BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:35 PM

Rumsfeld is now getting after Syria and Iran for selling those items to Iraq; the last few days he had been blaming Russia for it, who denied it. Ya think we got it right now?

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:10 PM

I just now heard Donald Rumsfeld on the radio pointing the finger at Syria and Iran. It's only a matter of time now.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:53 PM

History doesn't repeat itself. Trying to avoid what are seen as the mistakes of the past can be a sure way of making a whole set of fresh mistakes, because the situation isn't the same.

As I read Thom Hartmann's piece, what he's doing is to stand on its head the stuff that's been churned out about how Saddam is just like Hitler and the lessons of the 30s, and so forth - and showing that it is perfectly easy to make the same kind of parallels between Bush and Hitler. Just as easy, and ultimately misleading.

Learning from the past can't be a mattere of drawing false analogies, and parachuting in policies from a science-fiction alternative history book. It's possible to learn from past mistakes, but it's a whole lot more complicated than that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 01:52 PM

Teribus, you didn't hear about our invasion of Afghanistan? You didn't know that we "liberated" the Afghan people from the Taliban?

As far as Syria and Iran are concerned, they're on the list of the Project for a New American Century people, and we've followed their "project" almost to the letter so far. So it's not too difficult to see what's coming next.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Paralle
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:17 AM

Teribus-We invaded Afghanistan last year. Remember the hunt for bin Laden? When large numbers of soldiers enter a foreign country and depose the government of said country, it's generally called an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:33 AM

Carol,

You've missed the point.

When exactly did the United States of America invade Afghanistan?

What are your grounds for stating that American foreign policy is directed towards armed conflict with Iran and Syria?`

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM

We could pre-emptively attack many different countries that we perceive may be a threat in the future. In some cases that may prevent somthing worse happening in the future. In most cases though, nothing worse would have happened in the future and all we will succeed in doing is killing people and destroying other peoples homes and lives. The problem is that we can't see into the future and know which cases are which.

And what if, following the lead of the US and UK, India decides that Pakistan pose them a huge threat in the future (far more likely than the scenario that Iraq will pose a threat) - or vice versa, that Pakistan feel the same about India. All of a sudden, our governments will be cautioning restraint and dialogue. Why should they listen to those words rather than these arguments about pre-emptively striking a future threat? I think this issue is much wider than what to do about Iraq and is going to make the world a much less safe place.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:25 AM

Nazi Germany re-occupied the Rhineland - another material breach that went unchallenged.

Nazi Germany annexed Austria - another material breach that went unchallenged

The Sudatenland was annexed, swiftly followed by the invasion of Czechoslovakia. I hate to correct Mr. Hartman but it was this incident in 1938, not the Annexation of Austria in 1936, that prompted the Munich Crisis that resulted in Mr. Chamberlain return to London with his "piece of paper" in his hand. Hitler was absolutely livid - he needed his war in the west that year - thankfully, for the entire world, he didn't get it, because in 1938 he would have won.

Here's where your comparison falls down, Teribus. When Saddam invaded Kuwaite, the world responded, and he was forced to withdraw back to Iraq. He has not invaded any other countries since then. The US, on the other hand, has been invading other countries; Afghanistan, and now Iraq, and it has its eyes set on eventual military action against countries such as Iran and Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:16 AM

Forum Lurker,

What I said was:

"Had either Britain, or France, acted with regard to Germany in 1933 in the manner that the current President of the United States and his government has acted with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq - There would have been no Second World War in 1939."

If Britain or France reacted strongly to German rearmament in 1933 Germany would have stopped in its tracks.

If the French had reacted to the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 Germany would have been stopped in its tracks.

I was not posing any question about America confronting Germany in 1933.

The German army in 1933 was little more than a glorified police force.

The German Navy in 1933 was practically non-existant

The German Air Force in 1933 did not exist.

Hitler's Nazi-Germany made secret agreements with Russia and Italy, that allowed Germans to train as pilots and with tanks in Russia, German U-boat Captains and crews were initially trained by the Italians.

The Annexation of Austria in 1936, nearly sounded the death-knell of the "Blitzkrieg" concept - the tanks were hopelessly unreliable - Guderian mentions tanks having to be drawn by horses to points that would enable them to then drive triumphally into Austrian towns and through villages. Looked damn convincing too, but toally useless.

