Monday, December 26, 2005

The lost world of 1938

A reader sends a link to a 67-year old Time Magazine article of November, 1938 headlined "After Munich". The snippet reads:

Just before leaving London to visit Paris this week, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the House of Commons that he is once more appealing to Adolf Hitler to continue the Munich work of "appeasement" in general. In so doing he revealed what may yet prove to be the most important international event since Munich, the efforts which the British Government is making to find a home for Germany's Jews. Having queried all the colonies, he revealed that the Governor of Tanganyika has put at his disposal 50,000 acres on which to settle Jewish men, their families to follow if the...

The rest of the article behind the registration wall describes His Majesty's Government's efforts to settle "700,000" victims of "Nazi pogroms" in Tanganyika or in 10,000 square miles of British Guiana.

If the past seems a familiar story with one conceivable ending, those living in it had no presentiment of the future. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain could unashamedly continue the "Munich work of 'appeasement'" and Time Magazine could think that finding a Jewish homeland in Africa or South America was a viable proposition. The Nazi invasion of Poland was less than a year away and the ancient  institutions which formed the fabric of the Time's world were not going to last another twenty. The European colonies would disappear; and America would become a world power and the saga of Israel would begin.

But not everything would be unfamiliar to the modern reader. A contemporaneous Time movie reviewer lamented the tendency of Hollywood to distort history.

Sixty Glorious Years (Imperator-RKO Radio) should be an enlightening experience for U. S. cinemaddicts whose notions about 19th-Century history may have been slightly confused by recent Hollywood versions. Suez, for example, portrayed Ferdinand de Lesseps, who actually had two wives and ten children, as a lovesick young bachelor, and explained England's participation in his canal-building as the result of a General Election which never occurred.

And there were miracle tans even then.

At an unnamed beach summer before last an unnamed hypogonadal (undersexed) man lay down in "an abbreviated bathing suit of peculiar cut." He lay there for seven broiling August afternoons and scarcely changed color. ... The scientists examined him, began to treat him with male hormone substance. To their astonishment, "within three weeks there appeared, along with the bronzing of the face, a tanning of the body...

36 Comments:

Blogger wretchard said...

Human nature itself seems to have changed the least. Even then people worried about tanlines and preferred fictional Hollywood history to the real thing. Politicians gave the appearance of being in control when they could barely understand what was going on around them. But that's another story.

12/26/2005 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Vercingetorix said...

Well, the movie colony was never exactly a hotbed for capitalism and right-wingery*, however much money they grossed or how nationalist they plied their wares. Leftist, they were a leaning.


What is most intriguing is the extent, if any, that the general leftist memes have been spread, and continue now without let up, by Hollywood, and yet how the actual influence of those ideas seems to wane over time. Name one 'conservative' movie in the past year, or ten, but name the elections that conservatives have won. Try the reverse for liberalism.

If anything, Hollywood seems inversely related to political power. Yet the message is louder now than ever...

*my word, I copyrighted it. Back off ;).

12/26/2005 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger tefta said...

Even the least politically minded among us know that the movies isn't real life.

12/26/2005 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger 49erDweet said...

The hollywood types speak their self-indulgent "enlightened" words in public, but then privately vote - or flee the country - in support of their money. Feckless cowards, all.

12/26/2005 02:16:00 PM  
Blogger Dymphna said...

W--

If you're not a fan of Al Stewart, I think you would be, just based on his uses of history in his music. This one is from his CD "Between the Wars"...it is haunting.

Laughing Into 1939

Party hat and satin dress
Silver paper curled in her long black hair
Tapping one small elegant shoe in time
Oh, the way she plays with them
Smile at one, then dance with another
Pretty soon they're forming up a line
And she's laughing, laughing into 1939
Oh, laughing, laughing into 1939

Oh, the party draws them in
It breathes and moves
To a life its own
In its arms it's gathering all time
From the dark he watches her
Moving in and out of the bobbing crowd
If she even notices, she gives no sign
And she's laughing, laughing into 1939
Oh, laughing, laughing into 1939

For tonight is New Year's Eve
Uncork your spirits and welcome it in
Who knows what it's got up its sleeve
Can't wait for it all to begin
Stand by the girl with the purple balloon
The look in her eyes just lights up the room
In the corner of her smile
She'll be seeing you soon
Under a mistletoe moon

Out on to the balcony
Come the King and Queen
And the crowd go wild
He's a little bit nervous
But that's just fine
And they're laughing, laughing into 1939
Oh, laughing, laughing into 1939


Obviously, Stewart's British background is here, as it is in all his music.

