logic” behind this miserable gambit that the Stalinist collaborators have been hysterically insisting we swallow for so many years. Did the Khmer Rouge, who fought a relentless, fanatical war against the Cambodian government, destabilize that government? N-o-o-o-o! Did the Viet Cong, who cynically and blatantly used Cambodia as a sanctuary after their attacks on South Vietnam destabilize that government? N-o-o-o-o! Did the North Vietnamese, who flagrantly violated Cambodia’s sovereignty, setting up supply depots, weapons caches, and roads in that country to fuel their aggression in the south destabilize her? N-o-o-o-o! Why, then, who really “destabilized” Cambodia. We all know the answer by now. It was the Americans, who finally, after years of restraint, fought back against those who were killing their soldiers with impunity. THEY destabilized Cambodia! It was the Americans, who finally tired of watching their troops be butchered by stores of weapons they couldn’t touch in a region completely out of the control of the central government. THEY destabilized Cambodia! It was the Americans, who finally tired of enduring attacks by North Vietnamese, who, flaunting every rule of international law, were using Cambodia as an open supply route, immune to interdiction. Again, THE AMERICANS destabilized Cambodia.

By this distorted, despicable dodge, flogged untiringly by the Stalinist collaborators for years now, the very people who, in spite of scorn, slander and contempt, dared to fight back against the Communist butchers, the very people who, unlike the bleating sheep who stayed behind and shouted pious slogans at their “peace” demonstrations, were willing to risk their lives to stop the murderers, the very people who, in spite of the catcalls from the leftists collaborators, were steadfast and firm in carrying the battle to the enemy for so many years, THEY were the ones who “really” bore the guilt for the crimes of their enemies.

History will judge the lying collaborators who continue to spout this argument, and will point unflinchingly at the blood on their hands. Their hysterical reaction to Bush’s remarks demonstrates unmistakably they know the blood is there. Now, with incredible cynicism, they are doing their best to play the same game in Iraq. This time the Lady Macbeths are trying to wash the blood of the Iraqi people from their hands in advance. They will succeed no more than she did.

[GringoTex]

Chile had a not very democratic government - the USA supported some convenient parties and candidates.
Then 1970 BOOOM!!! Chile got a communist president. From one extreme position to the other - like always.

If it was “one extreme position to the other” , then please explain why in 1970, with President Frei a Christian Democrat, the Christian Democrats in the legislature voted to make Allende president. ( This was the procedure when no candidate achieved a majority- turn the election to the legislature. In 1970, Allende got 36.3%. In 1964, Frei got over 50%.) Please explain why under Frei , Frei’s Christian Democrats passed legislative measures that featured land reform and increased government ownership of the copper mines. I am just a stupid ignorant uneducated Ami. Since this was “one extreme position to the other,” , please explain how Allende must have been completely opposed to these measures, no? Since this was “one extreme position to the other,” , Allende must have then privatized the copper mines, no? Please explain.

But no problem lets kill the president and establish and tolerate a new dictatorship (with nice mass murders, concentration camps and torture)

Who do you mean by “lets?” . Must mean that the coup was the Ami’s business, no? Please explain to me, if this is the case, how three weeks before the coup, the Chilean House of Deputies passed a resolution 81-47 that was titled “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy.” I am just a stupid ignorant uneducated Ami, and don’t understand. Please explain. An excerpt follows

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law; ( Wikipedia)

The resolution goes on to basically invite the Army to take part in a coup. As Allende said, the resolution was an invitation to a coup, a resolution that passed the democratically elected House of Deputies by 81-47.

But then, we are in agreement that the world is no black and white with the absolute good guys on one side and thew absolute bad guys on the other. Allende and Pinochet both had their flaws, no?

[George M]

If Chile were a right wing puppet government, ran by the Americans, why did Germany's beloved dictator, Erik Hoenicker, run to Chile to escape possible prosecution by the present German government?

[George M]

Commonsense:

The Heritage Foundation article is a good source for finding out who gave what to Saddam Hussein.

However, the article does our German readers a disservice. It leaves out the contributions of the East German government, which met its demise in 1989. East Germany supplied Iraq with thousands of LO 1100 2.5 ton trucks, which comprised most of the Iraqi Army's rolling stock.

Medienkritik’s German readers must recognize them. They may be seen in many boneyards in eastern Germany, often in the parking lots of old communist VEB (Volks Eigene Betrieb) communes.

[Don Miguel]

"The US puppet government on Cuba which caused the Castro dictatorship"

The historical facts and testimonies of those involved (on both sides) at the time do not support this statement, which is taken straight from the American and European media of the day. Remember, the press still to this day reports that Che Guevara was a great guerilla leader (in fact, he never won a single battle and was only good at executing prisoners), that Fidel Castro was driven to communism by the U.S. (in fact, Castro was a Communist in the 1940’s, was involved in a Communist-led revolt in Venezuela and his brother Raul was a KGB agent) and that there was an actual revolution in Cuba (in fact, very few people were killed on either side because the results of many "battles" were paid for through bribes and the only real revolution was that of the provincials against Castro that went on for several years in the 1960’s).

[GringoTex]

@ George M

If Chile were a right wing puppet government, ran by the Americans, why did Germany's beloved dictator, Erik Hoenicker, run to Chile to escape possible prosecution by the present German government?

Gorbachov secretly flew Honecker from Berlin to Moscow in March 1991. By this time, Pinochet’s regime had been replaced in elections. Later Honecker took refuge in the Chilean Embassy in Moscow, and subsequently went to Chile. Why did Honecker choose the Chilean Embassy for refuge? Clodomiro Almeyda, then the Chilean Ambassador, had himself taken refuge in East Germany during the Pinochet years. (NYT, May 30,1994, by Wolfgang Saxon)

Michelle Bachelet, the current President of Chile, also took refuge in East Germany, where she finished courses for her MD. President Bachelet’s father was a Chilean General who was tortured by the Pinochet regime, and died in prison of a heart attack.

BTW, Chilean President Patricio Aylwin, who replaced Pinochet, had been head of the Christian Democratic Party during the Allende years. Aylwin had supported the coup, and later helped lead the NO vote in the 1988 referendum that lead to the December 1989 elections that replaced the Pinochet regime.

As DrBEN says, So let us not suppress the fact that the world is no black and white with the absolute good guys on one side and thew absolute bad guys on the other.

Unfortunately, this thread consists of preaching to the choir. DrBEN, where are you? Or have you surrendered unconditionally to our superior command of logic and facts?

[Sagredo]

The Blog Non Pasaran has an entry today
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2007/08/can-you-feel-hatred.html
which illustrates more than anything I have recently read, the perversity of European left wing Intellectual hatred of America---this time from France. I cannot conceive of any American author writing a book about a European country with an analogous storyline nor of any American buying such a book (other than perthaps a left wing sadistic sexual pervert ).

[DrBEN]

@ commonsense:

Sorry I was not clear enough. My main point is not to accuse the US to have supplied Saddam with weapons. My problem is that nearly all western countries (USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy,...) condoned the Saddam regime in the 70s and 80s. This regime was not better back then than it was before the US invasion. No one in the west should claim to have invaded the Iraq in order to get rid of a dictator. His regime was tolerated in the past for some reason and it was ended for a similar reason. And I explicitly want to say tolerated by the west, not the USA alone, because they all got their money out of Iraq.

@ Buckeye Abroad:

"Lesser of two evils. Chile peacefully became a demcratic state afterwards and is now the strongest ecomonic power in South America (with a socialist woman prime minister)."

We can not say whether it is the lesser of two evils. It is history and no one knows what would have happened otherwise. I definitely would not give credit to the Pinochet regime for Chiles democratic development today.

"Good to see you got a solid leftist eduction."

A little less hate please - You know not much about me so please be fair.

I know that Allende's regime was a pile of crap. Socialism and Communism are both not working and they are unfair. That is my opinion.
That is why I said in my fist post "From one extreme position to the other..."

Allende's system was unfair but the system in Chile before Allende was unfair too. The society in Chile was not able to find a good way in between - mainly because the two super powers interfered.
It doesn't really matter who shot Allende.

"You are trying to equivocate the Gulf conflict today with the Cold War?"

No. I never said that.
I meant that today we have more time to decide which action to take than back in cold war times. Today there is no USSR trying to pull other countries on the communist side. Today is less need for overhasty decisions - let us try to prevent actions today before we regret them tomorrow.

And please let us discuss in a friendly way.

Best

DrBEN

@ garydausz:

I think I know a lot of black things but could you please tell me what is white.

@ Helian:

"Claim that the content of the article is actually true – CHECK!"

I never did that. The article carries an opinion and it is not below the belt like some other crap in the German media. (Stern for example)

"...in spite of the fact that Medienkritik never suggests the article in question is anti-American..."

But it neither denied it. The title of this blog is about "Kritik" at the German media and the post started with SPON but than went on to something totally different, without separating it from the first part.

I do not think that the USA destabilized Cambodia or Vietnam.

"By this distorted, despicable dodge, flogged untiringly by the Stalinist collaborators for years now, the very people who, in spite of scorn, slander and contempt, dared to fight back against the Communist butchers,..."

These people (soldiers) did what they were told to do and I don't want to judge them or the people who decided for them. I am glad not to have to make a decision in a situation like the cold war.
But just the fact that the enemy in those days was the "black" side does not make you the white side. And I won't belive in this white side blindly.

@ Gringo Tex:

"I am just a stupid ignorant uneducated Ami"

I never said that and I don't think that way. I like the USA and I like the people here. It was a very good idea to establish this blog.
My greated concern is that this blog starts to seperate the citizens of the USA and Germany rather than to point of the unfairness in the German coverage of the USA.
On my first look at this blog I was really disgusted by the amount of hate hitting me from the US right wing.
I think that the people you want to talk to (the Germans) will listen to fair critique. On the other hand it is a natural impulse of nearly everybody to block insulting critique.

President Frei tried the right thing but I think it was too late. The conservatives had too much power and a strange understanding of freedom and democracy. Additionally, the whole process was sped up by the cold war.

"Allende and Pinochet both had their flaws, no?"

Absolutely! Neither of them was a democrat and Allende may also have killed people given the chance.

I am sorry. I never meant to offend your feelings.

Best

DrBEN

@ George M:

Chile was not a puppet government it was just tolerated.
Honecker went there after the Pinochet regime was over. He also was released from the German prison because of his health condition.

@ Don Miguel

You are right that Castro was a communist long before the "revolution" but it takes more than a communist Castro to take over power in a democratic state by force. And I agree with you that the USSR was definitely involved.

[JorgAtlanticReview]

The Spiegel picture is quite nice compared to this Tagesspiegel picture on the frontpage on Friday. Full disclaimer: The link goes to my blog.

[Buckeye Abroad]

@ DrBen

"We can not say whether it is the lesser of two evils. It is history and no one knows what would have happened otherwise."

Yes you can, unless you are a moral equivocating coward-- then you refuse to judge in order to maintain your pseudo intellectual pose. Sometimes you only get to choose from a list of bad options (zb. Stalin vs Hilter) and you do the best you can with what you got.

"I definitely would not give credit to the Pinochet regime for Chiles democratic development today."

I would. He stopped a communist insurrection cold which peacefully passed on to civilian led republic in 1990. If you want to acknowledge those facts or not has no impact on his contribution to Chile. Some how you are suggesting the communists would have been better? I know some Poles and East Europeans who might disagee with your anology.

"A little less hate please - You know not much about me so please be fair."

If you think the sentence "Good to see you got a solid leftist eduction" is equal to hate, then you have led a shelterd life sir. You know not the connotations of hate. You are a lucky man indeed.

"Socialism and Communism are both not working and they are unfair. That is my opinion."

I agree with your opinion, however you ignore the violent means of those who advocate communism and socialism seeking to seize control of free states which have led to the deaths of over 100 million people over the past 90 years. Criticizing a leader who used violence against a violent ideology and its willing serveants is a bit moronic.

"The society in Chile was not able to find a good way in between - mainly because the two super powers interfered."

When did the US interfere.. before or after Allende was receiving weapons and support from external communist countries? It's interesting how facts have no impact on your opinions.

"Today is less need for overhasty decisions - let us try to prevent actions today before we regret them tomorrow."

"I meant that today we have more time to decide which action to take than back in cold war times."

Thats a matter of perception.

"Today is less need for overhasty decisions - let us try to prevent actions today before we regret them tomorrow."

Like former Yugoslovia? Sometimes you need to act before its to late and to realise when is simply a matter of judgement. You will never get that unless you get off the moral-equivocating fence.

Vielen Dank für Ihre rück Antworten. Ich denke, Sie sind nicht so herablassend wie ich früher dachte und werde freundlicher in die Zukunft sein. Schöne Abend wünsche ich Ihnen Herr DrBen. Mfg.

Night all.

[GringoTex]

@ DrBEN

You need to take more care in what you write. Your writing is almost stream-of -consciousness, which can lead to misinterpretation. I write on a document before I post, which makes it easier to proofread, as much for coherent writing as for spelling.

You wrote. “Chile had a not very democratic government - the USA supported some convenient parties and candidates. Then 1970 BOOOM!!! Chile got a communist president. From one extreme position to the other - like always.”
The way this is written implies that the extremes are the 1964-70 Frei Government and the 1970-73 Allende government. Yet in your subsequent posting you state that “from one extreme position to the other” refers to Allende versus Pinochet. You should have written your original posting to make clear that is what you meant.

One blogger responded to you: "Good to see you got a solid leftist eduction. "
You replied : “A little less hate please - You know not much about me so please be fair. I know that Allende's regime was a pile of crap. Socialism and Communism are both not working and they are unfair. That is my opinion.”

The blogger was responding to the following statement of yours. "But no problem lets kill the president and establish and tolerate a new dictatorship (with nice mass murders, concentration camps and torture.”
That is pretty much the leftist spiel on Chile, so you should not be surprised that you got the response you did. I for one was quite surprised to hear you state in a later posting "I know that Allende's regime was a pile of crap. " If you had previously better expressed your opinion of Allende, to show that it was not black and white (which other posters were in agreement with- the lesser of two evils...), you would not have gotten that response.

You wrote : "It doesn't really matter who shot Allende.
Then why did you previously write "lets kill the president?”

Of the people who read this blog, a high proportion are well informed on a variety of topics. When you write several lines off the top of your head on a topic, the odds are that someone reading this blog will know more about the subject than what you wrote. Over the years I have read on my own enough books and academic journal articles related to Chile and Latin America, in English and in Spanish, to be the equivalent of several college courses. I also worked four years in Latin America, so my knowledge is not merely academic. BTW, I worked and lived with Germans then. I got along well with the Germans- better than I got along with the French, I might add.
If you don’t want to be misinterpreted, you need to write more carefully. I often write my postings as a short essay. State the premise. Give facts to support the premise. Conclude by stating that the premise has been proved.

“On my first look at this blog I was really disgusted by the amount of hate hitting me from the US right wing. ”
If you take more care in crafting your argument, you will have less of a problem. In reading the responses to you, while there is disagreement, I do not detect personal attacks. Why is disagreement considered hate? There has been a raucous debate in the US on Iraq the last 5 years. I get the impression that in Germany, there is more consensus and less debate about Iraq. That says something to me about some differences between the US and Germany. (Update: I just saw a posting with “ moral equivocating coward, ” which could be construed as a personal attack. While I agree with the poster that history is not value-free, I would not phrase my response in that manner.)

I also note that more in the US than in Germany, there has been an explosion of the blogosphere, which features freewheeling debate and exchange of opinions. Correct me if I am wrong about the relative difference in amount of blogs in Germany versus the US.

@ Gringo Tex:
"I am just a stupid ignorant uneducated Ami"
I never said that and I don't think that way.
Agreed, you never said that. While you apologized to me, no apology is necessary .

