Saturday, August 06, 2022

The Fuss about Monkeypox

The World Health Organization has been one of the easier bodies to abuse.  For parochial types, populist moaners and critics of international institutions, the WHO bore the brunt of criticisms from Donald Trump to Jair Bolsonaro.  Being a key institution in identifying public health risks, it took time assessing the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2 and its disease, COVID-19.

Little time has been spent waiting for the growing threat that is monkeypox (MPXV).  The WHO has now declared it a “public health emergency of international concern”.  The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) global map charting the outbreak has the following breakdown of cases as of August 3: 26,208 in total, with 25,864 noted in countries that have not historically reported monkeypox.

On June 2, the organisation published a brochure list of dot points, noting that most individuals who contracted the viral infection would “recover fully without treatment, but in some cases, people can get seriously ill.”  In a reminder that the virus is yet another example of transmission from an animal species to humans, the brochure notes that it was found in monkeys.

The symptoms resemble those of the flu, though it is characterised by a potentially nasty rash that can last from two weeks to a month.  Lesions can be considerably itchy and painful.  Outbreaks have been noted in forested parts of Central and West Africa, but as is the case with most infections, newsworthiness only becomes apparent if transmission moves beyond that unfortunate continent.

Just as with matters relating to war and famine, disease begins to make the newsfeeds and paper columns from Washington to Sydney once the wealthy, or at least members of wealthy societies, catch the condition or succumb.  And so it follows that the disease now has an increasingly growing profile, with 80 countries not previously reporting it.  From figures this month, Belgium has an impressive 482 cases, and Austria 145.  Otherwise, what happens on the Dark Continent, stays there in ill-reported obscurity.

Any declaration of emergency will come with its suspicions, with the anxiety ridden clinging onto the coattails of assumption and concern.  The magic of “germ panic” is being woven, and fears of authoritarian pandemic measures are never far away from the social consciousness.

Kathryn H. Jacobsen from the University of Richmond is one keen to keep calm on the whole issue.  Writing in mid-July, Jacobsen took a punt: “the current evidence suggests that monkeypox is very unlikely to become a global health catastrophe even if the virus spreads and becomes pandemic [sic].”

News items about sexual activity and monkeypox are frequent, and there is a certain moral tone, as with disease generally, that underlies them.  A WHO assessment from May notes four laboratory confirmed cases in the United Kingdom “reported amongst Sexual Health Services attendees presenting with vesicular rash illness in men who have sex with men (MSM).”

The ghost of accusation that made such a vicious impression with the outbreak of the HIV/Aids pandemic risks stirring, despite evidence at the time showing transmission via heterosexual sex, mother to infant and contaminated blood supplies. “Monkeypox,” write Boghuma K. Titanji and Keletso Makofane, “is not a gay disease and neither are any other infectious diseases.”  The authors regret having to even state that point.  “It is unfortunate that this still needs to be said, highlighting how little we have learned from previous outbreaks.”

The WHO is effectively straddling a tightrope in this field.  “Anyone,” an advisory states, “who has close contact with someone who is infectious is at risk.  However, given that the virus is being identified in these communities, learning about monkeypox will help ensure that as few people as possible are affected and that the outbreak can be stopped.”

While a strategy defanging homophobic narratives linking disease with disposition and conduct is a welcome thing, universalising the effect of a virus – that we are all at its mercy and will be affected equally – is an act of pious self-denial.  This response to the HIV pandemic, argue Titanjii and Makofane, encouraged a “monolithic” reading of human behaviour that “missed opportunities to attend to the particular needs of sub-groups among heterosexual people.”  Demography, class, and vulnerability remain inescapable facts.

The WHO advice, as thing stand, is to eschew “skin-to-skin, face-to-face and mouth-to-skin contact, including sexual contact” while cleaning hands, objects, surfaces, bedding, towels and clothes regularly.  Don a mask if you cannot avoid close contact.  Such warnings are all reminiscent of the global programming that took place in response to COVID-19.  But complacency and reluctance have again set in.

On a more positive note, it has been found that smallpox vaccines can function as an inoculant against monkeypox, with vaccines such as ACAM2000 already approved and available in a number of countries.  But as with COVID-19, the calloused warriors against the jab and the shot are again out in force, at least in a digital platform sense.  For some groups, the needle retains its Satanic, totalitarian provenance, and it will be up to public health authorities to avoid slipping, as they often did, when it came to messages about how best to cope with infectious outbreaks.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and can be reached at: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.

Lessons Unlearned

Karl Marx knew a thing or two about politics

Writing over a century-and-a-half ago, Karl Marx studied the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions that sought to drive a stake in the vitals of the European monarchies and consolidate the rule of the emerging bourgeois classes.

Contrary to his critics — especially the dismissive scholars — he applied his critical historical theories with great nuance and subtlety, surveying the class forces, their actions, and their influence on the outcomes. While Marx conceded that the revolutions were suppressed in the short run, he was able to show how they importantly shaped the future.

Many would argue that Marx’s account of the aftermath of the rising in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, is the finest example of the application of the Marxist method– historical materialism1 — to actual events.

It is said that Hugh Trevor-Roper, the British author, who was a colleague in British intelligence of Soviet spy Kim Philby and a notorious windbag, was once asked if he ever suspected Philby, if Philby left any clues to his loyalties. After a pause, Trevor-Roper said that Philby had on an occasion insisted that The Eighteenth Brumaire was the greatest work of history ever written.

More than a clue, and Philby may have been right.

The Eighteenth Brumaire sought to explain a great mystery: How a country undergoing a profound historic transition from one socio-politico-economic order (feudalism) to another (capitalism), could go from the popular overthrow of a monarch to a constituent republic and back again to the establishment of an emperor, Louis Bonaparte, in a few short years.

Marx couldn’t help but find a bitter irony in the fact that the coup installing Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew as emperor mirrored the uncle’s ascension to emperor after the French Revolution. With equally bitter sarcasm, Marx amended the old saw about history repeating itself with the phrase “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Where Napoleon I tragically hijacked the revolutionary process, Napoleon III brought the farcical maneuvers of a dysfunctional bourgeois parliament to a farcical end by creating a farcical empire.

At a time when our own political processes — executive, legislative, and judicial — resemble a crude farce, at a time when opinion polls confirm the popular disdain for these institutions, we may well find Marx’s analysis to be of some use.

Consider ex-President Trump, for example. He, like Napoleon III, represents a mediocrity, only known for his pretensions and his rank opportunism. Trump likes to portray himself as a great president who arose as a savior, an agent for the restoration of US greatness.

Based on nostalgia for his uncle, Napoleon I, the nephew ruled France with the promise of an expanding empire to be feared and admired for its spreading of enlightened ideas; Louis Bonaparte promised to restore the unity of France, lead it towards greatness, and stability.

But are Trump and Bonaparte unique individuals who pushed themselves onto the stage of history? Are they historical accidents? Larger-than-life personalities?

Marx would argue that, in fact, Bonaparte succeeded because he enjoyed the support of a class, specifically the conservative peasantry, “the peasant who wants to consolidate his holdings… those who, in stupefied seclusion within this old order, want to see themselves and their small holdings saved and favored by the ghost of the empire.” Bonaparte’s supporters seek to save what they have and relive an earlier moment. In short, they want to make France [the Empire] great again. He answered the moment.

Marx explains:

In so far as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization among them, they do not form a class. They are consequently incapable of enforcing their class interests in their own name, whether through a parliament or through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, as an unlimited governmental power that protects them from other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above… Historical tradition gave rise to the belief of the French peasants in the miracle that a man named Napoleon would bring all the glory back to them.

It must be noted that Marx is neither mocking nor condemning the conservative French peasantry for its support of the election of Louis Bonaparte (1849) or his coup (1851). Instead, he is explaining how and why Bonaparte could manage to rule, both legitimately and illegitimately, even after France had declared its second republic. The peasantry was, by far, the largest class. The peasantry had not yet recognized its existence as a class; it could not yet express its grievances, its interests, or its latent power in class terms; it could not produce its own class leaders. And it turned instead to a caricature, a small man with big aspirations, a toy Napoleon.

Like Napoleon III, Trump enjoyed class-based support: segments of both the petty bourgeoisie and the working class. The professionals and small business people who saw “elites” — typically urban elites — as threatening their way of life, culturally and economically, were drawn to Trump over the conventional corporate Republican leaders. Similarly, working-class voters victimized by deindustrialization, twenty-first-century economic crises, insecurity, rising costs of healthcare, etc., looked for someone “as an authority over them,” to send “them rain and shine from above,” that is, a modern-day Napoleon. They could not find that with the Democrats. They thought that they found it in Donald Trump.

Workers in the US have lost what the French peasant had yet to achieve in 1851: “…no community, no national bond and no political organization among them… They are consequently incapable of enforcing their class interests in their own name.” Nearly eighty years of red-baiting, business unionism, and Democratic Party supplication after a rich history of class struggle have left the US working class with little class consciousness, with little ability “to form a class.” It is no wonder that Make America Great Again resonated with so many.

Both Louis Napoleon and Trump have their camp followers and thugs. Marx designated Louis Napoleon’s lumpen proletariat group of mischief-makers the Society of December 10 for the role they played in stirring the pot after his election. Trump has his ultra-nationalist, racist trouble-makers as well.

Marx saves his derision for the “so-called social-democratic party,” founded as a coalition of the petty-bourgeoisie and the workers. With the militant revolutionary workers killed, imprisoned, or exiled after the June, 1848 rising waged to establish a social and democratic republic, the workers accepted compromise and the parliamentary road. In Marx’s words:

A joint programme was drafted, joint election committees were set up and joint candidates put forward. From the social demands of the proletariat the revolutionary point was broken off and a democratic turn given to them; from the democratic claims of the petty bourgeoisie the purely political form was stripped off and their socialist point thrust forward. Thus arose the Social-Democracy… The peculiar character of the Social-Democracy is epitomised in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not with doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labour, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony… This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie.

…within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie.” This description of the limits of an incipient social democratic party in 1849 could be applied fairly to the aspirations of the small left wing of the US Democratic Party today. A little more than one hundred fifty years later, workers are still being herded into a party that seeks, at best, the weakening of the antagonism between capital and labor and transforming it into harmony [paraphrasing Marx]. The Democrats assume the votes of the working class and the most oppressed, while intensely courting the support of the urban and suburban upper strata super-voters and super-donors. This has been their strategy since the loss of the reactionary South to the Republicans.

In nineteenth-century France, the proletariat/petty bourgeoisie alliance was short-lived. Faced with a blatant violation of the constitutional limits of presidential action, the alliance allowed its threats of militant action to melt away when Bonaparte called its bluff, revealing a paper tiger.

Marx identified the folly of workers uniting with the petty bourgeoisie:

… instead of gaining an accession of strength from it, the democratic party had infected the proletariat with its own weakness and, as is usual with the great deeds of democrats, the leaders had the satisfaction of being able to charge their “people” with desertion, and the people with the satisfaction of being able to charge its leaders with humbugging it… No party exaggerates its means more than the democratic, none deludes itself more light-mindedly over the situation.

Not to be taken lightly for its defeat at the hands of Bonaparte and the bourgeois party, the petty-bourgeois took consolation with “the profound utterance: But if they dare to attack universal suffrage, well then — then, we’ll show them what we are made of!”

If this sounds eerily like the empty threats of the Democratic Party before the brazen actions of Trump, his friends, and the Supreme Court, then lesson learned!

If we see parallels with the politics of nineteenth-century France and the twenty-first-century US, then we surely are reminded of Marx’s quip that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Surely, only an allergy to history, a blindness to past tragedies, can account for the continuing allegiance of workers and their leaders to a spineless Democratic Party that continually betrays the interests of working people.

Surely, we can do better. Marx thought so…

  1. These reflections were inspired by a recent encounter with Jonathan White’s excellent 2021 book, Making Our Own History, A User’s Guide to Marx’s Historical Materialism, especially chapter 6. [↩]
Greg Godels writes on current events, political economy, and the Communist movement from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. Read other articles by Greg, or visit Greg's website.

Ukraine: a Potemkin Village Kind of War

In his 2004 book on the 1914-18 European apocalypse, Cataclysm: the First World War as Political Tragedy, British historian David Stevenson states the war was “a cataclysm of a special kind, a man-made catastrophe produced by political acts” (from the “Introduction,” first paragraph).  Indeed, that is Stevenson’s thesis, that the Great War was a political tragedy of the first order of magnitude.  While Stevenson’s analysis perhaps over-emphasizes the role of the European political class, certainly terrible decision-making played a major part in both launching and then needlessly prolonging a war that wasted an estimated 10 million soldiering lives.  In the context of the current clash in Ukraine, Stevenson’s argument remains relevant.