12/26/2005 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Dymphna said...

BTW, one time when Al Stewart was touring here a few years ago, the Baron's Boy got up on stage with Stewart and did an a capella version of "Joe the Georgian" (about Stalin). It has a real Russian flavor and by the end, everyone was stamping their feet with that unmistakable Russian rhythm. It was eerie...

12/26/2005 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger patriotblog said...

Hey, surfed in off of Michelle Malkin's site.
I just started my own Conservative slash parody blog and I'd love to exchange links with you.
Let me know what you think, either comment back at my site
http://thepatriotblogger.blogspot.com/
or email me back and let me know. patriotblog@verizon.net
Thanks in advance and keep fighting the good fight
Pat

12/26/2005 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Very tough to predict how war will play out. In 1938, neither the Germans nor the Brits could imagine both sides in the future disregarding Hague Conventions and bombing cities full of civilians trying to kill millions of civilians as "strategic". No one in Germany imagined the Final Solution back then - what they intended with the Jew that National Socialism held was alien and hostile to Europe was a Fernand and Isabella style expulsion. In 1938 the Nazis were encouraging expulsion, trying to get other European powers to accept a large number of Jews sent with Nazi financing to their colonies, and also working with the Zionists to encourage emigration. The Nazis even offered financing to the other powers colonies and to Zionist leaders in pursuit of this.

In our time we thought of the Iraq War as an easy high tech victory with our "magnificent soldiers and wonder weapons". Over in a week or so, happy Iraqis liberated and secular and friends with Israel - we were told by neocons and their INC "sources". And "lower oil prices" will pay for the costs of war and "all our allies would be with us." The vast hidden stockpiles of WMD would be found and destroyed. Saddam , on the other side, believed that Russia and France would save his ass, but in case they didn't had started plans to have a major Algeria-style insurgency ready as on contingency. He could have saved himself by complying with the UN Resolutions, but was convinced by the words of the "regime change crowd" and by the loss of face if found bluffing on his Israeli-style "WMD ambiguity" policy that
he and the Ba'athists wouldn't survive.

1938 had it's war predictions and bad intelligence and complete misjudgements by politicians, and we had ours in 2002.

Many looking back in hindsight see it all so obvious. Of course - no one wanting millions of destitute Jewish refugees pouring into their Depression-beset lands, including America, scotched Nazi resettlement plans. Palestine was closed off to the mass immigration the Zionists wanted by Brits reacting to widespread Muslim riots against more Jewish colonists taking scarce arable land and water. Then the Nazi attack on the center of Comminism disposed the Nazis to see the communist-backing Jews as the enemy in Total War that were targets like Soviet soldiers.. How that so obviously sealed the fate of Europe's Jews. But in 1938, the circumstances of total war were unguessable and unfathomable to both sides. All the monstrosities both sides would have thought unthinkable back in 1938 became "rational choices" in an atmosphere of total war..

The infatuation with air power Europe had made bombing inevitable. The Nazis had bombed cities in Spain to break the will, but like the French and Brits thought that normally, bombing cities would "not be done" in WWII, sparing civilian populations. But the military found the disruption of logistics and social coherence far too attractive to resist not bombing and strafing refugees or avoiding going after dual use facilities like rail centers and factories.

Nonetheless, when advocates of "air power" bombed Berlin and other German cities in 1939 killing hundreds in a day's attack, Hitler denounced it as a war crime and finally retaliated against Coventry and French towns, then with all the inhibitions broke down, sided with Goering and the Luftwaffe in "Victory through air power" and both sides put cities and civilian centers on the legitimate target list.

Bomber Harris, LeMay, firestorming to roast 100's of thousands alive, then the A-bombs logically followed.

In Iraq, we have ended up taking 18,000 casualties and spending 220 billion borrowed from economic rivals Japan and China that our grandkids will still be paying off 30 years from now. Oil has doubled in price, adding that cost to our war. While we fixate on the ME and hope we can get out with a stable, Islamist regime replacing Saddam's secular one - China rises and grows more fascist, a move towards the Left is spreading throughout Latin America as crony capitalism and free trade to benefit the "owner class' has failed, democracy in Russia is in retreat.

On the other hand, we have to demonstrate the strength of our Will to the Muslims. Mess with us, and we can and will have our forces do a number on you...

I say it is still far too early to know the full consequences of America's Iraq War.

12/26/2005 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Wretchard: "Human nature itself seems to have changed the least."

Since I was born, I have listened to educated people, supposedly informed people, state and assert and allege and ACT AS IF humans are 'born into "original sin", broken and losing and needing to be fixed"

That often hidden assumption affects much of what we do and don't even attempt to do today, thinking that it will just slide back to 'broken' because of 'human nature'.

This is why Christ (in His New Name) teaches us "Noble have I created thee, wherefore wouldst thou abase thyself?"

If God creates humans noble, with an innate desire and ability to do good, then there is hope for humankind.

12/26/2005 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger rocketsbrain said...

See my comment over at Atlas Shrugs re the current state of the MSM and the mindless trival they are calling news nowadays:

Link

12/26/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

So I find myself asking, "If you could see the future, YOUR future, would you look?"

The Good, the neutral-well-meaning, and the Nazi/Communist bad of 1938... the Good would have to look out onto fields and mounds of dead and suffering, created in part by the noticeable lack of courage in confronting the Bad!

It is difficult enough to see where we are and what we're doing, NOW, without wilfully disregarding pertinent portions of recent history!

12/26/2005 05:14:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

Humans aren't noble savages, Carridine. The belief that they are has caused more problems than you can possibly imagine.

Humans need to be conditioned to be noble and virtuous. Otherwise, they are animals.

12/26/2005 06:33:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12/26/2005 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

Cedarford,

The difference between 1938 and 2002 is, of course, that in 1938 the Brit's uncertainty led to appeasement and inaction.

In 2002, Bush decided that, when dealing with post 9/11 threats, uncertainty itself was the enemy.

Strong, decisive action, even when predicated on an error, is much more favorable than waiting around for events to happen to you. Especially nowadays, when threats don't announced themselves before they strike.

12/26/2005 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12/26/2005 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

Of course, the obvious rebuttal to that last sentence is "Pearl Harbor."

But I think you get my point. Terrorism in the age of nuclear and biological weaponry is entirely different than a naval sneak attack.

12/26/2005 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

The Jew as Chattel in (medieval) Europe
.
.
The situation in the south of Europe was not quite the same as in the north, for the Jewish communities had been established there since Roman times, the main difference with their neighbors being religion; and it was only toward the very end of the Middle Ages (sometimes even against the wishes both of the local population and the gentry) when they were destroyed or expelled by mandate from above. In northern Europe, however, Jewish communities were often artificial in the sense that Jewries were deliberately introduced, expelled, and then reintroduced, for the sole purpose of usury to benefit the overlord: the Jew thus was a sponge through which the Christian ruler sucked up money and then, after squeezing the sponge dry, threw it away. Starting in the thirteenth century and most common in the fourteenth century, those communities became pawns in the hands of lords, churchmen, and city burghers, who vied with one another for the profits from Jewish usury, usually ranging from ten percent and more of their total income. The Jews were forced to charge higher interest rates, and then still higher, in order to pay the crushing taxes: indeed, in some cases Jewish communities were deliberately encouraged to increase these rates to feed their overlords.

The inevitable result was that the granting of Jewish resident charters became mere speculations and when they were wrung out, the Jews were expelled. (4) As is obvious, the gentile population, plucked clean by this usury, had even less love for their oppressors than did the overlords using them. Since by the late Middle Ages certain powerful Christian families--Italians and those from southern France called the "pope's usurers"--already controlled commercial loans, the ill-will was heightened. The strong residue of this hatred in Germany was a factor in the coming to power of a man like Adolf Hitler many centuries later.

