In 1914, the nations of Europe rushed into a war they thought would be a
slam-dunk affair. When events turned sour, they quickly lost interest in it, but
lacked the basic honesty to admit the new status quo, and sacrificed millions of
their citizens in what was by then a war lost for all sides.
The expansionist US government then joined the war, and protracted it still
more. Ignoramuses think Wilson was an idealist who wished to end all wars. In
fact, his Fourteen Points were an answer to the Bolsheviks. The Russians ended
the war on abysmal terms but saved untold numbers of their soldiers from
senseless slaughter. Public opinion pressed the Entente countries for similar
action. Wilson, accordingly, spoke of peace the way the Nazis did twenty years
later: in oblique terms, which are potentially disastrous for one’s opponent,
who is thus made certain to reject them—and be painted as an enemy of peace.
That seems to have been the last bout of militancy by hedonistic European
cultures. In the current political reality, it is unthinkable for Germany to
attack France: the countries even share a currency. France last fought a
significant offensive war against Germany two hundred years ago. Arguably, this
term is sufficient to establish non-belligerence. Germany was able to stage
aggression because it was authoritarian. Multiparty parliaments are normally not
warlike for the same reason that they cannot reach other decisions of
significance. Subverting democracy remains an option, like the Nazis subverted
the Weimar Republic, but short of a major economic upheaval that’s unlikely,
especially considering that a huge economic downturn in Weimar Germany was
compounded by a clearly non-viable political structure, huge grievances, decades
of militant propaganda, and a significant strain of military aristocracy that
has now been extinguished. The resurgence of violence is not impossible: French
nukes won’t play MAD deterrence well because both sides of any conflict would
fear using them, and would fight with conventional weapons, just as they
abstained from using chemical weapons in WWII. A spontaneous, fast, and
short-lived buildup of militancy such as occurred during the Nazi era cannot be
ruled out, but by its nature it remains unpredictable and highly unlikely. To
imagine modern parties with vested economic interests and strong electoral
support to abrogate their political power in favor of a dictator is
far-fetched.
In the modern economy, wealth is a function of intellect rather than land, and
cannot be conquered. Wars are not feasible, and are only fought for the sake of
national grandeur. But people go only so far for nationalist goals. Fighting in
remote lands is okay until too many coffins reach the homeland. American losses,
rather than lofty ideals, fueled anti-Vietnam protests: students did not want to
become cannon fodder. Protests against the Iraq war quickly faded because
American casualties are low and affect only willing recruits, rather than the
general population. Terrorism might change that situation: Americans won’t
fight even backwater wars like the one in Afghanistan if such wars provoke
significant domestic terrorism.
National grandeur has become less important in consumerist societies. Wilson
and Roosevelt dragged their country into two world wars against popular
sentiment, but today the government cannot muster support even for dismantling
rogue nuclear facilities abroad. Media has become much more powerful compared to
government, which exceedingly relies on polls to conduct its policy—and media
are largely liberal. People who buy $5 million life insurance policies or hold
health insurance with a similar spending cap won’t readily endanger their
lives in military adventures abroad. The old European nations are still more
tired: France reneged on its guarantees to the Czechs, faked some nominal
military moves in support of Poland, and practically avoided fighting when
attacked by Germany. European nations are too old even to defend themselves
against the Muslim immigrant hordes, and accept them with the same ease they
accepted the German yoke seventy years ago.
The West’s leftovers of national grandeur won’t help Israel. America
defended France in a bloody war, but did not lift a finger to defend Israel in
1948 or 1967. There is no grandeur in helping Jews. Israel, therefore, will be
left alone to confront the young and militant Muslim nations. And the first and
automatic use of nuclear weapons is our only hope to win these wars feasibly.
Best regards,
Obadiah Shoher
No comments:
Post a Comment