Somewhat NP Argentinians bound for Germany

[Dave Monroe]

Mnetioned this elsewhere, but ... well, it wasn't necessarily a matter of us--US--or
the USSR (though once the feeding frenzy for Nazi scientists began, the UK and
France jostled for tehir place in the buffet line as well).  One COULD have tried
them at Nuremberg, at, in many cases, one should have.  Instead, and despite
Roosevelt's and then Truman's initial directives NOT to let them off the hook for
our own benefit, those Nazi rocket et al. scientists (and then some--e.g., Klaus
Barbie) were spirited away by the OSS (vs. (?) the SS) et al. in the national
(and/or corporate) interest.  Again, see John Gimbel, Science, Technology, and
Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, but if you want all the
nasty, brutal details, see the chapters on Operation Paperclip as well as on Klaus
Barbie in Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the
Press.  These past couple of days of rereading have only strengthened the case for
much already mentioned in re: Pynchon, GR and the Holocaust, and then some ... but,
again, don't rely on a "felling" of Freeman Dyson's in re: Heisenberg, Nazi,
collaborator, Nazi collaborator or no?  See at LEAST Powers and Walker and, perhaps,
Cassidy and Rose on the issue ...

jporter wrote:

> > From: Dave Monroe <monroe at mpm.edu>
> >
> > .... well, I'm under the impression that perhaps Pynchon had a problem with
> > it, and I'm not so sure that we shouldn't, either.
>
> *IF* so, then Pynchon has profitted from the disturbing. His work feeds on
> the moral ambiguity of that historical situation. The revelations in GR are
> disturbing, but why and to whom? It is like art adorning the walls of the
> houses of the comfortable (with the time to read labyrinthine novels)
> depicting in colorful detail the distance between the elect and the passed
> over, on both sides. The preterite do not read it, while the elect are
> disturbed- a masochistic delight- disgusting candy- an aquired taste, no
> doubt. : )
>
> > You do not find it disturbing that the man previously
> > responsible for lobbing explosives on, notably, Antwerp and London, in a
> > program much dependent on concentration camp slave labor, along with his
> > colleagues and/or cronies, were whisked of to aid and abet not only our space
> > program (the friendlier face of the technological Cold War), but our nuclear
> > weapons program as well (that not-so-friendly face ...)?
>
> In hindsight and out of context, perhaps, this is disturbing. What would you
> have done if you were in a position to decide the fate of the upper echelon
> of the nazis rocket scientists at the end of the war, especially those who
> chose "us" instead of Stalin or Argentina? Absolutes were hard to come by at
> that juncture- still are, it seems.
>
> If you were in a position to decide, doubtless you would also be aware of
> the nature of the exquisite similarity between the average citizen of the
> west, of America, Britain, etc., and Germany, or the USSR, and aware, as
> well, of the potential moral weaknesses inherent in the citizenry looking to
> you for guidance, protection and leadership, as well as your own strengths
> and weaknesses. From the perspective of those who made the choices, what
> were the alternatives? (I am not saying there were not any- just not sure
> what they might have been.)
>
>  >That Aristotelian
> > line on technology here, our tools neutral, neither inherently good, nor
> > inherently bad (interestingly, it's Heidegger who comes to mind as a sharp
> > contrast, though ...)? "Facts" "neutral," even?  Well, I do tend rather to
> > believe in a material world, of which we, bodily and cognitively are no doubt
> > a part, which, in its sheer materiality, is indifferent to us, our ideas,
> > opinions, judgments, but ... but "facts" are distinctions we draw upon that
> > world, which are produced by us, with rather less indifference, with rather
> > less neutrality.  And, I'd agree, some are "better," given certain
> > considerations, than others,  but ... but that is not to say either of our
> > positions necessarily reflect that of the author, text at hand, perhaps the
> > time has come for a consideration of technology, science and the ethics
> > thereof in Gravity's Rainbow, and I'd even admit that essay on Luddism as
> > evidence, if you'd like (or not).  The moral of whose story, is my question
> >
>
> Since I didn't define "facts," I'll allow you- "That Aristotelian line on
> technology here, our tools neutral, neither inherently good, nor inherently
> bad...?" But I did not mean "tools" in the typical macroscopic sense. You go
> on to consider my point, and admit that information is inseparable from the
> material world, which is precisely why there are no indepedently verifiable
> truths, absolutes, ideals, etc., at least, that are accessible to us.
> "Better" was perhaps not the correct word. "Valuable" in the pragmatic sense
> might have been more apt, and would be a bridge to the ethical consideration
> of science and technology in Pynchon, which is a good idea.
>
> By "Facts are neutral" I meant, as you point out, that facts are nothing
> until they are distinguished from non-fact. This is semiotics. But outside
> of animacy there are no distinctions. So, it really is, biology, or, if you
> will, biosemiotics:
>
>                 http://everest.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/welcome.html
> ...
> >
> > .... Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr ... well, I'm asuming you've read, perhaps
> > even seen performed, Michael Frayn's excellent play, Copenhagen.
> > even read, them:
>
> I haven't, but I've heard much about it. Freeman Dyson is quoted in the
> science section of the NY Times: 8/1/00, about the play:
>
>     "I have my own theory, which may, of course, be totally wrong.
>      I think Heisenberg was trying to get Bohr to agree that the
> developement of an A-bomb was something that the physicists of the world
> should agree to not participate in. Heisenberg was in a position where he
> could quietly decide 'this doesn't make sense.' And Bohr had once been in a
> strong position, too. But by 1941, it was much too late. By that time they
> were enemies."
>
> Dyson states that he felt Heisenberg deliberately did not push the project
> of a nazi bomb.
>
> In that light, Heisenberg comes across slightly better than the scientists
> who actively participated in The Manhattan Project, but I think the
> difference is illusory. Dyson goes on to qualify, that Hitler- as you
> alluded to- was not really interested in the science underlying A-bombs, and
> perhaps, Heisenberg's lack of enthusiasm was more a response to Hitler's
> tastes than to his own moral compass.
>
> jody
>
> > --Jeremy Bernstein and David Cassidy, Hitler's Uranium Club --David Cassidy,
> > Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Hesienberg --Samuel Goudsmit,
> > Alsos --Sir Frank Hall, Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts --Klaus
> > Hentschel, The Einstein Tower --Roert Jungk, Brighter than a Thousand Suns
> > --Kristie Macrackis, Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi
> > Germany --Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German
> > Bomb --Paul Lawrence Rose, Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project --Fritz
> > Richard Stern, Einstein's German World --Mark Walker, German National
> > Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-49 --Mark Walker, Nazi
> > Science: Myth, Truth and the German Atomic Bomb --Mark Walker and Monika
> > Rennenberg, eds., Science, Technology and National Socialism
> >
> > On the Heisenberg question (in short, willing Nazi collaborator or no?), well,
> > Powers is of course the most forgiving, Rose perhaps the most antagonsitic,
> > but I think Walker makes a pretty well-researched, well-reasoned, and,
> > ultimately, convincing case against him, without necessarily throwing out the
> > brilliance with the bathwater.  Walker's Nazi Science is an esp. comprehensive
> > overview of, well, nazi science, esp. physics.  I'd list David Irving's The
> > German Atomic Bomb (a.k.a. The Virus House), but, for better or worse, I
> > haven't read it, saving me the dilemma of having to endorse him in any way,
> > shape or form.  My understanding, though, is that it's rather less
> > inflammatory than his subsequent work, and not all too badly researched.  But
> > it would have been conspicuous by its absence, so ...
> >