BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:48 AM

The above article and subsequent posts reminded me of a strange little tirade I got in my e-mail yesterday. It makes for some pretty jaw-dropping reading. See?:

(Sorry for the long quoted section, but he does go on a bit. "Thoughts to think about" indeed!)

(QUOTE)

This gentleman makes a heck of an argument for justification of a war with Iraq...

I asked a friend of mine who is in his 80's, and who was in the Korean War and World War II, to give me a little history lesson and his thoughts today on War. I am sharing this because it is a different look at the War.   It is not my opinion just thoughts from an honorable man that lived through two Wars and that I have a great respect for.

Thoughts to think about:

    ........................
   
I'm not going to get into a history lesson. The short, short version is that the League of Nations (established after WWI to prevent wars) failed to stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering Ethiopia. It failed to stop Japan from invading and conquering Manchuria and much of China. Their committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but did absolutely nothing to stop war.
   
At France's coaxing, Britain's Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain met with Adolph Hitler in Munich and surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the interest of "peace in our time." The French and British watched as Germany took Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace.
   
World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a mutual defense treaty with Poland so they couldn't escape. They declared war on Germany. Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so Japan declared war on Britain. France wet their pants and surrendered to Germany as fast as they could and gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they really were on the side of Germany.
   
Japan attacked the United States and, because of Japan's mutual defense treaty with Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.
   
Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a large number of our people were wringing their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler. He is really a good guy who just needed a little more land for his expanding population. The dear man just wants peace. And World War II was in full swing leaving better than 50,000,000 people dead including about 450,000 American soldiers and sailors.
   
Three cheers for the League of Nations!

After World War II it was decided to do the whole thing all over again. This time we would call it the United Nations and we will have committee meetings and hand-wringing parties and make sure peace prevails throughout the land.
   
While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union split Germany, invaded Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000 American soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean soldiers and civilians killed and the country nearly destroyed.
   
Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers killed in Vietnam and have fought wars in Somalia, Herzegovenia, Panama, Granada, plus the Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
   
We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that evil regime then but the United Nations would have no part of that. All they would allow was for us to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail.
   
Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United Nations resolutions while he has massed poison gas and bio weapons.

He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his buddy, Kim Jong-Il of North Korea may give him a few. (It was the United Nations who prevented us from taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the means to do it.)
Peace!!!!!!!! Sure.
   
France is wetting their collective pants in fear that the United States will take Saddam out and along with him, France's 60 billion dollar contracts with Iraq. Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars that they sorely need.
   
In answer to your question.......
Hell, yes, we should go to war with Iraq. We should have done it six months ago. We should also get out of the United Nations.
Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament Committee?
Can you believe they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee?
All three of these countries are on the UN List of Terrorist States. Absolutely unbelievable!
   
Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history the only time peace has prevailed is when the good guys have militarily whipped the bad guys.

Who are our best friends in the world?
Japan because we whipped them in WWII.
Germany because we whipped them in WWII.
Italy because we whipped them in WWII.
Britain because we whipped them in the 1700's.

    ........................
   
This is one opinion on the War, but this is the eyes, ears, and heart of an American Veteran.

(UNQUOTE)

I found the list of friends particularly interesting... I thought Germany opposed the military action on the UN security Council. And didn't the US "whip" Britain with France's help?

No mention of Canada being a friend... maybe because we "whipped" `em in 1812. Anyway, I found it all pretty humorous reading.   ;)

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:23 AM

Barnacle: The principal book I was relying on was Fritz Fischer, Griff nach der Weltmacht (transl. "Germany's War Aims in the First World War) which came out in the 1960's and traced the expansion of Germany's ambitions throughout the war. Conclusion: had Germany won, it would have been in a position of world dominance, although from the standpoint of its ideologists the war was dafensive. Fischer later published Krieg der Illusionen, which I have not read, tracing the development of imperialist thinking and pressure groups in the years preceding the War. Those were considered very new and exciting when I war in grad school, and I suspect they are still respected.

Also much respected was Eckart Kehr's Schlachtflottenbau und Parteipolitik which was about the part played by political and economic pressure groups in shaping German defense policies in the early years of the 20th Century.

Probably I sound like a smart-ass for mentioning these things, but the parallels with contemporary America were so striking I couldn't help myself.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Paralle
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 08:19 AM

Excellent article, kat. Thanks for posting it.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 07:51 PM

Webster's OnLine

Main Entry: in·va·sion

1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

Main Entry: con·quest

1 : the act or process of conquering

Main Entry: con·quer

2 : to overcome by force of arms : VANQUISH

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:43 AM

I wonder if Emperor Shrub would get the point. Commerce Secretary Evans was quoted as saying this about shrub, after an earlier quote saying that shrub believes he was called by god to lead the nation at this time:

Evans said, He understands that he is the one person in the country, in this case really the one person in the world, who has a responsibility to protect and defend freedom.

Megalomaniacal? No, ya think?

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:05 AM

For a good analysis of the issues behind the scenes that led to WW I, I suggest "Dreadnaught," by Robert K Massie, 1991. The war was a much a family fight as it was a matter of alliances and ideologies. The fact that many of the power structures that were in place at the beginning of the war had disappeared by the end of the war is an unforseen result, not a plan. Even so, anyone committing to war should remember what happened around 500 BC. A general/emperor asked a seer what would happen if the met the defending general/emperor on the field of battle the following morning. The seer responded that a great empire would be destroyed. The invader did not realize it would be his own.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:20 AM

toadfrog,

".., when one country moves troops into another and takes over, that's an invasion."

I can agree with that statement. Now, has America "taken over" Afghanistan? I certainly do not think so.

To others, in another thread relating to France, where some have cast some pretty skewed aspersions regarding that country's military accomplishments, among the lists quoted I see no mention of France's successful invasion of America during the War of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:01 PM

I always thought, when one country moves troops into another and takes over, that's an invasion. Regardless of whether it sets up a new government to run the country invaded. Regardless of who recognized the existing government. Or whether the country had a govenment. Or whether factions in the country favored the invasion. Or whether the invasion was a good thing or a bad thing. And above all, regardless of whether the Royal Marines are permitted to go off base.

Am I wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 02:20 PM

Teribus, what are you talking about? There was no "interim government" in Afghanistan prior to the American invasion. There were several disparate factions, each too weak to overthrough the Taliban and none willing to form a coalition with any of the others. But there was nothing that could remotely be called an "interim government." Except dubbing one of them an "interim govenment" after the fact. You're trying to rewrite history.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM

What have any of those things got to do with whether it was an invasion or not? No don't bother to answer. What Amos said.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM

Amos,

Apart from its main sponsor Pakistan - not one single country recognised the Taliban as being the government of Afghanistan.

If memory serves me correctly the first foreign troops to enter Afghanistan were British Royal Marines - their task, to secure Bagram Air Base in order that Mohamed Karzai could return to the country.

Initially on arriving they were forbidden to move off the base. This restriction was later relaxed to allow them to secure and make safe the road from the Air Base to Kabul.

Now maybe we are splitting hairs - but that certainly doesn't sound like any "invasion" that I have ever heard of.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:32 AM

Teribus:

With all due respect, I think we're declining into hairsplitting. We certainly brought in munitions and troops into Afghanistan against the wishes of the dominant government there, with the express intent to overthrow said government.

I believe it was an improvement as far as government is concerned, but it certainly didhn't improve things for a lot of people who "got in the way" during the shelling and bombing.

Whether you call it an invasion or an assisted rebellion, it overthrew a government that was in place -- an authoritarian, dictatorial, oppressive government with a record of human abuse, murder and torture. Not to mention its support of the Al Qaeda network which brought down the WTC.

As such, I would think it left things better off on the whole. But I am not in Afghanistan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:13 AM

The foreign troops currently present in Afghanistan are there at the express invitation of the interim government of that country. The small number of troops deployed in Afghanistan during the fighting that overthrew the Taliban Regime (who were not the government of Afghanistan by any stretch of the imagination) were there at the request of the Northern Alliance to assist - that is not an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 09:50 AM

Invading countries and annexing them are competely different things, even thoiugh the two things can happen toigether soemtimes. Noone would suggest that the D-Day landings didn't count as an invasion just because it involved no annexation or because it was recognised as liberation by the people of France.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 09:36 AM

Forum Lurker,

I believe that on landing in Mexico on 4th March, 1519, Hernando Cortes, said something to the effect of, "In the name of his most catholic Majesty..... I claim this land...etc,etc."

Having established the town of Vera Cruz, he then burnt his ships so that there was no prospect of retreat or return, for either himself or any of his men.

Now as far as I know, no such declaration was made by any American on arrival in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 08:51 AM

Teribus-Why not? What's the difference between this and Cortez that makes one an invasion and the other not?

