A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[Radar]

A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

by Harry Browne

February 12, 2003

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Perhaps a corollary of that axiom should be: Those who know only historical slogans should quit using them to support their causes.

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

But citing Hussein's promise isn't the only way history is misused.

History is invoked to justify the U.S. starting a war against a foreign country (Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, and now Iraq again) because "history tells us" we have to stop the latest incarnation of Adolf Hitler before he proceeds to conquer the entire world. As though Serbia or Iraq could be compared to the power of Hitler's Germany.

And the history-sloganeers remind us over and over that millions of lives would have been saved if only the Allies had stopped Hitler at Munich.

A historical slogan can be a wonderful thing. It allows you to reduce all the complexities created by billions of people to a simple equation of Good vs. Evil, white & black, us & them.

The Facts

However, the world didn't begin in 1938. And amateur historians apparently have never bothered to go beyond their high-school history lessons to discover what made it possible for Hitler to threaten Europe in 1938. And the background throws a completely different light on the relevance of 1938 to today.

In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today. The Austrian Empire included what is now Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, as well as parts of Italy and Romania.

Many Serbs thought Bosnia should be part of Serbia instead of Austria. When the Austrian Emperor's heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia, he was murdered by a Bosnian Serb protesting Austrian domination.

This act sucked almost all the countries of Europe into the bloody first World War. Austria declared war on Serbia. And because of mutual defense treaties, Britain, France, Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Montenegro, Russia, and even Japan went to war on behalf of Serbia. On the other side, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, and Turkey supported Austria.

Eventually, 15 million soldiers and civilians would be killed and at least 20 million wounded, all because one person had been murdered — a fitting testament to the irrationality of war.

Stalemate

The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

The Allies imposed oppressive terms on the Germans — who, by a complicated argument, were blamed for the entire war. Important parts of Germany were confiscated and given to Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France. Germany was stripped of its colonies. And the Allies forced the Germans to assume the cost of the entire war — a price they could never hope to pay.

To the victors go the spoils, indeed!

Enter Hitler

All that most Americans know of 1920s Germany is the decadence they've seen in Cabaret and other movies. But here was an intellectual country devastated by losing the resources to support itself, made to pay horrendous reparations, and suffering from a runaway inflation that caused a loaf of bread to cost billions of marks.

If we realize what the Germans were forced to go through, we can begin to understand how one of the most culturally advanced countries of the world — the home of Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, and Wagner — could have fallen for a thug like Hitler.

Hitler would have been laughed out of Germany in 1910. But in 1933 he seemed to be the only person able to end the reparations, recapture the stolen territory, reunite families, and restore Germany's glory. The Germans could see he was a brutal man, but they were told you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

(Unfortunately, everyone assumes it will be someone else's eggs that will be broken, and no one notices that the omelet never materializes.)

Conclusions

So perhaps those who love to recite historical slogans could give some thought to a few lessons from history that are relevant to today's situation and could help us understand something about our own future . . .

• If U.S. politicians had minded their own business in 1917, instead of plunging America into a war that didn't threaten us, an armistice would have occurred, and the existing governments in Russia and Germany most likely would have remained in power — meaning no Soviet Union and no Hitler. But do-gooders always believe they know what's best for the world — and they claim that some simple act of force will settle matters once and for all. It never does.

• If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II, although it's entirely possible that other wars — more localized — would have occurred. World War II was the direct result of World War I — and, more specifically, of the U.S. interfering in World War I.

• If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler to threaten anyone. Germany would have resumed its role as an intellectual and cultural center in Europe. (American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)

• The Allies forced the Germans to promise things that could never be delivered. And using force to exact promises from someone like Saddam Hussein creates about as much security as ordering your cat to guard your home. If the demands are unnatural (as expecting a country in the Middle East to disarm certainly is), you can expect a backlash.

• There always will be thugs like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein in the world. But those thugs aren't dangerous to us until we create real grievances that cause millions of people to support the thugs with money, networking, and connections that allow the thugs to threaten us.