Today, whether it’s Biden, Boris Johnson, Macron, Trudeau, or the EU’s Ursula von der “Crazy” (peripatetic Cypriot commentator Alex Christoforou’s coinage for von der Leyen), the Collective West’s reaction to Putin’s “Special Military Operation” has been a spectacular failure.  This really is a gang that can’t shoot straight unless, of course, they are shooting themselves in their Collective foot.  “Sanctions and Arms!” “Sanctions and Arms!” they all shouted with self-righteous indignation when Putin finally struck, as if “Sanctions and Arms!” would bring the Russian Bear to its knees, exposing Putin’s folly and crushing his regime…

Well, 3+ months into this horrific conflict, it appears that the TransAtlanticans’ policy of “Sanctions and Arms!” has proven ineffective, not to mention entirely delusional.  On the “Sanctions” front, this economic weapon has completely back-fired, with soaring fuel prices and open talk of looming food shortages — in the West!  Counter-intuitively, it seems as if Western leaders have declared war on their own citizens as much as the Russians.  Who could have foreseen that “Gas-for-Rubles” would become a catchphrase in 2022?

With reference to the massive “Arms!” transfers to AmericaNATOstan’s Ukrainian proxy forces:  How many more dead or surrendered Ukrainians will it take to show incontrovertibly both the cruelty and imbecility of this “More Weapons!” policy?  The mid-May mass surrender of the cornered Ukrainian troops in the Azovstal Steel Works — AzovStalingrad? — in Mariupol provides one clue; the current Russian rolling-up of the Donbass will be the next.  In other words:  if NATO wants to fight Russia in Ukraine, they are going to have to do it themselves.

The good news so far on this possible development is that the Death Star, or Pentagon, has no appetite for going “toe-to-toe with the Rooskie!” (Quote, if I recall it correctly, from General Buck “Bucky” Turdgeson in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film Dr Strangelove, although George C. Scott’s excitably nihilist character is actually advocating for fighting directly with “the Rooskie!” in the movie). In fact, the Pentagon has been far more sober in its assessments than either the US State Department or the American Congress (not to mention our rabid Blue-and-Yellow Press), which mindlessly voted $40 billion more for the “Ukrainian” war.

So, the Ukraine Flag imogee crowd continues to maintain its “Stand by Ukraine!” Potemkin Village idiot mentality.  Of course, the Western Corporate Press is still leading the daily Cheers and Rahs!” for Ukraine, painting a false narrative of constant Ukrainian victory — but only if we can get Zelensly a few more howitzers, tanks, planes, drones, Javelins, Harpoons (NATO boots-on-the-ground, perchance?), and bullets.  Oh, and maybe we can donate a Ouija board to President Comedian so he can summon back the “Ghost of Kyiv”?  That would truly clear the Ukrainian skies of the Russian invader this time, right?

The Potemkin Village: a Historical Snap Shot

“Potemkin spared no effort or expense in showcasing Russia’s power and resources.  He even surprised the Empress with a battalion of ‘Amazons’–100 Greek women dressed in crimson skirts and gold-trimmed jackets (spencers) topped by gold-spangled turbans with ostrich feathers.” 1

Many things are meant, or possibly indicated, by the phrase “Potemkin Village,” which is generally understood as a kind of decorative front overlaid upon a particularly squalid or sordid reality so as to deceive the viewer as to the true state of affairs.  Today, we might call it a form of “disinformation,” whereas in times past the term “deception” would have adequately described this phenomenon.

Roundabout 1775, Russian Empress Catherine the Second (aka “the Great,” who ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796, or rather a long run…) appointed her “flamboyant favorite,” courtier Grigory Potemkin, to the office of Governor-General over most of what is now known as “Ukraine.”  At that time, the newly acquired Russian imperial lands were known as “Novorossiya,” or “New Russia,” in accordance with a “new”-naming fad popular amongst the prevailing European imperial powers.  In 1787, to commemorate her 25th year upon the Muscovite throne, Catherine embarked upon a 6 month journey through Novorossiya to Crimea, an extravagant political vacation with Lots of FireWorks!

