Skip to comments.The New World Map
Posted on 06/18/2015 4:27:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Adolf Hitler started World War II by attacking Poland on September 1, 1939. Nazi Germany moved only after it had already remilitarized the Rhineland, absorbed Austria and dismantled Czechoslovakia. Before the outbreak of the war, Hitler's new Third Reich had created the largest German-speaking nation in European history.
Well before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Japanese government had redrawn the map of Asia and the Pacific. Japan had occupied or annexed Indochina, Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan, in addition to swaths of coastal China. Attacking Hawaii, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia was merely the logical 1941 follow-up to more than a decade of Japanese aggression.
Fascist Italy, by the outbreak of World War II in Europe, had already been remaking the map of the Mediterranean region in imitation of ancient Rome. Strongman Benito Mussolini had annexed what is now Ethiopia, Albania and most of Libya. He promised Italians that the Mediterranean would soon be mare nostrum, "our sea."
All of these hegemonies had arisen without triggering a global war. Had Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese just been satisfied and consolidated their winnings, there was no evidence that the tired Western democracies would ever have stopped them.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
What do you think, is it the 1930s all over again?
Depends on how you define "German-speaking" and "nation."
The Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages was at various times considerably larger than the 3rd Reich in 1938. But it wasn't really a nation and wasn't all German speaking.
The German Empire of 1914 couldn't have been much smaller in area than Germany in 1938. But I haven't been able to find exact numbers.
I find it dangerous to look for direct parallels with history so I’m circumspect in his analysis of the hegemony building of the 1920’s and 1930’s and relating it to what’s going on now. However, there’s no doubt that history has taught us that if the traditional powers for good (Western European liberal democracies and America) receed from the world’s stage, other bad actors will surely take up the mantle and acquire power for themselves. Usually, their thirst will not be slaked with the gains they have and they will continue for more.
“President Obama assumes Americans are tired of the Middle East and want to be left alone.”
Sometimes when I read VDH I wonder if he’s really this naive. The regime’s foreign policy is designed to produce these results. It’s all a part of the Jihad against the West and Christianity.
It wasn't Holy, It Wasn't Roman and It wasn't an Empire.
For example, the Lansing-Ishii Treaty circa 1917 and its "territorial propinquity" giving Japan special privileges in Manchuria and the Shantung Peninsula.
As much as I hesitate to appear to dispute the professor, he leaves out a significant point that I’d like to see him discuss.
To stand up to aggressors requires being willing to use military action preemptively, that is, before the putative bad guy actually uses military force himself.
But the lessons of what happened to George W. Bush when he took preemptive action are clear. Until indisputably clear military action has been taken against the US, no one will be happy with preemptive action.
Roosevelt knew this and maneuvered Japan into attacking by cutting off their oil supplies.GWB just had to learn the hard way what FDR already knew.
A democracy has to be attacked and in clear, dire peril before it can go to war. At least that is what I’d like to see the professor address.
Sure wasn’t. Although the last crack isn’t really accurate.
Good question, BroJoe. My answer: Yes and No. I could write a long essay, but no, I won't. It's almost time to pick up Mrs. henkster for lunch.
What I think we are looking at is an end to "the Long Peace" that followed World War 2. Since 1945, there have been no major wars where the major powers directly fought each other. I don't count Korea as a "major war" as it did not involve an existential fight for either China or the United States. But the better parallel for the end of the Long Peace is 1914, which ended the last Long Peace that followed the Napoleonic Wars.
I sometimes like to use the "Tectonic plate" analogy to describe the long periods of peace that end in cataclysmic wars. In Plate Tectonics, all seems peaceful and quiet on the surface, but underground forces are constantly pushing and grinding away, building up pressures. Eventually, the "existing order" of the rock is no longer strong enough, and the pressure is vented in the cataclysmic destruction of an earthquake. Then rocks settle down into their new arrangement, only to repeat the cycle.
History works much the same way. After 1815, when the "earthquakes" of the Napoleonic Wars had subsided, Europe settled into the post-Napoleonic Era of the "Concert of Europe." And with a few minor tremors, all remained peaceful. But underneath it all, new forces were at work creating pressures on the existing order. The Unification of Germany, the colonial/industrial economies of Europe, the rise of Socialism/Communism, all worked in a complex manner. Finally, in 1914, the earthquake happened. Only it was not enough to exhaust the historical pressures, and also created a new set of historical pressures the required a second, far more destructive, cataclysmic release a generation later.
Since then, the world settled down into a new order, more or less dominated by the victorious and prosperous United States, and played off by the simmering confrontation with Soviet Communism. However, under the surface, new historical forces gathered and began exerting their inexorable pressures. Oil economics empowered Islamic states, who have one by one come under the domination of radical, violent religious zealots. China rose as a major world power as Soviet Communism waned.
Most importantly, the United States squandered it's enormous wealth and prosperity on wasteful domestic programs. Having elected a series of very poor leaders, and lost most competitive advantages, the United States is now divided and weak. If I were to draw any comparison with 1939, we are France. On paper, we have the world's finest, best trained, best equipped and most professional miltary. But it serves a fractured, divided nation lacking political will and political leadership. And that military is itself being gutted from within.
So, yes, it's 1939 all over again if you believe the historical forces that have built up over the past generation can no longer be contained by the existing order created out of the wreckage of the last great war. And if you do believe that, then keep in mind how this plays out for us, just as it did for France in 1940. It will not go well.
To henkster’s excellent essay I would just emphasize we seem to have two irredentist powers who are willing to use military force to achieve their aims until someone is willing to try to stop them, Russia and China. The mood in the presently fragmented Arab world is overwhelmingly irredentist over reclaiming the land of Israel. The current administration is not remotely inclined to stop any of them. Given the public mood and the destruction wrought on our economy and military, I’m not sure that a future competent administration would be able to do so.
I find myself wishing to ask you for the next-to-impossible: integrate your expectations with the soon-coming fulfillments of Bible prophecy. But that’s asking too much of anyone. (Have I goaded you sufficiently?)
Sorry, no can do. Bible prophecy is beyond me and I won’t attempt it. I have what I call a “functional understanding” of Scripture. Don’t get me wrong, I do not question that the Bible is the Word of God. But when I read Scripture, I primarily see God’s hand in how He created us as His people. Through the Bible He shows us what we are in comparison to how He would have us be, if that makes any sense to you.
Allow me to provide an example as it pertains to what I do. Read Luke’s account of the Crucifixion; Luke 23:39-43, the two thieves next to Jesus. One was unrepentant, wanting to know a god he could use. The other took full responsibility for what he had done, repented, and accepted not only Jesus as Lord and Savior, but also knew that it was only for his spiritual salvation. He accepted death as his earthly punishment for what he had done.
In my line of work, I see the first thief well over 90% of the time, and rarely see the second. And so it is with man as a sinner. We want God to work for us, rather than the other way around. That passage from Luke shows it so clearly. It is one of many such instances in the Bible.
Because of that perspective, I believe God’s Plan for us is not so much what we will do, or what will happen to us. Instead, His plan for us is more focused on who we will be as followers of Christ. Whether we prosper or suffer, I will accept it knowing Jesus is still my Savior, and that He only wishes good for me, and my real reward awaits me in Heaven. That’s one of the reasons I like the Book of James so much; James 4:13-17 tells me not to boast about tomorrow and helps bring me down to earth. Matthew 6:25-34 tells me not to worry about it, either.
I’m 55 years old. In that time God has given me challenges but more than that He has given me countless blessings. Far more than I deserve for what I’ve done in my life; I was not always a Christian. I don’t run from my past sins and shortcomings. They are all part of who God made me to be. I am His servant; His will be done.
As a response to your question, spiritually that’s the best I can do.
A very worthy effort. Thanks.
Thanks for your great responses.
I especially appreciate your post #14 reply to "Hebrews 11:6".
For such a young man, you are wise beyond your years. ;-)
I agree it's the 1930s all over again, but not necessarily August of 1939.
I'd say, more like 1936, after Hitler occupied the Rhineland, or the March 1938 Anschluss of Austria, from which he learned how weak-willed the western powers had grown, and how easy they were to roll over.
The Putins, the Mullahs, Islamic radicals and Chi-coms of the world are now learning that same lesson.
It may yet not be too late, but the clock is definitely ticking down...
Ahhh.... one who sees the processes and not just the events.
As a close up of the processes, the current trade negotiations involving the Pacific Rim are evidence of the historical process transforming these nations into modern powers with economic capabilities and desires that were impossible as recently as thirty years ago.
Many choose to look back and wail and gnash their teeth about what was. The trade negotiations are being made by those looking forward. The trade relations will determine how the path to the future is paved. a certain order is needed to magnify the profit of multinational trade
and lastly..... as you have implied, peace is the interval between wars
Little girls in peace symbol T shirts will never grasp that simple fact
If you don’t understand the underlying processes history is meaningless. I agree with you that the current trade agreement negotiations represent a playing out of historical forces, and illustrates the decline of America’s economic power. If I understand some of the workings of this treaty correctly, the idea is to facilitate the perpetual internationalization of American debt, while also making it easier for foreign “investment” (asset aquisition) in the United States. These are not favorable long term trends for an increasingly unproductive economy.
The future historical question will be whether this agreement becomes a cause of war, or acts to delay it. The answer may be “Yes.”
Russia is a state-actor kleptocracy and demographics are killing it. Same thing with China. Who on the world stage or even in the wings is in a position to take America’s place in the world?
You forget 9/11?
We all cheered when the bombs fell for vengeance of that day.
Every. Single. American.
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.