There's a Lot More

We haven't even touched on some other salient facts of history that bear on today's situation — such as the attitude of Muslims in the Middle East toward foreigners who have invaded and subjugated Arabs over the centuries. Nor have we looked into the way the British and French in the mid-1900s drew unnatural boundaries in the Middle East that were bound to lead to turmoil.

And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do, or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq? Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?

Nor have we touched on another important part of history — the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals. The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war — and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not. And the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed was revised upward several times after the war.

Of course, all that is ancient history. So why dredge it up today?

Because the men who told the lies in 1991 — Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell — are the same men providing the "evidence" that we must go to war again.

When Colin Powell says he has solid evidence for the claims he made at the UN, we have to remember that this is what he and his associates said before the Gulf War.

History is more than slogans.

• It is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;

• It is human nature being relived over and over;

• It is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;

• It is an admonition that initiating force never produces the results promised for it.

And if we ignore history and listen to the slogans instead, it will be you and I who will suffer the consequences.
When will we learn?

[russotto]

Originally posted by Radar
A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[i]by Harry Browne

Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

Morally, yes. But there is a set of protocols and procedures for dealing with promises made under duress in the absence of an overseeing authority. These protocols and procedures are necessary to allow surrender in the first place -- if they didn't exist, your enemy would have every reason to destroy you rather than come to terms with you, since you wouldn't follow any terms.

So there's nothing morally wrong with violating the terms of a peace treaty. But in doing so, you DO justify (in as much as the original war was justified) a re-start of hostilities. And this time, your enemy is unlikely to accept any surrender terms, so you'd better be able to win.
[/quote]

History is invoked to justify the U.S. starting a war against a foreign country (Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, and now Iraq again) because "history tells us" we have to stop the latest incarnation of Adolf Hitler before he proceeds to conquer the entire world. As though Serbia or Iraq could be compared to the power of Hitler's Germany.

Hitler's Germany, back when he re-occupied the Rhineland, couldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany as it became. There may be reasons Iraq is different, but off-the-cuff dismissal like this is exactly the sort of thing history really DOES teach against.

Harry, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and to the party you claim to represent.

[Radar]

Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

Because it's a great article by a great man.

So there's nothing morally wrong with violating the terms of a peace treaty. But in doing so, you DO justify (in as much as the original war was justified) a re-start of hostilities

The original was wasn't justified at all.

Hitler's Germany, back when he re-occupied the Rhineland, couldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany as it became. There may be reasons Iraq is different, but off-the-cuff dismissal like this is exactly the sort of thing history really DOES teach against.

History shows us that our military interventionism was precisely why Hitler came to power in the first place. If America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI, there never would have been a Hitler or a WWII and the 10 million Russians, 6 million Jews, untold number of millions of Chinese, Italians, Americans, English, etc. never would have been killed. In fact our previous intervention is why Saddam came to power. If America hadn't helped Saddam come to power in an effort against Iran, he wouldn't be a thorn in our side or anyone else's. Actually Saddam and Iraq pose no danger to America or any other country on earth. Not one shred of evidence has been brought forth to prove they are.

When will our country learn that our military interventionism creates problems instead of destroying them. History also shows that when we have a complicated web of treaties promising military intervention (which happens to be unconstitutional) into other countries a small squabble or event (the murder of 1 man) can turn into a bloody world war killing millions.

Harry, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and to the party you claim to represent.

Harry is not an embarrassment to anyone but his intelligence and common sense do embarrass the Republicans and Democrats who are too frightened to debate him. Harry Browne is a great man and is a better candidate for president than any Republican or Democrat that has ever held the office. It's only a shame he won't run again.

[SteveDallas]

Y'all may remember from the "what are you reading" thread that I'm working on a biography of Hitler. That doesn't make me an expert, but it won't keep me from expanding some of these points.

Originally posted by Radar
[b]A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[i]by Harry Browne
allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

Let's not forget that there was actually a revolution in Germany in 1918, and it was the new government who surrendered. The old monarchy was apparently prepared to fight till the end, no matter what the cost. I can't speak to how the entry of the US affected or did not affect this, but what little I know suggests that the German government of 1917 would not have been interested in an armistice.

Hitler would have been laughed out of Germany in 1910.

In 1910 Hitler was an itinerant living in a men's hostel who made his living by painting postcards that were then sold by associates of his (including some Jews), and who pretended that he would one day be an architect even though he had failed the entrance exams for art school twice and had never made any efforts to train as an artist or an architect.

OK, that's picky. Still, in early 1923, Hitler had made a name for himself as a 2-bit rabble-rouser, and the government went so far as to arrange his deportation to Austria, but for some reason they never followed through on it. (At this point Hitler was still technically an Austrian citizen.) Later that year, Hitler staged the infamous Beer Hall Putsch. After it ended, Hitler was imprisoned after a show trial that gave him a national platform to spew his venom. After a period of a handful of months, Hitler was released on parole. This happened over the very strenuous objections of the Bavarian state prosecutor, who at least twice appealed to have Hitler's parole overturned.

But in 1933 he seemed to be the only person able to end the reparations, recapture the stolen territory, reunite families, and restore Germany's glory. The Germans could see he was a brutal man, but they were told you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

The German "people" had precious little choice by this time. Reich President Paul von Hindenburg and other right-leaning aristocrats (of which there were many) didn't give a damn about democracy and were convinced that all of Germany's problems could have been solved if they could reinstate an authoritarian government rather than a parliamentary one. He did everything he could to dilute the power of parliament so his cabinet could rule by presidential fiat. His appointment of Hitler to the Reich Chancellorship in 1933 was not something he wanted to do, but with deteriorating economic conditions, support for the Nazis was high enough that they had to be involved in the government, and Hindenberg apparently thought he had stacked the cabinet with enough of his own non-radical right-wing cronies that they would be able to keep Hitler's more outlandish tendencies in check. The day after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Hindenburg agreed to dissolve parliament and call elections, a step he had refused Hitler's predescessor 4 days ago. This allowed the Nazis to solidify their hold in Parliament.

The bottom line is, Hitler did not seize power, he was given it, because the power brokers were more afraid of democratic rule than they were of the Nazis, especially since the Nazis were controlled by an incompetent politician whose only talent was to give speeches and rile people up.

[Undertoad]

initiating force never produces the results promised for it.

Or at least, when it does, you should try to figure out how to redefine the word "force" until it suits your arguments.

[Radar]

I can't speak to how the entry of the US affected or did not affect this, but what little I know suggests that the German government of 1917 would not have been interested in an armistice.

By 1917 the war had already taken its toll on all parties involved. Armistice talks had already begun. It was America’s involvement in the war that prevented the armistice from becoming a reality and the oppressive terms of the allies that allowed someone like Hitler to come to power. And yes, Hindenburg did give power to Hitler, but only after the Nazi's made sure nobody else could get the job. Hindenburg hated Hitler and the Nazi's because he knew they were thugs and murderers but he thought he could control them if they were on his side. He was mistaken to say the least.

Make no mistake, Hitler and his followers did indeed seize power in Germany. They murdered those who stood in their way and gained power by pushing Hindenburg around until he finally gave in.

Or at least, when it does, you should try to figure out how to redefine the word "force" until it suits your arguments.

Since that hasn't happened yet, the traditional definition of the word "force" will suffice.

Had America stuck to the policy of non-military interventionism created by our founding fathers, the war would have ended earlier, and most likely more reasonable terms would have been given to Germany which would have made the conditions in Germany impossible for Hitler to come to power.

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place. Let's do as the constitution provides for and only use our military for the defense of American soil or ships, not for the defense of other nations. Not to overthrow the leaders of sovereign nations. Not to threaten or bully other people with our military spread all over the world like the Roman Empire. Let's trade freely and only attack when we are directly attacked. Iraq has never attacked America, never funded, trained, harbored, or helped anyone else attack America. We had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and we still don't.

[Undertoad]

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place.

And also, of course, why Moscow is not.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Undertoad
America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place.

And also, of course, why Moscow is not.

You don't really want to bring the USSR into this do you? After all, when we saved the world from the real Hitler we also helped enslave Eastern Europe under Stalin. I wonder who the new Stalin is if we are going to put the Hitler mask on Saddam.

[Radar]

Nice try, but American military interventionism is why we had a problem with Russia in the first place. If America hadn't been involved in WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII and Russia and America wouldn't have fought over the spoils of war and never would have had a problem.

American military interventionism had nothing to do with the downfall of the USSR unless you count America stockpiling weapons as intervention. The USSR was going broke on their own and would have crumbled within 10-20 years without Reagan spending trillions and ensuring generations of Americans would be born into debt.

[Undertoad]

Go ahead guys, I think there are a few more straws you haven't grasped at yet.

[Radar]

lol @ Undertoad.

The case has been proven and is as solid as a rock. The only one grasping for straws and attempting to justify American military intervention is you despite the glaring cold hard facts of history showing how horrible the ramifications are when we take part in it. You blindly ignore the indisputable fact that America's involvement in WWI was what led to WWII. You blindly ignore the fact that America's military interventionism is almost always the reason we have a new "Hitler" to fight.

[perth]

actually, this is all the pilgrims fault. because without pilgrims, we wouldnt even have america.

~james

[Undertoad]

OK, let's try another little exercise. 1967. Israeli intelligence picked up on the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt were going to attack. So Israel attacked first by hitting the Egyptian air force and knocking it out. This stranded Egypt's ground forces on the Sinai peninsula and Israel took the entire thing.

Israel hasn't yet been attacked. They initiated force. If they had not, they would have lost the war and there would be, in all likelihood, no Israel today.

Wrong of them to do?

In the late 70s Iraq built a nuclear reactor, with French selling it tech, with which they intended to fortify nuclear materials for a bomb. Israel fighters went and blew it up in 1981. If they hadn't, Hussein probably would have had nukes in 1991 with which to back up his use of force at that time. This would have complicated things nightily, needless to say. Or, perhaps the Iraqi initiation of force against the WTC in 1993 would have had a stronger bomb to load in the Ryder.

Wrong of the Israelis to do?

[Radar]

In 1967 Israeli was told outright by Syria of the attack. They didn't discover it. But that aside, with Israel knowing about it, they should have re-enforced thier forces and had their airforce on alert and as soon as they saw a jet take off from Egypt, they should have attacked.

Israel hasn't yet been attacked. They initiated force. If they had not, they would have lost the war and there would be, in all likelihood, no Israel today.

Wrong of them to do?

Yes it was wrong of them. What if Syria was lying? What if Egypt wasn't going to attack? Israel was wrong to attack first. It is always wrong to attack first. Israel would have won even if Egypt attacked first.

In the late 70s Iraq built a nuclear reactor, with French selling it tech

True statement

with which they intended to fortify nuclear materials for a bomb

Baseless speculation

Israel fighters went and blew it up in 1981.

True statement

If they hadn't, Hussein probably would have had nukes in 1991 with which to back up his use of force at that time

Baseless speculation

Or, perhaps the Iraqi initiation of force against the WTC in 1993 would have had a stronger bomb to load in the Ryder

Iraq didn't attack the WTC in 1993, Ramzi Yousef (An Iraqi individual citizen who wasn't sent by the Iraqi government) did. But if Iraq did attack in 1993 they were perfectly justified in doing so since they were the victims of unwarranted, unconstitutional, and unnecessary attacks by the United States in 1991. They were also starved and kept from life saving medications.

Wrong of the Israelis to do?

Absolutely. Without a doubt they were wrong and so was America.

America had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and still doesn't in 2003. Israel had no justification to blow up an Iraqi nuclear reactor or to attack Egypt first.

[Undertoad]

They sit on some of the highest-quality oil in the world. What were they going to use a nuclear plant for?