History does repeat itself, and those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it. Is there a common, repetitive historical theme that connects the blitzkrieg across Europe, the Imperial Japanese sweep of the Pacific-including the Pearl Harbor attacks, and the attacks of September 11th, 2001? Of course there is! Prior to each of these geopolitical shockers, the people of Europe, the United States, and the bulk of the world for that matter had all been lulled into a false sense of security. These events happened while we were asleep, because we were asleep, and because our eyes were closed, we did not see the threats coming.
Sure there were those people who saw the dangers of NAZI Germany, fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Communism, and of today’s Jihad against the west.
"By the autumn of 1933 it was plain that neither by precept nor still less by example would the British effort for disarmament succeed. The pacifism of the Labour and Liberal Parties was not effected even by the grave event of the German withdrawal from the League of Nations. Both continued in the name of peace to urge British disarmament, and anyone who differed was called "warmonger" and "scaremonger." It appeared that their feeling was endorsed by the people, who of course did not understand what was unfolding."
-Winston Churchill, Memoirs of the Second World War
President Kennedy’s description of the pre-World War II appeasement lullaby (the "sleeping period" as he labels it) illustrates the deliberate effort of populations to ignore threats-to make excuses-in even more clarity.
"The people of England hated war so much, they realized now more strongly than ever what it would mean to England and her position in the world, that they could not bring themselves to face its inevitability. Thus there were two ideas working in England from September 28, 1938, to September 3, 1939. One was a firm determination to build up her strength, and the other was a feeling that England might now have peace. Maybe Hitler might be satisfied; maybe he was merely bluffing; maybe he really meant it when he said this was his last territorial claim in Europe. We can see the effect of these feelings during the following months when Germany and the Soviets invaded Poland and World War II began."
-John F Kennedy, Why England Slept
"And we were certainly distracted. Terrorism happened somewhere else, not here. We were instead entertained and alternately repulsed by O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, the booming stock market, Monica Lewinsky, and a host of matters that seem particularly shallow in light of 9/11. While many of America’s best reporters chased hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Florida after the 2000 Presidential election, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi were also in the state, learning to fly the planes that they would turn into giant bombs."
-Gerald Posner, Why America Slept
If history can be akin to an algebraic formula, then John F Kennedy’s "sleep period" is a simple one:
Denial+Distraction=Dumbfounded
When a threat is seen, it can either be faced or denied. The growth of communism, Pacific imperialism, and European fascism of the 1930’s was clearly evident, and while many identified it and screamed from the ramparts, too many chose to deny the threat, to make excuses, and convinced themselves that nothing should change; everything will just magically work itself out. Those who saw these international threats to world peace and morality had to be shouted down and marketed as threats themselves lest the reminding become too great and the threats be faced for facing such threats would always be infinitely harder, uglier, and more costly in blood and treasure than simply and literally turning our back on them.
Yawn…
December 7th
September 11th
(snore)
courtesy: U2’s Bullet the Blue Sky and the movie Pearl Harbor
See author page
Wow, what a selective memory. Tail gunner Joe was wrong about Commies in the government. They were wrong about the commie dominoes falling after viet nam. J Edgar Hoover was wrong with regard to the danger of ML King, and John Lennon.
And G W Bush is wrong about the Islamist threat. While many muslims hate the U.S. because of our support for Israel, they over estimate the number that are capable of doing any harm to the U.S. Just because there was one bogey man doesn’t mean there is another. The government has been more often wrong about threats.
John Galt said “what a selective memory.”
He must be talking about himself.
I’ve already ascertained that John hasn’t got a very good track record for historical analysis. His insistence that Lincoln’s 1858 speech “A House Divided” was all about slavery, not secession as John insisted.
So I don’t give him any credibility for accurate criticism of Scott’s post.
Especially since I have been so fond of citing Churchill’s six volume history of the Second World War myself.
And I’m sure regular readers will forgive me if I repeat again my own favorite quotation from that work describing how Britain tossed away every strategic advantage at the insistence of the “peace at any price” crowd only to get the peace of the grave:
I don’t expect any of that to sink beyond the impermeable membranes of delusion and prejudice that John and his fellow Grim RPrs use to shield themselves from unpleasant truths, but at some point they will wake from their slumber.
Let’s hope it’s not too late.
Meanwhile, John will continue to try and shift focus by irrelevant discussions of J. Edgar Hoover, ML King and John Lennon.
Denial+Distraction=DEAD!
“And G W Bush is wrong about the Islamist threat. While many muslims hate the U.S. because of our support for Israel, they over estimate the number that are capable of doing any harm to the U.S. Just because there was one bogey man doesn’t mean there is another.”
DOH
So, if there’s not a threat, then Ron Paul, Kucinich, and other loons are wrong when they say the world hates us for having troops in 130 different countries, and the world hates us for invading Iraq, etc etc yada yada yada? How’s that work-they hate us, but there’s no threat, or there’s no threat, but they hate us so bad…there’s a threat?
Fact is, if 911 taught us anything, it’s that ya only need 19.
John Galt,
The communist threat was real as well as the momentum of history on the side of the communist, had we not practiced a policy of interventionism.
Conservatively, it’s estimated to have been responsible for 100 million deaths during the 20th century, most if which took place after WWII.
After the carnage of WWII, the Soviets were laying their iron fist down everywhere through eastern Europe. They tried to take over Greece in a bloody civil war; they took over Poland, Germany was partitioned. You had satellite powers in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania…Albania. These countries fell under the communist domination.
At one point after WWII, there was a very real chance of a communist takeover of France and Italy. With their massive land armies, the Soviets might have also taken all of Germany.
The most disastrous fall was China.
The Soviets were probing and testing us everywhere.
Stalin admitted as much to one of his Chinese colleagues. In the middle of the Korean War, he wrote to him: “Americans are merchants. Germany conquered France in just 20 days. It’s already been 2 years, and America still has not subdued little Korea. No, Americans don’t know how to fight. After the Korean War in particular, they have lost the capability to wage a large-scale war. They’re fighting little Korea and already people are weeping in the U.S.A. What will happen if they start a large-scale war? Then perhaps everyone there will weep.”
The assumption is that America could not defend its interests. Part of that assumption is because the United States had allowed Stalin and communism to triumph over China. Originally, the Maoists were Stalinist puppets, funded by and supported by the Soviets. And they weren’t satisfied with ending it there. They wished to continue extending their reach. Do you believe it would have stopped at our waters edge, had the whole world been taken over by international communism, because we refused to meet the challenge of the Cold War, through Ron Paulian non-interventionist isolationism?
Losing China is the price of non-interventionism, for which we are reaping the harvest of it, to this day.
Fortunately, both parties were pretty much together when it came to recognizing the Soviet threat. There was absolute consensus at the time on Vietnam, which was just one battlefield in the larger-scale war against international communism, in recognizing the need for interventionism and containment beyond our own borders.
Oh that house divided thing again. I have already shown I was correct about that, but you won’t accept anything.
Anyway, The reference to J. Edgar Hoover is quite relevant. It shows how often these organizations perceive threats to the U.S. and how often wrong they are about the threats. They have a self interest in having threats, it makes them more powerful and more important, as was the case with the Pompous Hoover.
I am familiar with the Churchill quote, and it is an easy quote to make in hindsight. Churchill had the luxury of knowing the outcome, and being right. Sadly he was wrong so many more times, particularly during WWI. (I don’t have time to go into his WWI failures, Just google Churchill Iraq)
I do agree that acting early against a threat is better, the problem is knowing the scope of the threat, and whether it is worth the risk to act. Military action brings alot of unforseen consequences, and requires a lot of individual sacrifice. Also, the results might set you up for a conflict that may be damaging down the road (good old blowback). Better to go cautiously. Of course, if you are pressing your empire, as Britian and Churchill were doing, then early intervention is important and you accept the blowback as part of thte cost of empire.
Maybe it would be better if you looked at WWI – and the decisions taken there. This stands in stark contrast to the time leading up to WWII. In WWI nations rushed in without much thinking, and it set the stage for WWII ( The ultimate in blowback).
Why is it that “blowback” is often cited by the “blame-America first” crowd as something that happens to us, and not the other way around?
Osama and Zawahiri alienated a number of Islamists who did not like the “blowback” Islam and the Middle East were experiencing when we invaded Afghanistan.
Blowback sounds like a good term. It inherently means that if one takes action, then there are negative consequences, but to focus on blowback is to only focus on negative effects of an action and to deliberately ignore any AND ALL positive effects.
The conundrum remains unaddressed:
So, if there’s not a threat, then Ron Paul, Kucinich, and other loons are wrong when they say the world hates us for having troops in 130 different countries, and the world hates us for invading Iraq, etc etc yada yada yada? How’s that work-they hate us, but there’s no threat, or there’s no threat, but they hate us so bad…there’s a threat?
Fact is, if 911 taught us anything, it’s that ya only need 19, and if 911 and 1207 taught us anything it’s that dismissing threats until they’ve attacked is a very expensive and dangerous policy.
Oh, excellent video btw, Scott. Looking foward to more.
Ok im a bit confused now. Which middle east country has the capability to actually attack the US? Iran certainly does not.
Ray, you actually think a middle eastern nation couldn’t have a terrorist proxy group deliver an attack on the US?
Ya do know of course that there’s more ways to attack than ICBM’s, B-29 bombers, aircraft carriers, or invasion forces…right?
You’re right guys. They hate us for our freedom and prosperity. Seems like they were pretty damned successful in inciting a government reaction that destroyed both.
Perhaps you guys should look into the story of the ‘Briar Rabbit and the Tar baby’. Thats pretty much what we got ourselves into.
Yeah, freedom is lost-NOT, and prosperity…the current depression is oh-so-much worse than the 1930’s.
And please don’t associate myself with the “we’ve” gotten ourselves into bs. I am not at all on your same page-I believe in America, and while I recognize this nation’s mistakes, I’m much more proud in America’s accomplishments than I am embarrassed or ashamed of her.