Deconstructing Stephen F. Cohen
By Jonathan Gallant
May 8, 2022
In 1938, it was possible to construct a
semi-plausible argument against "demonizing" Hitler and the Nazis. After all,
their popularity in Germany rested on the Nazis' economic revival of the
country, and on the perceived unfairness of the Versailles Treaty at the end of
World War I; it could be that correction of some of that unfairness might
mollify German public opinion. Moreover, the issue of Czechoslovakia was
complex, the Sudeten Germans did feel that they were not receiving enough
respect from the Czech government. And, however crazy Nazi propaganda seemed,
surely social factors and economic costs would prevent Germany from attempting
anything as sociopathic as invading sovereign nations in Europe. Such
theses were advanced in support of appeasing Nazi Germany, leading Neville
Chamberlain to sign over the Czech Sudetenland to Germany at Munich in the hope
of gaining "peace in our time".
How would papers advancing these
arguments look 20 months later, after the Nazis had taken over the
rest of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, invaded Poland that September, and
invaded Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium in the spring of 1940?
Surely, by that time such arguments would have met nothing but bitter laughter.
In May 1940, Neville Chamberlain was honorable enough to resign as Prime
Minister, events having proved that what had seemed semi-plausible to him 20
months earlier was, in fact, clearly nonsense, and demonstrably had been all
along.
In late 2018, Stephen F. Cohen, the
Nation magazine's favorite Russianologist, published "War
with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate".
The book makes semi-plausible
arguments against "demonizing" Vladimir Putin. It explains that his popularity
in Russia rests on the economic revival of the country; that its recent
sociopolitical character was not all Putin's fault; that many Russians feel that
their nation does not receive enough respect from the US, western Europe,
and NATO; and that social factors and high economic costs would surely prevent
Russia from attempting anything as sociopathic as invading a sovereign nation
in Europe. As for the "demonization" of Putin, the book offers the following
soothing advice:
Various
accusations against Putin, like the late Senator John McCain’s allegation
that: “Putin [is] an unreconstructed Russian imperialist and KGB apparatchik
…. His world is a brutish, cynical place …. We must prevent the darkness of
Mr. Putin’s world from befalling more of humanity” provide ideological
underpinning for US aggression.
Stephen F. Cohen died just as the book
was published, so we don't know what he would say about it today, after Putin
lied his head off about the Russian troops surrounding Ukraine, then sent them
into Ukraine in a blatant. aggressive attempt to conquer the country for the
Russian Imperium. An emeritus professor of History, Cohen had some regard for
facts, and might perhaps have disavowed those arguments which events had just
falsified, in the same way that Neville Chamberlain resigned from office. But
who, today, would go so far as to recommend Cohen's arguments of
2018, already demolished by the facts of 2022? It would be like recommending
discussions of the flat earth after the Magellan/Elcano expedition and
Sir Francis Drake's Golden Hind had returned from circumnavigating the
globe. Who would do such a thing, going beyond confirmation bias into
fantasyland?
Well, the answer is simple: Counterpunch
does such a thing. In a May 6, 2022
article, Counterpunch
enthusiastically endorses the 2018 book by Stephen F. Cohen.
Jonathan Gallant is
professor emeritus of genetics, University of Washington Medical Center
This article was
originally posted on the Euston-USA Google Group