Somewhat NP Argentinians bound for Germany

[jporter]

> From: Dave Monroe <monroe at mpm.edu>
> 
> 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.

I will assume, then, that you would have tried them at Nuremberg (as an
answer to my question- "What would you have done?") Okay, but what about the
ones who ended up in the USSR? (And here I admit not to know much about
those swooped up by The Soviets) Presumably, they would have continued their
work for Stalin's missile program, if he chose not to surrender them for
trial. Certainly, after the evaporation of H&N in his backyard, he would
have had additional reasons, *perhaps* legitimate, at least from a strategic
pov, for not giving the up, or any other possible advantage in ICBM
development.

In fact, as spectacularly demonstrated in the fifties, the Soviets were far
ahead of the allies in ICBM development, inspite of Operation Paperclip, and
the vastly superior resources of the west. The OSS cum C.I.A. were very much
aware of The Soviet lead, from the get go. By the fifties, of course, thanks
to Sahkarov, The Soviets had also mastered fusion.

It might be beneficial to recall just how difficult the design of an
effective ICBM turned out to be for America. Rocket science on that scale IS
incredibly difficult. The achievement of the Nazi rocket program was every
bit as amazing- from a purely technological standpoint- as The Manhattan
Project, or, the less recognized advances in computer science spearheaded by
Turing.

I am not at all making the argument that Nazi rocket scientists were in any
way good guys, or were not guilty of heinous crimes, but I do not
necessarily accept uncritically the arguments (and linkages) made by
Cockburn and St. Clair, although I find them interesting, if somewhat
ideological. Besides, St. Clair dislikes _Vineland_  (Probably too subtle
for the snob : )

I am on your side, vis a vis, The Holocaust in GR, but I do think that
Pynchon deliberately plays it down, yet, to great effect. At the time of
publication, *The Holocaust* had not yet been properly deconstructed. It was
a term taken for granted; "owned" by the victors of WW II. I think the
effect of GR is to marginalize The Holocaust by making it the membrane which
must be tranversed. GR empowers the marginalized.

Since the historical time of GR (the book not The Holocaust) an equally
interesting act of suppression-  not just literary- has come to light.
Hitler, the Nazi hierarchy and their sociological parallels amongst the
allies, the complexities of the cause and effects of The Holocaust, in all
it's gruesome detail, are being, and have been under discussion, since the
liberation of the camps.

By comparison, Stalin's extermination of twenty million people has been
given short shrift. Why? Perhaps Cockburn and St. Clair would care to
enlighten us?

jody


> 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 ...
>