I am admittedly a bit hypersensitive towards Germans making comments about the US and US policy, which began with me in 2002 with Schroeder and his former justice minister. It continued with Katrina. I have read enough about how Americans are perceived currently in Germany to know that a substantial proportion of the German population perceives Amis as “stupid ignorant uneducated” , in contrast to the Germans, of course.

There is a strong tendency on the part of many Germans to hector and lecture the Amis on Ami faults and shortcomings. Does the phrase “American conditions” ring a bell? There was the German UN official who lectured his Ami dinner guest on the shortcomings of US policy. When I read the article two years ago, I agreed with the author: that is not the way to treat a dinner guest. American exchange students in Germany “are annoyed by their German hosts' conviction that it is their duty to open the eyes of these primitives from the New World to the true world order. ” On the other hand, Germans visiting the US, such as the German roommate I had one semester, seldom have Amis bring up the Nazi era to them. In my contact with Germans as roommates, co-workers, and fellow tourists, I certainly never did.

At the same time, while many Germans who criticize the US assume that their criticisms are based on a good knowledge of the situation, they are often woefully short of a good command of the facts. The German UN official told his Ami dinner guest that “ Civil rights in the U.S….were on a par with those of North Korea.” Consider the Markus Guenther article ,a disgrace to the journalism profession, discussed here several months ago. To put it politely, these two Germans were woefully short of a good command of the facts. It appears that for these two Germans, anti-Americanism, and not adherence to the facts, is the default situation. What makes this malevolent ignorance more annoying is that it is coming not from beer-swilling yahoos, but from two well-educated people who have lived in the US.

My “stupid uneducated Ami” phrase was related to that background more than to what you wrote. No apology is necessary. I suggest you read further in the blog. If you are going to comment, make sure your argument is phrased as carefully as possible, so that it might not be misinterpreted.

[DrBEN]

@ Buckeye Abroad:

We just seem to have a different opinion on some subjects - but that should be no problem.

"You know not the connotations of hate."
Maybe, but I can live with that.

Ich finde es übrigens sehr gut, daß Sie Deutsch sprechen since language is an important step in the understanding between nations.

DrBEN

[DrBEN]

@ Gringo Tex:

You are right. I should write more carefully in order to avoid misunderstandings.

“On my first look at this blog I was really disgusted by the amount of hate hitting me from the US right wing. ”

This hate was not directed against me. The hate is not part of the blog itself it is part of the user comments.
Furthermore it is not an American problem. This blog in German would cause similar comments by Germans who can't live without America as their "enemy".

My experience here in the US tells me that despite the similarities in our societies and live style, Americans and Europeans have a different mentality. I can't really understand this mentality but I can accept most of it and the last thing I like to do is to judge other people's mentalities.
That should be the goal because in total Americans and Europeans have a lot in common.

[Doug]

@commonsense - The Dissident Frogman made a chart of Iraq's weapon suppliers a few years ago using SIPRI figures that go back to 1973. In case you're interested. Which I guess you might be.

[Buckeye Abroad]

@ DrBen

"We just seem to have a different opinion on some subjects - but that should be no problem."

Not when opinions are based on lies, unshakeable ignorance or dogma. Other than that, it will be no problem. Truth always rises to the surface over time. You just have to dig for the sources and question the validity.

"Maybe, but I can live with that."

I see your not Jewish. (personal joke...no offence)

"Ich finde es übrigens sehr gut, daß Sie Deutsch sprechen since language is an important step in the understanding between nations."

Ich bin fließend in Deutsch. However I express myself better, natuarlly, in english. I find German lacks the anglo-linguistic capabilities of expression. Spanish is actually closer, I find.

[Helian]

@DrBEN

“But just the fact that the enemy in those days was the "black" side does not make you the white side. And I won't believe in this white side blindly.”

More than a million Cambodians were slaughtered out of a population of seven million, their nation’s best and brightest, it’s future, and you are agonizing over which side was “black” and which side was “white?” Stalin taught the world that this was precisely what they should have expected if the Communists won by murdering 25 million of his own countrymen, intellectuals, scientists, poets, musicians, starving and torturing them to death in the Gulag, tearing out Russia’s very soul, but the lesson wasn’t clear enough for you and your ilk. No, to this day you stand among the mountains of skulls playing games of moral equivalence. Re-education camps, boat people, “cultural” revolutions, all with the common theme of mass murder on a scale beyond the imagination of the Mongols or the Huns, and you can’t rise above your puerile games with your straw men who see only “black” and “white.” In spite of all that, you still can’t make a choice, DrBEN? You are an abject moral coward of the most pathetic stripe.

