Bogus Outrage: Why Some Are Criticized over Nazism and Others Are Not

From the desk of John Laughland on Thu, 2008-09-11 08:43

laughland-controversies.gif

Gianni Alemanno, the Mayor of Rome, has got into trouble again for having made remarks which have been interpreted as favourable to fascism. Shortly after his election as Mayor in May, Alemanno was trapped by an English journalist into saying that not everything Mussolini did was evil: the headline above his piece attributed to him remarks he had not made. The same thing has happened now with an interview in the liberal Milan daily, Corriere della sera. Alemanno said that some people supported fascism in good faith and that the regime itself was not “absolute evil”. What was absolutely evil, he said, were the racial laws of 1938 and the concessions thereby made to Nazism.
 
The row over Alemanno’s remarks has been given added piquancy because the Minister of Defence, Ignazio La Russa, said at a ceremony to commemorate the Italians who fell fighting the Nazis after 1943 that those who remained loyal to the Axis also believed they were fighting for their own country. The remarks by these two politicians who belong to the Alleanza nazionale, the party which Gianfranco Fini created out of the Movimento Sociale Italiano (founded in 1948 on the ruins of the Mussolini regime), have caused the previous Mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, to resign his post on the Board of the Shoah Museum in the Italian capital, the chairman of which is Alemanno himself.
 
Such rows show, of course, how dominant left-wing thought remains in Italy. It is all right to be a post-communist – no one asks you questions about Stalin – but to be a post-fascist is to remain tainted for life. As it happens, I met Gianni Alemanno in July, when I interviewed him for The Spectator, and it became very clear during the interview not only that he was fed up with having to defend himself against these charges all the time, but also that he was far closer to neo-conservatism than to fascism. Alemanno has even created a group called Kadima World Italia, which he chairs, the purpose of which (as the name suggests) is to support the policies of the Israeli political party founded by Ariel Sharon. Alemanno said to me during our interview that “To defend Israel is to defend the West,” and it is obvious that, like many Italian right-wingers, he is deeply troubled by the rise of Islam and, as such, a naturally ally of Israel and of those Jews who feel that their main enemies in the world are the Muslims.
 
Alemanno may well have completely recanted his earlier support for post-fascism. (He headed the youth wing of the party before Fini democratized it, and indeed Fini was his predecessor as head of that youth wing.) His wife, Isabella Rauti, the daughter of the veteran right-winger, Pino Rauti, whose politics are indeed very far to the right, has also joined Fini’s National Alliance and abandoned her earlier allegiance to Fiamma tricolore, the party which grew out of the MSI. But what is most disgusting about this bogus outrage over Alemanno’s supposed links to fascism is that the same people who express it never make the same point about certain other European politicians, even when there are far stronger grounds for doing so than in his case.
 
I am referring to the prominent Estonian politician and former Prime Minister, Mart Laar. Laar is the toast of the town in Washington, where he is a frequent guest of conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. He is credited with being the author of Estonia’s economic transformation, as he presents himself as a Friedmanite (even though he had read only one book on economics when he introduced “shock therapy” into Estonia, Friedman’s “Free to Choose”). But he is at the same time a strong supporter of those Estonian partisans who fought the Red Army, the Forest Brothers, and of the Waffen SS out of whose ranks they were formed.
 
As Mark Almond has documented in an extensive paper entitled “In the Shadow of the Bronze Soldier” (the title is a reference to the Soviet war memorial which the Estonian authorities recently removed from central Tallinn), Laar (who incidentally acts as an advisor to the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili) is the author of a noted and laudatory book about the anti-Soviet resistance movement in Estonia which was set up by the Waffen SS. Laar also attacked the decision taken in 2004 to remove a monument commemorating the SS from a village cemetery, and which bore an image of a Estonian soldier wearing German uniform.
 
