[lit-ideas] Re: Simon's World
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:42:02 -0700
Simon,
You ask if it surprises me that Europeans are averse to war. I would say
that it doesn't surprise me that Europeans are all screwed up. I'm not sure
what they're averse to at the present time. I don't think any of you
properly understand the attraction Isolationism has for us. We spent the
first part of our history after independence in trying to keep you guys away
from us. But the time came when you asked for our help. We didn't want to
give it. Wilson promised not to do it. You Europeans were always getting
yourselves into wars of one kind and another, but that had nothing to do
with us. But then you Europeans began messing with our shipping and Wilson
caved in; so we went to Europe to fight the Kaiser. You wanted us to spread
our troops among your French & British troops, but Pershing knew better than
that. We had no confidence in your ability to fight; so Pershing kept our
troops together and defeated the Germans. [see The Myth of the Great War,
how the Germans won the battles and how the Americans saved the allie4s, a
new military history of World War 1, 2001 by John Mosier.]
I'm not sure how many have this inclination toward Isolationism, and I'm not
sure how I came by it. I have just always had it. Oh I can accept the
effects of a reasonable argument. I can be persuaded by evidence . . .
still, isolationism has a strong pull. If they would just leave us alone. .
. My ancestors were not recent arrivals. I have an ancestor who fought in
the war of 1812. I have encountered this inclination all my life: let's
leave them alone. Let them kill themselves it has nothing to do with us.
But you got yourselves another war. Hitler became more powerful and started
taking things over. You needed our help again. Baloney, we said. Help
yourselves. You thought we might feel guilty about not helping you sooner.
Forget that. We didn't want to help you at all. That is, our people and
congress didn't. Roosevelt was more farsighted I suppose, and figured out
ways around the laws that would never fly today: lend lease. What nonsense.
We were giving you the supplies you needed to keep going. But we weren't
any more ready to get in your war with you than we were in your first world
war.
Our isolationism, our disinclination to fight, our giving peace a chance
nonsense made the Japanese think they could whip us and so they attacked us
in 1941. Hitler then declared war upon us and we were in it. Japan wasn't
just our business. Japan wouldn't have risked attacking us had Germany not
supported them. Churchill wanted us to take care of the Japanese so he
could leave his navy in Europe. We were ill prepared for war but we had the
most powerful economy in the world and ramped up in a hurry.
Roosevelt was warned about Germany getting atomic weapons and so starting
the Manhattan project in 1939. As I said, he was forward thinking, but most
people didn't know about it. Roosevelt's vice president, Truman, didn't
know about it until Roosevelt died and someone told him. After World War II
we had a tiger by the tale. We wanted to go back to being isolationists,
but Leftists gave the secret of how to build atomic weapons to the Soviets
so we entered a cold war. Had the Leftists not given away our secrets,
Uncle Joe wouldn't have been so threatening and we could have gone back to
our isolation. In wanting to help Communism, the Leftists did Communism the
greatest disservice imaginable. They made us afraid of Communism. We
couldn't withdraw or the aggressive Soviets would take over the world, and
we were the only ones in a position to stop them. Europeans accepted it as
a given that we would stick with them and protect them. We started the
Marshal Plan. We formed NATO. France wouldn't join. Big deal.
After 40 years of being protected by the U.S, and after the fall of the
USSR, Europe returned to its petulant ways. France wanted the EU to counter
the U.S. Counter? Counter What? Counter the protective umbrella we had
held over Europe for 41 years? Disgusting! Lots of us knew it wasn't worth
while protecting them. Why protect someone who is going to slit your throat
the first chance he gets. We should have listened to Washington when he
said don't get entangled in foreign wars.
But wait, we know the Europeans will just screw things up as they always
have, someone says.
So what? Let them.
But wait, the Islamists will use WMDs on their European cities. Yeah,
probably, but they want to try their crackbrained pacifism on them.
It isn't up to us to protect them any longer.
But they'll screw things up and we'll have to bail them out once again.
Yeah, probably.
That isn't fair.
Who told dealing with Europeans was fair?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 4:43 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Simon's World
Sorry Uncle Lawrence, but I'm a petulant boy and I won't go to my room.
We've heard this so many times, that because America protected us during the
cold war we are obliged to go and fight with them when they ask us to. I
don't accept that and the majority of Europeans don't accept that. Perhaps
the French government had other reasons to object to the Iraq invasion, but
the ordinary European saw it for what is was and opted out.
Further I don't accept that the cold war prevented the European states from
fighting each other. It might have prevented the Soviet Union from expanding
into western Europe, but war between the European states was the prospect
that created the European Common Market. Tying those states together in an
economic union, creating mutual interdependence was designed for exactly
that purpose, to prevent further wars.
You say that Europeans have become timid, well isn't that a good thing if it
means the prevention of another war that would cost millions more lives.
The world wars are ingrained Lawrence. I'm not sure you realise how much.
There are memorials in every town and village in Britain listing the dead.
In Walkhampton (my village), its memorial lists some twenty names from the
first world war, twenty from a population that probably numbered little more
than a hundred at the time. No doubt every family lost a father or a son.
Can you contemplate that. And yet Britain fared better than France or
Germany, countries that lost millions, rather than hundreds of thousands.
Does it surprise you that Europeans are averse to war?
Perhaps you should get your history books out and read about Verdun where
France fought to the last fort and the last man, or The Somme where Britain
lost 60,000 on the first morning so they could take the take the German
pressure away from their offensive against the French. That's just under
half the total US casualties for that war in one morning and you insist on
talking up what America did to save us. Britain lost more men in WW2 than
the US did, but both casualty figures pale before the half million French,
five million Polish, seven and a half million Germans and twenty three
million Russians that died during the war. Think on the numbers Lawrence, in
Germany more than ten percent of the population died, in Russia more than 13
per cent, against America's 0.3 per cent and you wonder why the Europeans
are averse to war.
Perhaps its because America feels guilty that it didn't enter the wars early
enough, or that it didn't lose enough men. Well take my advice Lawrence,
don't think on it. It's not worth it. Yes, the US prevented Europe from
being overrun during the cold war, and of course, we're ever so grateful,
but you start making wars and we'll happily stand back because we've lost
enough thank you.
I suggest you do get out your history books Lawrence. I'll not criticise you
for it, I've got enough of my own. Remind yourself what Europe went through,
then perhaps you'll think twice before contemplating the bombing of Iran or
justifying it on the basis of some armchair academic who sees the world in
terms of regional hegemony.
Better still, take a trip to New York, speak to the families of those who
lost relatives on 9/11 and then ask yourself whether its worthwhile
inflicting the same grief on other people in the world.
Then perhaps you'll decide that spending money on development is more
productive than spending it on the means to destroy.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Simon's World
Simon, you have stated that I have forgotten that Europe and France in
particular has lost millions of lives. You aren't counting, I suppose, all
of those mentions of needing to rush across the Atlantic to your defense in
your World Wars. You seem to be saying something different, namely that
France & Germany have lost their nerve. All those horrifying deaths -- who
wouldn't lose their nerve? Is that what you're saying? Did you catch my
friends comment about why the British are having trouble in Basra? He says
they are overly timid when it comes to dealing with potential hostiles. You
wouldn't think the Iraqis would prefer the no-nonsense approach of the
Americans but according to my friend they do. You have a gun and you aren't
on our side, you get shot. And of course you wouldn't use my term loss of
nerve. I realize that of course. You would say something like, "Germany and
the other European nations have learned the evils of war and have given up
their evil ways and entered the realm of blessed timidity." You would say
words to that effect I know, but I'm skipping that part.
If what you are saying is true then the Europeans have gone from one extreme
to the other. They have gone from being the most violent people on the
planet to being the most timid, and here I am talking primarily about
Germany, but also the Vichy French and others that collaborated with the
Germans, Austrians and Italians. I occasionally read military historians,
but now, taking your implication, you probably believe reading these works
is dangerous - sort of like owning a gun. You own a gun and per force you
must go out and shoot someone with it. Well, of course I think that
nonsense - if that is what you are saying. Historically we have been a
warlike species and while there are some theories about how we can change
this condition, these theories haven't been proved. In fact one of the most
likely ones, that of Fukuyama is criticized by the people who would most
benefit from it, i.e., the Europeans. The promotion of Liberal Democracy
would give the Europeans what they want, the elimination of the need to
practice war. But they are hostile to that as well. Why is that? Perhaps
a Leftist is congenitally incapable of understanding Fukuyama.
Here I think of Robert Kagan and his much-loved by Europeans Of Paradise and
Power, America and Europe in the New World Order. The norm in Europe
according to Kagan is the condition of being protected by the U.S. Europe
hasn't needed to practice war during that period; so I suppose many of them
ask why should they start now? America is Mars and Europe is Venus because
American protected Europe during the Cold War and made it unnecessary for
the Europeans to have competent armies. I think Kagan had continental
Europe in mind but I'm sure many in Britain share the continental European
viewpoint - you certainly seem to. You live "In Dartmoor (where people
worry about their gardens, about the viability of the local pub, about the
state of the cricket pitch, about the number of foxes, about a whole host of
small things, but not about war war war)." That is because Uncle Sam is
over here worried about war war war so you can tend to your whole host of
small things.
You Andreas and some others try to make things a matter of what we want.
"Do you want Huntington to be right"? Andreas asked that several times
though I tried to ignore him. This is silly. What ought to be asked is "is
Huntington right"? Why would I want someone to be right if he is wrong? Or
why would my wanting him to be right matter if he is right? This is a silly
question, but several of you like to ask questions like that. It must be a
Leftist thing. I have kept the theses of both Fukuyama and Huntington in
mind since reading them. The valid question is to ask which of them is
right.
You have said rightly that "there is no way Lawrence is going to realize
that peace begets peace." Lawrence is never going to realize that because
it is nonsense. It has no basis in reality. You experience peace in Europe
because we, the Americans and the Russians, made you quit fighting. I
rather prefer the America's roll in that but the effect is what I'm talking
about now. You couldn't get at each other as long as we were standing in
your way. And now you remonstrate with Americans or perhaps only this
American for not understanding that peace begets peace. That doesn't make
any sense, and since you won't listen to reason, I'm going to have to send
you to your room, Simon.
Uncle Lawrence
Other related posts:
