Roosevelt, for whatever reasons (Alger Hiss, possible Soviet sympathies of his own, and the fact that he was practically demented by the time of Yalta being a few) dismissed those plans at every turn and pretty much shanked Churchill at Yalta. FDR wasn’t exactly the great statesman he’s made out to be by liberal academics.

Personally, I think he was a little more than a pale reflection of the dictators he clashed with and cozied up to during the war. An analysis of Roosevet’s implementation of The New Deal and his vow to pack the bench in order to make the many unconstitutional measures within it constitutional via judicial fiat (going so far as enlarge the SCOTUS to NINE justices) could fill an entire thread all it’s own.

But that’s a discussion for another time.

SuperCool on May 18, 2008 at 4:35 AM

Roosevelt was a Socialist.

The Federal Reserve intentionally created the environment that led to massive speculation and the Great Depression.

The Great Depression was necessary to achieve their Socialist ends (via FDR).

Look where Social[ist] [In]Security came from.

Look where the IRS came from.

Wake up, Neo…

It is a 2004 recording of Bob McEwen, who served 12 years as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (1981–1993, from Ohio’s 6th district) and who was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

The CD addresses the history of appeasement in Europe building up to World War II, as well as the current world situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McEwen says this about McEwen:

In Congress, McEwen, who “had a reputation as a man who thinks about politics every waking moment,” claimed Congressional Quarterly, was a staunch conservative…

A vehement anti-Communist, he visited Tbilisi in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in 1991 to help tear down the hammer-and-sickle iconography of the Communist regime. That year he also called for the House to establish a select committee to investigate whether any soldiers declared “missing in action” in the Vietnam War and other American wars were still alive, by sponsoring H. Res. 207.

They see the failure of socialism worldwide not as an indictment of socialism’s fundamental principles, but simply as proof that capitalism is so pervasively evil that it will stop at nothing to thwart true, egalitarian, morally correct “social justice”.
…
They also have an unhealthy romance with non-Western, non-Enlightenment “values”, which emphasize “belief” over logic.
eon on May 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Good assessment, but I’m wondering if the line isn’t rather blurry. Western democracies, including our own, recognize the need to manage free markets, expand access to services to the disabled, provide a social safety net, and tax progressively. Some of the impetus for this can be found in Christian beliefs, that aren’t driven by cold logic but by faith, hope and charity.

This line of thought fails to recognize that with certain antagonists, negotiation is appeasement. It provides the recognition and validation that they covet, while they never intend to renounce their reprehensible views.

Potfry on May 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM

So which camp would the Soviets fall into or Red China?

Ragnell on May 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Many thanks for your kind thoughts.

I don’t “publish” online, technically speaking. I just comment. Here, at Little Green Footballs, and at Townhall.com. I’m easy to find, I use the same screen-name everywhere. Like Underdog, I’m “not horse, nor plane, nor even frog; it’s just little ol’ me”- eon.

As for the ‘clarity’ of my analysis, all I can say is, I’ve been on this planet 50 years. And my opinions are formed of observation and experience. (Much of the latter got a bit painful at times.) I make no claim to superior knowledge or intelligence, but I firmly believe in what I call the Bell/Doyle Law; When you eliminate all the impossible answers to a question, whatever remains, however improbable it may seem, must be the correct answer. The law is named for Dr. Joseph Bell of Edinburgh University Medical School and his prize pupil and lifelong friend, Dr. (Sir) Arthur Conan Doyle- the creator of Sherlock Holmes. (Most of Holmes’ aphorisms were Doyle’s own opinions, or quotes from Bell.)

Another dictum I follow is one I learned studying abnormal psychology. It goes, “If you see a behavior pattern which appears to make no sense, it means you have insufficient data to draw an accurate conclusion. Get more data.”

I find these two principles very useful in evaluating the behavior of those who believe themselves to be an “enlightened elite”. No matter why they believe it.

Thanks again.

cheers

eon

Nice post SuperCool. The way you said it agrees with my impression of what happened at Yalta. But I don’t know what the resources are to back all of that up.

eon on May 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM Because the “progressives” always have the same idea. Namely, that the newest group of “homicidal Utopians” they are romancing will be the ones who are strong enough to, once and for all, destroy the civilization they despise for its “coldness” and “lack of feeling”- ours.

