Complicity and _GR_ (was Re: IBM, Disney, Bush: Nazis?)

[jbor]

----------
>From: "davemarc" <davemarc at panix.com>
>

>> Up until 11 December 1941 then, *all* American citizens, in the
>> sort of logical void which is being constructed in the wake of these
>> "reports", were in complicity with the Nazi program. That would include an
>> awful lot of the genocide, war crimes etc. What's more, it would be pretty
>> hard to imagine that not one person who was in some sort of advisory
>> capacity to the American bureaucracy, or employed in its secret service,
>> knew of or had reported on what was happening in the Lagers. *This* is the
>> "historical record". Correct me if I'm wrong on any of it. Please.
>
> There's not much to correct in the above because it's in the form of
> conjecture.  The facts are well-documented.  Since the 1930s, it has been
> recognized that much of the world (especially governments) essentially stood
> by as Nazi persecution intensified.  Such passivity in the face of genocidal
> activity seems to be a historical standard, but that doesn't make Nazi war
> crimes "legal"; nor, as has been discovered, does it free related activities
> from legal activism.  Indeed, as knowledge of the extent of Nazi crimes and
> complicity has "sunk in" over the decades (due in part to Gravity's Rainbow)
> and individuals have become more empowered in courts (which include civil
> courts--no need for a law to be broken for a suit to be leveled), there has
> been a growing realization that victims of Nazi persecution are, in fact,
> free to sue (or attempt to sue) their persecutors and those who were
> complicit in the persecution.

I can't disagree with anything you say here. However, whether or not the
"conjecture" that American leaders and citizens knew about atrocities
committed in Nazi Germany can be dismissed so easily is open to debate. As
Ken McVay wrote last year:

    "Even when Allied leaders _knew_ what was
    going on, they shied away from public statements/actions because they
    were afraid of being accused of fighting only for the Jews.

    This is not a mystery, it is mainstream historical reality.

    [ ... ]

    I have had a few discussions with Rudolf Vrba, who lives nearby...
    Vrba was one of the first to carry the message of Auschwitz to the
    West. His reports were not believed, to put it mildly. The world did
    not WANT to know."

Is the U.S. government liable to prosecution in your civil courts?

It is this question of complicity which looms large in _GR_ as well. A
character like Blicero doesn't appear to be motivated by anti-Semitism in
the least, personally that is, though he is undoubtedly a Nazi and stands
accused of the same war crimes, atrocities and mentality as a Mengele or
Barbie at the end of 1945 at Nurnberg. A parallel character such as Major
Marvy would be, theoretically, celebrated as a hero at this time despite the
fact that he is far more despicable in thought, word and action. His
castration -- romantic embellishment or wishful thinking on Pynchon's part
-- seems to me to represent the notion of "justice" in Pynchon's novel far
more clearly than Nurnberg (or, for that matter, civil suits and the
perpetuation of hatred and vilification).

These are the sorts of questions which close study of _GR_ and related texts
raises for me.

best