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:50 AM

Kevin,

The events in Afghanistan that brought about the downfall of the Taliban regime could not, and cannot, in any way, shape or form, be described as an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:36 AM

Arguing that it was a justifiable invasion or a liberating one is one thing, but implying that somehow the invasion of Afgghanistan wasn't a real invasion is a bit bizarre.

Without the intervention of the USA, most especially the air attacks, there would have been virtually no possibility of the Northern Alliance overturning the Taliban and getting its warlord allies to change sides.

It's a bit like saying that just because Cortez had only a handful of Spanish troops, and the help of local allies the Conquest of Mexico was not an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM

Oh! That invasion of Afghanistan. Undertaken by about 200 "specialist" American troops, who assisted the Afghan Northern Alliance and directed American airstikes against Taliban positions. The "invasion" was so successful that American and European troops were not needed to defeat the Taliban. The troops that were sent there entered the country through Bagram Air Base at the invitation of Afghanistan's interim government - That Invasion of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 06:31 PM

toadfrog-My history books don't have a nice timeline like that. They just make nice, broad statements. Comes of them being fairly recently written.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 06:06 PM

F.L. I sold most of my history books about 20 years ago, when I started law school. But the following dates are significant.
7/31/14 Germany learns that Russia is mobilizing. Germany sends an ultimatum to Russia, to stop. Germany asks France to state whether it will support Russia. France answers ambiguously.
8/1/14 German government receives a message from England, offering to guaranty French neutrality. Wilhelm II tries to order Generalstabschef Moltke to mobilize only in the East, against Russia. Moltke responds that he cannot accept responsibility for such a mobilization. Germany has no plans for such an eventuality.
8/2/14 Germany sends an ultimatum to Belgium, demanding a statement that Germany will be given free passage to invade France.
8/3/14 Germany declares war on France. Grey addresses Parliament, stating that violation of Belgian neutrality will mean war. This was not only pursuant to treaty, but also because England considered occupation of Belgium a direct threat.
8/4/14 English ultimatum to Germany.

I haven't bothered to look up the date on which England declared war. The very existence of the Schlieffen Plan, and the fact that there were no alternatives, assured that England and France would be involved. Of course, this does not mean that Germany is "guilty" for the War. It means that its reliance on the Schlieffen Plan was disastrous. The fact that the Plan existed, and that there were no alternatives, had its roots in domestic political considerations. Very similar to the considerations that today determine American military and foreign policy today.

Western involvement was only "inevitable" because of the idea that a prolonged war, which would have resulted had Germany moved only against Russia, was intolerable, so that no other plans could be made. The government believed that a long war would be fatal to the monarchy, and it appears they had a point there. But that had nothing to do with "national interest." And incidentally, an important reason the Schlieffen Plan failed is because the German Army was smaller than it should have been. And this in turn was so because further enlargement would have required permitting "politically unreliable" (liberal) people to serve in the officers' corps. Ludendorff, who demanded a larger army, was sent off to a beat in the sticks as a result.

More to the point, people should take a look at the link provided by Don Firth. And here is another interesting link, to a site provided by the CATO INSTITUTE. And another to BUSINESS WEEK. And the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. And finally, a link to FOX NEWS. All of which illustrate the parallel people are pointing out with the past events referred to. And which show things I had not been fully aware of. Doubtless McGrath knows all about it, but I hadn't.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM

toadfrog-"executed" means carried out. As I recall, the British declared war as a result of treaties they had made, and could not have avoided doing so by the time war broke out. Even if they had not yet declared war, it was inevitable that they would when France, who was in a state of war with Prussia, got into the fighting. There were too many mutual defense pacts for it NOT to have become a continent-wide war, and the French and British were just as responsible for it as everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 02:35 PM

They were all responsible. Or rather, they were all irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 02:27 PM

Forum Lurker. You are mistaken about the Plan. I don't know what you mean by "executed." I don't recall the precise sequence of events, but England certainly did not become involved until it became very clear German troops were going into Belgium. Germany was not solely responsible for the war. Russia and Austria began it, but England and France were not responsible for it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 01:18 PM

True enough Lurker - most times it takes a bunch of irresponsble nuts on both sides to make a war, whether in 1914 or 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: RichM
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:25 PM

Some views about Middle Eastern Democracy   
click

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 01:49 AM

Rustic: The von Schlieffen Plan wasn't executed until after both France and England had declared war, was it? Also, Germany was by no means the only country engaging in dangerous escalation at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:46 AM

Yes Don. And here's yet another think-tank. LINK HERE I quote:
    "Having become a test of American power and purpose in the world, war in Iraq will have consequences not simply for Saddam and his regime, or the Iraqi people, or the security balance in the Persian Gulf. A U.S. victory--measured also by the planting of the seeds of liberty and democracy in Baghdad--will define the start of a truly new world order; to steal Dean Acheson's famous phrase, we are present at the creation. What, exactly, we are creating we do not know. It       will be necessary to create international institutions that reflect the new realities, and they may even be called the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But if so, those organizations will have to be fundamentally transformed to reestablish the link between the right to make international law and he responsibility to enforce it."

That's wild and wooly stuff, all right!

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:26 AM

"I really should get a membership" pdc -

Even without why not just could type "pdc" in at the head of the post, so you come in as "GUEST: pdc", and that way you identify yourself as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:08 AM

Don: Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it for further perusal. It looks like heavy stuff; signed by William Kristol and with cites to the Heritage foundation. Clearly not just a bunch of un-influential kooks. This is an extremely serious matter and I want lots of information before I make up my mind. But you have given me quite a useful start, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 05:25 PM

Hi: This is the same Guest again -- I really should get a membership.
Since this forum doesn't seem to have a lot of flaming or nastiness, I wish to put forth a Bush issue which worries me quite a bit, as it does my friends and neighbours.

I am Canadian, living on the west coast of Canada in a small, peaceful city which seems to exemplify the "Canadian" perspective. We are a nation of peacekeepers -- that is a longstanding traditional role for our country. While there are practical reasons for this position (small population, so not much military), this role primarily reflects the attitude of a great many Canadians.

So our government did not support the invasion of Iraq, partly because of the above, partly because we felt strongly that the arms inspectors were getting somewhere, and partly because we believed that the U.N. should not have been bypassed.

We have a couple of mouthy politicians who said very rude things about GWB after the invasion began. GWB then ordered your ambassador to Canada, a Mr. Celucci, to state that the U.S. is "very disappointed" in Canada for not supporting the U.S., that there will be ramifications from this disagreement, etc. etc. -- altogether a very non-diplomatic statement.

All that we could have managed, but please check out the next statement that Celucci made on orders from GWB:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/29/cellucci_energy030329

This statement, following on the heels of criticizing Canada for not joining the attack on Iraq, strikes some of us as simply a next step in a move toward obtaining -- possibly by any means -- increased access to our oil, water, hydro and other resources.

Does this hunch seem ridiculous?

Thanks,

pdc.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

I got a big kick out of the term "advocacy journalism" in your first link there, Don. They're using propaganda to describe propaganda ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 04:48 PM

toadfrog, HERE it is. This is not some liberal web site aimed at propagandizing and bad-mouthing the Bush Administration and the neo-Conservatives, this is their web site and it is in their own words.

This makes fascinating reading. All of this is written up in glowing, patriotic terms, in a manner that will warm the heart of any self-styled patriot, but a read-through of the various links in this site can leave no doubt as to the long-range intentions of the Bush Administration and those behind it.

I find the following two paragraphs in The Bush Doctrine, in the list of articles under Defense and National Security to be especially telling:—

Promoting liberal democratic principles. "No nation is exempt" from the "non-negotiable demands" of liberty, law and justice. Because the United States has a "greater objective" -- a greater purpose -- in the world, Bush sees in the war not just danger but an opportunity to spread American political principles, especially into the Muslim world.

The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any "peace process." Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles.

Spend some time browsing through the various links and reading what is presented. It's a real eye-opener.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 04:10 PM

Rustic: Wilhelm II was the last German Kaiser. He did not really control Germany in the sense GWB controls the United States, but he did have real power and was Germany's chief of state and spokesman. At the time of the Boxer Rebellion he sent of a detachment of German troops to fight in China, and gave a speech telling them to make themself feared and respected, like "the Huns." That expression later came back to haunt him.

The course Germany pursued before World War I was not consciously aimed at world or European domination. But that would have been its outcome if it had been successful. The German battle fleet was supposedly not aimed at England, but was ostensibly only supposed to be large enough to deal with Russia or France in case of war. But the English rightly saw it as a threat, and began an extremely expensive course of fleet building in response. Germany thus antagonized England, which otherwise would have been Germany's natural ally. The analogy with America's Strategic Missle Defense, which allegedly is not aimed at China or Russia, seems pretty clear.

Germany's contingency plan for war, the Schlieffen Plan was even more disastrous, and unnecessarily brought France and England into a war they would have preferred to stay out of. That story is much to long to post on Mudcat, but the outcome was horrible for Germany, England, France, and just about everybody else.

The Kaiser almost certainly believed all these things were being done to make his country secure, a type of denial one often sees in the United States today. I am not so sure GWB and his people are in denial. I suspect that unlike "Kaiser Bill," they may really have world domination in mind. I have heard it said that the idea has been fermenting in "conservative" think tanks, but have not yet got up enough energy to hunt it down. I very much doubt anyone really intends to bring democracy to Iraq. That would be "nation building," or the idea that the United States should treat third world countries benignly. And idea that "conservatives" have in the past treated with the greatest contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 03:11 PM

Right, GUEST. And the deed itself. Opting for a self-destructive course of action when a recognized and completely feasible alternative is available, then bull-headedly pursuing the self-destructive option, despite a loud chorus of warnings and objections of those around them. The feared disaster, clearly seen and warned of by almost everybody but those in power, occurs as predicted.

The subtitle of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly is "From Troy to Vietnam." Between those two events, she details an amazing string of monumental blunders, foreseen and warned of at the time, committed by established rulers and governments. This self-destructive behavior seems to be born of a strange mix of short-sightedness and arrogance. Barbara Tuchman is no longer with us, but it appears that if she were, she could soon add a lengthy, well-documented chapter to her incisive book.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 01:21 PM

A small correction:

The book Fatherland is by Robert Harris, not Thomas Harris. Good book!

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 12:45 PM

The following reference from a post above:

The March of Folly, by historian Barbara Tuchman. One of the premises of this book is that the acquisition of power often seems to carry a concomitant loss of intellectual capacity.

Surely the current situation not only demonstrates a manifestation of that premise, but also the most extreme example of it, right?

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 03:09 AM

Now that is an interesting parallel Toadfrog. Of who you speak I know not of but am willing to learn more, I being one, who suggested the article sounded like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 02:43 AM

Sorry for the typo. Should read, "GWB may profit . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 02:40 AM

Wolfgang: I, for one, much appreciate your role as voice of reason in all this - bringing in the facts in several of these threads where people start running off the track. People who use the image of Hitler in political debate are almost never interested in learning from history - only in manipulating the myth to promote some cause.
Hoffmann's story is one of the most polished examples I have seen. Terribus's myth is silly and shopworn, but that does not stop people from using it, over and over and again.

This has been said before. We need a moratorium - say for maybe, 50 or 60 years - on comparing people with Hitler.

If we need historical analogies, a more accurate analogy might be between Bush and the late Wilhelm II. Both inherited their power. Both loved to flaunt their power. Both were incompetent diplomats. Both pursued self-defeating foreign policies. Both made their nations hated, all around the world. Wilhelm II saw his nation brought low. And GWM may profit by his example.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Paralle
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:44 PM

A well-written essay, and a good, dire warning.

But it does not take care of the differences with anything like the assiduousness with which it undewrscores sim,ilarities, and so, no matter how articulate it is in the things it does say, it is undermined by the things it leaves out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:35 PM

Just finished reading "Henry V, the Cautious Conqueror," by Margaret Wade Labarge. The parallels between the period leading up to the current invasion and Henry's invasion of France [and between George II and Henry, himself] are striking. Both created a pretext for war based upon the other side's supposed evils. Father and son, in both cases, backed various sides in the local conflicts at various times. There were questions of legitimacy of rule in both cases. Henry armed actively while supposedly treating for peace. Both escalated their demands to the point where the supposed bad guys could not possibly have met them. The list goes ever on...

In common with most conquerors, the works of George II will almost certainly be undone [thank the Lord] by those who have a desire for freedom. Bear in mind that Henry's invasion was a major influence on eventual French unification into a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:36 PM

Right on, Rustic! But someyhow we gotta break this bad spell we're suffering from where we elect anti-human, anti-eart people to call the shots. Not sure how we're going to break this cycle, but if mankind is to survive itself we're going t0o have to make some fundemental differences in the manner in which we solve conflicts.
Unfortunately, the idiot de jour, has all but nuked the UN, so after this idiot we are going to need a lot of Earth rebuilding before we get back to where we before this idiot intervened in the forward development of mankind.

But this is do-able. Maybe not as profitable in the short run but what are the choices in an ever shrinking, tribalized planet?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:15 PM

Anyone know who said, "those that don't remember history are doomed to repeat it"?

Marx said," history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Kat I read your article and I thought I was reading about Bush at first, then reading dates cleared it up. Is that where Bush got the idea for the homeland security act, and pushed it through without the senate reading it? Sounds like if that was fact, history is repeating.