Nor have there been any protests about the fact that the Lithuanian president, Valdas Adamkus – who like his Latvian and Estonian counterparts grew up a North American citizen – himself fought in the German army against the Red Army and boasts about the fact on his web site. Silence, too, was the reaction when the Latvian government arranged for the creation in the village of Lestene of a massive cemetery with thousands of graves commemorating the members of the SS Latvia Legion who fought the Soviets. Latvia and Estonia, indeed, have both indulged in what in Western Europe would be called “revisionism” by erecting in their capitals “museums of occupation” which propagate two serious untruths at the same time. First, they proclaim, by their very title, that the Baltic states were “occupied” by the Soviet Union when in fact they were annexed by it and incorporated into it – an extremely important difference – and, second, and as a consequence, they imply that their respective nations were subjugated by the Russian nation when, in truth, many ethnic Latvians and Estonians were enthusiastic Bolsheviks, as Communism was obviously a political creed supported by people of all nationalities and not just Russians. Many of them rose to wield power in the Soviet system. In addition, these museums pass over in silence what most people regard as the salient fact about Nazism, namely that it was a racist political ideology bent on genocide.
 
In spite of these provocations, you never hear people expressing concern at the inclusion of these states in the structures of the European Union and NATO. Could this be because the geopolitical imperatives of having them on board, and of tapping into any possible historical memory of anti-Russianism, however extreme – the purpose being to use them a forward point in NATO’s encirclement of Russia – is considered to be far more important than what would otherwise be the taboos of political correctness?
 

and I might add...

Submitted by Yaffle on Thu, 2008-09-11 19:44.

Pankukas: "Trying to link credibility of speaker/writer to that of his/her host is a way of putting pressure on the later"

I'm sorry but the basis of any publication's credibility is is its choice of writers. What else are we to judge it by?

@Pankukas

Submitted by Yaffle on Thu, 2008-09-11 18:27.

Pankukas,

With respect, I think you're confusing two different things. I don't think we need protecting from David Irving's views, or anyone else's - let them fail or prosper in the marketplace of ideas.

But as a commissioning editor (which in my own small way I am), I would hesitate to give space to someone with a dodgy employment history, or a record of playing a little fast and loose with the facts, because those things would reflect badly on my publication.

TBJ bills itself as "The Voice of Conservatism in Europe", so for all the diversity of opinion here, it ought to be pushing some sort of consistent editorial line, and aim to have some overall credibility. I don't see how Laughland fits into that.

re: cemetery "provocation"

Submitted by Pankukas on Thu, 2008-09-11 15:12.

Indeed, the remains of Latvian legionaries are reburried at Lestene. "Massive" cemetery there was created following initiative from (and mainly with their own financial "mettle" of approximately LVL 650 000) Daugavas vanagi - Latvian Welfare Association in USA. Some pictures of this "provocative" undertaking at their site, aerial picture (just to grasp how "massive" it is) here.

German soldiers are reburried at Novadnieki (some 20000, according to this, alltogether around 30000), Beberbeki and other cemeteries (alltogether 11) - financed by Germany.

Soviet soldiers, when still found, are reburried - there are countless Soviet war cemeteries in Latvia.

Just a month or so ago, remains of about 600 WWII POWs were unerthed (pics) in schoolyard in Riga - Latvians, Germans, Poles, Austrians, Slovaks, Belgians, French, even one Tartar. They, too, will be given a proper burrial.

If Mr. Laughland finds any of that "provocative" or meriting loud protests... well, that's just too bad. Or sad, rather.

"Laughably selective...." indeed

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-09-11 15:11.

1) Kapitein Andre makes two good points and, plausably, a third one as well.

2) While nobody is perfect and everybody will have selective blind spots about history to some extent, that does not justify 'Laughlandian' assertions of the following kind: "no one asks you questions about Stalin...", or "...the same people who...never...", or "you never hear people expressing concern....", etc... A bit of caution and hedging would show a beter grasp of reality.

3)  NATO's purported "encirclement of Russia" is about as dangerous to the Russian people as NATO's encirclement of Switserland is to the people of Switserland.  As to Putin's oligarchic (or mafia) regime, that is an entirely different matter...

 

RE: the Baltics

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2008-09-11 14:11.

