Little History... Dangerous Thing-Harry Browne

Check out this fantastic piece by Harry Browne, written over a year ago:

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?

Harry’s got a ton of other great articles on his site:

[To the mods: If you think I’m on here to specifically endorse a particular site, please read my other posts, and get a grip. Everything I link is very relevant to this forum; there’s absolutely nothing to warrant it’s deletion. These aren’t exactly competing supplement sites that I’m linking to, either. What’s next, editing out all mentions of cnn.com? Please…]

P.S. This article isn’t copyrighted.

Great article. Very interesting. It refutes many of the hopelessly simplistic arguments dished out by those of the hawkish persuasion. Unfortunately, few of them will make it to the end of the article.

So those poor Germans were the real victims of those Two world Wars?

And the poor Middle Eastern Terrorists. We are responsible for their actions?

A little history is dangerous. Every group has their own version of it. How do you think a history book written by the Nazi’s would read. Similar. How about the Soviets describing the Great Patriotic War to defend Communism? Do you think the Iman’s are teaching a different version in the Madras to young fundamentalists and encouraging a Jihad?

Just curious.

Your author looks at every problem thru the same lense. What other conclusion could he possibly make?

Only one thing I can think of more dangerous than a ‘little history’ - revisionist history.

hey Al…why attack the mods? They’ve always been fine to me…and most people I know. If you’ve been censored, look to yourself, not them.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Only one thing I can think of more dangerous than a ‘little history’ - revisionist history.[/quote]

Too bad this all happened, or were you too busy to pay attention in high school history classes?

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Great article. Very interesting. It refutes many of the hopelessly simplistic arguments dished out by those of the hawkish persuasion. Unfortunately, few of them will make it to the end of the article.[/quote]

Can I nominate this as one of the funniest posts of the year???

Refutes? Jesus Christ. You guys should get a grip.
Honestly, you can’t buy entertainment like this.

I was a history major. I did a paper on the rise of Hitler and took a seminar on the rise of Nazism and Fascism.

This article is such crap it’s funny. All you need is a little knowledge of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire at that time to start laughing right at the beginning with the claims of its domination of Europe, and you won’t stop until the end.

Thanks for the comedy.

My degree is in history (Hence my retail-management job (sarcasm)) so I take a special interest in this discussion. All history is, by nature, revisionist. Something happens and we attempt to understand the forces that created the situation. As “new shit comes to light,” we expand our understanding of the currents and forces that led to an event. To condemn “revisionist history” is to condemn further analysis. That said, what interests me most about this article is the silly attempt to exclusively link the rise of Nazi party to American intervention in WWI. What about the Soviet support of the Bavarian communists? Or the execution of the Thule society folks by said communists? These events were as much turning points in the rise of Hitler as the economic collapse of the late 20s and early 30s or the intervention by the US. I wholeheartedly agree that an armistice could have been reached without US involvement, but so what? There were many other steps along the road to the Third Reich where many other parties were complicit. Do we blame the Jews because of Ben-Gurion’s facist overtures to Hitler? Or does the easy whipping-boy of history, Neville Chamberlain, shift the blame to the British? Similarly, in the current conflict, shifting the blame for Saddam onto America is inaccurate. Yes, we armed him. No, there were no atrocities in Kuwait or troops massed along the border or even mass graves for that matter. But so what? Writing history is always myth-making. The goal is not to blindly seek the impossible “objectivity,” but to understand the functions of certain myths/“historical facts.” As the trite aphorism states, “The victors write the history.”

You know, I’m starting to feel sorry for poor Sadam. He only promised to disarm because of the threat of war (in 1991). We should have realized he didn’t mean it! (hits foreheard).

No one could have expected him to keep that promise. The man was under a lot of stress, what with having to think of how to torture, kill and maim those who disagree with him. That puts a lot of stress on a person.

And we had to go and invade his country. BAD USA-VERY BAD!

You know I have come to the conclusion that liberals will never “get it.” I didn’t use to think that way…

[quote]battlelust wrote:
Writing history is always myth-making. The goal is not to blindly seek the impossible “objectivity,” but to understand the functions of certain myths/“historical facts.” As the trite aphorism states, “The victors write the history.”[/quote]

So, uh, you were a post-modernist history major, then?

Hey al, if you can spare a sec from your busy scedule of hating America you should read a book called 'Spare Parts", it talks about first hand acounts of Iraqi abuse of Kuwati’s. Not in hospitals, but right in their own homes, in front of other family members.

The libertarian party is a joke.

Harry Brown is a joke.

The article is a joke.

Would you rather fight terrorism on the streets of Boston or Detroit, or on the streets of Tikrit and Bahgdad?

Good article from the Boston Herald. Much better than that piece of crap obove.

Peace through strength!

Winning Iraq war made us safer
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, March 20, 2005

On the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, it would be a pleasant surprise to see a bit of national pride expressed in all that has been accomplished in the Middle East in two short years. But bellyaching comes naturally to some folks so allow us to point out the obvious. The world is safer today than it was on March 20, 2003.

 Just don't expect to read that on the editorial pages of the bellyacher-in-chief, The New York Times, which had this to say Friday: ``The invasion of Iraq. . . was a world-changing event. We can see many of the consequences already. The good ones so far exist mainly as hopes and are fewer than the bad ones, some of which are all too concrete.'' Groan, groan, grumble, grumble. 

 Maybe these folks should spend some time reading their own newspaper to better understand that the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom in the Middle East to keep us safer at home is not just a policy of choice, but a policy of necessity. 

 One recent front-page Times story detailed an internal federal government analysis of post-9/11 aviation security. Some $12 billion has been spent fortifying aircraft and airports, yet the report concludes commercial aviation remains an appealing target for terrorists, and general aviation (private aircraft) and helicopters are easy pickings for terrorists looking to spread deadly biological agents or commit a 9/11-style hit on a standing target. 

 Then there was a report in Time magazine that indicates bin Laden front man Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sees the Mexican border as an easy entry point into the United States and suggests the next targets in the homeland will be virtually unsecured - or soft - like movie theaters and schools. 

 Both of these disturbing tidbits affirm that President Bush [related, bio] was exactly right in concluding that defeating terrorism must begin on the streets of Baghdad and Ramallah, not Boston and Detroit. 

 And really, what's the alternative? While spending billions on aviation, little progress has been made securing other transit modes. What should the U.S. spend - $24 billion, $50 billion? And how on earth are we to go about securing every school, every theater, every pizza parlor, every shopping mall in every community in every state against suicidal terrorists? 

 We can't. And to pretend otherwise is irresponsible. 

 The policy of spreading freedom in the Middle East has been praised as visionary and knocked, in turn, as naive or brazen. We assume, facts aside, it will continue to be. But the reality is that it's none of these. It's simply necessary.

And if you watch the Rodney King tape backwards, you will see the nice officers help Mr King get up and send him on his way…

It’s all in the spin-doctoring…

Al,

You are priceless!!!

"For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing)

Libya?

“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.”

Wonderful!!! Saddam was very receptive to diplomacy. Oh, wait…

“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.”

Al have you ever met Makkun?

“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.”

No arguing that point.

“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.”

United States=Good. Terrorists=Bad.

Period.

“The Facts”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

“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.”

Al, aren’t you still in high school? Aged seventeen? According to your logic, you should wait until you’ve finished before trying to form a thought.

“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.”

Oh, MY GOD!!! Where did you read this crap? “Dominated!!!”

“Many Serbs thought Bosnia should be part of Serbia instead of Austria.”

Ok!!!

“When the Austrian Emperor’s heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia, he was murdered by a Bosnian Serb protesting Austrian domination.”

The only true fact so far.

“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.”

You are on a roll!!!

“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.”

See interlocking alliances further cemented by blood. Look at how many of Victoria’s relations sat on European thrones.

“Stalemate”

You think your mighty Austrian-Hungarian empire thought it was a stalemate? I doubt it. See what actually happened.

"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 ?

No threat!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

See Luisitania. Oh wait, I forgot, you are a proponent of pure isolationism. Don’t honor alliances or free trade!!! Cool.

“allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.”

Go Americans!!!

“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.”

If you could just string together three paragraphs of fact in a row, we’d be getting somewhere!!! Good job.

“To the victors go the spoils, indeed!”

Wilson was right. England and France were dead wrong at Versailles (I don’t care that I spelled a french word incorrectly.)

“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.”

Ok, now get a couple of good paragraphs in a row!!!

“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.”

Actually, I can’t. Hell, I can’t figure out why anyone would bother to become an anarchist. But, I’m trying.

“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.”

Yes!!!

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

Actually, Germans went back to work in droves.

“Conclusions”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!

“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 . . .”

Indeed!!!

“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,”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

“and the existing governments in Russia and Germany most likely would have remained in power ? meaning no Soviet Union and no Hitler.”

You moron!!! Does anyone else think Lenin could have been stopped in 1917?

“But do-gooders always believe they know what’s best for the world ?”

Yes, I do.

“and they claim that some simple act of force will settle matters once and for all. It never does.”

Hitler is dead.

“If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II,”

Anyone else think the Kaiser would have been any less brutal in his demands? Anyone else think he would have let the borders stand?

“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 people are torpedoing neutral shipping, Al’s response is to retreat to our own borders!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAH!!!

“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.”

I agree with that!!!

“(American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)”

What? Did you catch the whole “splittin’ up Germany” after WWII. American diplomats had a minimal impact on Joe Stalin.

“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.”

Cool argument!!! It just so happens that force was the only thing that exacted concessions. See UN inspectors being thrown out in 1998. When did they return? When our troops were on the border. I know, it’s a coincidence!!!

“If the demands are unnatural (as expecting a country in the Middle East to disarm certainly is), you can expect a backlash.”

Is Libya close enough?

“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.”

Please try to tell that to a Czech, Romanian, Greek, Pole, Norweigan, Frenchman, Brit, Hungarian, Hollander, Belgian, North African, Russian, Austrian over the age of seventy five. Better duck!!!

“There’s a Lot More”

I hope not!!!

“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.”

I probably wouldn’t tell any of that to a 9/11 survivor of family member. You may not be able to duck quickly enough.

“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.”

Very true!!!

“And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever)”

You cool with Saddam massing troops on his border with Kuwait every few years since? How about paying suicide bomber’s families in Palestine.?

Wait!!! Let’s pull out and run away!!! Our allies are not necessary!!!

“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?”

I was abducted by an alien. They took a plaster mold of my Johnson. Now they worship it. They chant and make sacrifices to the “Holy Hog.”

“Nor have we touched on another important part of history ? the assertions made by our government”

This should be fun!!!

“before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border,”

Yep. After Iran and Kuwait, naturally he would have stopped and been peaceful.

“no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals.”

The space aliens also are fascinated by the fact that the “Holy Hog” attracts lightning.

“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.”

The Aliens have tried to screw the “Holy Hog.” I’ve seen pictures, it isn’t pretty.

“And the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed was revised upward several times after the war.”

Every casualty figure is right on!!! There is never any revision. Surveillance photos are absolutely foolproof!!!

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

I read something about “history repeating itself.” Somewhere.

“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.”

Not to mention every other government. Oh wait, governments are inherently bad.

“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.”

That is why we believed him.

“istory is more than slogans.”

Good point.

“t is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;
It is human nature being relived over and over;”

Truer words were never repeated!!

“t is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;”

Or in your case, outright hostility.

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

Pearl Harbor hasn’t been attacked for quite a while.

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

Anarchy never works.

“When will we learn?”

Hopefully, after you graduate high school.

“Harry’s got a ton of other great articles on his site:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/

Hilarious!!!

“[To the mods: If you think I’m on here to specifically endorse a particular site, please read my other posts, and get a grip. Everything I link is very relevant to this forum; there’s absolutely nothing to warrant it’s deletion. These aren’t exactly competing supplement sites that I’m linking to, either. What’s next, editing out all mentions of cnn.com? Please…]”

To the mods, thanks for allowing this thread to continue. It illustrates that there are many high school kids who take themselves far too seriously.

“P.S. This article isn’t copyrighted.”

Oh, why not. That’s a wonderful use of copyright resources!!!

Thanks, Al. You are hilarious!!!

JeffR

Jeff,

You have outdone yourself. The Holy Hog!

HAHAHAHAHA!

Al, I encourage you to live by your violent anarchist credo. You don’t have to live here, where we are succumbing to evil collectivism. It’s easy – all over remote areas of Africa, they are experimenting with anarchy, that enlightened form of government. Move to the Central African Republic or the Congo and carve out your on domain and let us know how things go.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
battlelust wrote:
Writing history is always myth-making. The goal is not to blindly seek the impossible “objectivity,” but to understand the functions of certain myths/“historical facts.” As the trite aphorism states, “The victors write the history.”

So, uh, you were a post-modernist history major, then?[/quote]

LOL!!!
Great line!

“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.”

Kid, you said that you are 17. You are way too young to even comprehend the vastness of your own ignorance, and that is why you would post such comical nonsense as historical fact.

Austria didn’t even dominate the German-speaking parts of Europe, let alone the whole damn continent. In fact the Hapsburgs were just about at the end of their rope. Why do you think that when the Austrians tried to settle the score in the Balkans the Germans had to back them up against the Russians, who were allied with the French? Austria was Germany’s bitch, as you kids might say today. DUH.