As a show of good will, during the run up to the signing of the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact, Hitler threw his armaments industry open to the Russians for inspection. At that time the Russians could not believe how poor the German armour was, the heaviest they had was the Panzer Mk IV, at that time purely an infantry support tank armed with a 75mm L24 gun.

One totally unexpected windfall for the Germans was the acquisition, during the 1938 occupation of Czechoslovakia, of a large number of Czech t-35 and t-38 tanks (hundreds of them) - compared to their German counterparts they were better armed and more mechanically reliable. These machines provided the bulk of German armoured formations used against the Poles and against the Dutch, Belgians, French and British when Germany struck west in 1940. Later once the faults in the German designs were ironed out, the turrets were removed from these Czech machines and used as static defence points, and the hulls of the t-35's and t-38's were converted to mount larger anti-tank guns (Marder I) and as self propelled artillery (Wespe).

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:05 AM

Slight diversion, but while we're on the subject: I recommend "Fatherland", Thomas Harris's novel. Don't check out the reviews, sone of them spoil a surprise or two; suffice it to say it's set in Hitler's Germany in 1964, with the presidential election coming up in the US. It's a very good read.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:44 AM

Teribus, the war might not have started in 1939, but it would have started in 1933. It's a fair question whether the U.S. alone, without popular support, against Germany alone with 1933 army size and readiness, would have done better or worse than really happened.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: PeteBoom
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:42 AM

"There would have been no Second World War in 1939."

True - sort of. It would have started earlier... yet still after Japan invaded China - when WWII really started. If you think that Japan's first step in implementing the Greater SouthEast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere had nothing to do with accelerating timelines in Europe, I'm afraid the Euro-Centric bias is showing.

I somethimes think the lot of you are as blinkered as you are charging Hartmann as being. He is presenting an editorial/argument and supporting it with historical examples - a standard move in logic and debate. You counter that by other historical examples or pointing out error in the supporting evidence. He is NOT attempting, in this case, to write a fair and accurate historical account.

As far as the League of Nations not acting, it had no authority to act. Nowhere in its charter was there any authorization of force.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 06:41 AM

Thanks Wolfgang, I could not agree with your post above more, particularly the sentence - "For truly to learn from history it has to be presented as unbiased as possible."

And as you correctly point out, the rewrite I did had precisely that point.

Just in case Little Hawk should enter this thread, for the sake of historical accuracy - an American General George S. Patton also read Liddell-Hart's book.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 06:11 AM

Hartmann is carefully selective in his presentation of his-story. He omits everything that doesn't fit and to make the parallels even more compelling he cheats in details. Take for instance the 'God with us' he mentions and for the sake of the parallel fails to mention that this inscription also had been there during the first world war, perhaps even earlier, and that under Hitler that inscription was changed to another (without God) at least for parts of the German army.

It is easy to rewrite the story, selectively too, with a completely different comparison in mind. Teribus has done that.

For truly to learn from history it has to be presented as unbiased as possible. I see no real attempt at that in Hartmann's piece. It is interesting to read, but it is propaganda and as much worth as propaganda is.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:25 AM

Steve,

You make some good points and Rustic Rebel raises what he sees as another parallel. I will give you another.

After subverting power in 1933, it was obvious to every major power in Europe (Britain, France, Italy and Russia) that Germany was in clear material breach of the Peace Treaty it had signed in 1919. At the time (1933) great faith was placed in an International Organisation called The League of Nations to resolve such matters. Throughout Europe lone voices were raised, providing dire warnings of what would follow if no action was taken - those warnings were studiously ignored. Countries still numbed by the cost and suffering of the previous war chose the path of peace at any price, to the lone warning voices they demanded - "Where is your proof" - denigrating those raising concern and labelling them "warmongers". As events unfolded the individual powerful states of Europe did nothing, as they did nothing The League of Nations did nothing.

Nazi Germany re-occupied the Rhineland - another material breach that went unchallenged.

Nazi Germany annexed Austria - another material breach that went unchallenged

The Sudatenland was annexed, swiftly followed by the invasion of Czechoslovakia. I hate to correct Mr. Hartman but it was this incident in 1938, not the Annexation of Austria in 1936, that prompted the Munich Crisis that resulted in Mr. Chamberlain return to London with his "piece of paper" in his hand. Hitler was absolutely livid - he needed his war in the west that year - thankfully, for the entire world, he didn't get it, because in 1938 he would have won.

By now, finally, the French, the British and the Russians were alert to the danger.

