Learning from History? Questions from a Back Bencher
Commenter and Blogger Dale Coberly
I have been reading William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill. I do not know how reliable Manchester is, but I think I have learned more about a couple of things I thought I knew about, which might be worth thinking about with regard to events in Ukraine.
Churchill was a very gifted man who made mistakes, but he got Hitler right when no one else did, and so earned his place in History. In the past I have liked to point out that Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” appeasement of Hitler over Czechoslovakia bought England the time it needed to rearm before Hitler started WW2. I thought Chamberlain understood this and accepted the permanent stain on his reputation to “take one for the team.” It would be very British not to say after the war that he knew what he was doing at Munich…if for no other reason than to allow perfidious Albion a chance to get away with the same dodge in the future if necessary.
But according to Manchester, Chamberlain was always if not an appeaser, at least a victim of the understandable universal “peace at any cost” mood of England following the horror and stupidity of the Great War.
Less noted has been the willingness of Churchill if not to appease, at least not to vigorously oppose Mussolini’s crime against Ethiopia. Apparently, Churchill hoped that by not annoying Mussolini he would keep Italy as a potential ally against Hitler. And after all, crimes against uncivilized people was an acceptable practice by the civilized people of Europe.
Hitler was reading a different message from Ethiopia. It demonstrated to him that Britain and France and the League of Nations would not act to oppose him if he undertook similar adventures in Europe. This was before Munich, and before Spain.
From the perspective of the 1930’s Hitler had the equivalent of nuclear arms, in a world that had not yet invented them. WWI killed millions of people, and it was understandable that people would not want to risk that again. But, in hindsight of course, it was foolish of them to ignore the evidence of HItler’s intentions. It would have been better if England had listened to Churchill and began rearming much sooner than it did.
But of course there was also the money. As Manchester points out the British had not yet discoved the nature of money that Roosevelt and Schacht had (spending creates money).
Parallels to Ukraine: The United States is not innocent of aggression against uncivilized people. Europe did not oppose that American aggression. Putin has nukes and threatens to use them. We are right to be afraid that he would. But if he gets away with it when we had the power to stop him, what will prevent him from doing it again and forcing us to face the same question when we have less power relative to him?
I think Biden is finding a way to stop him . . . at great cost to the people of Ukraine . . . but my very primitive instincts tell me that if sanctions and arms to Ukraine even start to look like they may not be enough to stop Putin, then overwhelming NATO (US) force . . . perhaps kept within the borders of Ukraine . . . will be necessary. We can only hope the people around Putin will stop him from launching a nuclear war. A link to someone who disagrees with my findings. . . . “Siding with Ukraine’s far-right, US sabotaged Zelensky’s mandate for peace” (substack.com)
Or maybe we just have to let him get away with it, and hope we are saved by some as yet unforeseen miracle.
the last line of my post above was supposed to be “this is a link to someone who disagrees with me:”
Coberly,
I took the link and read. Holy shit! It was not what I expected. Aaron Mate and Cohen tell the kind of story that certainly rings true the undertone of post-Reagan American foreign policy. It also echos the relationship of the US government with my Cherokee ancestors and other native tribes. What do you think about it?
Of course, regardless of how we got here, there are no good options for Ukraine and there are no good options for Putin now. Meanwhile the US and NATO allies get to churn their military hardware inventory and sit on the sidelines watching the body count.
…which is not to say that Putin is a good guy that he was just misunderstood. Putin is a psychopath and very well understood and entirely predictable. Just push his buttons and he cannot help himself. He must react. His temperament is evil and vindictive and compulsive. He lacks restraint and self-control except that is part of his stalking behavior before he strikes. Putin is as predictable as a poisonous snake.
Power corrupts. Great men are rarely good men.
Ron
what do I think?
I included the link to give the other side a fair hearing. Before Putin invaded I might have agreed with them. But after what “Russia” has done, is doing, I think they (Chomsky et al) are suffering from “peace at any price” syndrome and… a kind of blindness of the Left. I agree with you that Putin is a psychopath and we have a problem with how do we stop a psychopath when he has a gun to our head….whatever crimes our own “realpolitik”-ists may have have committed,
Coberly,
Funny that, since it is exactly how I see it too. Too bad we got to this point, but now here we are and there are no good choices leaving us to chance on bad choices. However, there is no going back now.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
or
mene mene tekel uparshin?
Well, it looks like at least Putin learns from History. Hitler occupied the Rhineland long before Munich…at a time when France and Britain were bound by treaty to respond in force. Hitler admited afterwards that France alone could have driven the Germans out of the Rhineland in hours; he said: “The forty eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with shame and disgrace, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.” Manchester adds, “Hitler …saw the Rhineland as a risk worth taking…he had been surprised by the feeble Allied response to his earlier moves. In these years, before he becae intoxicated with his own triumphs, his intuitive grasp of how far he could go with Allied leaders was uncanny.”
So, it seems, is Putin’s. He is winning the war in Ukraine because the allies will not stop him. Indeed after his first fiasco toward Kiev, we are giving him another chance at Mariople.
And the American people have more important things to think about. Cruel inflation, Biden’s age, mask mandates, Will Smith…
Fighting to the last Ukrainian?
different take on the phrase by a U.S. army general
for those who enjoy such things, the story of mene mene terkel upharsin:
Belshazzar’s feast
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
[note: enjoy, but verify.]
[‘nother note: spell check won’t let me write any of these words without my going back. be warned.]
thought i had corrected all spell checks, but terkel {Studs?) got past me.