NO MYSTERY TEAR DOWN MONUMENTS MANY REVERE AND YOU PAY A PRICE

Mystery 'poison plot' sends Czech mayors into hiding

FDR and the likes of Harry Hopkins would have been appalled to think that the Czechs would one day tear down this monument.

This is tearing down a so called WINNER of WWII!

Tear this down, and you might just as well move on to FDR, who cut the deal with Uncle Joe,  and especially Eisenhower, who never fought a battle, and who refused to protect their pathetic asses in Eastern Europe when he had the chance, and had the largest modern army in history there on the ground and under Patton and Montgomery!

Czechs: "FDR didn't free us, you bitch! He freed Stalin!"

"Just like Wilson had freed Lenin, you bitches!"

My suggestion is that any politician who plans to tear down historic monuments, anywhere, should prepare to be poisoned or otherwise killed by outraged citizens, or enraged foreigners, some of whom still have a sense for history as they see it. 

And if that starts a war, say between the Czechs and the Russians, then so be it. 

Saturday, November 11, 2017

RE WHO WAS MORE DERANGED PATTON OR EISENHOWER

It has come out, over the years that the OSS, at the highest level, collaborated with Russia to remove and then to kill Patton. The Americans themselves seem to have carried out this murder, although the details are shrouded in almost as much confusion as the JFK assassination.
The explanation given to Bazata by Donovan was that he was dangerous and deranged.

Drew Pearson was the slut patsy chosen by the OSS to convey this false story, couched appealingly in the Jewish private slapping story, (who was ill but nobody knew that or cared) to the eager libertarian American public.

One obvious question: Who was more dangerous and deranged? Patton or Eisenhower?

Patton had begged Eisenhower to take Berlin, and other Eastern European capitols. So, it seems, had Montgomery to his superiors.

Eisenhower saw no use in taking Berlin, or any other place over there.

So, was Montgomery deranged too?

What has any of that, really, frankly, to do with slapping an ill Jewish, yellow belly, Army, Drew Pearson bait, buck private?

Let's change tack, for a moment. Call it a pivot!

Why would you collaborate with the Soviets re Europe, killing Patton, giving Eastern Europe  to them, when they had just, just rammed Japan all the way up your ass in the Pacific, resulting in a terrible life and death struggle in Asia?

What rational person would do that?

Let's change tack: whom do you, only now, believe less:

The NYT in 1964 re Kitty Genovese?

or

Drew Pearson in say 1944, re Patton?

Pearson was no more, and no less, self centered and unscrupulous, in 1944, and it would be really hard to ever be more self centered or unscrupulous than he,  than the NYT had been in 1937, or 1964, or 2016.

Jefferson, also, re self centered and unscrupulous, had talked a good talk, Declaration of Independence, etc.

But he had kept his own slaves to the end, baby!

Terms search: pivot

Sunday, November 12, 2017

REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY

(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

Friday, July 25, 2014

RE GAME OVER SIMILAR POINT MONTGOMERY LATER MADE PATTON PATTERSON EISENHOWER

 See the discussion between Patton and Under Secretary of War Patterson, May 7 1945, The Patton Papers 1940-1945, p. 697.

If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'

See prior post, re whether to take Berlin, Patton Eisenhower.

See also: Drew Pearson
My favorite,  so far, is Jack Anderson (Pearson's partner), on Pearson, on Forrestal's death.

See also especially Soviet Japanese Neutrality Pact 1941.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

PRIOR POSTS RE MONTGOMERY PATTON

Perhaps someone doesn't believe me about Montgomery.
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.

RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT

RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:

 "Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."

Sunday, September 8, 2013

SEE DK'S CURRENT POST WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE WORLD

He cites Reagan's regime.

"When the Cold War came to an end, we had a President who had fought in the Second World War, and he tried to use the end of the Cold War to create exactly the kind of world he had fought to create."

Here is another voice, speaking for the world really, from farther back, re the outcome of WWII, in retrospect:

"By May 1945  we had won the German war militarily, but had lost it politically vis-à-vis Russia." Montgomery, An Approach To Sanity, "NATO--- Past Present and Future", 1959, p. 12.

Largely because of American ideological opposition, we failed to drive the Russians back to their own borders, something which, even in this 1959 volume, Montgomery expressly wished might some day happen...

Reagan was not in the same league with these people.
Eisenhower had no battlefield experience, ever. Think about it.

If there was a so called ' betrayal ' in the Second WW,

(a la Hitler's erroneous allegations against the financiers and politicians, unfounded in the case of Germany, re the First World War),

and vaguely alluded to by Montgomery, back then, regarding a war politically rather than militarily lost, it was the betrayal, by the United States, of views like those of Patton, and perhaps, even, of his demise.

Friday, September 27, 2019

RE DK POST TRUMP'S REAL ANALOG AND COMMENTS THERE

I have gotten a copy of Stalin's Secret Agents. It is a reprise, but also a reinterpretation of earlier disclosures regarding Soviet penetration. 

Especially interesting re the back and forth w DK re Trump's Real Analog post comments.

One even has to distinguish between mere communist fellow travellers, of whom there were the most, from spies who usually doubled as agents of influence in official positions, of whom there were dozens everywhere which formed a strategic corp really.

These are more important distinctions than one might think.

The Soviets actually took down our State Department block by block from within our own government regarding anti Soviet views there. See Evans, Romerstein, Ch 19. Kennan complained bitterly about it in his Memoirs. They cite to his remarks there.

There is a note, a footnote, in Ch 19 re Drew Pearson's aggressive crusades in these pro soviet initiatives. 

Professor Kaiser has lavishly praised Pearson, a pro Soviet journalist, on his blog. 

Pearson took down Patton, probably on orders through David Karr. Does it not raise a question?

There is a great irony here, re Trump's pathetic and ostensibly impeacheable efforts to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor ostensibly adverse to Moscow. 

How paltry and pathetic by comparison with what was done to us, from within, by the Soviets for most of the 20th Century.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957

"Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."

At The Casablanca Conference, where Roosevelt announced unconditional surrender, at Morgenthau's instance and under the influence at that time of Russian agents in Treasury, Stalin did not even have to attend.

As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...

Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.

Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without. 

I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.

Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.

RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT PARAGRAPH 3 DAVID KAISER AND EISENHOWER VERSUS KENNAN PATTON AND MONTGOMERY

"...The United States, Great Britain, and France occupied West Berlin in 1945 when the Third Reich fell. As long as they and the U.S.S.R planned to create a new all-German government, it didn’t much matter that West Berlin was well inside the Soviet occupation zone, but in 1948, when Britain and the U.S. took unmistakable steps towards setting up a separate West German state, Stalin responded by blockading land access to the city. The U.S. supplied it by air for a year, and Stalin gave up the blockade. In 1949 the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic were separately formed, each claiming to be the sole legitimate representative of the German people..."  DK

Sunday, November 12, 2017

REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY

(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

Perhaps someone doesn't believe me, about Montgomery.
They think only that Patton must have been deranged.

RE ROSENBERG EXONERATION EFFORT

RE FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY WWII THE FIRST CHICHELE LECTURE 1957:

 "Understanding what must follow from the decision of unconditional surrender, and knowing that great troubles lay ahead with Stalin over eastern Europe and the future of Germany, the Western allies should surely have ensured that their forces gained possession of the great political centres of Central Europe before the Russians---notably Berlin, Prague, Vienna. If this had been laid down as the object by Roosevelt and Churchill in January 1943, in my considered view as a soldier, we could have grabbed all three in 1944 before the Russians."  

"By May 1945  we had won the German war militarily, but had lost it politically vis-à-vis Russia." Montgomery, An Approach To Sanity, "NATO--- Past Present and Future", 1959, p. 12.

The Soviets actually took down our State Department block by block from within our own government regarding anti Soviet views there. See Evans, Romerstein, Ch 19. Kennan complained bitterly about it in his Memoirs. They cite to his remarks there.

There is a note, a footnote, in Ch 19 re Drew Pearson's aggressive crusades in these pro soviet initiatives. 

Monday, December 10, 2018

SEE VENONA DAVID KARR DREW PEARSON WALTER LIPPMANN MARY PRICE

Haynes, Ch 8 re journalists, p 240 and following, re Karr and the Pearsons.

Karr was Pearson's chief aide, and a Soviet agent. How do you have a close aide like that and not be a secret communist? 

Certainly the Soviets believed he was firmly on their side, probably long before he hired Karr. 

If Pearson wasn't a communist, he certainly put on a good act, masquerading, time after time, from a communist perspective and against anti communist targets,  in his columns. 

He ruined Patton, drove Forrestal to suicide, as his own partner Anderson admitted, and besmirched countless others. 

Joe McCarthy had his number as, at the very least, a sympathetic and willing chump stooge of Stalin, although he wasn't believed at the time.  Haynes, Venona, p. 245.

Drew Pearson Fallacy

See the discussion between Patton and Under Secretary of War Patterson, May 7 1945, The Patton Papers 1940-1945, p. 697.

If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'

Here was Bazata's obituary:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html

At The Casablanca Conference, where Roosevelt announced unconditional surrender, at Morgenthau's instance and under the influence at that time of Russian agents in Treasury, Stalin did not even have to attend.

As Montgomery noted, it suited his plans to the letter...

Call it: "The Roosevelt Morgenthau" decision, or even more accurately, The Roosevelt Moscow Accord, and its aftermath.

Churchill had to go along, or lose so called allies he could not then do without. 

I say ' so called ' because not only was the USSR clearly planning to absorb as much of Western and eastern Europe and the Middle East as they could, with active US collusion, but they were also colluding simultaneously with Japan re a secret nonaggression pact, enabling Japan's attack on Western and on American targets in Asia, especially Pearl Harbor.

Morgenthau had arranged for Patton's dismissal, with the help of the willing muckraking tool, Drew Pearson.

Robert Allen, Pearson's longtime partner, Wikipedia:

"In 1933, Allen worked as a Soviet agent (Sh/147) for $100 a month.^[5] According to John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev in their 2009 book Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America,^[2][6] this was legal for Allen to do, being prior to the passage of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act, and his motivation is unknown.

In 1933, Allen was a fully recruited and undoubtedly witting Soviet agent. Under the assigned cover name of "George Parker," he covertly exchanged privileged information for money. He provided the Soviets with intelligence about Japanese military fortifications; news about potential appointments in the incoming Roosevelt administration; and information about the US government's plans for diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union.

In the early forties he co-wrote the newspaper strip Hap Hopper with Drew Pearson. The strip was drawn by Jack Sparling.^[7]

He served on General Patton's staff in World War II.

Terms search DK site: Gerhard Weinberg.

Now, try, say, Drew Pearson.

RE DK POST TRUMP'S REAL ANALOG AND COMMENTS THERE

I have gotten a copy of Stalin's Secret Agents. It is a reprise, but also a reinterpretation of earlier disclosures regarding Soviet penetration. 

Especially interesting re the back and forth w DK re Trump's Real Analog post comments.

One even has to distinguish between mere communist fellow travellers, of whom there were the most, from spies who usually doubled as agents of influence in official positions, of whom there were dozens everywhere which formed a strategic corp really.

These are more important distinctions than one might think.

The Soviets actually took down our State Department block by block from within our own government regarding anti Soviet views there. See Evans, Romerstein, Ch 19. Kennan complained bitterly about it in his Memoirs. They cite to his remarks there.

There is a note, a footnote, in Ch 19 re Drew Pearson's aggressive crusades in these pro soviet initiatives. 

Professor Kaiser has lavishly praised Pearson, a pro Soviet journalist, on his blog. 

Pearson took down Patton, probably on orders through David Karr. Does it not raise a question?

There is a great irony here, re Trump's pathetic and ostensibly impeacheable efforts to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor ostensibly adverse to Moscow. 

How paltry and pathetic by comparison with what was done to us, from within, by the Soviets for most of the 20th Century.

Monday, December 10, 2018

SEE VENONA DAVID KARR DREW PEARSON WALTER LIPPMANN MARY PRICE

Haynes, Ch 8 re journalists, p 240 and following, re Karr and the Pearsons.

Karr was Pearson's chief aide, and a Soviet agent. How do you have a close aide like that and not be a secret communist? 

Certainly the Soviets believed he was firmly on their side, probably long before he hired Karr. 

If Pearson wasn't a communist, he certainly put on a good act, masquerading, time after time, from a communist perspective and against anti communist targets,  in his columns. 

He ruined Patton, drove Forrestal to suicide, as his own partner Anderson admitted, and besmirched countless others. 

Joe McCarthy had his number as, at the very least, a sympathetic and willing chump stooge of Stalin, although he wasn't believed at the time.  Haynes, Venona, p. 245.

Drew Pearson Fallacy

Saturday, November 11, 2017

RE WHO WAS MORE DERANGED PATTON OR EISENHOWER

It has come out, over the years that the OSS, at the highest level, collaborated with Russia to remove and then to kill Patton. 

The Americans themselves seem to have carried out this murder, although the details are shrouded in almost as much confusion as the JFK assassination.

The explanation given to Bazata by Donovan was that he was dangerous and deranged.

Drew Pearson was the slut patsy chosen by the OSS to convey this false story, couched appealingly in the Jewish private slapping story, (who was ill but nobody knew that or cared) to the eager libertarian American public.

One obvious question: Who was more dangerous and deranged? Patton or Eisenhower?

Patton had begged Eisenhower to take Berlin, and other Eastern European capitols. So, it seems, had Montgomery to his superiors.

Eisenhower saw no use in taking Berlin, or any other place over there.

So, was Montgomery deranged too?

What has any of that, really, frankly, to do with slapping an ill Jewish, yellow belly, Army, Drew Pearson bait, buck private?

Let's change tack, for a moment. Call it a pivot!

Why would you collaborate with the Soviets re Europe, killing Patton, giving Eastern Europe  to them, when they had just, just rammed Japan all the way up your ass in the Pacific, resulting in a terrible life and death struggle in Asia?

What rational person would do that?

Let's change tack: whom do you, only now, believe less: 

The NYT in 1964 re Kitty Genovese? 

or 

Drew Pearson in say 1944, re Patton?

Pearson was no more, and no less, self centered and unscrupulous, in 1944, and it would be really hard to ever be more self centered or unscrupulous than he,  than the NYT had been in 1937, or 1964, or 2016.

Jefferson, also, re self centered and unscrupulous, had talked a good talk, Declaration of Independence, etc. 

But he had kept his own slaves to the end, baby!

Terms search: pivot

Monday, March 12, 2018

LEONHARDT THE PUNDIT FALLACY

Leonhardt defines his and Iglesias' fallacy, 'The tendency to confuse one's own policy wishes with good political advice' much much too narrowly.

 

He is talking only about the fallacies the pundit himself makes!

Matthew Iglesias: The Pundity Fallacy: “The pundit’s fallacy is that belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively.”

 

My own definition of The Pundit Fallacy really includes the whole American political system:

The Pundit Fallacy is

The American Political System Fallacy, in many ways.

 

Americans tend to believe their pundits, regardless of which side they seem on, on any issue at all, at any one time, and to rely on them, and especially on their flawed evanescent, blinkered, myopic but  kaleidoscopic pundit reasoning, for the correction and maintenance of their weak and palsied political system.

 

That is what I mean by The Pundit Fallacy.

Punditocracy: A society that believes its pundits.

One really good example: The Patton Slapping Story that Pearson 'broke'. Pearson was not a hero, but rather a corrupt self aggrandizing slut. The story was fed to him by Bolshevik loving FDR administration operatives under the sway of Stalin.

Looked at this way, Pearson was nothing more than a hapless Stalin stooge, much as Trump, by his own efforts, plus the media he hates, seems now to be getting painted into a Putin stooge box.

Our media however, by the way, is no less a group of stooges now, as back then.

The Kitty Genovese Story, another media fiasco leaving egg on countless faces, including Bobbitt's. Yet the author of the Genovese Story retired from the NYT, after a long and successful career, and died, a hero. The verdict of history!

 

Terms seearch: punditocracy, Drew Pearson fallacy, Fallows Fallacy, Brooks Fallacy, mutton busting, etc

Friday, November 9, 2018

THE VENONA PAPERS AND VENONA DECODING SOVIET ESPIONAGE IN AMERICA TERMS SEARCH

Drew Pearson, David Karr

Pearson was, at best, an eager stooge of the Soviets, at worst, a Soviet agent himself along with his source. His relationship with Karr certainly must have been a close one.

That was certainly the role he played in getting Patton relieved of battlefield command, and then killed. Terms search: Target Patton, Drew Pearson fallacy

The hot, fetid, breath of closer scrutiny.......

Friday, July 25, 2014

RE GAME OVER SIMILAR POINT MONTGOMERY LATER MADE PATTON PATTERSON EISENHOWER

 See the discussion between Patton and Under Secretary of War Patterson, May 7 1945, The Patton Papers 1940-1945, p. 697.

If you happen to read this passage, then ask yourself: 'Whom do I believe, Patterson or Patton?'

See prior post, re whether to take Berlin, Patton Eisenhower.

See also: Drew Pearson
My favorite,  so far, is Jack Anderson (Pearson's partner), on Pearson, on Forrestal's death.

See also especially Soviet Japanese Neutrality Pact 1941.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

RE LITVINENKO BBC DREW PEARSON FALLACY

Couple of things jump out at you. I have not followed this matter really.

He definitely was a spy.

He was killed, moreover, more or less publicly, in England, in a way which simultaneously uncovered him to have been a spy.

In a sense, then, he was outed, as he was killed.

It seems to me therefore that someone was sending a message by his death to others.

What other conclusions could one reach?

It would have been easy to have killed him privately, but that was not done.  

Patton, not a spy, you know, was privately killed, by 'truck', or rather, finished off secretly in hospital, after truck. 

No one, on either side, say three sides or more, then or later, wanted his death to be thought anything other than an unfortunate accident, except perhaps, only much later, Douglas Bazata, whose conscience bothered him, if one believes Target Patton. Question: what indicia of reliability should one attach to such an account, Wilcox's, especially re Bazata ?  Such indicia are well known. They have been used in biblical scholarship, and elsewhere, for decades.  Maybe someone more well versed than myself in these historical corroboration matters can address such questions. Re The Drew Pearson Fallacy in this connection, see Wikipedia Drew Pearson.
Here was Bazata's obituary:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html

RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT DK POST PARAGRAPH 2

 Western leaders and the press, now, do not see Ukraine  and Putin the way their predecessors in 1958  saw Khrushchev and West Berlin at all.

Moreover, their predecessors had had a totally Whig perspective in 1958 on what they were seeing even then, very late in the responsible statecraft game indeed.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY

(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

REPRISE EISENHOWER PATTON VERDICT OF HISTORY

(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '
 

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

THE VERDICT OF HISTORY PATTON EISENHOWER REPOST TO ROUND OUT THE EVENING

(Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons and Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

BIG PICTURE THE AMERICAN NEGRO AND HIS DISCONTENTS MEAN NOTHING

 

Nothing to 19th C whites, nothing to Teddy, nothing to W Wilson, nothing Hoover, nothing to any later, nothing to FDR, nothing to Eisenhower, nothing Truman, nothing to Kennedy, very little to Johnson, nothing Nixon, nothing to neocon Republicans, nothing to JFK, nothing to Reagan, nothing to Carter, nothing to Clinton, nothing to the Bush dynasty, nothing to Hillary, not much to Obama, zero to Biden.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

EXCERPTS 10 YEARS AFTER DK POST THE VITAL CENTER TRADING AMERICAN INTERESTS THE OTHER INCALCULABLE BLUNDER

People seem to like this old DK post, here are a few excerpts, re clash of civilizations:

"The Egyptian elections gave two Islamist parties, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, well over half the votes. Something similar has happened in Tunisia. The Egyptian brotherhood has announced that it opposes, for now at least, a coalition with the Salafists. But the significance of these developments remains enormous. A clash of civilizations looms on the horizon, because the momentum of western civilization has been halted, and then reversed, in the last half century.…Western civilization has been under attack from the left and the right here in the United States….A clash of civilizations looms because the hegemony of western civilization is now a thing of the past….Israel was created by secularists in the wake of the Second World War, when no one imagined what a role religion would play in the lives of those not yet born. It dreamed, apparently, of a relatively secular Middle East in which it could co-exist with its neighbors."

Yes.

I would just add that the West has most tellingly been under attack here, not either from the left, or from the right, as DK says, but rather from what has been called by, eg E J Dionne, The Vital Center, the bi partisan globalist consensus, especially in the last half century to which he refers.

Another very very important point, one I have referred to in posts, as 'the other incalculable blunder', was one Sir Michael Howard pointed out at various times, that the later decline of the West, after WWI, but especially at and after WWII, was the result of strictly American decision making. 

Basically, we got rid of Western Europe's civilizational empires such as they admittedly were, starting after WWI, taking over only what we felt like having, and then singlehandedly during and after WWII, left Eastern Europe under the control of an absolutist Orthodox Civilizational, lower class, merely ostensibly socialist (fit with FDR) , dictator, Stalin. 

One reason why someone like Field Marshall Montgomery, who had been in a position to know, and who (unlike Patton) survived the WWII debacle, pointed out that we had lost it to the Soviets.

' (Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced PERSONS and Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-other-incalculable-blunder-bigger.html

Terms search: vital center, trading American interests, bad divorce, before 1776.

RE IRAQ WAR A REPUBLICAN WAR

"We will never know how politics would have been different in the Middle East if the Bush Administration had not invaded Iraq. The evidence from Egypt and Syria suggests that the authoritarian regimes that have ruled much of the region for decades were bound to come under threat, and that some territories were likely to fall into chaos.  We surely, however, accelerated that process, and now it is under control.  The Germans might well have felt the same way about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which they made possible by defeating the Russian Army so thoroughly during the First World War.  Not until Hitler, however, did they make an all-out effort to undo that result, and the consequences turned out to be disastrous for Germany.  Having helped set the disintegration of the Middle East in motion, we cannot arrest, much less reverse it.  It will play itself out by its own rules." DK

Parenthetically, one could speculate on what might have been:
"We will never know how politics would have been different in the Middle East if the Bush Administration had not invaded Iraq." DK.   Let's grant the likelihood of his suggestion. 

While I would admit that the tendency in American politics to blame one party is strong, I believe that some might want to take a closer look at the history of either party here, and how each of them has blundered, both militarily and ideologically, most everywhere force has been used in American history, by either party in the lead.

Vietnam was tagged with the moniker a Democrats' war.

The reasoning, late entry, and ideological approach, to WWI, under Hoover, then Wilson; the reasoning, flawed ideology, and military denouement, of WWII under Roosevelt, and after his death when political decision making essentially stopped apparently, Eisenhower's military role; the whole Korean War, are, to me, classic examples.

' (Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced persons and Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '

'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.

There will be people out there, who will say things like  'can't betray an ally, we needed the Soviets, they deserved Eastern Europe for their war effort, we couldn't do it, we needed them for Japan,' various other things.

They may not even be aware that the Soviets, by the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, 1941, actually made Pearl Harbor possible.

Of course, if your intent was, and had remained, as was Roosevelt's and Morgenthau's, (cf eg Beschloss, The Comquerors) to reduce Germany, more or less forever, to bare subsistence farming, then Eisenhower, their faithful agent in this regard, would have been right about Berlin.  See Kennan, Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin, "Russia and the West as Allies", especially the concept of unconditional surrender.

Of course, had Roosevelt's and Morgenthau's plan been completely carried out, one would very soon then have had Stalin's hot Orthodox Civilization breath, breathing down, not only on Eastern Europe, but  on the very heart of Western Europe as well, taking over without resistance this subsistence farm land from its German peasants, a civilizational coup greater even than that of the Ottoman Sultan, with the help of France up to 1748 (and facilitated before WWI, and by its approach to denouement in WWII, by the same disgruntled, rogue Western Power, France).