BS: When Democracy Failed - Historical Parallels

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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 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.   ;)