I was disappointed by the conclusions at the end of the article by Mike Gonzalez, 'The Lost Generation' (October SR).
Cuba does not deny that it is unable to survive the 'special period' without opening up to the world economy, albeit in a controlled manner. What choice is open to them given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US blockade? The first is to become a wholly US owned, exploited and controlled state, along the lines of Puerto Rico. The second is, in conditions of adversity and sacrifice, to fight to retain their independence and the gains of the revolution, in high standards of education, health and social cohesion, while seeking to develop their economy in the new environment.
Cuba has a well developed system of direct democracy, through workplaces and neighbourhood committees, and most Cubans are well aware of the options available to them. They also have an understanding of their own and Latin American history and will inevitably use the ideas of Marti and Guevara, and others, to guide them in their conclusions for future action. While they celebrate the ideals of their revolutionary heroes they are able to discuss openly the errors of the past and the need for pragmatic approaches at this time.
Given this background I feel it is wrong for socialists in Britain to lecture the Cuban government, or its people, on 'organised resistance', 'social revolution' or 'authentic democracy'. By contrast, what exactly have socialists in Britain achieved? Tony Blair, a weak trade union and labour movement, a ragbag group of impotent leftist parties and a multiplicity of liberal charities and campaigns.
In addition, I feel that to criticise Cuba for 'receiving...tourists' and 'selling its bodies to them' is to miss the point about tourism, prostitution and the countries of the Third World. It is a problem exported by the west to so many of the poorer countries of the world. We should also not forget that tourism and prostitution are not uncommon in this country but would we talk of the British government, and people, in similar terms?
I feel that rather than looking forward to celebrating Cuba's collapse we should support the call for independence for Cuba and a continuing struggle for freedom from capitalism for all the peoples of the world.
Nicola Gee (letters, Novenber SR) raises the old question of 'how aware were ordinary Germans during the war years of the fate of the Jews?' Undoubtedly most would have suspicions that something was happening. Evidence was there, but only in fragments soldiers from the eastern front bringing home photos of atrocities, or the fact that the roundup and deportations of German Jews often elicited large crowds of onlookers.
But it is unlikely that significant numbers would have the whole picture. The extermination camps were in Poland, the regime spoke in euphemisms about the 'Final Solution' etc.
However, the important question is a different one. There was a growing indifference of ordinary Germans to the fate of the Jews. Of course, on one level this is understandable. The German population after 1941 were facing saturation bombing of their cities, food shortages, the death of their loved ones on the eastern front. The regime's diatribes about Jews may not have been received enthusiastically by the mass of Germans, but over time the notion that there was a 'Jewish problem' became 'common sense'. This is hardly surprising, given that all potential sources of anti-racist organisation and propaganda had been crushed. In the absence of any arguments or experiences that undermined racism, it is understandable that the ideas of the Nazified ruling class became the ruling ideas of society.
The success of Nazi ideas penetrating the working class, in the absence of any alternative, can be seen in the factories of the Reich, where forced labour from Russia and Poland were often (but not always) treated with hostility and prejudice by 'German' workers.
As socialists we can only have one response that the poison of fascism is challenged and smashed before it comes to power. Once the fascists have taken hold of the state apparatus it is too late, as the German Communists found out to their cost.
Bernhard Herzberg claims that the absence of a mass revolt by the German people is evidence of their support for Hitler (November SR). Because of this 'passivity', therefore, they are as guilty ethically as their Nazi rulers for the Holocaust. In a similar vein Nicole Gee states that the German population knew about the Holocaust and are therefore implicated in Nazi genocide. I believe these arguments are flawed.
Firstly, there was resistance and mass opposition to the Nazi regime from within Germany. Between 1933 and 1945 about 3 million Germans were held in concentration camps or prisons for political reasons. Up to 30,000 Communist Party members alone were murdered while in Nazi detention. Mass opposition to the Nazis expressed itself in a myriad of forms. For some it was blatant defiance of the regime in providing support to persecuted Jews. For others it ranged from the distribution of illegal leaflets and defence of terms and conditions at the workplace to absenteeism and the taking of sick leave.
Secondly, the key to understanding why this opposition did not express itself in the form of more organised collective revolts by German workers lies in an appreciation of the magnitude of the defeat the German labour movement suffered in 1933. Due to the political ineptitude of their leaders, the most powerful labour movement in the world did not even get the opportunity to go into battle against the Nazis before their organisations were smashed. The ability to organise in the aftermath of this disaster was further compounded by the lack of any adequate preparation for underground work in case Hitler came to power and the impact of state terror.
Thirdly, most historians agree that there was no widespread knowledge about the Holocaust as we understand it among the German people. What is without doubt, however, is that the Allied rulers were fully aware of what was happening in the concentration camps. Unlike the majority of German workers, the Allies were in a position to realistically do something about the death camps, but they chose not to.
Finally, Marxists don't deny the impact of the Nazi poison on some sections of the German working class. However, the core of the working class, the workers with Social Democratic and Communist sympathies, opposed the Nazis. The tragedy is that in 1933, when thousands of these workers would have been prepared to wage civil war if necessary to defeat Hitler, they were denied the opportunity to fight by the politics of their Social Democratic and Communist leaders.