The underlying tragedy involved in the granting of these charters, aside from their limited nature, was that they could be modified or revoked at the caprice of the overlord, for in both the theory and practice of medieval law the Jew was without fixed rights. In what might almost be considered a prologue to a Zionist tract of the late nineteenth century, a charter of John II of France in 1361 stated: "They have not country nor one single place in all Christianity where they can live, frequent and dwell, and it is only by the pure and singular license of the Seigneur or Seigneurs who desire to bear them as subjects that they will be gathered and received." (5) His predecessor Saint Louis put the matter more bluntly in his Statutes: "The Jew has nothing of his own and what he acquired, it is the king who acquires." (6) It thus became the custom for the Jews themselves and their property to be transferred as chattel.
.
.
Under the Holy Roman Empire the emperor claimed an unconditional right over the Jews but often surrendered this right as part of the power politics involved among the various bodies within the empire. This sometimes degenerated into a farce with results more or less vicious depending on the circumstances. In the late thirteenth century, when Albert of Hapsburg was fighting with Adolf of Nassau as to which would be the emperor, the property and loans outstanding of Jews killed in the riots attending this struggle were a key in Albert's victory and consolidation of power. Emperor Charles IV in 1349 gave the archbishop of Trier (Treves) the goods of Jews "who have already been killed or may still be killed"; in the same year he offered the Margrave of Brandenburg the choice of the three best houses in Nuremberg "when there is next a massacre of Jews there." (7) Perhaps the most extreme position was taken by Margrave Albert III Achilles of Brandenburg who in 1463 declared that each new Holy Roman Emperor had the right to burn the Jews on his accession, to expel them, or to take a third of their property--and as the emperor's emissary he graciously chose the third alternative.
.
.

12/26/2005 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

c4 spews:

No one in Germany imagined the Final Solution back then -

September 10, 1935
THE NUREMBERG LAWS

Ben S. Austin
The Congress of the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich. These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. They are reprinted here in their entirety. Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the "separate but equal doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.

12/26/2005 07:01:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

c4 spews:

No one in Germany imagined the Final Solution back then -

September 10, 1935
THE NUREMBERG LAWS

Ben S. Austin
The Congress of the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) convened in Nuremburg, Germany on September 10, 1935. Among the many items of business on the Nazi agenda was the passage of a series of laws designed (a) to clarify the requirements of citizenship in the Third Reich, (b) to assure the purity of German blood and German honor and (b) to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich. These three laws, passed on September 15, 1935, and the numerous auxillary laws which followed them are called the Nuremberg Laws. They are reprinted here in their entirety. Please take special note of the similarity between these laws and the Jim Crow Laws which were passed in the United States following the Compromise of 1877, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) and remained in effect until the court reversed the "separate but equal doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka (1954). It is clear that Hitler used the Jim Crow segregation statutes as his model for defining Jews in the Third Reich.

12/26/2005 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

By 1938, the world outside Germany should have known something of Hitler's sentiments and intentions toward the Jews. As early as 1935, the Nazis had passed the infamous Nuremberg Laws regarding racial purity and, in subsequent statutes, defined the Jews as non-citizens. In the three months prior to the conference at Evian, several specific statutes were passed which were clearly intended to deprive Jews of their economic livelihood and to remove them from a competitive position in the German economy. Despite these widely known facts, the conference closed on July 15 without deciding on any policy for assisting Jewish deportees.

12/26/2005 07:04:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

aristide
for once I must disagree with you.
Prior to 9-11-01 the threat was well announced.
The threat is also well announced today.
It was well announced in 1938 as well. Mr Churchill saw it, as did others. He may have read Hitlers writing.
The threat to US was easily visible in NYC in 1991 when the WTC was attacked, it was visible in Somalia, and the two African countries where the Embassies were bombed. It was visible in the Kobar Towers barracks bombing in KSA, was visible in Pakistan obtaining nuclear weapons, was visible in the Afghan Taliban's destruction of the Buddist icons, it was visible in the Kashmere conflict. It was definately visible in Yemen when the USS Cole was almost sunk. It is visible to anyone that is willing to read Dr Z's writing.

Some of US just refused to see it, before 9-11-01, some of US refuse to see the threat today.

12/26/2005 07:04:00 PM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

1938 appears to have been a pivotal year for the Nazi movement and for Jews. The frantic efforts to force Jews out of the Reich set in motion two additional processes. First, Hermann Goering, assumed wide-ranging powers over the German economy and began his process of "Aryanization" of Jewish economic resources. Numerous policies were instituted in an effort to pauperize Germany's Jews and cut them off from the German economy. In April, Jews were required to register with the government all personal property valued at 5,000 marks or more. In June, required registration of all Jewish-owned firms was made law. In July, the medical licenses of Jewish doctors were declared invalid. This was extended to lawyers in September. On November 12, 1938, Goering convened a conference in Berlin to plan the systematic "Aryianization" (Ger. arisierung) of Jewish businesses. These policies extended into 1939: in February Jews were required to surrender all gold and silver to the government. These policies seem to contradict the avowed desire of the government to deport Jews to other countries. Without money for transportation and resettlement, Jews could not afford to emigrate.

To further this process, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, instigated the Kristallnacht pogrom of November 9-10, 1938. At the infamous meeting of top Party leaders on November 12 following Kristallnacht, Goering announced Hitler's wishes on the subject of how to proceed with the Jewish Question:


The Jewish question is to be summed up and coordinated once and for all and solved one way or another...If the German Reich should in the future become involved in conflict abroad then it is obvious that we in Germany will first of all make sure of settling accounts with the Jews. Apart from that, the Fuehrer is now at last to make a major move abroad, starting with the powers that have brought up the Jewish question, in order to get around to the Madagascar solution. He explained this to me in detail on November 9. There is no longer any other way.(quoted in Christopher Browning, "The Final Solution," Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, ed.), New York: Macmillan, 1990, Vol.II, p. 490. [The "Madagascar solution" was a widely publicized plan to ship all German Jews to the island of Madagascar, off the east African coast. Madagascar had formerly been a French colonial possession. There were other similar plans for an African colony -- Uganda, Nigeria, South Africa. BSA]
Prior to the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria, emigration was voluntary. Important steps were taken toward a "final solution" when the decision was made first to force Jews to emigrate and, second, to pauperize Jews to the point that emigration was impossible. The crucial turning point in this process was the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Hitler's predictions before the Reichstag early in 1939 contain an ominous forboding of the next stages of the Final Solution:


Today I will once more be a prophet! If the international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe should again succees in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race throughout Europe.
Events which were soon to follow suggest that Hitler had already begun consideration of an all-out extermination of Jews upon the outbreak of war.

12/26/2005 07:05:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"some of US refuse to see the threat today"
???
We clear thinkers on the left have seen the threat of Bushitler since day 1.
---
OT:
Tony, in case you're out there:

"I mentioned earlier that Ray Kurzweil will be on Book TV at 10:15 Eastern tonight. Now David Boaz emails that Milton Friedman will be on Charlie Rose tonight at 11."
- Instapundit
(If we had TV I'd watch it)

12/26/2005 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The online archive looks interesting:
http://www.booktv.org/history/archive.asp
VDH, among others.

12/26/2005 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Pork,

There was nothing new in what Hitler did. He was just following an old european pattern. Read the article I linked to. Hitler's contribution to the matter was the industrialization of the process.

12/26/2005 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Here's a link to a catalogue of historical genocides. In sheer numbers, Stalin's campaign against the Ukranians equals or even dwarfs the Jewish holocaust. Even Leopold may have killed more in the Belgian Congo. But the Jewish people were relatively more articulate than some other peoples who went unnoticed into that dark night. They could write plays, keep diaries, make movies. For a while afterward they sought to defend themselves chiefly with words, so that infamy itself might prove a shield against what is, after all, the time honored human practice of wiping out whole populations. And because they knew how fragile were the guarantees of civilization they acquired nuclear weapons. The referendum on the United Nations can be tallied in the number of nations who are willing to rely upon it soley for their survival.

Cedarford was right in saying that Hitler underestimated how expensive the Second World War would be. And I think that President Ahmadinejad of Iran has underrated the costs of wiping a certain 'shitty little country' off the map. I don't think human nature has changed much since 1938 nor have our powers of foresight demonstrably improved.

12/26/2005 08:07:00 PM  
Blogger Zhang Fei said...

cedarford: In our time we thought of the Iraq War as an easy high tech victory with our "magnificent soldiers and wonder weapons".

It was an easy high-tech victory. The guerrilla war phase has been extended somewhat, but has certainly been far lower in friendly casualties than just about any guerrilla war I know of. The conventional phase plus the guerrilla war phase has cost far less lives than either either Korea or Vietnam. That some conservatives were silly enough to think that we would see Desert Storm levels of casualties is an indication of their over-optimism, not of the difficulty of the Iraqi campaign, which has been a cakewalk compared to most guerrilla wars.

The best case did not pan out, but neither the worst, where comparisons were made to Stalingrad during the conventional phase, and Vietnam during the guerrilla phase. During the conventional phase, Iraqi forces were crushed like bugs. During the current guerrilla phase, Iraqi guerrillas are inflicting as many KIA on American forces in a year as the Vietnamese Communists did in a single month. The Vietnam comparison simply doesn't hold, except in the sense that they are both guerrilla wars. The other fact that leftists like to leave out is that most guerrilla wars are won by the government, not the guerrillas.

12/26/2005 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Wretchard,

What percentage of the Ukrainian population did Stalin manage to kill? Was it anything close to 90%?

12/26/2005 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Aristedes:

I disagree a bit with your comparison of the uncertainty and irresoluteness of 1938 Britain with the certainty of 2002 Bush.

The difference between 1938 and 2002 is, of course, that in 1938 the Brit's uncertainty led to appeasement and inaction.

In 2002, Bush decided that, when dealing with post 9/11 threats, uncertainty itself was the enemy.

Strong, decisive action, even when predicated on an error, is much more favorable than waiting around for events to happen to you.


In 1938, the British Empire was quite resolute. It had addressed major crises in their global system and had not waivered from sending troops into harms way globally. It was battling liberation movements in India, Africa, trying to integrate it's vast Arab holdings, dealing with Zionists and Riots in Palestine, and also dealing with the menace of what Churchill called "Jewish Bolshevikism and the 10's of millions it has killed so far".

Britain was hobbled far more, and with far more reason, antiwar sentiment - than America is now with the "endless Quagmire of Vietnam crowd & pacifism". Vietnam was nothing compared to WWI. 1938 Britain was where the survivors of the trenches and the fiasco of British sacrifices where just coming into power in their mid-40s, and where ruling centers of power all had sons lost in that horrific conflict. So avoiding another Continental War was quite high on both Britain (and Frances) set of priorities.

In 1938, 1 in 4 families in the UK mourned a lost father or fallen brother from the War. The 1.5 million Brits maimed, blinded, or made invalids by gas were a sight common throughout the realm.

If Britain is to be criticized, it is for dealing strongly with certain threats post-WWI, but not Hitler, who was placed too low on their priorities.

THough Britain, from 1919-1039 did:

1. Check global threats to Empire in Africa, Arab lands, the Subcontinent.
2. It stopped the threat of violent Marxist revolution at home and abroad.
3. It stood resolute against Japans belligerance and playes a major role in checking Japan's influence and military.
4. It relied on its strong Fleet and the numerically superior and on paper stronger French Army to check Germany. No one who looked at Order of Battle stats would have said that Germany could oppose even France, let alone France, Benelux, Poland, the USSR, and Britain.

While it is true that "Maximum Leader" Bush is resolute against the Muslim evildoers he has set his tunnel vision on, he is a Risktaker quite willing to ignore other threats America faces while he fixates on the threat he wants to deal with. Just as Brits thought straightening out problems of Empire, Marxism were higher priorities than Germany in the 1930s.

Bush has:

1. Only watched as nation after nation in Latin America abandons pro-USA governments that only enriched the rich further with American free trade, supply side theory and destroyed middle classes. Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela have all gone hard Left. Castro is revived and Che is smiling in his grave.
2. Presided over a mass dropoff in American reputation globally.
3. Ignored 11 million illegals pouring across our Borders and who is still welcoming in whole Muslim villages of "refugees"
4. Ignores the backsliding of Russia from Democracy.
5. Ignores dangerous domestic American threats - trillions more in deficit, concentration of America's wealth in the hands of a few, destruction of industry and the viability of continuing private enterprise being the provider of health coverage and pensions for Americans outside the wealthy elite or government worker categories...
6. Most importantly, has a religious faith that democracy, freedom will transform rising China into our friends and it's explosive military growth and industry (like Hitler's Rise) is nothing to worry about.