1. The Baltics were occupied by the Soviet Union

 

2. Baltic Waffen-SS units were created by the occupying Germans and were well-received as they were considered the only route to preserve independence from Moscow

 

3. The primary supporters of Soviet occupation in the Baltics were Jews, mainly due to the tensions (read pogroms) between themselves and their host nationalities. For this reason, Baltic Waffen-SS units and nationalist paramilitaries engaged in war crimes against Jewish villages in the wake of the Soviet retreat

plus...

Submitted by Yaffle on Thu, 2008-09-11 14:03.

...we've identified some questions about his integrity as a reporter - yet he's hardly a novice

@ Yaffle

Submitted by Pankukas on Thu, 2008-09-11 17:11.

I understand your point very well, and not all "narratives" are created equal, but disagree out of principle that credibility or lack thereof of some author should automatically reflect on the credibility of TBJ or other publication. The Economist or other outfits organize discussions that involve both people arguing the Russian POV as well as authors like Edward Lucas, and there is no need to link the credibility of speakers to the host, I think. Same here.

Who the author is and whom he/she chooses to associate or to cooperate with is important; what is argued is more important. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that nobody needs to be "protected" from the writings of David Irving (if I'm not mistaken, he argued the point forcefully in this video). For example - by trying to silence him or to obstruct his speech in some way.

Trying to link credibility of speaker/writer to that of his/her host is a way of putting pressure on the later - to make the host to drop the author or to distance from the writings. I just don't think it's a right thing to do, especially if there is possibility of submitting nearly instantaneous rebuttal. Opinions are those of the authors - no need for host to distance.

re: Occupation Museums

Submitted by Pankukas on Thu, 2008-09-11 12:31.

Laughland: In addition, these museums pass over in silence what most people regard as the salient fact about Nazism, namely that it was a racist political ideology bent on genocide

This is false and outlandish (and despicable). Just one quote from a short brochure:

The psychological and actual terror of two totalitarian regimes exacted a heavy human toll - destroyed lives, destroyed relationships, destroyed trust. Social and ethnic structures were mercilessly torn apart. The Soviets practised class warfare; the Nazis - racial cleansing."
The Three Occupations of Latvia, 1940-1991; by the Occupation Museum of Latvia.

Most of the "output" of the museum -- such as teaching materials -- are in Latvian for obvious reasons, but no - neither the exposition itself, nor the materials published by museum foundation, "pass over in silence" Nazi occupation, Holocaust and salient facts about them. Latvia lost about third of its pre-war population in WWII, Mr. Laughland; if you ever happen to visit Riga, do try to find time to see the museum. Maybe, just maybe it will give you an idea how editorialising “occupied” is -- how do I put it? -- crass?

the plot thickens

Submitted by Yaffle on Thu, 2008-09-11 12:15.

Pankukas,

Thanks for the links on Laughland. I had thought he was simply a crank, but it appears he is, or at least has been, in the pay of the enemies of Western liberalism. (I'm pretty sure it's the same guy.) His appearances here do little for TBJ's credibility.

re: Yaffle, TBJ credibility

Submitted by Pankukas on Thu, 2008-09-11 12:56.

Thanks. I don't think providing all kinds of commentary and views, including those of Mr. Laughland, in itself should reflect poorly on TBJ. That's just part of an open debate. Perhaps some brief info on who the authors are would be helpful, but other than that - others are free to comment and argue against, and let the readers judge for themselves.

Some quick facts

Submitted by Pankukas on Thu, 2008-09-11 11:46.

This piece of Mr. Laughland, who has moved on from being "PR man to Europe's nastiest regimes" to writing for Russian state information agency and serving as Director of Studies at Russian Institute for Democracy and Cooperation (no less!!!), merits a thorough rebuttal.

Edit in: if that's one and the same John Laughland, that is. If there are more and I have mixed up something, I do appologize.
...

