Unnecessary Wars How Empires Fall By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
|
|
Thread rating:  |
. - 15 May 2008 23:51 GMT In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents how British self- righteousness, delusion, and hubris destroyed both the British Empire and Western ascendancy in two unnecessary wars launched by a small cabal of morons that ruled Britain
Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War shows that the two world wars that destroyed European civilization began when England declared war on Germany, thus dragging in the Empire, Commonwealth, and United States. This was a strategic blunder unparalleled in history. Mighty Britain emerged from World War II as an American dependency.
Buchanan cites such British notables as F.J.P. Veale, B.H. Liddell Hart, and C.P. Snow to document that it was Winston Churchill who committed, in Veale’s words, “the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces.” It was Churchill, not Hitler, who first targeted civilian populations in World War II and caused the structure of civilized warfare to collapse in ruins.
The Americans quickly adopted Churchill’s criminal policy of attacking civilians, culminating in the outrageous use of nuclear weapons against two Japanese cities, the slaughter of Vietnamese civilians, and the ongoing slaughter of Afghan and Iraqi civilians. A popular American myth is that “the greatest generation” saved the world from Nazi tyranny. As Buchanan points out, the fact of the matter is that the Normandy invasion in June 1944 played little, if any, role in Germany’s defeat. By the end of 1942 Hitler had lost World War II at Stalingrad, long before any American troops appeared on the scene. What the Normandy invasion achieved 18 months later was to keep the Red Army from over-running all of Europe.
Although Buchanan’s book is about how the British destroyed themselves, Buchanan is clearly thinking about America. In the closing pages Buchanan shows how the Bush Regime has broken from the sound policy of President Reagan and is replicating the British folly of self-destruction. “There is hardly a blunder of the British Empire we have not replicated,” laments Buchanan.
The distinct American hubris that we are “the indispensable nation” and the braggadocio that we are an “omnipower” has us overcommitted in alliances that we cannot fulfill. Despite 25 percent of the Iraqi population killed, injured or displaced, the “world’s only superpower” cannot even control Baghdad. To deal with the pointless war we started in Afghanistan, we have had to sucker our NATO allies into a conflict that is no concern of theirs. Militarily overextended and with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, the cabal of morons that rules America still hopes to attack Iran, Syria, and to drive Hezbollah from Lebanon. American idiots in think tanks are busy at work drawing up plans about how the US is going to check China and prevent her emergence as a power beyond US control. The Republican presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and bring Putin to heel. Amazing.
The world’s greatest debtor is going to take on the two powerful countries with the largest trade surpluses. According to the World Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia’s 2007 current account surplus is $465 billion and China’s is $363 billion. In contrast, the US current account deficit is $987 billion--an amount larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined. The out-of-pocket and already incurred future cost of Bush’s wars of aggression is between $3 and $5 trillion, every dollar of which must be borrowed. That comes on top of the unfunded liabilities of the US government totaling $53 trillion. By any account the US is the world’s worst credit risk. The “mighty” US relies on foreigners to finance its consumption, its wars, and the daily operations of its government.
When Buchanan looks at the collection of idiots that comprise America’s ruling class, he despairs.
In truth, American power is already broken, and the country is already lost.
The country is lost, because the brownshirt Bush Regime has destroyed the US Constitution with the complicity of the opposition party and the federal courts. There is no organized power that can restore the Constitution or even much concern that it has been overthrown.
The country is broken, because American capitalists have moved offshore so many US manufacturing, engineering, and research jobs that US imports now exceed US industrial production. American dependency on imported manufactured goods, advanced technology goods, and energy is astounding.
Moreover, the dependency is escalating dramatically. In March 2002, prior to Bush’s decision to impose Israel’s will on the Middle East, oil was $25 a barrel. Today oil is $125 a barrel, a five-fold increase that has seen our oil import bill rise from $145 billion in 2006 to $456 billion presently, a $300 billion addition to a trade deficit that was already running $700-$800 billion annually.
There is no possibility of the US closing its trade deficit. The US is able to survive such enormous deficits only because the US dollar is the world reserve currency. This role for the dollar is nearing an end as the world looks for more stable stores of value. Although oil is still nominally priced in dollars, in reality it is being priced in euros as oil producers raise the dollar price with a view to keeping their oil revenues at a constant purchasing power in euros.
When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreign financing for US trade and budget deficits will evaporate. US living standards will collapse, and the indispensable omnipower will be just another washed up country.
For a world weary of “American exceptionalism,” this can’t happen too soon.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05132008.html
Dan Goodman - 16 May 2008 05:45 GMT soc.history.what-if is for discussion of history _as it did NOT happen_. Only an incompetent crank would post in a newsgroup before checking to make sure what it's about.
> From: "." <sweep1019@yahoo.com> > Subject: Unnecessary Wars How Empires Fall By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit > the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents If it doesn't infuriate Buchanan, then it doesn't infuriate _all_ the fake conservatives.
I'll give you one favorable comment: I'd been wondering how long it would take for Buchanan to begin saying the US was on the wrong side in WW II. You have now given me the answer.
 Signature Dan Goodman "I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers." Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
soupdragon1967@yahoo.co.uk - 16 May 2008 20:55 GMT I have not seen such an inaccurate trashy, Anglophobic diatribe for a long time.
> In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit > the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents how British self- [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05132008.html Ray O'Hara - 17 May 2008 00:34 GMT I have not seen such an inaccurate trashy, Anglophobic diatribe for a long time.
. par for pat buchanan
Robert S - 20 May 2008 00:43 GMT > <soupdragon1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > . > par for pat buchanan Great well-argued logical refutations of his points.
Well done both of you.
Ray O'Hara - 21 May 2008 23:03 GMT > > <soupdragon1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well done both of you. i gather you're not familiar with pat.
SolomonW - 17 May 2008 13:03 GMT In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5- 556002f856ed@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1019@yahoo.com says...
> Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War shows that the two world > wars that destroyed European civilization began when England declared > war on Germany, thus dragging in the Empire, Commonwealth, and United > States. This was a strategic blunder unparalleled in history. Mighty > Britain emerged from World War II as an American dependency. The British empire was breaking up before WW1.
Dan - 18 May 2008 19:59 GMT > In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5- > 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The British empire was breaking up before WW1. It is a diatribe but there is some truth in it and effectively a massive what if built up with absolute certainty and not accepting that the further you get away form the POD the less accurate any possible predictions can be.
There is a legitimate argument that says WW2 came out of the causes of WW1 and so you can not get rid of WW1 by changing how people react at Munich in 38 you have to go back and change WW1.
So What If 1914 Britain stays out accepting German assurances that the violation of Belgian neutrality will be temporary. France falls a la 1870, Serbia falls to Austria, italy and ottomans stay out,
Russia negotiates withdrawal during 1915 and all war over, for arguments sake with a semi independant german protectorate of Poland as the major change on the Eastern Front.
Casualties well 1,000,000 Brits stay alive and massive reductions in the other 10,000,000 casualties.
Flu epidemic of 1918 is less devastating as there are not millions of soldiers to move around the planet carrying the virus.
So how do the 1920's and 30's develop,
Russia is still at risk of violent revolution, but development of the Duma to a democracy has a slightly higher possibility.
Austria-Hungary is still an Empire at risk of breakup, the Serbs may lose but if incorporated into the Empire become a running sore with terrorist involvement, if they become independent still have ambition to revenge for loss.
France has now lost a war to Germany 3 times in a century, 1815, 1870, 1914, it feels stabbed in the back by UK, and is it France were Fascism first develops?
Germany picks up some French overseas colonies any ideas which ones? How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy? Willihiem becomes even more absoloutist? When did he die in OTL?
Good Habit - 18 May 2008 20:15 GMT Dan schrieb:
> France has now lost a war to Germany 3 times in a century, 1815, 1870, > 1914, it feels stabbed in the back by UK, and is it France were > Fascism first develops? Or it becomes the first country to go communist...
> Germany picks up some French overseas colonies any ideas which ones? Central Africa, Madagascar, Indochina, Dahomey - if Italy joined on the CP side once the fall of France seemed evident, they would claim Tunis.
> How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy? If the SPD can call in the debt for it's support for the war, a reform towards popular unity (equal vote for the Prussian Diet) seems not impossible, and with a more democratic Prussia, a real representative Regime on the national level seems possible Willihiem becomes even more absoloutist?
If the victory was won to easy, and he is such a splendid victor, this might be a possibility... When did he die in OTL?
1941... - so still 25 years to go...
Lyn David Thomas - 19 May 2008 07:57 GMT >> In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5- >> 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy? Willihiem becomes > even more absoloutist? When did he die in OTL? I think the outlook for those puppet states created in Eastern Europe, such as the Baltic Dutchy and Poland would be bleak, with the non German population reduced to abject poverty, starved and worked to death. With a German aristocracy rulling over a settler state as German agricultural workers move in to the lands vacated by the now displaced slavs and baltic people.
 Signature \/ Lyn David Thomas
am05@hotmail.com - 19 May 2008 19:18 GMT > On May 17, 1:03 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:> In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5- > > 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > arguments sake with a semi independant german protectorate of Poland > as the major change on the Eastern Front. It can be much simpler: Nicholas II does not place Russia all the way behind Serbia based on quite reasonable assumption that _he_ should not support regicidal activities (his grandfather and his uncle being assasinated). Crisis comes and goes away and there is business as usual for quite a while and prehaps forever.
SolomonW - 21 May 2008 14:03 GMT In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
> It can be much simpler: Nicholas II does not place Russia all the way > behind Serbia based on quite reasonable assumption that _he_ should > not support regicidal activities (his grandfather and his uncle being > assasinated). To me, this is the mystery of the start of WW1.
Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a blank cheque.
am05@hotmail.com - 21 May 2008 18:57 GMT > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > To me, this is the mystery of the start of WW1. Out of all heads of states involved, Nicholas should be the most sensitive to the issues of regicide. For most practical purposes (including self-preservation) an idea of the 'royal security' should have for him a much higher priority than the vague concepts of the Slavic solidarity.
> Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian > demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian > mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a > blank cheque. Both will amount to the same scenario and perhaps the military would be still wearing beautiful uniforms with a lot of gold braiding and feathers. :-)
SolomonW - 22 May 2008 16:29 GMT In article <23128c44-cf55-4b00-8f1f-81bcbd621608@ 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
> > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > > 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have for him a much higher priority than the vague concepts of the > Slavic solidarity. Self-preservation for an autocratic leader whose rule was already under threat by democracy, joining Britain and France was self destructive.
Are there any decent books you can recommend on why Nicholas did go to war. I never seen one.
> > Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian > > demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be still wearing beautiful uniforms with a lot of gold braiding and > feathers. :-) I suspect that it might have been a much nicer world. Russia probably would have kept moving to democracy, so no communist, so no Nazis, so no cold war etc.
Ray O'Hara - 21 May 2008 23:05 GMT > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a > blank cheque. it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch.
am05@hotmail.com - 22 May 2008 14:39 GMT > > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > > 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch. If Nicholas did not support Serbia, there would be no switch to flip.
SolomonW - 22 May 2008 16:08 GMT > > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > > 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch. France came into the conflict later.
July 28 - Austria declared war on Serbia. July 29 - Russia mobilized. Aug 1 - Both France and Germany mobilized
Ray O'Hara - 22 May 2008 22:07 GMT > > > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > > > 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > July 29 - Russia mobilized. > Aug 1 - Both France and Germany mobilized germany mobilized because france was. if the french held back the gewrmans would have too.
no doubt austria was the main culprit but it could have stayed a local balkan war of which they'd had several already, {1912 and again in 1913}
the austrians never get any blame. but they started the 30 years war, the napoleonic wars, WWI and hitler who started WWII was an austrian i figure it's the lederhosen, nobody thinks folks who wear suspenders{braces to you brits} and shorts with flowery embroidery would cause all that trouble.
Robert Savage - 23 May 2008 17:10 GMT >>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- >>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > suspenders{braces to you brits} and shorts with flowery embroidery would > cause all that trouble. No one seems to get the blame except William II, he could have prevented the World War but any one power could have prevented WWI, the Czar, by not mobilizing, the Kaiser by telling Austria to accept Serbia's response and keeping control of his ministers, the French by not supporting Russia who is supporting Serbia and threatening Germany for no apparent good reason, and the British who could have spoken plainly.
What's ironic is that both William and Nicholas viewed themselves as autocrats, and had they acted as autocrats, dealt directly with one another (as they attempted to do so) and ignored thier respective advisors and ministers, the whole thing might have worked itself out.
I am ignorant of the state of telecommunications systems from this era, but WI there was a "red phone" type system in place in July, 1914, so that instead of communicating by telegram, the heads of state could talk directly.
Would the advantage of direct timely spoken communication between Berlin and Petersburg have resulted in anything positive? (Or Berlin and London for that matter.) The "Willy Nicky" telegrams almost did, except for Willy's misunderstanding of Nicky believing him to have acted in bad faith in ordering 'military measures' decided on 'days ago.'
Rob
SolomonW - 24 May 2008 14:54 GMT > >>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > >>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Rob It might have worked. During the crisis, William telegraphed the Austrians to withdraw his blank cheque. This message was ignored. If he had telephoned, it may not have been ignored.
Ray O'Hara - 27 May 2008 17:45 GMT > >>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a- > >>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Rob the king ,kaiser and czar were first cousins and they had spent many a youthful summer at grandma's playing together. that they couldn't reach a deal is incomprehensible. the kaiser also took his usual month long baltic summer cruise in july 1914 and he was out of the loop.
the brits are the least guilty they only came in because the germans passed through belgium. the brits are vart sensitive about the port of ostende, an invasion of gr brit will stage from there.
a big problem was the efficiency of the schlieffen plan. it had no recall utton nor did it have a provision to mobilize and not attack.
|
|
|