Abstract: Be in historical interpretations or in physics, it’s not just the devil that is in the detail, but the truth itself. We illustrate mostly with our reinterpretation of W.W.II, as found in the preceding post. It only looks complex, because it was concentrated on facts breaking the old paradigm (WWII as a simple fable starring the USA as unblemished anti-Hitler messiah). We are in the wrong paradigm when we view as details (that we then ignore), paradigm breaking facts. Those we brandished.

Some may object that one will never be able to distill W.W.II down into easily digested context. That it was a continuation of W.W.I is fairly certain and that many industrialists profited from it is generally known, but many will say that the thing becomes consumed by its own details, pretty much as the American Civil War becomes consumed by its own details involving idealism, greed, business, and destiny.

But then one has to come back, and think about morals one can extract from how the truth is established in Physics. Aristotle did not want to get too consumed by details, so he decided that it was clear to him that a force had to kept on being applied to provide with motion. A more careful examination of the details of this was made by Buridan (1300-1358 CE), and the exact opposite was discovered: motion continues as it is if and only no force is provided. Casual examination resulted in a total falsehood, that looked true. No technology more advanced than Aristotle’s played a role in Buridan’s discovery. Buridan was more keen and more critical. Abelard (1079-1142) had passed by: he was called by another great intellectual of the times “Our Aristotle”. Why? Because he had gone further than Aristotle in some areas. Buridan was thus encouraged to probe even somewhere else. 

In the usual, casual, conventional history, the USA rescued the world from Nazism. We examined the record more carefully, and find this sort of true one way, on a superficial level, and completely false on a more careful examination.

It is true that complexities can acquire a character of their own. Intelligence exists to make short work of complexities, though. Digestion is one thing, reflection another. Digestion breaks things down, reflection brings things together using abstraction (the “meta” process).

It’s not even clear what a country “is” and “wants”. President Roosevelt was anti Hitler, no doubt. But that was just him. Most Americans and their institutions were racist, and hundreds of major US industrialists helped Hitler crucially. Although Swedish industrialists also did help Hitler, and so did, even more, Great Britain around 1935.

Nevertheless, thinking is about the ability to abstract conclusions. Conclusions become, in special contexts, better approximations of truth than the complexities that support them. As far as I am concerned, the USA betrayed democracy at the onset of W.W.II. And I would go as far as saying the US CAUSED the onset of W.W.II (for example IG Farben, notorious from Auschwitz, a mega worldwide monopoly of chemical firms was set up by Wall Street, and stayed under Wall Street control… in the 1920’s, before Hitler’s rise: elements in the USA prepared Germany for a world war, in cooperation with themselves).

To distill is easy, it’s all about emotions: in 1939 and 1940, when France was fighting the Nazis alone, the USA (as an industrial-diplomatic entity) did not help France in a measurable way, but did help the Nazis spectacularly. Some of the American help to the Nazis against the French republic was diplomatic (like pushing Belgium to not militarily cooperate with France anymore, or recognizing “Vichy””, an illegal entity), some was military (at least half of Nazi war technology was of US origin in a crucial way, like for example synthetic rubber and oil, or automatic pilots in Stukas, or Ford engines in superiority fighters, or IBM computers everywhere, manned by IBM engineers, etc…)

When dealing with an association of traitors, one has to start somewhere proeminent. First the Bush family should be put on trial to help it regurgitate its Auschwitz gains.

De-Nazification was a crucial part of reconstructing Europe after W.W.II. France judged and shot more than 40,000 French traitors, according to some estimates.

Europe is diffusely understanding that the USA is not on her side (and that happens to be the side of hyper democracy). This feeling will increase as long as the USA does not de-nazify. De-nazifying, in the case of the USA, will consist in dissecting the US role in Nazism.

The Iraq war was no accident: it came from the same morality and way of thinking that brought us Hitler. If Hitler had got no massive US help, France (especially with a little help from Britain) would have made short work of Hitler (many Germans, especially the generals, thought Hitler was criminally insane, but the US help to Hitler gave them pause). The danger, looking forward, is that the USA keeps on finding military solutions to problems that are in essence not military (like the energy crisis). President Obama or not, the USA would then find itself on a collision course with the EU. The EU does not look like it, but it’s actually more powerful than the US, and the origin of its roots. One cannot fight successfully one’s own roots. 

It’s all very complicated, true. It involves the opposite of neoconservatism, namely neopsychoanalysis. Good luck to us all.

Patrice Ayme

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: