Source for previous quote

[Celso Alvarez Cáccamo]

I've received several messages about my previous Goering's citation
(quote?, I always confuse both words) on war, a couple of them asking for
the source.  One person called it "spam":

>Please do not spam, esp. with this rubbish. A quote from a disreputable
>person offering no proof at all, is not worth anything.

Of course Goering was undescribably "disreputable" -- a mass murderer, I
would say.

Another reader sends me the Internet source where it is stated that
Goering's words were real:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

I quote from the page, which reproduces excerpts from: Gilbert,
G.M.  Nuremberg Diary. New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1947   (pp.
278-279):

================

"The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg
trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the
proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made
privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and
psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners
held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of
the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later
published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of
a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on
the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day
Easter recess:

[QUOTE FROM GILBERT] Sweating in his cell in the evening, Goering was
defensive and deflated and not very happy over the turn the trial was
taking. He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of
the others, and that he had never been anti-Semitic himself, had not
believed these atrocities, and that several Jews had offered to testify in
his behalf. If [Hans] Frank [Governor-General of occupied Poland] had known
about atrocities in 1943, he should have come to him and he would have
tried to do something about it. He might not have had enough power to
change things in 1943, but if somebody had come to him in 1941 or 1942 he
could have forced a showdown. (I still did not have the desire at this
point to tell him what [SS General Otto] Ohlendorf had said to this: that
Goering had been written off as an effective "moderating" influence,
because of his drug addiction and corruption.) I pointed out that with his
"temperamental utterances," such as preferring the killing of 200 Jews to
the destruction of property, he had hardly set himself up as champion of
minority rights. Goering protested that too much weight was being put on
these temperamental utterances. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was
not defending or glorifying Hitler.[UNQUOTE]

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the
common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars
by their political leaders:

[QUOTE FROM GILBERT] We got around to the subject of war again and I said
that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are
very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would
some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally,
the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy
or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have
some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the
United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
way in any country." [UNQUOTE]

=================

Now, of course I'm not supporting the idea that (mis)leading the people
works the same in a dictatorship as in a real democracy.  I just wonder
what does it mean, for example, that some of the evidences against the
Iraqi regime produced by the British government were found to be extracted
from a university thesis or dissertation?  Or that Rumsfeld (I believe)
said that  in the "war against terrorism" after Sept. 11 2001, all fronts
would be thoroughly covered, including the possibility of deliberately
disseminating false information. What's the bearing of all this for the
meaning of "democracy"? that's the real point.

Peace,

Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
lxalvarz at udc.es
http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac/