That Lesson From History
"Go and read some history."
I've been told that a lot over the course of my blogging career, particularly when being less than polite about the glorious War Against Terror. As often as not this instruction is accompanied by a reference to something called "appeasement" and someone called "Neville Chamberlain". So a few days ago I decided to find out what on earth this "history" rubbish was all about, and I looked him up. It turns out he was a British Prime Minister, and not a very good one. Where he went wrong was that he didn't go to war. So now you see the lesson from history is clear:
Always go to war.
Who was it who said no-one ever learnt anything from history?
17 Comments:
I love a bit of appeasement, me.
And I've got a degree in modern history, so I'm an expert at it.
Flying "The Appeaser" Rodent they called me, back when I was in Munich.
Er, sorry, Larry, but he *did* go to war! He just didn't go in 1938, that's all.
Of course, he might have been better advised to go in 1935 when Hitler took the Saarland, or '36 when he took the Rhineland, both in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty and at a time when a combined Franco/British military power *might* have stood a chance of scotching Hitler before he became the world threatening menace we all know and love! (To be fair, Chamberlain wasn't PM then but he could have pushed for it.) Also there were lots of voters around with much the same views as you hold today.
Better minds than mine still argue whether that extra year between 1938 and '39 was worth it for the slight breathing space it gave us, particularly in Spitfire/Hurricane production, to say nothing of the installation of the radar network on the south coast - all of which were in their infancy.
Still, I suppose given the general tone of your comment you probably think that it was a great mistake to use Poland as an excuse to declare war in 1939; after all, we had successfully ratted on the democratic nation of Czechoslovakia the year before so we were rather good at that sort of thing. Indeed, there are still some people who maintain that that is what we should have done. I think David Irvine is one of them but even so, Larry, I'm surprised to see you in his company!
No sooner had I written the comment above when I came across this quote from Machiavelli:
"Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others…"
My thanks to Will, an impeccable Marxist, Geordie and general good egg, to be found at:
http://www.gentheoryrubbish.com/
in a post for 21 Nov headed: 'Sage Advice'.
David, so "the general tone" of my comment leads you to suppose that my opinions on the Nazis coincide with those of David Irving.
Would you like me to tell you what the general tone of your comment leads me to suppose about you?
Ha! From Neville Chamberlain to David Irving in one easy bounce. I like it David. I think Larry's pointing out that using appeasment and Chamberlain in the context of going to or not going to war in Iraq for instance is utterly absurd and demonstrates the bankruptcy of the current pro-war thinking.
Larry, I thought your study of mathematics included logic and also I assumed you could read! Nowhere did I even hint at your views on the Nazis! I merely pointed out that your heavy irony:
"Where he went wrong was that he didn't go to war. So now you see the lesson from history is clear:
Always go to war";
was an indication of either, your pacifist inclinations, or, your 'realpolitik' analysis of British strategic choices in 1939, a view which is shared, co-incidentally I'm sure, by David Irvine; but if on this one issue you find the company unpleasant be assured that it was also shared by the late Lord Halifax - and he was a real gent and a toff, to boot!
I am glad to have brought pleasure to the life of the interestingly-named, 'Hanoi Jane', but I can't quite see why congratulations are in order for 'bouncing' (as she puts it) from the PM of Britain in 1938/9 to a historian of WWII. I should have thought it was a rather obvious connection. Also, I am at a loss to understand why the use of events in 1938/9 in favour of the of the war in Iraq are "utterly absurd" and "bankrupt"; where-as Larry's use of the same *alleged* events plus some heavy irony in favour of the anti-war camp are not. Particularly when one considers that he got his facts wrong!
"war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others"
And the trick of course is always to make the other side think that it's to their advantage..whichever side you're on.
Of course, had we declared war on Germany in 1938 Britain and Germany would have fought themselves to a bloody standstill, America would most likely have maintained its isolation, and sometime in the mid to late 1940s Russia would have swept across devastated Europe.
If it wasn't for appeasement, you'd be speaking Ruski, Duffski.
Oh, and another thing, Duffles: "Will" is a "Decent" "Left" cunt whose views on TWAT are about as coherent as yours.
By the way, who is this David Irvine you keep going on about?
Good grief Duff, this is extraordinary. Do I REALLY have to spell this out? Oh well...
I was not using the events in 1938/9 in favour of the anti-war camp.
I was not indicating my pacifist inclinations.
I was not attempting a 'realpolitik' analysis of British strategic choices in 1939.
As I should have hoped would be obvious, and as Hanoi Jane has already attempted to explain, I was satirising some of the more idiotic pro-war rhetoric, which consists of pointing at anyone who disagrees, and shouting "APPEASER! NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN! GO AND READ SOME HISTORY!"
Insofar as this is an argument for anything, it is an argument for going to war at any time and against any adversary. Hence, as I put it, "Always go to war."
Now please tell me you understand, Duffski.
Hmm. Mr Duff; one of the lessons I would draw from history, at least based on our and the Russians' experiences over the last couple of hundred years, is 'Never invade Afghanistan if you can possibly avoid it (and you usually can) since no good comes of it in the long run.' Am I mistaken in this assessment, do you think?
Andrew, out of curiosity, do you think there was a great expansionist element in the Soviet elite of the 1940s? I could see them trying to restore the borders of the Russian Empire, as they pretty much managed to do at Yalta, but would they have gone further?
If it wasn't for appeasement, you'd be speaking Ruski, Duffski.
Bizarrely enough, the choice I had was between speaking German or Russian, and look where that's got me, твою мать. Mind you, the more difference between myself and Grazhdanin Duff, the better...
Ian, not really. Not when I think about it.
From what I understand of the Russian political elite there was very little stomach for conquest. I mean, they couldn't even get properly involved in the Spanish Civil War.
Setting up a series of buffer states after losing more than 20 million of your people is a slightly different matter.
I like the idea of Duff as the most obedient defender of a 'socialist' status quo, though.
I shall attempt to take you in order but first allow me to apologise for writing "Irvine" instead of Irving - and as it was early I can't even use the Laphroaig as an excuse:
Henk: er, whatever! OK?
Andrew: As is the way of Marxists and astrologers you assume the future can be foretold. Putting it politely, your scenario is, shall we say, doubtful.
'Brisso': We must beg to differ but, if you will allow me, in a choice between you and Will, I rather think I know who I would prefer to be with in a jungle!
Larry: It is not for me to protect any pro-Iraq war advocates with whom you have done battle but I doubt that they would agree with *your* version of *their* argument that events in 1938 "[are] an argument for going to war at any time and against any adversary". Are you not in danger of attacking a straw man and isn't that frowned upon in debating society circles?
'Not Saussure': It isn't the *invasion* of Afghanistan that is tricky, certainly not today, it is the *holding* of Afghanistan that should be avoided, in my opinion. In other words, by all means project your power but don't stick around afterwards, just leave a letter on the presidential desk promising more of the same if the next lucky(?) incumbent gets above himself!
Ian poses a really difficult and fascinating 'what if' question. After WWII, there were plenty of highly intelligent people (Enoch Powell amongst them) who doubted Soviet expansionist aims. Prior to WWII, Soviet interference in Spain was hardly auspicious. Even so, I think power is like water, it will flow into where-ever there is least resistance!
Mr Powell also had something interesting to say as a corollary to his opinion of the Soviets. But let's not go into that here, eh?
Why not? What did you have in mind? Perhaps his notion that unrestricted immigration would in time be the cause of great trouble, perhaps? Well, he got that one right!
No, not that one. Keep up at the back there!
Post a Comment