Posted on 02/26/2010 8:13:12 AM PST by caldera599
Libertarians have many good things going for them. They oppose massive federal spending and the growth of the welfare state in America. They support liberty for all Americans. They believe in curbing federal power over the economy by getting rid of the Fed and promoting sound money at home. All essentially good ideas.
Though, as the old saying goes, no one is perfect.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Who really gives a toss? The LP never gets more than 1% of any given vote. Why spend so much time talking about them?
Not really. If Chamberlain had done what ought to have been done (which was tell Hitler to go pound sand and if he wanted a fight, he could have one) then the entire Second World War might not have happened... Speculation, I’ll admit, but based on the postwar statements of some of his generals, they might have attempted a coup if something like that occurred. Chamberlain’s big error was that he attempted to do nothing while appearing to do something- compounding two errors, thus creating a greater one.
A war to accomplish what? To keep the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia against their will and maintain the shot-gun marriage of the Czechs and Slovaks (which, of course, ultimately collapsed on its own)? There would have been very little support for such an enterprise from the British people. That is the problem with counterfactuals of that type...especially since the counterfactual was not a very real option at the time.
To elaborate. The problem can ultimately be traced to World War I, more specifically the lame-brained decision of the allies (especially Wilson) to create an unsustainable “country” of Czechoslovakia which forced together three groups who had not common sense of nationhood (the Germans, who wanted to join Austria or Germany, the Slovaks who wanted their own country, and the Czechs who were wrongly viewed (as became even more apparent in the 1990s) as having a common bond with the Slovaks).
Nice of you to overlook the fact that the Sudeten Germans did not start agitating for anything until Hitler’s money bought an active Nazi Party there. And it would have been a war to prevent Hitler from adding all of Czechoslovakia to his Reich. In the face of active aggressors, inaction simply doesn’t work.
LOL!
Czechoslovakia was created in order to surround Germany with buffer states so as to make further aggression on its part more difficult- another effort which proved futile when the parties who should have acted did not.
“Here is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle said, and I think the words apply very much to our treatment of Germany and our relations with her: “All these calamities fell upon us because of evil counsel, because tribute was not offered to them at the right time nor yet were they resisted; but when they had done the most evil, then was peace made with them.” That is the wisdom of the past, for all wisdom is not new wisdom.”- Winston Churchill, debating British foreign policy following Munich.
Sticking your head in the ground and hiding won’t make the world less dangerous, only more so. We have to be prepared to look all over to guarantee our own safety.
If that was the idea, it failed miserably as did the draconian reparations and war guilt clauses which only paved the way for Hitler thus making another war more likely. Had we "buried our head in the sand" in 1917 and let the old empires fight it out, wear themselves out, and make peace there would have been no Hitler and probably no Stalin. Even a traditional victory by the Kaiser would have been much better than that.
As the 1990s showed, Czechoslovakia was completely unsustainable. Its creation also represented an outright repudiation of Woodrow Wilson's wartime goal of self-determination. Neither the Sudeten Germans (who had lived there for centuries) nor the Slovaks were consulted on the creation of this country. In addition, there were many Hungarians in that "country" whose wishes were also ignored.
Actually, IMHO, the creation of Czechoslovakia was less an intentional effort to balance Germany's power as it was the result of an effective lobbying campaign by Edward Benes, the Czech leader who had been in exile since 1915. He took advantage of the misguided decision of the allies to dismember the the relatively tolerant Austro-Hungarian Empire which had created a measure of stability in central Europe. Benes fooled the guliable Wilson into believing that Czechs and Slovaks were "brothers" when in fact they had historically hated each other. A better solution would have allowed the Sudentens to join Austria, let the Hungarians join Hungary, and let the Czechs and Slovaks go their separate ways.
LOL, is right! That describes what Bin Laden is doing now (seven years later !!!) under the policy you recommend. He is laughing at your expense. Sucker.
“He took advantage of the misguided decision of the allies to dismember the the relatively tolerant Austro-Hungarian Empire which had created a measure of stability in central Europe. Benes fooled the guliable Wilson into believing that Czechs and Slovaks were “brothers” when in fact they had historically hated each other. A better solution would have allowed the Sudentens to join Austria, let the Hungarians join Hungary, and let the Czechs and Slovaks go their separate ways.”
Certainly Benes lobbied for it. But the Allies didn’t dismember the Habsburg empire- it was falling apart before the war ended. They merely capitalized on the situation, such as it was. And again, had they done so, they would have created several smaller, no doubt more cohesive, but completely indefensible states.
“Even a traditional victory by the Kaiser would have been much better than that.”
Let us check out the man’s own words:
“After this war is over, I shall put up with no nonsense from America”- Kaiser Wilhelm II, quoted from Robert Massie’s “Castles of Steel”
The Second Reich, while not as brutal as the Third, most certainly had aspirations of a dominant position in the world. They had stuck their noses into several matters in this hemisphere prior to the Great War, and had they been the victors in that conflict, would have probably continued to do so to the point we would have had to fight them anyway, without worthwhile allies, I might add (they would have been defeated.) Again, you can’t just stand aside...
The Second Reich, while not as brutal as the Third, most certainly had aspirations of a dominant position in the world. They had stuck their noses into several matters in this hemisphere prior to the Great War, and had they been the victors in that conflict, would have probably continued to do so to the point we would have had to fight them anyway, without worthwhile allies, I might add (they would have been defeated.) Again, you can’t just stand aside...
Not as brutal as the Third Reich? It wasn't even close, Not even in the same ballpark. Please don't be offended but you seem to be implying that the Germans were almost genetically pre-disposed to "dominate the world." and engage in genocide. There is no evidence for this.
Certainly, the the Second Reich wanted to to be a major player on the world stage (given its economic importance that was not unreasonable) but it was a world apart from Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin.
The Reichstag was elected through a semi-democratic proceedure (heck it has anti-regime socialists and social democrats) and the press was relatively free. Despite your attempt to link the brutalties of the Kaiser with the horrors of Hitler, this was a traditional European war and we had no business getting involved. Had we stayed out, the world would have been a better place. I notice that you did NOT dispute my assertation that our intervention paved the way for Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.
BTW, as of the beginning of 1917, the combatants were so thoroughly exhausted and debt-ridden that none of them could have any hopes of dominated the world, not to mention threatening the U.S.. Meanwhile, the U.S. was prosperous and financially solvent. At best, had the U.S. not intervened, Germany might have been able to gain a dominate position in Belgium. More likely the peace would have been a status quo ante-bellum.
“The Reichstag was elected through a semi-democratic proceedure (heck it has anti-regime socialists and social democrats) and the press was relatively free.”
The Reichstag and the Bundesrat were as King Edward VII noted, the “fig leaf of absolutism.” The Second Reich’s constitution was constructed so that a semblance of democracy existed to cover the fact that the Kaiser, ruling through the Chancellor, could exercise executive power where it really counts- the military and foreign policy sectors. During the war the Kaiser’s generals, with his approval, ran roughshod over the the civilian authorities.
“I notice that you did NOT dispute my assertation that our intervention paved the way for Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.”
A small oversight on my part- I’ll gladly do so now. I’ll concede Hitler- Germany lost as a direct result of our entering the war, and without that impetus, he would have remained a bum. Lenin and Stalin, though- they came about because of Germany’s defeat of Russia and the resulting civil war afterward. That is someone else’s intervening, Germany’s to be precise...
“At best, had the U.S. not intervened, Germany might have been able to gain a dominate position in Belgium. More likely the peace would have been a status quo ante-bellum.”
Germany had designs on Venezuela, Samoa, and would have snatched the Philippines in 1898. (My source for that: a book about Theodore Roosevelt called “Theodore Rex”.) The victory they sought after in WWI was the same as the one they achieved in 1870- a total collapse of France, the difference in being followed by the defeat of Russia. It would be imbecility to suggest that they would have asked for anything less than all of France’s overseas possessions, and during WWI they actually did take the whole of European Russia...Not to mention, Belgium’s colonial possessions, and those of Italy (a failing Allied power at the end of the war.) As for the British, they probably would have negotiated their way out of it, for a time (your assumption that they would have done so immediately is disputable,) until the Germans had enough strength to dismember the British empire, which would easily have put them in a position to hector and bully us, which they would have. (They had already made some attempts to do so, as I pointed out earlier.) The problem with non-intervention is that it is based on a view that everyone has everyone else’s best interest at heart- which history proves is not the case.
“Not as brutal as the Third Reich?”
I’ll concede that- but not that it was not brutal- the Germans most certainly shot civilians and destroyed non-military targets. During the Boxer Rebellion the Kaiser ordered his troops to make the name German feared in China for a thousand years, and they certainly committed atrocities in North China. A regime such as the Kaiser’s was dangerous for its day. In a dangerous world (then and now) that bears watching, and no amount of wishing it away will make it go away.
In economics libertarians are ok. However, there socialpolicy has reduced itself to sex, sodomy and drug use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.