[americanbychoice]

Germans have long been the masters of "Talk".
It is almost like they flaunt the "Gutmenschen" scenario by saying all the right things officilly in order to be praised by everyone. Privately, that isn't the casr. If you ever communicate with a German in their own language, a lot of bile comes to the surface fast. They call it "Irony, gute Kritik", Diplomatie, etc.
After all everyone agrees with wanting to preach peace on Earth, even every beauty contest winner does that.
That brings me to Pres. Reagans quote: "Trust, but verify".
For the Germans, Trust equals talk the talk, Veryfication equals Walk the Walk. In that department they are surely lacking, especially among the politicians.

[joe]

Ben,

I would assume you also have trouble withgood and evil.

[Don Miguel]

"You are right that Castro was a communist long before the 'revolution' but it takes more than a communist Castro to take over power in a democratic state by force. And I agree with you that the USSR was definitely involved."

Except that Castro did not take power by force -- he used subterfuge via briberies, corruption and the incompetence of Batista's military. The number of people killed in battles in the so-called "revolution" on both sides was in the low hundreds. What he did was maintain power by force. Thousands were killed by firing squads by Castro's lackey Che after Castro took over. And many more people were killed in the provincial battles against Castro during the 1960's; the unsuccessful but real Cuban revolution.

[DrBEN]

@ Helian:

Der elende moralische Feigling armseligsten Sorte hat natürlich eine Meinung zu dem Thema Kambodscha und Pol Pot.
Sie war allerdings nie Gegenstand meiner Kommentare. Sie haben dieses Thema in Gespräch gebracht und dabei eines deutlich gemacht.

Wer nicht für Sie ist, der ist Ihr Feind.

Wenn hier sowieso nur schwarz weiß Meinungen zugelassen sind dann muß ich wohl sagen:
Die roten Khmer und Vietcong sind schwarz und die Amerikaner sind weiß. Ohne Ausnahme selbstverständlich. Sehr realistisch!

Ich wünsche Ihnen, Helian, noch viel Spaß Ihr ideologisches Hasssüppchen zu kochen.

The abject moral coward of the most pathetic stripe surely has an opinion on Cambodia and Pol Pot.
My comments never involved this topic. You brought it up and made clear that

Everybody who is not on your side is your enemy.

Since only black and white opinions are allowed here I think I have to say:
The Khmer Rouge and the Vietcong are black and the Americans are white. Without exception of course. Thats really realistic!

Helian you have an ideologic axe of hate to grind. Have fun with it.

[Helian]

"Helian you have an ideologic axe of hate to grind. Have fun with it."

BINGO!! Presto chango! Suddenly, our bipolar friend DrBEN sees the world in stark black and white. We didn't have to push his buttons very long before he dropped the mask, did we?

[Buckeye Abroad]

@DrBen

"Wer nicht für Sie ist, der ist Ihr Feind."

If you do not acknowledge the consequences of ignoring the truth, you are indeed an enemy of it. I'm always amazed how the amount of corpses in mass graves has no impact on your types ideoglogy and the known ending for many innocent people, no matter what time period discussed, simply doesn't sway you in the least. True believes in your own false self-rightiousness.

"Die roten Khmer und Vietcong sind schwarz und die Amerikaner sind weiß. Ohne Ausnahme selbstverständlich. Sehr realistisch!"

What were the intentions and outcomes of both? War is chaotic and brutality does arise, but you insinuate the intentions of America are no more noble, or ignobale, than communist regimes? Helian pegged you correctly. You are a coward lacking moral and intellectual fortitude. Though you may think you are unjustly attacked here, you must forgive some of us who attack willing moral blindness, unless you claim ignorance on the matters at hand.