Historical Cycles and the Mystery of 1930's Passivity
Until around 2008, I had always wondered why the Western Allies were so fatally passive in the 1930's. They watched a madman come to power in Germany, the very country that they most feared from recent historical experience; watched as he broke the treaty that ended the previous war to rearm; and watched as he began gobbling-up his Minor Power neighbors. Yet they did not act until it was almost too late. Why? And how could they have missed the obvious?
Hitler increased Germany's power by systematically violating the Versailles Treaty. Any of these violations gave, in theory, the Allies the right to declare war on Germany without such a war counting as a "war of aggression" -- just as did Saddam's violation of the terms of the truce ending the 1990-91 Gulf War give America the right to go to war with Iraq without such a war counting as a "war of aggression," and just as do the Iranian acts of war against America and Iraq today.
It seems very obvious from a modern historical perspective that Hitler's intentinons were bad ones. He outlined, in detail, in Mein Kampf, his plans to launch wars of aggression which would allow him to dominate Europe and destroy, enslave or expel members of the untermenschen (lit. "undermen," meaning "inferior people"). He gave belligerent speeches which telegraphed his intent.
What's more, each time that the Allies made concessions to Hitler, attempting to appease him, he promised that this was his "last demand," only to cause another crisis in a year or two, make another demand, and get more concessions. His reoccupation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and the annexation of the Sudetenland were each supinely accepted by the Allies. The last aggression was even sanctioned by the Munich Agreement, which Chamberlain so famously waved as he got off the plane and declared that he had won "peace in our time."
It wasn't until Hitler gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia that the Allies decided to act. Even then, they did not actually attack Hitler, but simply resolved not to give in the next time (if it ever came).
It came later that year, when Hitler demanded Danzig from Poland. This time the Allies acted, and went to war with Germany. But, because they had waited so long -- passed up the earlier opportunities -- Hitler had the time to build his armed forces up to strength. The consequence was that, instead of fighting a short victorious war -- as they could have done at any point up to and including the Sudeten Crisis of 1938 -- Britain and France embarked on over five years of fighting that would in the end see their empires in ruins, with but a Pyrrhic victory over the Nazis, and the future in the control of other Powers, America and Russia.
I've always wondered why the Allied politicians were so afraid to act. Now, having seen the villainization of George W. Bush because he has acted, I know the reason why. Had any Allied politician been a statesman, he too would have been pilloried as a "warmonger," and his efforts might well have been abortive, owing to the restraint exercised on him by his more pacifistic brethren.
History really does have cycles; sometimes one must wait for the aggressors to unmistakably act.
And the price will be paid by the people who will die in Iranian nuclear fireballs, and even more so by the Iranians themselves when grim vengeance comes sleeting down on their cities from the stratosphere.
History won't be cheated of its cycles. :(
Hitler increased Germany's power by systematically violating the Versailles Treaty. Any of these violations gave, in theory, the Allies the right to declare war on Germany without such a war counting as a "war of aggression" -- just as did Saddam's violation of the terms of the truce ending the 1990-91 Gulf War give America the right to go to war with Iraq without such a war counting as a "war of aggression," and just as do the Iranian acts of war against America and Iraq today.
It seems very obvious from a modern historical perspective that Hitler's intentinons were bad ones. He outlined, in detail, in Mein Kampf, his plans to launch wars of aggression which would allow him to dominate Europe and destroy, enslave or expel members of the untermenschen (lit. "undermen," meaning "inferior people"). He gave belligerent speeches which telegraphed his intent.
What's more, each time that the Allies made concessions to Hitler, attempting to appease him, he promised that this was his "last demand," only to cause another crisis in a year or two, make another demand, and get more concessions. His reoccupation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and the annexation of the Sudetenland were each supinely accepted by the Allies. The last aggression was even sanctioned by the Munich Agreement, which Chamberlain so famously waved as he got off the plane and declared that he had won "peace in our time."
It wasn't until Hitler gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia that the Allies decided to act. Even then, they did not actually attack Hitler, but simply resolved not to give in the next time (if it ever came).
It came later that year, when Hitler demanded Danzig from Poland. This time the Allies acted, and went to war with Germany. But, because they had waited so long -- passed up the earlier opportunities -- Hitler had the time to build his armed forces up to strength. The consequence was that, instead of fighting a short victorious war -- as they could have done at any point up to and including the Sudeten Crisis of 1938 -- Britain and France embarked on over five years of fighting that would in the end see their empires in ruins, with but a Pyrrhic victory over the Nazis, and the future in the control of other Powers, America and Russia.
I've always wondered why the Allied politicians were so afraid to act. Now, having seen the villainization of George W. Bush because he has acted, I know the reason why. Had any Allied politician been a statesman, he too would have been pilloried as a "warmonger," and his efforts might well have been abortive, owing to the restraint exercised on him by his more pacifistic brethren.
History really does have cycles; sometimes one must wait for the aggressors to unmistakably act.
And the price will be paid by the people who will die in Iranian nuclear fireballs, and even more so by the Iranians themselves when grim vengeance comes sleeting down on their cities from the stratosphere.
History won't be cheated of its cycles. :(