Replies

from the article: "3) If You Stop Doing What Makes You Successful, The Success Won’t Continue Forever:"

"I speak as a Roman history buff; this is a very good summary."

"Those few of us left that studied REAL history, see the all-too-frightening parallels."

I love these analogies, but the bottom line is: it's all nonsense.
Sorry.

The Western Roman Empire did not fall for any of the reasons listed: not because their leaders were corrupt, not because their elites were decadent, not because their masses were indolent & dependent on government largess, and not even because their diverse ethnicities didn't assimilate.

How can I possibly know this for sure?
Because all of that existed for centuries before the Western Empire fell, and the empire always eventually recovered from any weakness or disaster.

So, what was it then?
Simple: the cost of maintaining enough legions on the frontiers to protect against barbarian invasions was more than the Western Empire alone could afford.
That's because the real wealth of the empire was in the East -- Egypt and Constantinople especially.
When the West was cut-off from the East's wealth, it slowly withered, became economically brittle and eventually bankrupt.

Is there a parallel with us today?
Oh, you betcha! Bigly!
The US was key to achieving WWII's Unconditional Surrender over Axis powers because we were then the world's economic power-house.
Today, not so much.

So, why do you suppose our President is working to restore the economic base on which our own military might depends?
Because he knows that, regardless of whatever other sins we are guilty of, just like the ancient Romans, the one sin for which there is never forgiveness is: weakness, economic or military.

You disagree?

I wasn't referring to the fall of the Empire, but rather the fall of the Republic.

Gaius Julius Caesar was a member of the populares, what we today would call a populist. He was opposed by the senatorial establishment, again, much of what we see today.

Of course, the parallels are not exact, but in broad outline (members of the government using the government to enrich themselves, for example), they are.

"The US was key to achieving WWII's Unconditional Surrender over Axis powers because we were then the world's economic power-house."

The country of Japan did not surrender unconditionally. The Potsdam Declaration only required that the Japanese armed forces surrender unconditionally, not the greater country.

"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action...."

MacArthur quietly gave the Japanese terms but publicly proclaimed it an "unconditional" surrender. Unlike Germany, after the war the government of Japan remained sovereign, independent, and largely intact. The Japanese Emperor remained on his throne and his subjects remained free to worship him despite his being coerced by MacArthur into publicly rejecting his own divinity.

Mac believed that the civil unrest that would follow forcing the Emperor to step down would have delayed the rebuilding of Japan by several years, and might well have led to more bloodshed on both sides. So he saw granting them terms as a necessary evil. At the same time he realized that his permissive attitude toward what many Americans would have considered pagan idolatry would not sit well back home. IF they found out. So he saw to it that they didn't.

Despite his probable complicity, the war crimes tribunal didn't go after the Emperor for the same reason that Mac left him on his throne. It was the cost of not re-igniting the war.

Mac also forced the government to cease its official support for the Shinto religion, yet 80% of Japanese today practice Shinto, so you can see how effective that was.