WWII
I just remembered what I wanted to write about today before I was distracted by the impending nuclear bombing of Iran.
World War II. The Big One. Rummy and Rice and Cheney and Georgie have been running around comparing the fight against a rag-tag bunch of psychopathic religious fanatics to the defining global conflict in human history. Moreover, they've unabashedly compared themselves to Winston Churchill. Besides being entirely comical at any viewing angle, there is a glimmer of truth to it.
Not the Churchill part, other than (hopefully) his post-war election defeat. And certainly not the 1938 part. No, I was thinking more of the 1946-50 era.
In that period (and I can't do the research right now so this is from memory), we won the war in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR passed away, making Harry S. Truman our new president. With Europe still smouldering and in ruins, and a new adversary emerging as the Soviet Bloc, Truman had some decisions to make.
And he made the right ones. Over the opposition of a "Do-Nothing" Republican congress.
Having won the war, Truman set out to win the peace. The most important project was the Marshall Plan (which could just as easily have been called the Truman Plan), in which the US spent billions of dollars to rebuild Europe, even offering assistance to Soviet Bloc countries (which was at first accepted then refused).
That was the key to victory in the Cold War: support of our friends, both militarily and economically. Like the Truman Doctrine - where we were pledged to support friends like Greece - we took care of our interests. We joined forces with our friends and did not dominate the relationship just because we were so much stronger.
The fact that we were that much stronger was obvious. And we got our way most of the time. What else do you need?
Fast forward to today. We've destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, with promises of rebuilding both countries. But the promises were empty. We didn't build - we continue to destroy. Instead of creating friends for a millennia like Germany and Japan and England, we've created enemies who hate us more than ever.
It's always been an open question of history: if the do-nothing Republican party had won election in the 1945-50 period, what would have happened? Or, what would not have happened? They were against the Marshall plan and were for a new isolationism. Instead of the internationalism of Truman that won the Cold War, they would have put us on an isolationist, unilateral course against an international Soviet opponent.
It's clear to me that the Cold War would have been lost. Eisenhower was a non-ideological Republican who saw the wisdom of the Democratic approach and extended it to JFK and LBJ. By the time Nixon clawed his way to power (with his "secret plan to end the war" - more Republican secrecy), it was clear that internationalism - NATO et.al. - was the only way to safety.
And here we are at another of those historical moments. The post-9-11 world was begging, crying out for a Truman. But what we got was the unreconstructed unilateralist failure that was the 1946 Republican Congress. What would have happened then without a Truman? Probably something like what's happening now.
Abject unadulterated failure.
Welcome to the future
World War II. The Big One. Rummy and Rice and Cheney and Georgie have been running around comparing the fight against a rag-tag bunch of psychopathic religious fanatics to the defining global conflict in human history. Moreover, they've unabashedly compared themselves to Winston Churchill. Besides being entirely comical at any viewing angle, there is a glimmer of truth to it.
Not the Churchill part, other than (hopefully) his post-war election defeat. And certainly not the 1938 part. No, I was thinking more of the 1946-50 era.
In that period (and I can't do the research right now so this is from memory), we won the war in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR passed away, making Harry S. Truman our new president. With Europe still smouldering and in ruins, and a new adversary emerging as the Soviet Bloc, Truman had some decisions to make.
And he made the right ones. Over the opposition of a "Do-Nothing" Republican congress.
Having won the war, Truman set out to win the peace. The most important project was the Marshall Plan (which could just as easily have been called the Truman Plan), in which the US spent billions of dollars to rebuild Europe, even offering assistance to Soviet Bloc countries (which was at first accepted then refused).
That was the key to victory in the Cold War: support of our friends, both militarily and economically. Like the Truman Doctrine - where we were pledged to support friends like Greece - we took care of our interests. We joined forces with our friends and did not dominate the relationship just because we were so much stronger.
The fact that we were that much stronger was obvious. And we got our way most of the time. What else do you need?
Fast forward to today. We've destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, with promises of rebuilding both countries. But the promises were empty. We didn't build - we continue to destroy. Instead of creating friends for a millennia like Germany and Japan and England, we've created enemies who hate us more than ever.
It's always been an open question of history: if the do-nothing Republican party had won election in the 1945-50 period, what would have happened? Or, what would not have happened? They were against the Marshall plan and were for a new isolationism. Instead of the internationalism of Truman that won the Cold War, they would have put us on an isolationist, unilateral course against an international Soviet opponent.
It's clear to me that the Cold War would have been lost. Eisenhower was a non-ideological Republican who saw the wisdom of the Democratic approach and extended it to JFK and LBJ. By the time Nixon clawed his way to power (with his "secret plan to end the war" - more Republican secrecy), it was clear that internationalism - NATO et.al. - was the only way to safety.
And here we are at another of those historical moments. The post-9-11 world was begging, crying out for a Truman. But what we got was the unreconstructed unilateralist failure that was the 1946 Republican Congress. What would have happened then without a Truman? Probably something like what's happening now.
Abject unadulterated failure.
Welcome to the future
posted by fiduciary at 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home