A few people were disconcerted by a recent entry I posted about diplomacy, particularly the historical references that I chose to use. Obviously, we all have varying points of view with regards to history, and such points of view are shaped by how much we have been educated regarding various historical subjects. But more importantly, it is the information with which we expose ourselves to that says a great deal about how our beliefs are shaped.
History has many dimensions, but two of its most important are the truth and the manipulation of the truth for the purposes of perception. It is routinely the latter, not the former, that we are commonly exposed to.
Universal Historic Culpability
War, conquest, exploitation, slavery, torture, theft, deception, religious subjugation – elements of all of these things can be found in the histories of every great society that has existed, some more than others, and certainly in numerous cases more blatantly that others. The progression of morality is the façade that has altered the methodology of such societies throughout history, ultimately limiting their ability to act in a shamelessly transparent fashion. The Romans tortured and enslaved without shame, as did the Greeks and the Egyptians, but all of them, at the height of their influence, were also considered to be the most civilized of societies. That reality has not changed in over two millennia, only the mechanism used to disguise the reliance on those things deemed immoral to achieve various ends.
Every great power has, in its time, been guilty of the worst crimes conceivable on a mass scale. No matter the ideologies on which those societies were based, be they monarchies, dictatorships, or democracies, the reality is that all of them are just as culpable as their forebears. But it is perception and context that skew our understanding of history, often leaning on necessity as justification for those things that we consider despicable though condone because of context. That phenomenon is the usurpation of history itself, no matter what point of view you happen to hold, and thus the manipulation of the truth for the purpose of perception.
Proper Context
The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany on the 22nd of June, 1941. In the four years that followed the Soviets suffered over 10 million military deaths and over 11 million civilian deaths. And yet, in the context of Western history with regards to the Second World War, the role played by the Soviets is significantly downplayed for various reasons – Stalin’s murderous and dictatorial reign, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and the East-West confrontation that emerged after the war.
Historical truth, on the other hand, tells a very different story, one in which the Eastern front was the deciding factor of the war itself. Be it German miscalculation or Soviet resolve, the reality is that what occurred on the Eastern front played a significant role in the ability of Western powers to successfully invade Western Europe. Without it, the likelihood that Britain would have been invaded is considerable, which would be why the West went to great lengths to aid the Soviets on the Eastern front. As a result, the Soviet Union lost 23 million people. In comparison, the losses suffered by the major Western Allied powers in the European theatre were paltry by comparison.
No nation in the European theatre paid a greater price than the Soviets, and yet theirs was a contribution wholly undermined by anti-Communist sentiment that ultimately led to the mass manipulation of historical truth in classrooms throughout the Western world.
In the decades that followed, the Cold War saw the world’s two primary super powers stoop to the same degenerate levels in various instances, both engaging in situations that would carelessly waste lives. This game, justified by both powers as a battle of ideologies, was anything but. It was, in truth, the desire for global military supremacy and the cementing of those regional influences required to achieve it. Ultimately, the United States won that battle, primarily because its citizens were never exposed to the sort of widespread destitution and corruption that their Soviet counterparts were. Theirs was a just cause, and the dirty work that occurred out of sight and mind was concealed by both the mass belief that freedom was the guiding principle of the struggle coupled with those elements prevalent in Western societies that provide distraction.
If the Cold War proved anything, it’s that democracy is a far easier guise to exploit with regards to the advancement of global military dominance.
Cuba
Cuba is a touchy subject, especially for Americans. While I’ll not argue that Castro’s governance of the country didn’t produce human rights violations, and that such violations are never excusable, proper context must once again be applied.
Prior to the Cuban revolution, Cuba was a nation governed by an American puppet regime that ensured that US economic interests were vehemently protected. In truth, General Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorial rule of the country was much hasher than that of Castro’s, with his guiding principle for the ill treatment of segments of the Cuban population being the protection of the interests of a foreign nation. In any other circumstance, Batista’s removal would have been viewed as just, especially by a populist movement. But given what the United States lost after Batista’s removal, it was seen as criminal.
Like it or not, Fidel Castro did initially attempt to work within the nation’s corrupted democratic framework to invoke change. When that failed, primarily because of Batista’s seizure of power, which was wholly backed by the United States, the method of change, and the ideology behind it, was altered. That alteration, steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology, ultimately led to the successful populist uprising that drove Batista from power, one which was supported by the majority of Cubans at the time. What’s crucial to remember is that prior to the revolution 75% of Cuba’s best arable land was owned by foreign interests, predominantly American.
There is no questioning the fact that the revolutionary government was flying by the seat if its pants when it took power, nor that it used extreme methods to deal with those that supported Batista. But what should not be overlooked is that it also implemented programs of worth, such as a nationwide literacy program and land reforms that actually raised the standard of living. But Cuba’s post revolutionary future was not one that would be allowed to naturally unfold.
The United States waged nonstop covert warfare against the Castro government for years as a part of the CIA’s Cuba Project, which included everything from psychological to agricultural warfare. Ultimately, using a brigade of US trained Cuban exiles, an invasion of the country was attempted. When it failed, US covert operations continued unabated.
Threats of invasion, coupled with a crippling economic embargo, forced the Cuban revolutionary government into a corner. In that corner was, of course, the Soviets waiting with an available hand. But the question has to be asked – had the revolutionary government been allowed to focus on domestic matters rather than being driven into a state of paranoia and economic disparity, what would Cuba look like today?
We will never know the answer to that question because the United States refused to allow it to happen. In the end, the spirit of the revolution was replaced by paranoia and fear, leading to a dictatorial government rather than one that could have evolved into something else had it the chance to.
The Challenge
If there is one thing that history demands of us it’s vigilance, and to be vigilant we must be prepared to open ourselves up to those things that cause us discomfort and that challenge accepted norms. It is there that the eclipsed side of history is to be found, the completion of its totality, and therefore its whole truth.
October 31, 2008 42 Comments