Legend has it that Potemkin conspired to erect fake villages staffed by Walt Disney Peasants in order to impress the Empress with touristic delight during her voyage down the Dnieper.  This story is generally considered to be a wild exaggeration, although obviously World leaders, even today, are typically not treated to the most derelict of places they visit; quite the contrary.  U2, or the half of U2 that recently played a dolled-up underground subway stop in Kiev (or Kyiv, and I have to ask the math-musical question here:  Does one half of U2=”U1″?) certainly got the “Catherine 2,” or “Potemkin,” treatment in the Ukrainian capital.

However, there is a wholly other layer of irony to the “Potemkin Village” myth, namely:  Potemkin quite literally founded several villages that would go on to become key cities in what is now — at least for the moment — known as Ukraine, including Nikolayev, Dnipro, and Kherson.  Kherson, of course, was the first large city that Russia captured, way back in March, to little fanfare.  The Zelensky-fawning Western Blue-and-Yellow Press was strictly printing stories of heroic Ukrainian resistance then, so Russia taking a major Black Sea Ukrainian littoral town didn’t make the cut, and especially didn’t fit the “Potemkin” Narrative of plucky little neo-Nazi infested Ukraine beating the Big Bad Bear.  But:  “What about Snake Island?”  What about, indeed?  Potemkin Island would be a good title for any documentary about this conflict, or even The Ghost of Potemkin Island

If the “Mainstream” were anywhere near the Reality Stream, many a red — and not merely “false” — flag should have been raised over the issue of “something rotten in the state of” — Ukraine.  A “Democracy” run by oligarchs with a President whose chief qualification for the job was having played the “President of Ukraine” in a comedy TV skit might have topped the list, especially after the “Trumpman Show” in the US.  Then there’s the bit about Trump’s successor, Joe “Bidenopolous” and Son’s wanton corruption in Ukraine during Obama’s reign:  What to make of that?  What to make of the Western-styled “Potemkin Village” of Democracy that is Ukraine?  How about some more “Sanctions!”, and surely more “Weapons!”

Truly, the propaganda scaffolding around this “Potemkin Village” Ukraine has been so preposterously poor that one wonders if the Covid-19 phenomenon had not only cooked, but then also eaten, the brains of the Western Elite Establishment?  Blinken blinks, absently; Nuland “Coup”-lands, hesitantly, as she describes Bio-Research Labs in Ukraine connected to the U$ under oath in a Senate hearing; and Jake Sullivan evokes an even paler shade of Jared Kushner every time he appears, which sometimes includes an MbS tantrum (although apparently pale Sullivan took Mohammed “Bone-saw” Salman’s tongue-lashing like a good boy…).

Clearly, there is a crisis of political leadership in the West, to the tune of:  These people are not fit to rule.  Instead of “isolating” Putin’s Russia as a harsh consequence for “Operation Z,” as they have all so imperiously claimed, these incompetent Western overlords have only managed to further isolate themselves from the rest of the World which everyone knows that they, the AmericaNATOstanis, view with absolute contempt.  Indeed, a mere modicum of respect for Russia and the Minsk Accords could have averted this catastrophic war that is destroying Ukraine.  In a very real-world sense, then, the Ukrainian war is certainly a “political tragedy.”

  1. Catherine the Great: Life and Legend, John T. Alexander, 1989, p. 260. [↩]
    Twitter
Todd Smith lives, writes, and observes the Brave New World Order in St. Louis. He can be reached at bartlebydick@yahoo.comRead other articles by Todd.
  • https://www.rbth.com/history/331767-potemkin-villages-myth-exposed
    Image
    The myth of ‘Potemkin villages’ wasn’t even written during Catherine’s Crimea journey. Georg von Helbig, the secretary for the Saxon embassy at Catherine’s court, came to Russia in 1787, but was not on the journey. Between 1797 and 1800, Helbig published Grigoriy Potemkin’s biography, where, summarizing the rumors …
    See more on rbth.com
    • Estimated Reading Time: 6 mins
    • https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
      Image
      The term dates to 1787; the story goes that the Russian statesman Grigory Potyomkin tasked with governing New Russia (recently-conquered lands in present-day Ukraine), had a fake portable settlement built to impress the visiting empress, Catherine the Great. Modern historians largely believe that the original Potemkin-
    • Two Days in August Unleashing 28,000-plus Days of Conspiracy

      Lanterns are seen on the Motoyasu river beside the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima in 2019 to mark the anniversary of the bombing (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

      It is interesting to have these short essays (see below, “Two Days in August”) in the local twice-a-week newspaper where local events, school sports, the police log, food and dining and art and human interest stories line up next to long obituaries and funny pet stories.

