How do you respond to something that makes no sense? Hmmmm. Irene is apparently taking one sentence in my note off on a tangent. She certainly doesn’t respond take it in context and respond to that. But where does she take it? I can’t tell. Does she do the logical thing and provide examples of where opposing something has done what Lloyd George has predicted? No, that would require responding to the sentence after the one she has quoted. That would be in context and understandable. She hasn’t done that. What has she done? I read it several times. It is a verbal mess.
Suggestion: Irene, rather than try to respond to something you aren’t really responding to, why not develop your own argument. As it is, what you have written makes no sense.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:27 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Russia in 1918
There are countless examples where opposing something has destroyed it or rendered it harmless.
Uh, how about not invading Iraq? Where would we be today if we didn't invade Iraq? Who, Lawrence, pushed for invading Iraq? The Leftists? Who is now pushing for a war with Iran? The Leftists? Invading Iran will destroy us completely. So, opposing Iraq, which the Leftists (whoever they are) did, would have nipped empowering al Qaeda in the bud? I agree completely. Also, the Bolsheviks were no threat to the U.S. back then. Had we worked with them instead of strangling the people through boycotts, maybe a Cold War could have been eliminated instead of, like with al Qaeda, driven forward. Also, we "nipped in the bud" the Communists in Vietnam. What happened to the domino effect that would have put Communists into Kansas?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm
Sent: Jan 2, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Lit-Ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Russia in 1918
In the midst of World War One, Russia had its revolution. It was too soon in 1918 to tell which force would come out on top but the allies had vested interests: “The defeated Germany, on Allied instructions, started to pull its troops out of the Ukraine and the Baltic states. The allies struggled to fill the vacuum. By the end of 1918, there were over 180,000 foreign troops on Russian soil and several White Russian armies receiving Allied money and allied guns. People were starting to talk about a crusade against Bolshevism. But thee was strong opposition to any more military adventures. The slogan from the left, ‘Hands off Russia,’ was gaining in popularity.”
We discussed whether we could have nipped Hitler and his Nazism in the bud and decided that was theoretically possible, but no one had the will or the foresight to do it. And so Hitler had his way and millions were killed as a result. Here we see a similar point in time, a time when the Communists could have been stopped. We had troops in Russia and there were those who had the foresight to recognize the danger that Bolshevism comprised. Why didn’t we do it? Again, it is difficult to transform the knowledge and foresight of a few into prudent action. And of course there were the ubiquitous Leftists shouting “Hands off Russia.” Haven’t they always?
Macmillian on page 72 goes on: “If they were not careful, Lloyd George told his cabinet, they would spread Bolshevism simply by trying to put it down.” Ah, here is one of Irene’s favorite arguments and we find it in the mouth of the 1919 player Macmillan describes as the most ignorant. This is such a nonsensical view I wonder if what Lloyd George and his descendents feared has ever happened in history. There are countless examples where opposing something has destroyed it or rendered it harmless. Perhaps someone who loves this precept can provide some examples of the contrary.
Lawrence