Eon
Although I’ve participated in discussions which addressed this alliance between the radical left and the jihidists; I don’t believe anyone has quite matched the clarity and insight of your analysis. Many thanks

Are you publishing anything online you would be willing to share with us?

rags

lexhamfox on May 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Thank you for your insight. It’s interesting to see that some people still do not understand the fundamental relationship between Islamist radicalism and “progressive enlightened” radicalism. Let me explain it simply;

The “progressives” regard Western Civilization as a failure. In fact, they see it as inherently and irredeemably evil, for many reasons (going back to Christopher Columbus, and even earlier). They see the failure of socialism worldwide not as an indictment of socialism’s fundamental principles, but simply as proof that capitalism is so pervasively evil that it will stop at nothing to thwart true, egalitarian, morally correct “social justice”. (The more likely explanation, that socialism fails due to its own inherent contradictions, is rejected out of hand by them.) They also have an unhealthy romance with non-Western, non-Enlightenment “values”, which emphasize “belief” over logic. (Think of the “progressive” fascination with “New Age” beliefs- and their reflexive hostility to “technology”, which they regard as evil incarnate.)

The consequence of this for the last half-century has been that, whenever “progressives” had to choose between Western civilization and its enemies- they have invariably sided with the enemies. Whether the enemy in question was the Soviets, the Red Chinese, any of their “clients” (such as Castro), or, now, the Islamists. It doesn’t matter what the “ideology” is- as long as it rejects fact, and rejects Western values.

Because the “progressives” always have the same idea. Namely, that the newest group of “homicidal Utopians” they are romancing will be the ones who are strong enough to, once and for all, destroy the civilization they despise for its “coldness” and “lack of feeling”- ours. But, by the same token, once their new best friends have done so, said NBFs will not have the brains to run the “Brave New World”- and so will need the “enlightened elite” (our own home-grown “progressives”) to tell them, and whoever else is left, what to do. So that the “progressives” can build a new, perfect society on the ruins of ours. With themselves in absolute control, forever and ever, praise Nietsche.

Which means that they win, in their worldview.

The fact that everyone from Stalin to the Taliban have historically had a nasty habit of executing those in conquered countries who helped them do the conquering simply does not register with them. Because they never believe that it could happen to them. Rather, they believe that their latest NBFs will, instead, instinctively perceive their “inherent superiority” and immediately begin worshipping them- as they believe they so richly deserve.

Which means that if they ever “got what they wanted”, they would be awfully surprised when they were bent over the headsman’s block. And would probably still be saying, “But can’t we talk about this?” (Headsman’s most likely answer; “No.” Followed by a loud “Thwack”ing sound.)

As the old saying goes, just because a theory is stupid, there’s nothing to keep people from believing in it. Especially if they define reality as “whatever feels good”.

But you don’t run a civilization on “feelings”, good or otherwise. Not even if you are as “enlightened” as the “progressives” imagine themselves to be.

And as another old saying goes, a sheep trying to run with the wolves will just be eaten last. Because to the wolves, he’s not an “honorary” wolf- just a really dumb sheep. Who they are counting on to lead them to the rest of the flock- at which point he gets eaten along with the rest.

cheers

eon

I agree re Berlin but besides Patton and MacArthur no one had to stomach to fight a new war against Russia.

Not true, Monty as well as more than a few British officers in high places were in total agreement with Patton and Omar Bradley on that score: Stalin needed to be clipped and there was no better time to do it than, as Patton put it “while we’ve got the forces here to do it.” The thing most people don’t realize about the state of the Red Army after the armistance was signed, and pretty much throughout ’45-’46 was just how vulnerable they were: they had roughly equal numbers…to the US millitary presence on the continent alone: about two million men. However, while Tommy and Joe had three hots and a cot, boatloads of factory new weapons and ammo, and fuel enough to drive all the way into the Trans-Ural regions (and fly round the clock sorties over the western Soviet Union) and liberate Stalin’s death camps and absolutely nothing to interupt their lines of supply in the event of a war, Ivan wasn’t so well off: The Red Army was running on fumes; they were just about out of gas and ammo and so poorly supplied in every way that they ravaged the eastern European countryside (and it’s civilian populations) foraging for basic neccessities, such as food and heating fule. Add to that the US occupation forces in the far east under Mac providing a second front on an already weakened (and probably more than willing to be rid of Stalin, The Politburo, The KGB, purges, and gulags) population and, of course, The Bomb, knocking out Stalin was a totally realistic possibility and probable certainty were the decision mad to do so. Now, nobody figured it would be a cakewalk, an army of 2 million battle tested vets is still an army of 2 million battle tested vets, and the hardcore Red true-believers would likely put up a stiff resistence to the end as well, but Monty, Patton, Brad and Mac were fairly confident they could, if neccessary, add Stalin to the Dead Tyrants Club and the Soviet Union to the list of liberated countries is they got the go ahead from up top. It was an overall lack of will amongst the political classes to finish off the dicators once and for all that kept Stalin from joining Hitler in Hell sooner than he did.

What if FDR couldn’t convince Stalin to pull out of Eastern Europe? I’m just asking by the way, not criticising. I’ve never had this properly explained. I don’t fully understand what happened at Yalta.
aengus on May 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM

FDR didn’t even try to convince “Uncle Joe” to pull out of Eastern Europe, quite the opposite, in fact, he pretty much conceded the whole of eastern Europe to the Soviets at Yalta, much to the dismay and consternation of Churchill. In fact, Yalta drove a wedge between Churchill and Roosevelt; Churchill never trusted Stalin and had supported numerous operational plans during the war for the US and UK to open a south eastern front through Greece or Yugoslavia (or both), explicitly for the purpose of preventing the Soviets from being the sole occupying force in eastern Europe. Roosevelt, for whatever reasons (Alger Hiss, possible Soviet sympathies of his own, and the fact that he was practically demented by the time of Yalta being a few) dismissed those plans at every turn and pretty much shanked Churchill at Yalta. FDR wasn’t exactly the great statesman he’s made out to be by liberal accademics.

Personally, I think he was a little more than a pale reflection of the dictators he clashed with and cozied up to during the war. An analysis of Roosevet’s implementation of The New Deal and his vow to pack the bench in order to make the many unconstitutional measures within it constitutional via judicial fiat (going so far as enlarge the SCOTUS to NINE justices) could fill an entire thread all it’s own.

But that’s a discussion for another time.

One can never negotiate favorably from a point of weakness

Somebody tell Obama that.

It seems that Bruce Ramsey, Decider (or hireling of a Decider) has changed his article.

I saved a copy of the original and the revision. The article title, URL and first paragraph seem unchanged.

The rest is completely different.

In good doctrinaire form,

“What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.”

has been improved:

“What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim . . .”

and it’s now the 4th sentence, with qualification. Nuance.

How is it that someone claiming to be a journalist, educated at . . . the analysis just gets too stupid to form sentences.

Even jack-booted model-builders can provide a better apology for Hitler (and a better analysis of events 1918-1945).

Even 6th graders can thoroughly fisk his writing (and using only the World Book for fact checking).

Perhaps the Seattle Times will merge with the Seattle P-I, just in time for both to fold.

The two nations tried to avoid another devastating war the only way open to them at the time

Sure that was their only option after they had unilaterally disarmed themselves. One can never negotiate favorably from a point of weakness which was exactly where England and France found themselves.

Ireland and Britain are not really a part of Europe… I’m old-fashioned)

aengus on May 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM

AMEN!

Read the history of the German High Command. Its written by Germans. They know better and are more honest about what caused their meticulous timetable and plans to go off the rails. They cite two things. The Battle of Britain and the strong opposition that they faced in Yugoslavia. Specifically, Hitler insisted on total control in the Balkans and it tied up hundreds of thousands of his troops and caused the postponement of Barbarossa to a later date.

I think you will find that the Czecks were allied to the Soviets at the time. Your assertion that the Czecks could have effectively tied down the Germans with the aid of geography doesn’t really pass serious scrutiny as the Germans would have had the support of many of the local people in those geographical choke points. Indeed it is not unreasonable to suggest that a German invasion would have caused an instant civil war within Czeckoslavakia.

Some of the faciful posts about some sort of union between the left and radical Islam are hilarious. Just look at what happened to the Tudeh party in Iran and the socialist party in Afghanistan. They are not there anymore.

Dictators and terrorists perceive diplomacy, without the willingness to back it up with force, as a sign of weakness and they will use it to their advantage. The only way to secure peace is to back up our words with strength that will force them to o…..

Ed Cetera

- The Cat

I’ll be going to mass in St. Peter’s on Wednesday so if anyone wants me to shout anything at Pope Benedict say so now!

aengus on May 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM

You might want to ask him when he thinks the aliens will be landing.

Just kidding of course, I like this Pope, have a great trip!

aengus on May 17, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Thanks for the clarification. There has been a running controversy between Charles Johnson’s lgf blog (which I generally like and trust) and either The Gates of Vienna or The Anchoress about Vlaams Belang. I’m inclined to trust your judgment here.

Godspeed on your trip to Rome. I envy your opportunity to meet with Pope Benedict XVI. He dazzled us in the US with his visit. (Small world, but a fellow choir member who came here to the States from East Germany remembers Ratzinger from her own time as a student at Munich University.)