What Happens when we Indulge Ourselves in "Peace For Our Time" Utopian Fantasy?
The British and the French had several chances to stop Hitler. Based on shortsightedness, cowardice, and a refusal to defend themselves, they allowed Hitler, despite his stated intent published world wide in Mein Kampf, to negotiate everything that he wanted without getting anything in return but short-lived "peaces" that Hitler intended to violate at first opportunity.
Which Hitler demonstrated several times in a row:
- Withdrawal from the League of Nations
- Violation of the Versailles Treaty
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland
- Subversion and occupation of Austria
- Invasion of Czechoslovakia
- Ultimatum to Lithuania
- Occupation Alsace-Lorraine
[Digression - research hudna, taquiya, and dawah for the modern equivalent of clear intent wrapped in false messages of peace]
Although it is obvious to the honest, Hitler's adherence to Mein Kampf as a guide in German policy is clearly spelled out in Document : The Hossbach Memorandum, 1937
He opened on the Mein Kampf theme that the aim of German policy was to safeguard, preserve, and enlarge the racial community (Volksmasse). The question for Germany was : where could she achieve the greatest gain at the lowest cost? She had to reckon with “two hate-inspired antagonists", Britain and France.
So, despite Hitler's clear intentions, indicated from his autobiography, Germany's uses of that book as it's policy source, and a repeated pattern of betrayal, the English and French still appeased Hitler and his goals. Shirer, in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, goes into great detail into the British/French backstabbing of the smaller countries they had pledged to protect.
A bunch of English do-gooding idiots at Oxford went so far to say...
that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country
source
The retardedry led directly to Munich and the ultimate betrayal of Peace For Our Time
And what happened?
Hiroshima
Dresden
Concentration Camp
London
Stalingrad
The rape and murder of German women by Russian troops
Katyn Forest
Why?
These all happened because people wanted to hold hands and sing cumbiya instead of nutting up, finding out what was going on, and demanding correct action.
This means two things:
- Take the professional seriously when they suggest a country or an ideology is a threat
- Make sure the professionals are not infected by corruptocrats and statists
Did I really say to trust the security community and to not trust the security community at the same time?
Why yes I did. You have a brain, use it.
The final conclusion:
It is up to YOU to make sure your government is clean and honest
...to make sure your security community is clean and honest
...that Utopian fools aren't dancing down their road to Hell gambling YOUR life on their own "good intentions"
My Books
Very well said and the photos are horrible to look at... just as the live pictures coming in from the latest terror attack in Barcelona...not so many bodies yet, only four victims this time..but then, there's plenty of time for more attacks. Their Utopia is more like Dystopia to the rest of us..
I intentionally picked some of the ugliest shots; an image is worth 1000 words.
I realize that most folks will blow this off; it's human nature, after all, which is why it keeps happening.
But waking one person at a time is better than putting my head in the sand and pretending that there is nothing wrong.
Thanks for the comment!
a clean and honest government?
WHAT A CONCEPT!
it requires a moral and at-least-not-cowardly-if-not-all-that-courageous people to maintain.
as soon as people tolerate minor corruptions from the government, those corruptions swell into great corruptions
and people really dont like dragging the guilty over to the gallows and watching the rope snap
government is insane.
All governments.
some are more psychotic than others.
other than that there is no difference.
government is insane b/c people are ignorant and cowardly
people w/o government are still insane, ignorant , and cowardly ;>
depends on the stage
people without government MIGHT be ignorant and cowardly...it depends.
people WITH government are guaranteed to be insane.
Like this article! And yes....we have many warnings in history and leading up events before things come to pass. Warnings are given. Some see them, but many, many don't and if they do, they are as you say, "cowards" to resist.
cowardice is the normal reaction
I've been a coward before, and likely will again, but we have to understand beforehand what the consequences of cowardice result in.
Cowardice is also not a permanent condition, either.
But every cowardly act results in a harder decision the next time
Like a ghost town
Do you believe the horrors of WWII could have been just avoided? Are you aware of the political situation in Europe at the time? In order to avoid WWII first it would be necessary to avoid the whole political situation of the time including WWI. In order to avoid WWI we'd have to avoid the 30 years war probably and so on... I do not believe that what happened could have been just avoided. The war would have started earlier, but besides this? But ok. Let's say preemptive strikes are a working way to avoid horrible things: who do you suggest needs to be stopped in this way today? I take it with Gandhi: 'There is no path to peace, peace is the path.' Now if anyone ever 'avoided' a much more horrible conflict, it was Gandhi through Nonviolent resistance. If you want to fight violent people with violence, you are playing their game, a game they are very good at. As a strategy, peaceful resistance seems a wiser choice to me. Peace!
WWII could have been avoided easily by marching into Germany hanging Hitler, then marching right back out, telling the other nazis they could goosestep all over Germany as long as they wanted as long as they stayed within it's own borders
those that understand Europe at the time know that Mussolini was armtwisted into the war by Hitler (he wanted a war later, w/ German support; Hitler dangling from a rope would likely have been a warning flag)
As it did to Chamberlain and all the other fools noted in the article.
Ghandi was working with the English, NV methods were the right tool in that situation. The Indians would have been slaughtered had they pulled it with the nazis.
Louis Fischer, wrote a biography titled The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, which was used as the basis for Attenborough’s film Gandhi (1982). Fisher asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” Gandhi responded: “Yes, that would have been heroism.”
violence is not always the right tool; sometimes it is. discounting it out of hand b/c someone thinks that savages can be dealt with in civilized terms is insane
When I see those advocating pacifism go commit "heroism", as defined by Ghandi, to prevent the atrocities of tyrants, then I might take anything they say with any seriousness.
Now, if everyone who happens to not agree with you is a fool, I proudly join the club. Let's stay friendly, shall we?
Are you seriously saying that there is any way of predicting 'what would have happened, if'? There is not. You seem to believe a bit to much in speculation. So where do you want to March in and out quickly today? Because that seems to be the missing part in your article... Against who do you want to act preemptively today? The US? From what I hear there is a white supremacist in the white house preaching hatred...
Please read; I referred to those people that made those decisions as fools, which history demonstrated. I did not refer to you as a fool
my mistake. you are a fool indeed if you believe that twaddle
[Edit: I am missing a question you asked: First we fix our own house and deal with the leftists and corruptocrats in this country. only then can we make honest decisions about tyrants in other countries and whether or not they are security risks to us]
The way I see it, the authoritarian left has only one card to play and that is morality. Somehow they manage to look morally superior to the rest and that makes them appealing to many. Violently attacking them is exactly what they need to rightfully play the victim and show that everyone who does not agree with them is a violent backward Nazi-Barbarian. This is why in this specific situation staying true to the Non-Aggression-Principle is so important. Let them show their real face. Let them do the violence without excuses. And make sure everyone can see it. Luckily, in the eye of the people it does matter who is morally bankrupt, it's just hard to find out who is, if every side is initiating violence. Anyway, friend, just my opinions...
We have a disagreement on basic values; I'm not sure either of us is categorically wrong
you value the NAP, and I value pre-emptive action against those that make it clear they consider me an enemy
and b/c these are values, we get hostile when forced to defend them over and over ;>
I was making a point here: who decides who is dangerous enough to justify a preemptive strike against them? Preemptive strikes go both ways.
I don't believe that twaddle, as you put it, but a great part of the world does, endlessly repeated by mainstream media around the world. See what I'm saying? Now instead of making up scenarios in which miraculously the whole European conflict of the early 20th century just goes away, by hanging Hitler, why not take a look at real world preemptive attacks and how they turned out: Irak? Afghanistan? Lybia? Syria? I don't know about you, but I just can't seem to find a real world situation where becoming the aggressor turned out just fine. In fact they are complete disasters. Now I see your concerns about the authoritarian left, in fact I share them. I just don't believe that becoming the aggressor is a good strategy. In fact I believe it is exactly what they need.
ah I missed your point on that. mea culpa
It is hard to answer your main question, who decides who is dangerous enough to justify a preemptive strike against them?, w/o moving into a second discussion about who should be allowed to make decisions in a society to begin with, AND, how do you control for corruption in a society.
That is moving off the discussion of preemptive use of violence, and why I begged the question off by questioning our current so-called leaders.
So I will say these things:
I want to admit that I was too thin-skinned in our conversation. I was simultaneously arguing with this guy https://steemit.com/nazi/@reefreef/yes-it-is-okay-to-punch-a-nazi#@thename/re-reefreef-re-vidanatural-re-reefreef-2017818t191553841z-20170819t152856706z
And what can I say? Seeing that both 'sides' feel entitled to initiate violence was shaking me up, I guess.
the thing is that I come across as an asshole even when I am agreeing with folks. So no sweat, and I appreciate that you came back calm which let me calm down a bit in return!