      It’s me barking up the wrong tree, for sure, and I wrote this as a way to bring light to the dark days that unleashed, as the title tells, 28,000-plus days of conspiracies. If you can murder Japanese in two cities, experimenting (sic) with uranium and plutonium bombs on civilians, you can carry out any number of other terroristic programs. You can have hit squads getting guns for coke, or you can murder your own president, or you can fake the Gulf of Tonkin, or you can help murder Allende in Chile, or you can drop plague-laced insects and rodents into Korea. The beat goes on, until the chickens come back to roost.

      Imagine all the people seeking some light in the dark corridors of pancaking buildings — World Trade Center Towers — and a pancaking Building Number Seven that sustained zero hits.

      These bombs did not end the war or save hundred of thousands of American soldiers’ lives.

      You can fool yourself believing we are enlightened, exceptional, but how does that really happen, this collective fooling?

      Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Chinese Proverb

      That is an ancient one, but in a world with Hearst and Pulitzer and Facebook and CIA and FBI infiltrating media, the press, academia, and with amazing stealth and concerted zest of a bad-bad education system (K12) that turns youth and creative souls into drudgery, into compliance, into non-thinkers, into sheep, we are not fooling ourselves. It’s in the DNA, until we get the Ivy League and elite colleges around the world producing (like an assembly line) neoconservatives, neoliberals and truly predatory folk, and now, folk who are not thinkers, not creative and who are compliant to the corporations, the lobbies, the others in the Deep State and the Deep Morass of Money.

      The topics of the day, in 2022, are now virtrual landmines. You can’t talk about sex, drugs, religion, politics, science, policy, international issues, pharmacuticals, medicine, abortion, education, social work, military spending, culture, the current generation and next one. Or, you can bring these topics up, but be ready for closed minds and mean discourse and broken debates. Yelling and shouting and hating and breaking ranks and estrangement and isolation and locked down thinking, and reaching the metal ceiling of prejudice, bias and backward thinking.

      [sinking of the Lusitania]

      [attack of the USS Liberty by Israel]

      [Building Seven]

      [Tuskegee syphillis experiment (sic)]

      [Illegal bombing of Cambodia]

      [Gulf of Tonkin False Flag]

      [Colin Powell and yellow cake lies]

      [18 years in prison for telling the world about Israel’s illegal nuke program]

      [Murder of Salvador Allende]

      [Che]

      So, all of that, all those precursors to plutonium and uranium bombs, and since then, we get the picture. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr is getting in on the fascism with a new short book:

      [Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Debuts NEW Book]

      Of course, Naomi Wolf did that fascism accounting years ago:

      We are still in the Kill the Messanger mode:

      And here we are, the Press, the so-called liberal media, dead on arrival with this hero:

      *****

      Here it is, my 1,000 word column coming out Friday, August 5, per the editor’s guarantee.

      Two Days in August

      By Paul Haeder

      I recognize August 6 and 9 as evidence of my country’s cruelty to humankind.

      How many News Times readers remember the classroom drills: Duck and Cover? That was the mantra for me growing up in the 1950s and ‘60s. The US and overseas schools ran these nuclear attack drills all the time.

      Students now practice active shooter lockdowns and room clear protocols in case of an unruly, violent fellow student.

      For most of my adult life as a teacher and journalist, it has been an uphill battle trying to inform my fellow Americans about history. One sticking point includes the ignorance of the great sacrifices Russia made in defeating the Nazi’s. To this day, I have 60-year-old friends who think the Second World War was won by the US and believe the number of casualties and deaths suffered country by country puts the US on top of the death toll.

      That baseline, much of what Americans get wrong about that war, Russia, Europe, the US’s role in things – to include the hatred the British and Americans had toward the Soviet Union, and what reparations really were about – keeps Americans locked in a magical thinking La-La Land.