I think we need to let go of history and focus on the present. We keep ourselves locked into to much of the past.I wrote this song awhile ago and it seems appropriate for this thread.

      Faded History
The world has had it's time of lessons all well learned. And now we can reflect for those that are yet unborn. Let the tales of horror and war pass beyond our imagination. Let's start a new beginning with new tales of communication. Logic makes us see We have nothing to lose. Peace is within our grasp If that is what we choose. Let's take a chance Begin anew Start from scratch See what we can do To create a new history For all mankind to tell. The stories of a peacefull era, and how we came to say, We are a unity of people And let the old history fade away.

still a work in progress and I've changed and added some things but the point is still there.
The parallel I was pointing out earlier was what is happening now, with Iraq and US occupation after the war. I think although they don't like Saddam, they are also anti-American and don't want us in there either. That is why they are looking at a tougher war than they thought it would be. The people are fighting for their land. Like the Russians that fought against the Nazi invasion. There you go, a repeat of history of sorts.
Peace. Rustic

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

"The March of Folly, by historian Barbara Tuchman."

Brilliant book. I have it at home - AND at the office. I've a small "professional lending library" at my office (the result of what I do for a living). It is on the shelf along with Sun Tzu's "Art of War", Mushashi's "Book of Five Rings", and Keegan's "Face of Battle". There are actually some books that relate to what I do as well. I have folks joining the group start with those, and work their way down the line. (Much easier to read Tuchman than dry computer manuals with the same lesson.)

Cheers -

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:05 PM

Yes, you can learn from the past, you have to. You can identify processes, and patterns of behaviour that recur and so forth. But what people try to do is pick out a particular scenario, and transplant it into a new context, and rely on things working out the same way. And that is a very dangerous and potentially misleading thing to do.

And that is even more true when we aren't even going by what actually happened in real history, but in an imagined alternative history where everything worked out better. "If we had done this in the past the consequences would have been better; so in this present situation we must act this way rather than that to avoid the mistake that was made last time".

But of course we can't take into account all the other consequences that didn't happen. And there is something very arbitrary about the past scenario people choose to concentrate on. After all the roots of appeasement lay in the understanding that people had of the process by which the Great War came about.

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 07:48 PM

Hmmmmm, Don?

Now it looks as if the folks who had studied "military science" and had experiance in war, were bullied by Donnie Rumsfeld into accepting a war plan that Donnie Rumsfeld thought would work. Problem is, Donnie Rumsfeld don't know nothing about war.

Now, there's a lot of finger pointing. Rumsfeld is pointing at Tommie Franks and, well, while one military expert after another criticizes the plan, Franks is just taking the heat. But I remember reading months ago in the Washington Post about the strain between Rumsfeld, who thinks he knows everything in the world, and just about everyone in the Pentagon.

Sounds just like what Barbara Tuchman was talking about in her book...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM

No, history does not repeat itself. Certainly not in detail. But it does repeat many principles and trends, often closely enough that the outcome of a given action can be predicted with considerable accuracy.

I've just dug out a book that I read some time back and I'm rereading it. I recommend it to any and all. The March of Folly, by historian Barbara Tuchman. One of the premises of this book is that the acquisition of power often seems to carry a concomitant loss of intellectual capacity. One of the manifestations of this is the incidence of self-destructive behavior on the part of national leaders—not just destructive to the leader himself or herself, but to the nation or region as a whole. This self-destructive behavior is not just seen in retrospect, it is obvious to many contemporaries who warn the leader of the inevitable consequences of their actions and often try to prevent them. The intractable leader arrogantly plunges on and the predicted negative results do indeed come to pass, to the detriment of the leader and to the nation.

Once again, I emphasize that there are contemporaries close to the leader who see the consequences clearly and warn or try to stop the leader, but the leader goes ahead and does it anyway.

History is rife with examples, some of which Barbara Tuchman details in her book.

And the beat goes on.

This book makes edifying reading.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 06:54 PM

Supposedly now the reason only certain US firms are being allowed to win contracts to rebuild Iraq is because only those certain ones have high enough security clearance to read the top secret docs. telling them info on what will need to be done!

I think we need to start talkin' about a rev-o-lu-tion now...

kat

Subject: RE: BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM

So if it turns out that it's been firms and government agencies back home in the USA who've been in this kind of thing up to the neck, what happens then?

Look on the bright side - they won't need to worry about getting any Security Council resolutions to authorise wage preemptive war back in the USA...