Seventeen and an libertarian anarchist or whatever the hell you call yourself. Kid, you have been living on someone else’s dime for all or damn near all of your life. Fetching pocket money at the local gym doesn’t count in the big picture. Trust me son, there are better ways to rebel.

The way that a so-called champion of freedom treats non-US dictators would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. If the takedown of a dictator who murders hundreds of thousand results in the loss of a morsel of money or liberty, then fuck em. Not exactly a winning political proposition.

Don’t get me wrong kid, I’m no fan of coercion and big government and all of the stupidity it brings to the world either. But you gotta have at least some sense of the real world and the possibilites therein.

As a rule of thumb, people who are so self righteous about such specific beliefs have something to hide. Did your mommy scold you in front of your friends for wetting the bed one time too many or something like that?

The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately, this proved to be the cause of it’s demise - and it is this salient point that Browne uses in his piece. So I strongly disagree with your assertion that the article is “garbage.”

[quote]battlelust wrote:
That said, what interests me most about this article is the silly attempt to exclusively link the rise of Nazi party to American intervention in WWI. What about the Soviet support of the Bavarian communists? Or the execution of the Thule society folks by said communists? These events were as much turning points in the rise of Hitler as the economic collapse of the late 20s and early 30s or the intervention by the US.[/quote]

You are 110% right about the multitude of other factors that contributed to the rise of fascism and the fall of Weimar Germany. I’m sure that Mr. Browne would not choose to dispute these factors (he has gone on to address similiar critiques in follow-up pieces). His point, however, as I read it, was that the collapse of Imperial Germany due to the overwhelming defeat suffered by that nation in WWI - made possible by American intervention - was what paved the way for all of the calamities to follow.

Had Germany and Austria-Hungary remained stable monarchies after the war, even if only for a short time period, then chances are high that any further conflicts would have been small-scale and localized, as Harry points out. Hitler had it tough in the beginning, even in post-Weimar Germany. In a nation that hadn’t been completely ravaged by war, inside-and-out, he wouldn’t have stood a chance. This is Harry Browne’s central theme - that of eliminating the impetus behind dictatorships by not causing the grievances that lead people to support them:

"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.)"

[quote]battlelust wrote:
Similarly, in the current conflict, shifting the blame for Saddam onto America is inaccurate. Yes, we armed him. No, there were no atrocities in Kuwait or troops massed along the border or even mass graves for that matter. But so what? Writing history is always myth-making. The goal is not to blindly seek the impossible “objectivity,” but to understand the functions of certain myths/“historical facts.” As the trite aphorism states, “The victors write the history.”[/quote]

I don’t view it as a matter of “shifting blame,” but rather, of repudiating the false notions advanced by the media and the government to make the case for war. If anyone is responsible for “shifting blame,” it’s these parties, not objective commentators like Harry Browne.

You seem to take a rather nihilistic view of history, one which I do not share. The “goal”, as I see it (in reference to Mr. Browne’s piece), is to prevent the occurence of future wars and dictatorships through awareness of analogous events in the past that have spawned them, with the World Wars serving as one example.

This is summed up perfectly in the following points, made by Harry:

"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.

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

“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.

[Apostrophes added for emphasis]

“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.”

As Harry pointed out in a seperate article, if Saddam really DID have WMD’s and the capability to attack America, the fastest way to make him USE THEM AGAINST US would have been to threaten or coerce him - just as our government did before the war. Any third world dictator who possessed weapons capable of attacking America would have to know that such an event would provoke an immediate and crushing response that would almost certainly result in his expulsion from power, and either death or life imprisonment. Thus, the argument that the U.S. must “stop evil dictators before they attack us” is absurd and hypocritical.

The people running the show know this. That’s why, as Harry also points out, you’ll never see our government threatening Russia, or North Korea, or China, even Pakistan (nuclear power), or any other nation that could actually stand a chance of defending itself/inflicting harm on the U.S. in a war of aggression. The “War on Terrorism” is a “War for Terrorism” - a complete fraud perpetrated by some of the greatest conmen in history. In targetting isolated, statist dictatorships such as that of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, our government is DIRECTLY FOSTERING the borderless, trans-national terrorist movement and it’s unofficial leaders, such as Osama Bin Laden.

THIS is why a little history can be a dangerous thing.

Deanosumo- great to see that your vast knowledge of things like gun control extends to European history as well.

Baby Al- all of us unlettered lovers of the Leviathan eagerly await your learned riposte.

Mods- I love you man, and your subtle yet devastating sense of humor. Let him go one please.