Stalin was in the middle of a purge of the most capable senior officers in the Red Army, a move he would bitterly regret later, factories used to produce T-34 and KV-1 tanks were relocated east of the Ural mountains, out of German eyes and reach.

France started to re-arm, unfortunately, and typically, putting their faith on the static defences based on First World War thinking.

In Britain, Neville Chamberlain's government rapidly re-equipped the Royal Air Force's fighter command, pushed ahead the development of RADAR, reserve and auxiliary units were created in order to train pilots, soldiers and seamen, the Royal Naval Corps of constructors were asked to design convoy escorts that could be built quickly and cheaply, the development of ASDIC was accelerated. Unfortunately in their haste to prepare, they did not dust of the cover of a book written in the early twenties by a British Army Major, Basil Liddell-Hart - others had read his book - General Charles de Gaulle in France, but more significantly General Heinz Guderian in Germany and a Soviet Commander who had survived Stalin's purge Georgy Zhukov. The latter would end up as Germany's nemesis.

Nazi-Germany noted these preparations and tried to counter them diplomatically. His master-stroke was the German- Russian Non-aggression Pact, that isolated Britain and France. Hitler then proceeded to attain the re-unification of East Prussia with his greater Reich. That involved eliminating the "Polish Corridor" the French and British informed Ribbentropp, Hitler's Foreign Minister that any attack on Poland would result in war. Hitler arranged his retaliatory strike on Poland - Another clear material breach, and at last two major powers in Europe acted unilaterally, without the sanction of the League of Nations, issued an ultimatum and declared war on Germany.

Had either Britain, or France, acted with regard to Germany in 1933 in the manner that the current President of the United States and his government has acted with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq - There would have been no Second World War in 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 03:43 AM

Inexplicably, I'm going to argue for the wrong side, but I'll let somebody else untangle things ... If the repartions demanded by the Allies at the end of WWI hadn't been so swingeing, Hitler would have had a much harder job to get to the top. The German economy was in a very bad way by 1933, with inflation running away (and made much play of by the propagandists). Now, I heard it said a year or so after the last Gulf War that we were a little too magnanimous in our victory; if we'd been a little tougher and continued the war for just a few more days, we could have made all the Iraqi soldiers walk home -- literally -- and scored a big propaganda victory over Saddam: he would have been perceived by his people as a failed leader, who started a war he couldn't finish, and he'd have been turfed out.

So the second World War was a consequence of a too hard attitude to the defeated country, while the second Gulf War is the consequence of a too soft attitiude...?

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:01 AM

I did not read the entire essay yet, but the words that are here stirred in me something I can't quite explain. (maybe I'm just horny)((JOKE)) But the title of this thread also brought to mind the operation Barbarosa-1941- Germans invaded Russia, believing the Russians would collapse. They hated communism but they fought for their motherland and Stalin, rather than be under Nazi rule. I'm sorry this has nothing to do with the excerpt does it? None-the-less- I continue to see repeating history and only wish we could learn from past mistakes.
Love will make your toes curl-Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 01:45 AM

Chilling.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Paralle
From: mack/misophist
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 01:02 AM

Even though there is nothing better, democracy will always fail when a more or less ignorant majority votes it's percieved interests rather than the greater good. We are all greedy, dammit.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:19 PM

Where are Teribus and DougR when we need 'em? And where's toll? Well, it will be interesting if these folks try to put up any defense in *their guy*.

Meanwhile, Bush, or his handlers, won't get that "If ya' don't know history then you are apt to repeat it" gonna have to do some serious wreastlin'.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:12 PM

Too true! May it be so!

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

I found one very significant difference between the two: Bush hasn't gotten any better at speaking. Hopefully, that will prevent him from being quite as successful in achieving political control.

Subject: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Paral
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:03 PM

One of my favourite authors is Thom Hartmann, who wrote the Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. He is a writer, former editor and reporter, entrepreneur, psychotherapist (and NLP Practitioner and NLP Trainer), and worldwide lecturer who lives in Vermont. His writings focus on the intersection of myth and stories - otherwise known as "culture" - and how those stories, when they become toxic, lead to problems with schools, democratic institutions, the environment, and even problems in life, relationships, and communities.

He has just written a new essay, a very important one, IMO, When Democracy Failed - The Warnings of History, which should be read by any and everyone who cares about our country and our world. You may access it by clicking HERE.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts...

...the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world... as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones...

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism...

Sound familiar? Please read the entire essay. It really is worth it.

Thanks,

kat