Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon


> >>>> "The grouping of Britain and the United States into
> >>>> a single bloc, as prophecy, has turned out to be
> >>>> dead-on, foreseeing Britain's resistance to
> >>>> integration with the Eurasian landmass as well as her
> >>>> continuing subservience to Yank interests ...."
> >>>> (p. xv)
> >>>>
> >>>> What, if not Tony Blair's policy as the latest example
> >>>> of this "subservience" could be meant here?
> >>
> >> on 21/5/03 12:29 AM, Malignd wrote:
> >>
> >>> This could have been written with no less coherence
> >>> during the Reagan and Thatcher period or at virtually
> >>> any other time since the end of WWII.
> >>
> >> Precisely. In fact, the "resistance" bit describes Britain since the
> >> beginning of recorded history, and the "subservience" bit applies since
> >> about 1944 at least).
> >>
>
> on 21/5/03 3:28 PM, Otto wrote:
>
> >
> > Only one example of this "subservience" from the last 25 years please
that
> > has the importance of Blair's decision to follow Bush, whether right or
> > wrong.
> >
>
> Sure. Here's three from the last 12 years:
>
> http://www.britains-smallwars.com/gulf/index.html
>
> http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Bosnia/index.html
>
> http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Kosovo/index.html
>

These three cases were UN resp. NATO-sanctified, thus cannot count as
examples of a special British "subservience" to Yank interests as the last
Iraq-war which was waged against the declared will of the Security Council
and the majority of UN-members. I cannot remember any German "resistance"
like Schröder's 2002/03-decision in any of these.

Fighting the Balkan-wars was more in European than in US-interest in order
to avoid masses of Balkan-refugees begging in our shopping-malls.

>
> But probably more significant for what Pynchon's talking about, and
> certainly more "important" than the recent overthrow of Saddam's regime in
> Iraq, note:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/MarshalPl.html

Probably, but not at all for certain.

I don't think that the Marshall-Plan was an example of British
"subservience" to Yank interests. It's been an important step to help
rebuilding Europe after WW-2, and especially Germany had no objections to it
(given the alternative, the Morgenthau-plan).

>
> http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/2000/what-is.htm

I cannot detect British "subservience" in the fact that Britain is a
Nato-member.

>
> http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/index.html
>

Korea doesn't count too, where's the special British attitude in that
conflict? There has been a UN-resolution on June 27, 1950. The forces that
fought for South-Korea's freedom have been UN-forces, this is the term that
was used in the movietones (Wochenschau) those days.

Sorry, Rob, but your examples are bad ones, where do you see the special
GB-US relationship in any of these?

Otto