      Before we get to “The Bomb,” here’s the WWII count: Soviet Union – military deaths, 8,800,000 to 10,700,000; total deaths including civilians, 24,000,000. For the United Kingdom they had 383,600 military killed and 450,700 combined military and civilians. For the United States the totals, respectively, are 416,800 and 418,500.

      Shifting to the two bombs the US dropped on Japan, I call these moments in August 1945 days that should live in infamy – the needless bombing of two “virgin” Japanese cities that did not end the war with Japan but rather was “a message to the Soviet Union.”

      I was a college instructor for various military organizations, including at the US Army’s Sergeants Major Academy. I had career soldiers cry reading their personal essays aloud: narratives about their own childhood traumas, and sometimes the trauma of battle. I’ve had military students challenge my background and knowledge of world history and the history of both World War I and II.

      Some of them, however, backed me up when I taught about the reality of why President Harry Truman dropped the bomb twice on Japan.

      Using the atom bomb to vaporize a Japanese city was the stratagem to intimidate the Soviets and coerce them into making concessions with respect to postwar arrangements in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe. Just a few weeks after those two bombs destroyed two Japanese cities, Truman’s secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, declared that “the atom bomb had been used because such a demonstration of power was likely to make the Soviets more accommodating in Europe.”

      Truman’s message to the world concerned the US’s unmatched power by dropping the atom bomb on a big city. However, some of the scientists involved in the development of the bomb, in the Manhattan Project, lobbied to have the bomb dropped on an uninhabited Pacific Island.

      This is our history: Truman did not want a weapon-to-end-all-weapons to misfire or fail completely. He wanted the bomb to be dropped, unannounced, on a virgin city. The capital, Tokyo, was out of the question since it already had been flattened by “conventional” bombing.

      Our war department was strategic: by early August 1945, there were only ten Japanese cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants that remained more or less unscathed by bombing raids.

      Imagine: Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualified for this inhumane experiment. The bomb was ready to be deployed before the USSR got involved in the Far East. Hiroshima was flattened on August 6.

      The Japanese did not react with an immediate unconditional capitulation because while the damage was great, it was not greater than the March 9 and 10, 1945 attack by thousands of bombers on Tokyo that caused more destruction and killed more people than that “virgin” target of Hiroshima.

      The surrender of Tokyo did not occur by August 8 – three months after the Germans surrendered in Berlin. The USSR declared war on Japan and the Red Army attacked Japanese troops in Northern China on August 8, 1945.

      A second bomb, just one day after the Soviet Army battled Japanese in the Far East, was dropped. On August 9,  another “virgin” city, Nagasaki, was destroyed by Truman’s bomb. Many Japanese Catholics perished. A former American army chaplain later stated: “That’s one of the reasons I think they dropped the second bomb. To hurry it up. To make them surrender before the Russians came.”

      This chaplain might not have been aware that among the 75,000 human beings who were instantaneously incinerated, carbonized and evaporated in Nagasaki were many Japanese Catholics as well an unknown number of inmates of a camp for allied POWs, whose presence had been reported to the air command, to no avail.

      The myth of how the Japanese were defeated or surrendered was embedded in Americans when I first taught classes in 1981, and then in 2000 when I taught at the NCO Academy, in 2011 when I taught in Seattle at a Jesuit school, and in 2022 when my friend argued with me about who and how the war was won.

      Admiral William Leahy, in command of U.S. Pacific forces, said, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade.” Sixty-five Japanese cities were in ashes. General Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a Newsweek interview: “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

      Japan capitulated not because of the atom bombs but because of the Soviet entry into the conflict. Those  226,000 mostly civilian Japanese perished in two cities because the US wanted to send a message to the USSR.

      Seventy-seven years later the US is deploying a similar military stratagem in Ukraine.

      Paul Haeder's been a teacher, social worker, newspaperman, environmental activist, and marginalized muckraker, union organizer. Paul's book, Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber (2016), looks at 10 years (now going on 17 years) of his writing at Dissident Voice. Read his musings at LA Progressive. Read (purchase) his short story collection, Wide Open Eyes: Surfacing from Vietnam now out, published by Cirque Journal. Here's his Amazon page with more published work AmazonRead other articles by Paul, or visit Paul's website.