What and how Mr. Alemanno or Italy say or do about Italian soldiers who fought for Axis is IMO a matter mostly for the Italians to judge, but here are some quick facts to help understand why trying to draw some parallels to Baltic states here is misleading:

- Italy was (until 1943?) member of Axis and entered the war as sovereign nation; Baltic States, who were not part of Axis, were occupied -- first by USSR (something Mr. Laughland denies), then Germany. Citizens of Baltic States who fought in WWII were not in service of their states; most of them were drafted to serve in Waffen SS (or subsequently in Red Army) contrary to international law;

- there are too many differences between German Waffen SS and the Baltic Waffen SS soldiers to discuss them in detail here, but the most important of them were summarised by the commissioner of US Displaced Persons (refugees) Commission, H. N. Rosenfield, in 1950, when formulating the position of US government about immigration of former legionaries to US:

"(..) the Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in terms of purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, as amended"

- Prior to that, starting some time in 1946, American and British armies formed so called Guard companies from Baltic legionaries who surrendered to Allies in Germany, and starting from 1947, they were employed as guards at Nuremberg Justice Palace and prison, to supplement Allied sodiers guarding suspected war criminals. One picture is better than thousand words; here are pictures of Nuremberg "Baltic guards" at Luisiana Digital library; here are more pics of guard companies of former Baltic legionaries and a narrative in English.

One must also credit Mr. Laughland, however, for he at least identified whom the Baltic legionaries were motivated to fight against - Soviet Union (and not, say, Allies), rather than pull the usual trump card of Russian propagandists and suggest that their service in German uniform somehow shows the motivation to fight for Nazi "thousand year Reich".

I'm with you halfway, then you lost me

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Thu, 2008-09-11 11:25.

I agree there's a hypocrisy in the way the West, especially Europe, views being involved in Nazism and Communism. Obviously, Russians were as evil as the Nazis, and so it makes little sense to have a double-standard. And if I remember my WW2 history right, it really wasn't until after Italy was basically being run by Germany that there was mass deportation of Jews.

But, the guy's still mayor, right? So, it can't be that hard on him. And you're right about political correctness: the whole point of it is to encourage us to present inauthentic selves to others. But, politicians learn that pretty well, so why can't he just keep quiet about his views on Mussolini? Political correctness has put whole areas of conversation off limits to people in public life, so why not this?

Then you go to this Estonian guy who was in the resistance against the Soviets, which is much trickier moral terrain, no? And the distinction between being occupied and being absorbed by the Soviets seems a distinction of scale rather than kind. I mean, you could say Tibet was absorbed by China, but it still sucks to be a Tibetan, however you label it.

And, don't most countries tend to sanitize their pasts? Japan has never come to grips with its brutality toward China and others in WW2, for example, and certainly Russia has never dealt with its massive crimes againt humanity over the 20th Century (or, if you prefer, the US and its treatment of the Natives). It's not clear that that should be a factor when deciding whether countries make a strategic fit for NATO (and I have no opinion on whether they should or should not be in NATO). At least, you haven't made a convincing argument that this should be a factor when deciding on EU or NATO membership.

Laugh-ably selective reading of history

Submitted by Yaffle on Thu, 2008-09-11 11:17.

I don't get bylines on my RSS feed, but I always know I'm reading a Laughland article by the warped, historically illiterate depiction of eastern Europe, and mindless grovelling to Great Russia.

Take this:

"the Baltic states were “occupied” by the Soviet Union when in fact they were annexed by it and incorporated into it – an extremely important difference"

Well no, in reality not a difference at all, from the point of view of the hitherto independent nations concerned.

Or this:

"Many ethnic Latvians and Estonians were enthusiastic Bolsheviks, as Communism was obviously a political creed supported by people of all nationalities and not just Russians."

So that makes their occupation - sorry, annexation - justified? "Many" British citizens want the UK to be incorporated into a restored Caliphate - does that make it okay?

The Baltic States suffered greatly under Soviet takeover, whatever you want to call it. Thousands were deported to Siberia, where many died. As with Ukraine, many Balts took Nazi Germany to be the lesser of two evils, and saw collaboration as the only way of defending their country.

Which brings us to:

"Valdas Adamkus... himself fought in the German army against the Red Army and boasts about the fact on his web site."

Not true. Adamkus "emigrated to the USA in 1944, after fighting the Nazi German and Soviet occupations of his homeland" (source). His own website says simply: "During World War II, he was involved in the resistance movement for Lithuania 's independence". No "boasting" about serving with the Germans there.