Previous posts in this discussion:
PostWhat Really Cost Hitler the War: Invading the USSR (Tor Guimaraes, USA, 11/20/21 9:07 am)
It is a lot of fun to play with "what ifs," because it is free and highly educational. The biggest drawback is that it inevitably is much simpler when compared to the complexity of the real situation.
Someone should write a book (maybe they already did?) about The Decision That Really Cost Hitler the War: Invading the USSR. Everyone already knew the US was helping Britain every way they politically could, the Japanese were strategically doomed from the start even though they did kick us hard in the short term, which just motivated us to cause their destruction. Strategically, WWII was a fantastic opportunity for America to become the arsenal for the world for the next few decades, fully capable to fight on both fronts by galvanizing so many nations.
Since the US was already surreptitiously in the European war, the most deadly decision by Hitler was to believe he could conquer Western and Eastern Europe in a two-front war his generals warned against. As Simms and Laderman say, Hitler declaring war on the US was a very helpful legal excuse for the US to jump in full bore in the Atlantic naval warfare, while mostly supporting Britain and Russia with equipment and supplies in the early stages of WWII, helping turn the Soviets into the killing machine for most of the German soldiers.
At an even deeper level, one could say that Hitler's fate was sealed when he decided he could win any world war based on personal genius and infallibility, early war successes, strong Nazi will and faith, instead of logic, proper logistical planning, and scientific knowledge. Yes, the Nazis used scientific knowledge for some impressive advanced weapons, but they were limited in scope and resources: they expected too much and could not deliver. Once reality set in (the Russians were no Untermenschen, their weapons were increasingly deadly, they were good at learning on the job, the US had incredible unmolested manufacturing capability, Britain was no chicken, etc.) it became "all she wrote."
JE comments: Yes, Sir. The most surprising fact about WWII isn't how it ended, but that it lasted as long as it did. Allow me to throw a "what if" into the hat: Suppose Hitler had made overtures to Stalin in late 1941/early 1942, offering a cease-fire in exchange for significant territorial concessions? Say, pull the Wehrmacht back 500 kilometers from its current position? I cannot recall this hypothetical ever being discussed.
Another WWII "What If?"
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
11/22/21 2:39 AM)
John Eipper commented on my last post: "The most surprising fact about WWII isn't how it ended, but that it lasted as long as it did. Allow me to throw a 'what if' into the hat: Suppose Hitler had made overtures to Stalin in late 1941/early 1942, offering a cease-fire in exchange for significant territorial concessions? Say, pull the Wehrmacht back 500 kilometers from its current position?"
This would not have been very likely, because by early 1942 a lot of blood, sweat, and tears had been spilled for the Russians to accept this. It is possible that Stalin might have accepted such a proposal only to buy time, improve Russian weapons, prepare his military for a "war of liberation" which might include Berlin. A critical question would be if the "significant territorial concessions" included the Romanian oil fields so important to both sides.
One of my favorite WWII "what ifs" is playing the devil's advocate, whereby Hitler would be a little more educated, played on the Capitalist West's fear of Communism, temporarily disguised the bestial nature of Nazi behavior, entered into an alliance with other European nations, executed Barbarossa with their support under the pretense of fighting Communism, consolidated Eastern Europe and gained strength over the following five to ten years by gobbling up the USSR, then turned back for Poland, Hungary, etc. and war with Western Europe.
Assuming France was still napping militarily speaking, in a few months the next World War would have been between Nazi Germany and the USA (with Japan by then out of the picture), the conclusion of which would be totally dependent on how far ahead the US atomic arsenal was compared to Germany's. Would the US would have jumped on the Manhattan Project and developed atomic bombs by 1945, since Nazi Germany was not at war with Britain until much later? Also, would Heisenberg have been more successful with the Nazi atomic program if he had more time and resources? Thus, my imagination comes to a halt.
JE comments: A cleverer and less frightening Hitler (a "non-Hitler"?) may indeed have united the West against the Soviets, but what about the logistics of invading the USSR without occupying Poland first? Move through Finland and the Baltics?
In the meantime, WWIII (or more precisely, the Second US Civil War) may have ignited over the weekend. We have much to discuss over the Rittenhouse acquittal and its aftermath. It remains to be seen if the mayhem in Waukesha, Wisconsin, resulting in at least five deaths, had a connection to the trial in nearby Racine. A "person of interest" is in custody. Also, there are riots in several US cities. One probable casualty of the latest tragedy: community parades.
Thoughts on Eastern Front Alternate Scenarios, Rittenhouse Verdict
(Cameron Sawyer, Russia
11/22/21 9:46 AM)
In response to Tor Guimaraes: Stalin's ceding the Romanian oilfields to Hitler in 1942 would be no cession at all--these were never in the Soviet sphere of influence. Romania was an ally of Nazi Germany.
As for John E's alternate WWII scenario, why would Hitler have ever agreed to stop 500 miles short of Moscow? This would represent a total failure of Hitler's war aims in Barbarossa. We can pretty well imagine Stalin proposing such a thing, but I think we can't imagine Hitler accepting it. Much more plausible would be that Hitler had correctly understood the foolhardiness of invading the USSR in the first place and had simply never started it, nor starting anything with the US. Then he could have been content with his domination of Western Europe and left it at that, building German industrial capacity and military power using the additional resources of occupied Western Europe. The thought is frightening.
Nor do I believe could Hitler have prevailed in a long war of attrition with the US. He simply did not possess the industrial capability to keep up such a conflict. The only way to win against either superpower, the US or the USSR, much less both of them combined, would be either diplomacy, pitting one against the other, or nuclear weapons.
What concerns Kyle Rittenhouse, the verdict was entirely predictable--the prosecution never had a case on the ridiculously overreaching charges. The prosecution's case was so badly formed that one wonders if they intended all along to lose.
Kyle Rittenhouse, the young idiot, should never have been there in the first place. We need laws, probably, allowing us to prohibit bringing arms to public disturbances, and I believe that something consistent with the 2nd Amendment could be crafted. But in the absence of such laws, Rittenhouse didn't do anything illegal. He was defending himself. The three people he shot, were all attacking him, one with a loaded pistol. I fail to understand all the gnashing of teeth in the press over this. Does no one understand, that the law is not infinitely flexible, to allow people you don't like to be punished without any basis in principle? Did they expect the judge or jury to nullify the law?
The fairest comment I saw was that such justice is available to whites, but not to black people. I think this may be true in some cases, but even so, that's not an argument to deny justice to other people. That's on the contrary an argument to be sure that black people are afforded the same rights.
The right to self-defense has always existed in American law, and this right has recently been even expanded in many states with so-called "castle laws" or "stand your ground" laws. If anyone thinks that there is something unfair on principle in the Rittenhouse case, I emphasize, on principle, not just that one doesn't like young fools wandering around with guns at public disturbances, then the right place to direct that thought is towards changing the law, not towards the vain hope that judges or juries will ignore the law.
JE comments: A legal question: are there any qualifications/limitations on self-defense laws when you intentionally, even maliciously, put yourself in harm's way? If not, certainly there should be.
Rittenhouse Trial as Grand Guignol
(David Duggan, USA
11/23/21 3:02 AM)
The verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case highlights a fundamental flaw in our nation's criminal justice system. That he was acquitted after four days of deliberation does not redeem the fact that in the view of many the case should not have been brought in the first place. The prosecution's abhorrent behavior, both in its pre-trial conduct and in its courtroom "tactics," only highlights the unfortunate ordeal that Mr. Rittenhouse endured at the hands of a mobocratic official trying to curry favor with an uninformed electorate.
The flaw is that from the get-go, there was no neutral in the process leading to the charges filed and the trial. The Kenosha County prosecutor is elected, the judge was elected (after an initial term of appointment), the mayor of Kenosha is elected and appoints the police chief. None of these officials gets his job by being "soft on crime." After two persons were killed and another wounded, the prosecutor rushed to charge the alleged offender, without bothering to read the gun possession statute. This statute gave rise to the misdemeanor weapons charge allowing all sorts of evidence to be admitted that was irrelevant to the murder and attempted murder charges. A measuring tape would have disclosed that the AR-15 rifle in police custody had a 16" barrel, perfectly legal for a 17 year old--regardless of state of residence--openly to possess. Because this charge remained in the case until the day of closing arguments, the state was able to offer evidence as to Rittenhouse's age, state of residence and type of ammunition, all irrelevant to whether his shooting the so-called victims was in self-defense. The prosecutor's failure to perform this basic investigation shows not only incredible incompetence but malice toward those from out of state exercising constitutionally protected rights.
Let's consider an alternative scenario. Instead of a politically motivated elected prosecutor, imagine that like the French system, there was a "juge d'instruction," an examining magistrate, who had the power not only to investigate the alleged crime, but also to prefer charges to a separate prosecutor. Under this system, the subject of the investigation would have the right to give his side of the story, with lawyer present, without prejudice to taking the stand at trial. The advantage is that the magistrate would have had the defense lawyer's interpretation of the gun possession statute (which the Kenosha prosecutor evidently overlooked), and the legal standard of self-defense under Wisconsin law--that it is the state's burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (which the Kenosha prosecutor blithely ignored in the face of clear video and ballistic evidence that the "victims" were the aggressors).
Some people will say that this upsets the applecart of the American system of justice, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is a shibboleth, a bromide used to defend a system that has led to untold numbers of coerced confessions by the police and wrongful convictions by prosecutors using perjured testimony. Anyone who has tried criminal cases knows that unless the defendant can produce an alternative narrative or another suspect, whether through cross-examination or the defendant's testimony, conviction is almost guaranteed. The presumption of innocence is a fig leaf; relying on that and the otherwise inexplicable standard of proof beyond a "reasonable doubt" to secure an acquittal is folly.
One thought that has not been examined by the so-called experts is whether the prosecutor, Thomas Binger, tanked the case, not only because it was going badly, but also because he was a political rival of the elected District Attorney. It is a well-known prosecutorial tactic to commit "reversible error" in a case that doesn't unfold as the prosecution hoped, angling for a mistrial and a re-do having had a "free look" at the defense case without the glare of an appellate court's censure. The reference to Rittenhouse's pre-trial silence, the failure to turn over the state's enhanced video evidence, the legally insufficient gun possession charge all show a casual approach to rights and legal norms. The best that can be said after this Grand Guignol of a case is that because the state lost, it cannot appeal, and the errors that the prosecutor committed will not be documented in the legal texts and history books.
JE comments: David, don't you mean that the prosecutor's errors will be documented in legal texts? Regardless, what do you say to those who believe that Rittenhouse was looking for a fight, and got away with murder? Each criminal case of course should be tried on its "own merits," but what about the backlash (which we already saw in nearby Waukesha) and the inevitable copycat events? How many more people will die when the next punk brings an AR-15 to a protest? Isn't there a parallel with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater--meaning, the crime is not in the act itself, but in the avoidable mayhem it creates?
Rittenhouse Trial: Parallels with Bernhard Goetz?
(David Duggan, USA
11/24/21 3:22 AM)
To answer John E, I meant what I wrote that the Rittenhouse case creates no precedent for the history books or legal texts. There is nothing to study.
The judge didn't rule on whether the prosecutor's atrocious behavior violated Rittenhouse's constitutional rights by commenting on his failure to open up to the authorities before he testified in his own behalf, or by not turning over the enhanced video until right before closing argument, or by arguing an incorrect legal standard in his closing argument, that self-defense does not apply if you provoke the attack by bringing "a gun to a fistfight," or by failing to measure the barrel length of the AR-15 which led to the jury's hearing utterly irrelevant evidence. These errors get "lost in the verdict and the judgment of acquittal." The state cannot appeal the verdict, so any historian or legal "expert" would be only speculating that any of these would have caused an appellate court, looking at the stone cold record, to reverse because these errors violated Rittenhouse's fundamental rights to a fair trial.
Evidently Binger, the Assistant District Attorney, has a history of "pushing the envelope" in his trial tactics, and while I tried to get another example, it doesn't matter: his deportment during this case is evidence enough of trying for a win rather than to do justice. There is really nothing new about this. Locally, the entire Cook County State's Attorney's office, headed by Richard M. Daley, later Chicago mayor, had a reputation of "getting the conviction": we'll defend it on appeal. Dozens of defendants were convicted with fabricated evidence, either tortured confessions or perjured testimony, under this standard, and languished in jail waiting for the Innocence Project to take note and get exonerations. According to the National Registry of Exonerations (a UMich and Mich State Law School project, probably the only time those schools have collaborated on anything), Cook County leads the country with 230 convicted persons walking out of prison because their rights were violated.
Even if Rittenhouse had been convicted, his conviction would not have been final until upheld on appeal. Kenneth Lay, the former head of Enron, died while his appeal was pending, and his conviction was expunged. What difference does it make? Any order of restitution would also have been remitted. (His co-defendant Jeffrey Skilling--younger brother of long-time Chicago weatherman Tom--appealed all the way to the Supremes which reversed his conviction for "honest services fraud," a long-time appellate issue in criminal law as prosecutors continue to charge officials, both corporate and government, under this statute, regardless of whether they personally profited from the fraud.) But his defense lawyer didn't try the case to the appellate court and was rewarded for his judgment to put Rittenhouse on the stand. The appellate court would have had to decide whether the manifest errors were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" or the equally impossible counter-factual analysis: whether, given the evidence that was properly admitted, a properly charged jury would have had sufficient grounds on which to render a guilty verdict. Of course, the jurors aren't asked whether they would have convicted without the evidence; they've done their service and how could anyone answer that question anyway? At best this is a thought experiment worthy of Einstein or Schrodinger, not a jury of laypeople.
Since there is no "legal precedential value" to this case, at best you'll have to look to similar cases for any lessons. Thirty-five years ago, Bernhard Hugo Goetz was tried on charges relating to his shooting four men in a New York City subway who he claimed were menacing him. He was acquitted on attempted murder and 1st degree assault charges, but convicted on a weapons charge and served 8 months in jail. A subsequent civil suit resulted in a $43 million judgment which Goetz hasn't paid a penny of. New York has changed its standard for self-defense (it used to be "retreat to the wall"; now it's what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances). And the crime rate in NYC has dropped to 1960s levels (but it has rebounded in recent years thanks to Covid and an end to the "stop and frisk" police tactics under thankfully departing Mayor deBlasio). Since 1984 so far as I can tell, nobody has been shot on the subway. Goetz had that beneficial effect on the city that never sleeps.
JE comments: Ah, Goetz. Haven't thought about him in awhile. David, I appreciate your legal insight into the trial, although I'm still at a loss how self-defense can apply to someone literally looking for a fight. Legal standards are one thing, but common sense another. Perhaps it's good I don't practice law.
But let's let it rest and turn to the certainty of a civil case against Rittenhouse. He is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame at present, and it will prove lucrative. He is probably considering ways to hide his newfound wealth from the inevitable civil judgment. Here's my question: should the case go against Rittenhouse, can they force him to pay--for starters, from his crowd-sourced legal fund?
Thomas More and the Rittenhouse Verdict
(Mendo Henriques, Portugal
11/24/21 6:22 AM)
The infamous outcome of the Rittenhouse trial is encapsulated in summum jus summa injuria, a formula coined by someone who knew a thing or two about law, Thomas More.
I am amazed by the self-defense laws in Wisconsin.
JE comments: A gloss: The law, when applied in its strictest sense, can also lead to extreme injustice. Mendo, your interpretation is probably generalized throughout Europe: how can an assault-rifle toting hooligan be acquitted on self-defense? With the Rittenhouse judgment, many stereotypes about American society have been confirmed--for starters, vigilantism and our obsession with guns.
- Rittenhouse is Not a "Punk" (Francisco Wong-Diaz, USA 11/24/21 3:52 AM)
David Duggan should notice that the opposite occurs in many Democratic-controlled cities like San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc., where Blacks and other minorities are released without bail after committing felonies.
Look at the case of Waukesha (Wisconsin), where despite its mostly GOP government the elected officials had kowtowed to the woke mob and released someone with a long history of criminal behavior so he could then kill a bunch of people.
Regarding JE's response--the "punk" is actually a nursing student at Arizona State and he should also look at the widely available footage of BLM Marxist rioters wearing camo and carrying AR-15s.
JE comments: Rittenhouse sort of "goes" to Arizona State--it's an online program. His latest plan is to change his name and pursue in-person nursing studies. Punk or no punk, I hope I never have to put my life in his caring hands.
Rittenhouse's Online Studies
(Francisco Wong-Diaz, USA
11/25/21 4:25 AM)
Re Rittenhouse's online studies: There are now thousands of Americans holding online graduate and undergraduate degrees. I will not challenge their validity or quality, but as a traditionalist I value more personal class attendance and teaching.
After working on a Juris Doctor at UC Berkeley and Masters and PhD Degrees at University of Michigan, I appreciate the difference of being able to "press the flesh."
JE comments: We're on the same page here, Francisco. Online education is not my cup of tea, although I will acknowledge that you can learn anything on YouTube. Just yesterday I figured out how to purge and reset a computer, without calling in the specialists. Another pedagogical triumph for the 'Tube. Otherwise here in Delaware, I would have had to go to Hunter Biden's computer guy.
The skinny on Rittenhouse's studies: He enrolled just last month in a non-degree program through Arizona State. The University is careful to point out that Rittenhouse has neither applied nor been admitted as a regular student. Given the timing, I suspect he became a "student" on his lawyer's advice, to make him seem like a wholesome, normal kid.
- In Rittenhouse Case, the Jury Heard All the Evidence; the Public Did Not (George Aucoin, -France 11/25/21 3:54 AM)
Reading through the WAIS commentary on the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal on charges of murder as well as JE's comment, "I'm still at a loss how self-defense can apply to anyone literally looking for a fight" is emblematic of the Left's disillusionment and confusion over the jury verdict.
Of course, the confusion was duly sown by the corporate media who apparently cannot find their way out of Wikipedia as a source reference. Let's try Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, on-line no less, which defines "Aggressor" thus: "The party who first offers violence or offense. He who begins a quarrel or dispute, either by threatening or striking another."
There are those that actually believe that openly carrying a legal firearm, absent any other physical act, is violence. And double that if the firearm wearer is a Caucasian male at a Black Lives Matter riot.
The concept of self-defense (actually a legal "right" in certain circumstances) doesn't support that conclusion. Black's defines "self-defense" as: "The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another." John Eipper's "looking for a fight" is at the crux of the confusion and no doubt at the core of some of the jury instructions hammered out between attorneys and the judge.
Was Kyle Rittenhouse looking for a fight? The jury heard all the evidence adduced at trial. Rittenhouse's own testimony offered on the stand contradicted that speculation. Evidence offered at trial was Rittenhouse went to protect others from the mob. The jury had the opportunity to review video taken of the of the interaction between the defendant and the men killed, which undoubtedly informed their twelve individual conclusions as to who the aggressor was in each instance of violence.
Furthermore, the State was obligated to prove Kyle Rittenhouse had the required mental state (mens rea) to inflict grievous bodily harm, beyond a reasonable doubt. Black's Law Dictionary further defines the right of Self-Defense as "An excuse for the use of force in resisting an attack on the person, and especially for killing an assailant," citing Whart. Crim. Law.
However, as David Duggan aptly points out, prosecutorial overreach can spoil (unintentionally or otherwise) the juridical balance of weighing evidence and is non-reviewable if the jury votes to acquit the defendant of the charges.
Finally, to place Black's Law Dictionary back on the shelf and to close with an oft-repeated line from one of my Cajun criminal law professors: "The Facts make the Law Walk and Talk." The jury heard all the evidence at trial, we didn't.
JE comments: I don't see how disillusionment over the verdict is a "Left" thing, but almost nothing remains in today's America that hasn't been politicized. Let's at least try to keep Thanksgiving free of partisanship.
George, you speak of prosecutorial overreach. Do you believe a lesser charge against Rittenhouse could have "stuck"?
- Romania in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Tor Guimaraes, USA 11/24/21 4:36 AM)
Cameron Sawyer commented on my last post: "Stalin's ceding the Romanian oilfields to Hitler in 1942 would be no cession at all--these were never in the Soviet sphere of influence. Romania was an ally of Nazi Germany."
Cameron misunderstood my statement. I meant that Stalin would expect to get the Romanian oilfields. Perhaps Cameron is not aware that Germany in a secret protocol of the 1939's Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had already granted the Soviet claims on Romanian territory. Further, everyone knows that Hitler needed those oil fields to fight successfully in the Russian front, thus Stalin would be crazy to give them up under any circumstances. But I agree that a deal from either direction would be DOA.
John Eipper commented on my last post: "A cleverer and less frightening Hitler (a 'non-Hitler'?) may indeed have united the West against the Soviets, but what about the logistics of invading the USSR without occupying Poland first? Move through Finland and the Baltics?"
The Barbarossa invasion plans could be the same except going through Poland now would be with their permission as an ally. A few more points should increase the viability of my imaginary scenario:
1. Invading Russia in a few years' time frame would be a challenging undertaking under any circumstances, so this is expected. Invading through Poland was more a geographic necessity than any logistic benefit. In fact, invading Poland started WWII. In this imaginary scenario, Poland is likely to be a strong ally of Germany, just like some other Eastern European nations.
2. Russia was invaded from Finland and the "Baltics" in WWII, but with Western Europe supporting the German invasion it should much stronger and probably more successful. The actual Barbarossa logistical planning turned into a disaster when the Winter arrived. That is one reason why I said earlier if "Hitler would be a little more educated." He assumed it was going to be easy.
3. When the Nazis invaded the USSR, despite all the warnings, Stalin was caught flat-footed, his armies easily destroyed, Moscow under serious threat. Under such circumstances, and with the Germans being supported by most European nations, I believe it might have been impossible for the Russians to recover, particularly with no aid from the US or Britain in this case.
JE comments: I'd like to know more about Romania in Molotov-Ribbentrop. How much of Romania was included in the Soviet "claims"? Hitler certainly wouldn't have yielded the Ploesti oil fields, which are far from the Soviet border in any case.
Here's my favorite WWII alternate scenario: Hitler doesn't invade Poland, and presto! No WWII. Peace in our time...
- Hitler Was Never a Threat to the Continental US; China's Increasing Control over South America (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 11/26/21 3:46 AM)
Very good post by my friend Tor Guimaraes, 22 November. However, I am always amazed how the idea persists that Hitler could have been a military menace to the US mainland. Of course, his Reich could have been a powerful economic competitor, as it is at present.
Hitler in Mein Kampf had a continental mentality, or better a Northeastern European Mentality.
He had no aims on the Americas or even on the British Empire. His aim was the common widespread feeling of the times, to create a Reich in which all ethnic Germans were united and free from foreign oppression. Nor did he have much desire to claim the Western nations' foreign colonies. Rather, he considered the Vichy French (and Italian) colonies as a hindrance to his war efforts.
Said Reich evidently had limits, as Hitler started the withdrawal of ethnic Germans from Alto Adige/Sudtyrol, the Baltic States, Volinia, Bessarabia, and Bucovina. Of course, the question remains of Lebensraum. How wide could it have become? For sure the Americans cannot judge Hitler for this, as they had their own Lebensraum from the Allegheny Mountains to the Pacific shores, to the kingdom of Hawaii, all the way to Guam.
Hitler was very willing to leave the Adriatic sea and its shores to his idol Mussolini. The ill-famed Alpenvoreland and Kustenland were so much hated in the RSI, as expressed in the actions of its government and in the famous songs "O Bella Dalmazia," "Il Brennero è Italiano," "Canzone del Fulmine," "Non deporem la Spada" (see them on YouTube "Songs of the Italian Social Republic"). These regions were military-ruled only out of military necessity, at the same level as the provinces immediately on the South Front.
Presently the US public opinion seems to be obsessed with Putin, while the real danger is coming from China. The Central State, Zhongguò, now has a powerful modern navy, excellent missiles, a huge army, etc. but it is more and more spreading soft power abroad which, unfortunately for us, is becoming hard power.
The Chinese government through the China Overseas Security Group is organizing and hiring people in order to work as protection and security for Chinese enterprises in Pakistan, Turkey, Cambodia, Iraq, Myanmar, Laos, Mozambique, Somalia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Argentina, etc. Such a move is extremely intriguing and worrisome, especially its entrance into South America with something that seems to be a mercenary army. What does Argentina's leftist government say about this?
Oh, by the way, I am very pleased that two of my recent posts on Mussolini are on top of the most-viewed WAIS entries. I am also pleased to have read a post of the great Prof. Ronald Hilton, in which he recognizes Mussolini's good social work in creating housing for the people.
JE comments: We cannot deny that the US may have invented the concept of Lebensraum. It was called Manifest Destiny. Eugenio, you know Mein Kampf better than most. Did Hitler ever mention Manifest Destiny?
I hope we can turn our attention to China's growing presence in Argentina. I've been disconnected from a country I used to consider my scholarly turf--it's been nearly 20 years since I spent time there. Much has changed. We should also address China's "hardening power" over other South American nations--Brazil and Bolivia come to mind, although Venezuela is certainly at or near the top of the list.
US as Fallen Empire?
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
11/27/21 3:28 AM)
While reading most people's opinion on international rivalries with the US, I never cease to be amazed at the doubletalk: how we expect other nations to lie down when we build our military power closer to their throat, and our feathers get ruffled when they take steps not to be too weak, militarily speaking.
We need a better perspective: Who has the strongest military in the world? Who continuously tries to move NATO forces closer to the Russians after promising not do so when Gorbachev dismantled the Warsaw Pact/USSR? Who has encircled China with hundreds of deadly military bases capable of evaporating China at a moment's notice? Who is worried about China attacking another country while doing that with many smaller nations for several decades in the name of freedom, democracy, and apple pie? Who lets military treaties controlling the spread of nuclear-capable missiles and other weapons expire? Now we are worried about Russia and China trying to catch up to our military power? We are even worried that many nations who we have owned for decades now want to do more profitable business with China?
There must have a special word to express such blatant doublespeak. If we keep this nonsense up, first the world is laughing nervously at us (we might use our muscle as usual in the past), but next the world will see us as the fallen empire. We must grow up quickly to retain any semblance of world leadership, and perhaps recover our shine.
JE comments: History has shown that every hegemon eventually gets displaced. The question is when--and for us in the "West," what it means if liberal democracy proves not to be the model of the future. (It's still too early to know if this is the case.)
Is Liberal Democracy Doomed?
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
11/29/21 2:41 AM)
John Eipper commented on my last post: "History has shown that every hegemon eventually gets displaced. The question is when--and for us in the 'West,' what it means if liberal democracy proves not to be the model of the future."
To sit and wait until the fire gets to the upper floor of your house has never been a good idea. And for me personally, America the Beautiful has been just that and I can't just watch it. Unfortunately, I also have no power to do anything significant to save it, other than speak words which are either ignored or fall on deaf ears.
When I was a boy growing up in Brazil, I remember reading a book entitled The Rise and Fall of Civilizations. It ended with a positive view that America would be different because we have learned so much about economics, political science, sociology, etc., that we would not make the same mistakes. Little did I know that someday I would personally be experiencing the demise of my adopted nation. It makes me very sad, frustrated, and powerless. I have been discussing on WAIS the symptoms of the American Gotterdammerung for the last twenty years, much to my frustration.
There is no doubt that liberal democracy as we have implemented it has failed. I challenge anyone to share any viable scenario whereby our American system could be saved. We still don't know the best model of the future, but hopefully it will be more truthful to our professed ideals: a government by the people and for the people, strictly based on scientific knowledge and promoting education and entrepreneurship; democratic capitalism based on truly free markets, with reward for performance but abhorring indecent income inequality, with justice based on the rule of law where all people are truly equal, regardless of sex, race, or religion.
JE comments: Tor Guimaraes has indeed raised this alarm for twenty years. Have we learned anything since that annus horribilis 2001, or have we moved backwards? I see strong arguments for both views. This could be an interesting subject for a full-blown WAIS discussion. In particular, are the gears of history moving towards a more just society, or the opposite? Can justice and economic progress be reconciled?
WAISers, what do ye think?
- Hitler, Stalin and Romania/Bessarabia (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 12/02/21 3:27 AM)
A very interesting WWII hypothetical, "if Hitler had offered a compromise peace to Stalin." Such a possibility was strongly supported by Mussolini and the Japanese Ambassadors, but Hitler could no longer trust Stalin (only the senile FDR could trust him), and the oil wells of Romania were never openly involved.
To justify the friendly relations of 1939, Hitler stated that in spite of the political differences between Nazism and Communism, peace between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was necessary for the well-being of both peoples, having been friends for a very long time.
So there two treaties were signed in 1939. On 23 August the Non-Aggression Treaty and on 28 September the Friendship and Demarcation of Borders Treaty. With the second treaty, the two zones of interest were clearly defined. In the Secret Protocol of the first treaty, Ribbentrop agreed that Germany had no interest in Romanian Bessarabia. The basic idea was to go back to the old borders between the Soviet Empire with the German and the Austro-Hungarian empires.
Bessarabia, following the Soviet Revolution in 1917, became the Moldova Republic, but in 1918 it united with Romania. This was never recognized by Russia, which in 1924 created a "Moldova Republic" in Transnistria. So on 26 June 1940 Russia sent an ultimatum to Bucharest imposing the annexation of Bessarabia and Bukovina. Germany was unhappy but agreed to it, even if the annexation of Bukovina was a violation of previous treaties.
August 30th saw new changes of Romanian borders. Parts of Transilvania, inhabited by ethnic Hungarians, were transferred to Hungary. The new borders and independence were recognized by Germany and Italy.
On 12 November 1940 Hitler invited Molotov to Berlin. At the moment Hitler was prone to peace, as he had already granted Bukovina and Lithuania to Stalin. He remembered his offer of peace to Great Britain and was worried about a possible military intervention of the USA in case Sweden should feel menaced. He had even prepared a draft for a large alliance of Germany, Italy, Japan, and USSR, assuring that the German Lebensraum was completed and would need 100 years to be viable, as some of the newly achieved territories were liabilities.
Molotov instead was insatiably asking for the complete defeat of Finland, as well as permission for Soviet troops to pass through Romania for stationing in Bulgaria and controlling the Dardanelles and Bosphorous Straits.
I believe that it was at this time that Hitler, considering also Russia's special relations with the Serbian High Brass of Yugoslavia, with the huge increase of Soviet troops at the border, realized that Stalin was planning to encircle and then attack the Third Reich at the first opportunity.
JE comments: An Axis including the USSR would truly have been bad news for the Western democracies, but if the Soviets were bordered by allies Germany on the West and Japan on the East, they wouldn't have had anyone to fight (geographically speaking). Poor Poland perhaps, but the Poles got carved up in any case
A lasting Hitler-Stalin alliance sounds preposterous, but the Germans did cooperate militarily with the Soviets in the Interwar period. And then there was the strangest treaty of all, Molotov-Ribbentrop.
- Hitler, Stalin and Romania/Bessarabia (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 12/02/21 3:27 AM)
- Is Liberal Democracy Doomed? (Tor Guimaraes, USA 11/29/21 2:41 AM)
- In Rittenhouse Case, the Jury Heard All the Evidence; the Public Did Not (George Aucoin, -France 11/25/21 3:54 AM)
- Rittenhouse is Not a "Punk" (Francisco Wong-Diaz, USA 11/24/21 3:52 AM)
- Thomas More and the Rittenhouse Verdict (Mendo Henriques, Portugal 11/24/21 6:22 AM)
- Rittenhouse Trial: Parallels with Bernhard Goetz? (David Duggan, USA 11/24/21 3:22 AM)
- Rittenhouse Trial as Grand Guignol (David Duggan, USA 11/23/21 3:02 AM)
- Thoughts on Eastern Front Alternate Scenarios, Rittenhouse Verdict (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 11/22/21 9:46 AM)