Re: [Marxism] It's the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will make only this additional comment  to avoid overly trespassing on
the request to limit posts.  Others can take over, or take this offlist
if they find it interesting or necessary.

1. Whatever Trotsky or Fidel said/wrote, neither acted in a careless and
indiscriminate matter when confronting concentrations of civilians
whatever the "general" political persuasion of that area.  Even the most
cursory reading of the military actions of the rebel army in Cuba will
reveal time and time again the great care the rebels took to limit
destruction and the great generosity of spirit they exhibited to their
opponents, even of officer rank.

2.There was nothing amoral about Trotsky's organization of the Red Army,
incorporation of former Tsarist officers by appeals to patriotism,
humanity, or the safety of their families; nor was there anything amoral
about Fidel's capture and release of Batista's army regulars,  Che's
capture of Santa Clara, etc.

3. Those who have engaged in combat know exactly how bloody and
indiscriminate the battle can become. (You're not bursting any bubble
here.  I think you're living in one, though)  Is there anything more
indiscriminate than an artillery round?  Only a short artillery round, I
guess.  Revenge, brutality easily become part and parcel, but that is
exactly where leadership, organization, discipline is required to
intervene, and even error  on the side of  the opponent.   Interesting
story exists about the Bronze Titan, Maceo, in the Cuban Revolution
against Spain, executing two of his "best" lieutenants for excess
brutality against the Spanish.

4. The failure to prevent indiscriminate brutality is not a sign of the
strength of revolution, but a sign of  its weakness; read for example
the exploits of the Red Cavalry during the combat against the whites.
Time and time again it is the least class conscious, the least
proletarian elements engaging in general, indiscriminate acts of
violence.

5. The Chilean proletariat was not defeated by its failure to deploy
indiscriminate violence or bloody revenge.  It was defeated by the
popular front government that refused to arm the proletariat for
precise, specific defense of class interests against general
indiscriminate attacks.

6. The great fear in the US South, prior to and during the US Civil War,
was that the slaves would rise up and indiscriminately slaughter the
whites.  Did not occur.   Did not occur under the Reconstruction
governments, which were the best governments the South has ever had.
France repeated these bloody warnings about the success of  the Algerian
Revolution while it itself practiced indiscriminate revenge against the
general population.  After the revolution, no such retribution was
inflicted upon the French.  Same in Cuba.  Violence against Batista's
henchmen was specific and  limited.  After the fall of Saigon, there was
no widespread bloodbath of the general population, despite the US
warnings.

7. During WW2, the Red Army burned entire cities to the ground, to deny
their use by the advancing Nazis?  Not with the people in them.  It
would help to read the actual history before such arguments are made.
Areas were defended, machinery and factories transported east,
populations evacuated where and when possible, and upon final retreat
some areas were destroyed.

8. You write:  ' This "general population" can be positively be
construed as being
fascist or  at least in general agreement with their government. Why
would they
have otherwise fled the Red Army?' You are either kidding, with a bad
sense of humor, or ignorant.  Everybody flees combat.  It takes training
and threats and the lack of any safe haven to keep the goddam infantry
from fleeing combat.
Such a statement is exactly the reason the US used to classify
everything as targets in free fire zones.  "Anything moving away from us
is by definition the enemy."   Of course anything move towards us was by
definition the enemy too.

9. You don't understand the last point about the fact that the bombing
of Dresden had nothing to do with "anti-fascism" since the US and the UK
always maintained business relationships with fascists good and bad
before, during, and after the war?  Tis a pity.


 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] It's the 60th anniversary of the bombing of
Dresden


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> >I disagree with all your assertions.
>
> Obviously.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism