Comments on: The greatest of crimes

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:04:55 +0000

you’re assuming that the absolute worst and most extreme tendencies in German society would have prevailed in every respect had Germany won WWI. This is, to put it mildly, not an especially dispassionate or uncontroversial assumption. It’s merely a straightforward extrapolation from the Germany immediately preceding and during WWI. The “tendencies” that “prevailed” then may not have been the “absolute worst and most extreme”, but they were pretty darned authoritarian, militaristic and imperialist. Why would a draw (let alone a victory) in WWI have changed that? The relative degrees of evilness or democratic-ness of the regimes in question have nothing whatsoever to do with the analysis. I’m afraid I disagree. Saddam Hussein, as well—pretty much throughout his career—has “had good reason to believe that [his] enemies were, in fact, encircling [him] and building up for an attack.” Hence, his “security-threat justifications for ‘preventive’ war were essentially the same”. That may provide abstract realpolitik justification for his string of ruthless deeds, but it certainly doesn’t provide moral justification for any of them. And as to your last statement: given that the harshness of Versailles was a major factor in the rise of Hitler, why is it not at least as plausible that a status-quo-ante peace without reparations would have stood a better chance of averting WWII entirely? Oh, I forgot, those Germans were just inherently eeeeevil. If you’re not going to bother even to try to understand a single word I say, why bother to respond? 1) Right from the start, I’ve taken issue with the (in my opinion, hopelessly naive, “theraputic”) claim that the harshness of the Versailles treaty led to World War II. In fact, the only thing that distinguished Hitler’s program from that of the Kaiser was its racial components. Surely you’re not blaming those on Versailles, are you? 2) I’ve made it clear that I don’t subscribe to any theories about the innate good or evil of ethnic groups. However, I do believe that certain governments—particularly non-democratic ones—can be inherently evil. I wouldn’t have thought it uncontroversial, for example, to characterize the Nazi regime as evil, however many good, decent subjects it may have had. Why, then, are you so eager to conflate my attributions of evil intent to Kaiser Wilhelm’s government with the ludicrous assertion that “those Germans were just inherently eeeeevil”? Perhaps you are the one having difficulty separating the notion of national political characteristics from the notion of ethnic traits—and therefore feel the need to deny the former, for fear of conceding the latter?

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:30:06 +0000

Nor, I should note, do you need to be some sort of lefty pacifist to think pre-WWI Germany relatively benign. George Kennan, for example, said that: “Today if one were offered the chance of having back again the Germany of 1913 — a Germany run by conservative but relatively moderate people, no Nazis and no Communists — a vigorous Germany, full of energy and confidence, able to play a part again in the balancing-off of Russian power in Europe, in many ways it would not sound so bad.”

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:23:56 +0000

Dan: you’re assuming that the absolute worst and most extreme tendencies in German society would have prevailed in every respect had Germany won WWI. This is, to put it mildly, not an especially dispassionate or uncontroversial assumption. You have at least read Ferguson on this point, right? On the Germany 1914-US 2003 parallel you completely miss my point, which is (a) the security-threat justifications for “preventive” war were essentially the same (b) the Germans had good reason to believe that their enemies were, in fact, encircling them and building up for an attack. The relative degrees of evilness or democratic-ness of the regimes in question have nothing whatsoever to do with the analysis. Though on this point it’s worth noting that the British Empire at the time was hardly a peaceful nation and not terribly democratic either esp. with respect to its nonwhite subjects, and furthermore it contained plenty of folks of the Wangenheim “crush the wogs under our civilizing bootheel” type. And as to your last statement: given that the harshness of Versailles was a major factor in the rise of Hitler, why is it not at least as plausible that a status-quo-ante peace without reparations would have stood a better chance of averting WWII entirely? Oh, I forgot, those Germans were just inherently eeeeevil.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:57:46 +0000

what “dolorous consequences”, exactly, would have ensued for Europe had Germany won WWI? The Germans of that time were, a few grandstanding Junkers aside, quite civilized and not at all tyrannical. There were a lot more Social Democrats among them than Prussian aristocrats. Moreover, a German victory then would have meant no Nazism and not nearly as much, if any, Communism. Sounds like a good deal to me. No doubt there were many social democrats in Germany in 1914—but then, if I’m not mistaken, there was no shortage of them in 1933, either. The problem was that Wilhelmine imperialists, not social democrats, ruled Germany during World War I. (Otherwise, World War I might never have started in the first place.) And the plans of the “grandstanding Junkers” for the countries they intended to defeat in battle were far from benign. If the Germans’ actions in WWI showed them to be motivated by militaristic jingoism and a lust to rule, so too do the US’s actions in the Iraq war. And the Saddam Hussein of 1914 was….who? Rene Viviani? Herbert Asquith? Even Kaiser Wilhelm’s regime was a far cry from Saddam’s—but it was certainly less peaceful and democratic than those of Britain or France (to say nothing of that of Belgium—arguably the Kuwait of 1914). All this “the war didn’t work because we didn’t beat them hard enough” stuff strikes me as…..self-congratulation as a basis for foreign policy. Actually, all I suggested was that the disarmament provisions of the Versailles treaty, had they been enforced, would most likely have prevented World War II. It’s not even clear that Nazism could have survived the elimination of the crucial “world conquest” plank of its platform. And even had it ravaged Germany for many years, the rest of the continent would have been spared. Of course, the means to keep Germany disarmed were there, as was the justification, in the form of the treaty of Versailles. They were not used only because the allies learned the same lesson from World War I that John Quiggin appears to draw from it—that war is “always a crime” (and treaties presumably not worth honoring, if doing so requires actual fighting). On the other hand, if the Entente had learned John’s lesson even earlier—as he apparently would have preferred—and made unconditional peace, then there would have been no obstacles whatsoever to German rearmament, and the opportunity to avert the horrors of World War II would never even have existed.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:32:20 +0000

Seems that some people espouse the “train wreck” theory and view the Great War as a really bad result of things that went wrong. Others seem to ignore the origins of the war and regard the war itself as an origin for numerous subsequent ills. I’ll say the stuff that went wrong after the war was probably strongly related to what was going wrong before the war. Whatever the cause or issue, the effects in America did not involve widespread destruction by artillery sheels or bombs. Forests were mowed down, and then left to rot as the markets for wood evaporated as quickly as they had arisen, but this was done with saws and axes. Hundreds of thousands died, but that was a result of the “Spanish” flu, ironically named for a nation that stayed neutral in the conflict. In Europe, faced with the task of reconstruction, the power of labor and the socialists grew. In America, war-inspired German bashing weakened the radical and socialistic German speakers, while prohibition banned the beer garden and turned many good German-American brewers to the manufacture of soda pop. It seems that, in reality, WW I caused a great deal of damage in America too, but we’ve never admitted it or started rebuilding. Over time this is becoming evident in our lower quality of living. So maybe we’re doing well if we can even remember a fraction of what happened.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:15:30 +0000

sure matt but as you say the labels “intentionally play with the equivocation” – so there is some equivocation out there to be played with – in other words there are enough British people who do not consider the UK to be part of Europe to make the word play worthwhile.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:05:22 +0000

nic— I agree, which is why I used quotation marks around “get tough.” My point is simply that as a result of Bush’s “with us or against us” stance and his insistent conflation of the Iraq war with the broader war on Islamist terrorism, along with Europeans’ natural resistence to both positions, the debate has polarized to a choice between what the US does and…something else. That something else, in many cases, has smacked of appeasement, or at a minimum, benign neglect in the hopes that the evil passes by. I think Europeans need to think more and more in terms of a third way, and I am encouraged that the recent horrible events in the Netherlands have stirred the fire in this regard. Europe’s secular but inclusive culture is worth defending.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:13:17 +0000

Giles: I think you are confusing two senses of European here. One sense refers to Europe in it’s broad socio-geographical sense and in this sense is what I have had in mind in most of my comments above. In this sense I think the UK always has been European. The other sense refers to integration into a particular political and economic project i.e the European Union and the single currency. In the UK there are lots of people quite happy with the former sense of ‘Europe’ but not with the latter. Phrases like “put Britain at the heart of Europe” intentionally play with the equivocation between these two sense of Europe and European. By associating one with the other politicians hope to persuade people that part of being European (in the socio-cultural sense) involves necessarily being European (in the political union sense). Eurosceptic is just a term invented by the press to label a particular political school of though – i.e. those who are sceptical about the process of further political integration. Europhobe is usually used to refer to those who not only want to halt further unification but actively want to roll back the amount of unification that has taken place before. [For what it’s worth I’m on the Europhile side of the fence… I like the idea of closer political and economic ties with the other countries in the EU - but that’s irrelevant here.] Most European countries contain politicians who are of a broadly ‘Eurosceptical’ political outlook. Even France. I wouldn’t read too much of significance into the labels themselves.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:49:24 +0000

“There may be Euro-sceptic politicians in the UK who wish we weren’t part of Europe but I don’t think that there is any doubt that we are — historically, politically, socially and culturally — even if we ignore political questions about the nature and future of the EU.” Matt I’d sugguest that the [hraseoogy “eurosceptic” indicates that most of the british dont consider themselves Euoropean either – as does the use of phrases like “take us into Europe” put us at the heart of Europe”

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:22:04 +0000

reply wrote: “Well the French I know don’t consider the UK part of Europe. Which continentals consider the UK part of Europe ?” Well, most people I know who aren’t French. :-) There may be Euro-sceptic politicians in the UK who wish we weren’t part of Europe but I don’t think that there is any doubt that we are—historically, politically, socially and culturally—even if we ignore political questions about the nature and future of the EU. reply wrote: “The UK had the direct connection, yet the UK has largely the same views towards war as America.” Indeed, why is why i wrote: “Of course there are loads of contingent factors and ‘Europe’ and the ‘US’ are hardly homogenous places and generalisations like that will have exceptions.” and “The UK suffers from the partly mistaken view that it ‘won’ the world wars and as a result probably is inclined to be less anti-militarist than some of the continental European countries.”

By: digamma

digamma — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:14:25 +0000

Last summer, I did indeed visit several dinky towns in southern France, and the number of names on the WWI memorials did indeed make me shudder. I remember my dad muttering under his breath, “It was a god damn meat grinder.”

By: reply

reply — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:10:18 +0000

“Because most people I know (whether from the continental part of Europe or the UK) think of the UK as being part of Europe.” Well the French I know don’t consider the UK part of Europe. Which continentals consider the UK part of Europe ? “My point in this context was just that even here in the UK the destruction and devastation of the 1st World War is something that is continually emphasised to us growing up and both world wars are something to which we, like other Europeans, have a direct and often personal connection.” “The only thing, and it’s hardly a huge or controversial point, I wanted to say was that direct experiences of military conflict that are present in Europe but absent in the US may partly explain differing attitudes to militarism.” Well your first paragraph diminishes the point in the second. The UK had the direct connection, yet the UK has largely the same views towards war as America.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:58:25 +0000

reply wrote: “Matt: Um you do know that when most people speak of Europe, the English aren’t included ? Anyway…” Two points. One, I’m Scottish, not English, so be wary of making bloody stupid assumptions. Second, who are these ‘most people’ you speak of? Because most people I know (whether from the continental part of Europe or the UK) think of the UK as being part of Europe. “I think the English people’s attitude towards war is not markedly different than the American’s.… There seems more of a difference between the current continental European and English views, than the English and American.” Fair enough, I think that’s correct. The UK suffers from the partly mistaken view that it ‘won’ the world wars and as a result probably is inclined to be less anti-militarist than some of the continental European countries. My point in this context was just that even here in the UK the destruction and devastation of the 1st World War is something that is continually emphasised to us growing up and both world wars are something to which we, like other Europeans, have a direct and often personal connection. “You brought up the Holocaust. I ask you not to do it again. I don’t think there are many people with an actual connection to the Holocaust – who lost family – who would take it as evidence that wars should not be fought. ” I wasn’t citing it was evidence that wars shouldn’t be fought. It’s just a specific example of a way in which the events of WWII have a direct impact on people. [I also think you’ve got no right to be telling me what I should or should not discuss and in what context. But in the interest of civility I won’t express it in the way that first came to mind…] Anyway, I’m not even arguing that wars shouldn’t be fought. The only thing, and it’s hardly a huge or controversial point, I wanted to say was that direct experiences of military conflict that are present in Europe but absent in the US may partly explain differing attitudes to militarism. That’s it! Of course there are loads of contingent factors and ‘Europe’ and the ‘US’ are hardly homogenous places and generalisations like that will have exceptions. But it hardly seems controversial. [I’m not even trying to make some normative claim that one perspective or other is the correct one… there are, arguably, circumstances where a military response is correct and profoundly anti-militaristic attitudes may hinder such a response.]

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:31:35 +0000

dan: what “dolorous consequences”, exactly, would have ensued for Europe had Germany won WWI? The Germans of that time were, a few grandstanding Junkers aside, quite civilized and not at all tyrannical. There were a lot more Social Democrats among them than Prussian aristocrats. Moreover, a German victory then would have meant no Nazism and not nearly as much, if any, Communism. Sounds like a good deal to me. If the Germans’ actions in WWI showed them to be motivated by militaristic jingoism and a lust to rule, so too do the US’s actions in the Iraq war. Their rationale for attack was a preventive one, same as ours. Look, they said, our enemies haven’t attacked us yet, but they’re clearly building up capabilities they could use to do so in the future. We’ve fought them before and we know their intentions are hostile; to wait too long to respond could be catastrophic. Better to strike now and beat them once and for all before they can do us real damage. The main difference is that the Germans’ fears were much more justified. (And surely for every Baron von Wangenheim you can find a General Boykin). All this “the war didn’t work because we didn’t beat them hard enough” stuff strikes me as the mirror image of the Leftist tendency to claim that, whenever a social program fails to achieve its intended objective and/or causes a bunch of unintended consequences in its train, the cause can’t be that the program was a dumb idea to begin with, but must be that not enough money was spent on it to do it properly. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, it’s self-congratulation as a basis for foreign policy.

By: Reply

Reply — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:30:03 +0000

Matt: Um you do know that when most people speak of Europe, the English aren’t included ? Anyway… I think the English people’s attitude towards war is not markedly different than the American’s. You did, after all, fight for the Falklands, were one of the prime movers behind the ex-Yugoslavia war, are besides the U.S. in Iraq, … There seems more of a difference between the current continental European and English views, than the English and American. England didn’t suffer the devastation of some continental countries in WWI, so your point could have been that the lesser damage explains why England is as militaristic as the U.S. But it isn’t. So anyway I’m left a bit confused. You brought up the Holocaust. I ask you not to do it again. I don’t think there are many people with an actual connection to the Holocaust – who lost family – who would take it as evidence that wars should not be fought.