I was most interested in the letter from Nicole Gee (November SR) where she reviewed the comments of Norman Finkelstein on David Goldhagen. This all becomes horribly third hand, especially when one considers that I have not read the book. Nevertheless some interesting points have been raised.
True, as Nicole says, the Nazis were elected not because of their racism, but because they gave the impression that they might sort out the economic problems.
No, you can't systematically murder over 6 million Jews without a lot of support. The fact remains that the Jews had been sufficiently dehumanised for the Holocaust to happen at all. True, it's not inevitable that the Holocaust would happen in Germany, but as to its general inevitability, we must face facts. The oppression of Jews in Europe, historically, makes the Nazis look like the Spice Girls. For example, they were blamed for the Black Death and the Romans persecuted them in the years BC.
I took a particular interest in your 'Thinking it Through' (October SR) for 'I was nearly there' and began to think through from a completely different angle. I was serving in the Royal Navy on the good ship HMS Ulster, a converted frigate from a 1942 destroyer and based as they used to say on the West Indies Station during 1961-63.
At the time the world was about to be blown approximately 12 degrees off its axis the good ship Ulster was laying in the harbour of Bermuda undergoing a refit. With most of its engines stripped, almost all of the ship's company were having seven days holiday in a camp whose purpose was to train and house the Bermuda Rifles, the island's part time soldiers. We woke up to an American radio commentator informing us that Kennedy had decided to challenge the ships at sea transporting the Soviet missiles. He went on to say the British West Indian Fleet was standing by to support.
The British West Indian Fleet! That was us, for heavens sake! No other British West Indian Fleet existed as far as we knew.
Leaping out of our bunks well, falling in a wrecked manner more fitting to sodden matelots we gathered round the officer of the day. 'Please sir, does this mean we will not be going to New Orleans now?' and, 'What about our holiday, then?' and many other worrying questions. Upper lip syndrome came into play magnificently from the stores officer officer of that particular day. 'Look, it's only the silly Americans playing tough guys go back to bed,' he said. 'I'll order Up Spirits (daily rum ration) an hour early.' Well, that was settled. But he didn't do much for the other 'silly Americans' who were fleeing the island and heading home. Talk about panic.
The British West Indian Fleet did in fact sail a little earlier than the programme. It sailed to Puerto Rico where it met literally tens of thousands of American marines and dozens of American warships all fully booted and spurred ready for the 'big one'. The next day they sailed, line after line of ships. With bands playing and flags flying they headed out to Cuban waters. The British West Indian Fleet headed north to the States, including New Orleans avoiding Cuba by a wide margin of course.
I never knew if other ships joined the Americans I doubt it. A month or two later one of the newer class of British missile launcher appeared in the West Indies. By that time with the Americans still bobbing about the Caribbean some of the British West Indian Fleet were bopping in their dance halls. What a life!
Incidentally, the Ulster's purpose in the West Indies was fourfold: to show the flag of course, to be a relief for damage by hurricanes, to pick up Cuban 'refugees' and to be on lobster patrol. The Cuban refugees were the wealthy Cubans who paid to leave the island by fast motorboats during the night. Seemingly they paid a great deal to get off the island only to be dumped on little uninhabited islands with a bucket of water or two. The Ulster would initially try to stop the fast boats (100 percent unsuccessful) or pick up the so called refugees and hand them to the US Coast Guard.
The lobster patrol was hilarious. Fishing for lobster in the West Indies in those days was quite hairy. Gun shhoting boats would vie with each other for the catch as the market for lobster was enormous. As far as the British were concerned anything caught within the three mile limit of the many tiny 'British Islands' belonged to those who were licensed by the Brits only. Try telling that to some of the mafia controlled restaurants or some Cubans out for a day's fishing.
The Ulster would appear on the horizon and see boats scatter to the three mile limit. We would then all spend a day or two bobbing around watching each other. The Ulster could not stay of course. I often thought if the Americans or more hopefully the Cubans understood they were eating fine British lobster.
On board the Ulster at the time was a brilliant cartoonist. He drew a scene of hundreds of lobsters on the quarterdeck of the ship with hands (claws) up in the air being arrested by the officer of the day demanding to know which of them were British! The Ulster did attempt to arrest a Cuban ship once and brought on board some of the Cuban crew. There the Cubans stood with their huge Fidel type beards and enormous cigars, spitting on the newly painted quarterdeck as the Ulster's officers broadcast for anybody who could speak Spanish to attend the quarterdeck immediately. Nobody could and the Cubans left smiling and waving to some of us sailors who gave a little cheer to them.
But it wasn't all fun. With a name like Ulster and having the infamous Red Hand on the funnel the visit to the North of Ireland raised a question or two. On the ship were a number of scousers who had taught most of the ship's company to sing verse after verse of 'The Jolly Ploughboy' and other tuneful Republican ditties round the world. Due to a certain amount of ignorance from most of the crew the singing of such songs in certain parts of Belfast was not too well appreciated. So a bruise or two were encountered. In the City of Derry that was another matter. Most of us took a fair to reasonable hiding in their famous dance hall. The major consideration for that was because we were all in uniform (we had to in those days). I tend to think it also had something to do with attempting to walk out with the young women who worked in the local shirt factories!
Anyway thanks for reviving my memories, although that of course was not the primary purpose.
Rethinking Education and Democracy (reviewed in November SR) is written by The Hillcole Group, not Caroline Benn and Clyde Chitty.