Pat Buchanan just had another good column that wonders if Bush has any will to take on any threat outside his preoccupation with one nation....and wonders why Bush is so fearful to ask Americans to sacrifice anything.

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_26_05_PB.html

12/26/2005 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Cedarfard,

The Germans and Russians suffered just as horrendously as the British or French in WW1. Why do you think avoiding another Continental War wasn't quite so high on their set of priorities?

12/26/2005 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Aristides: Wholeheartedly AGREE!
As a linguist, I learned years ago that the Sanskrit roots for HU-M'N
translate to "GOD"-"creature/animal"

Experience has verified that when HUmans develop their God-like nature, behave in a God-like way and show forth rational compassion, we are angelic.

When we turn toward and express unfettered '-man/m'n" urges, we are brutal, brutish, inhumane and cruel.

***
Pork Rinds: "As early as 1935, the Nazis had passed the infamous Nuremberg Laws regarding racial purity and, in subsequent statutes, defined the Jews as non-citizens."

For years now, Iran has lived under a constitution which defines (racially pure) citizens as Muslims, Christians, Jews (yep!) and Zoroastrians, effectively defining Baha'is as non-citizens!

The parallels are neither imagined nor projected, Sir. Iran's theo-racist drift is unmistakable and deadly! And now they want NUKES!

12/26/2005 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Doug,

I originally posted to the other thread about the myth of Nam vets not being respected - to counter Wretchard's buying of the proposition of "Taxi Driver" - all Nam vets are scary. (And I for one get the St. Crispin's Day feeling about Vietnam Vet, not the scary Deerhunter/Platoon feeling.)

The universal "spitting on" Nam vets was not true in my big city neighborhood, and based on their numbers in Congress today, most Americans respect Nam vets.

That's all, just a correction of history, lest an error slip through HERE of all places, in the Belmont Club.

Wretchard is an Aussie, we can't let Hollywood shape his understanding of America!

12/26/2005 10:18:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Mika - The Germans and Russians suffered just as horrendously as the British or French in WW1. Why do you think avoiding another Continental War wasn't quite so high on their set of priorities?

Because nations split into two camps:

1. Status quo powers happy keeping the outcome of WWI unchallenged.

2. Irredentist powers, namely:

A. The Soviet Union, out to spead Global Revolution as Zionev and Bronstein (Trotsky) dreamed in 1919 when creating the International COMINTERN, by force of arms if opportunity arose.
B. Nations that missed out on the chance for their own colonial and economic Empires that missed the opportunity the status quo powers had to seize and hold a slice of the world as their own: Japan and Italy foremost on that list.
C. Germany. Out to avenge it's territory losses, the poverty suffered from reparations, the threat Bolshevikism became while Germany was weak, and to avenge those who "stabbed the Vaterland in the back" in WWI.

12/26/2005 10:32:00 PM  
Blogger ledger said...

pork rinds for allah your information on the Nuremberg laws was good (I had read about some of those while in school - but I had forgotten the details).

I suspect that those who supported Neville Chamberlain probably knew in the back of their minds what was happening but simply refused to acknowledge the harsh realities. And, your rebuttal to cedarF are well taken.

Mika asks: What percentage of the Ukrainian population did Stalin manage to kill? Was it anything close to 90%?

Yes, that is a valid point. Although, Stalin probably did kill more people on a sheer numbers basis, he did not not wipe an entire group of people (or 90% them).

Moving on to Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hitler have a eire resemblance. They both stated their goal of wiping the Jews off the map. If Ahmadinejad does obtain nukes I think he will try to make good on that goal.

12/27/2005 12:14:00 AM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Cedarfard,

This explanation you just gave, is it your personal assessment and belief, or is that load of hooey just you're faithful mouthing of the standard Nazi propaganda line, to give their side of the story?

12/27/2005 04:48:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

The philosophy of Volk terminates in identity politics. This is just a manifestation in the continuum. The cousin is socialism. Journalism is the vehicle of both (recall the scandals popularized prior to the French Revolution). The more I learn of this intellectual trajectory the more I'm persuaded Popper's critique of The Republic is a category error, not a discovery of ideological tyranny's locus classicus. And yet we cannot go back. Und so weiter. How ungratifying all this is.

12/27/2005 08:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger