World Peace and Harmony and other myths.....Part 1

Upon the conclusion of WWl, the French wanted their revenge.  They set about immediately to do this, and who could blame them? First they regained the industrial heartland of France, lost to Germany a few generations earlier in 1871.    With this France regained not only its honor but also its dignity.  The cost of course was 1.4 million dead. 

The French, very much like the Russians in 1945, also wanted a buffer state between it and Germany.  The Russians got theirs of course, ie all of East Europe.  The French failed however, to obtain one of their own.  They did however, manage to create a demilitarized zone.  It was the next best thing.  It was called The Rhineland.

Remember the posts on Truman and the Korean War?  The DMZ there was only 2 miles across.  It is now of course no man’s land.   A freak accident of mankind, pristine and untouched, stretching from one side of Korea to another.

Well, the French kinda sorta had their own DMZ.  Except it was 31 miles deep, and stretched west of the Rhine River from Germany.   It was not a buffer state per say, but it would have to do.
Throughout the 20’s and into the 30’s France quite frankly did all it could to “contain Germany”.    This goal was obvious from Day One.  Keeping Germany weak, and unable to defend itself.  As such France still held the balance of power into the 30’s.   The buffer on the Rhineland was meant to do just that.   

A treaty was signed to codify everything in 1925.  It was called the Locarno Treaties.  It stated the demilitarized region would in fact remain that way permanently.   It also stated in clear language what the repercussions would be.  After all, what better way to keep Germany down?

On March 7, 1936 Hitler ordered his German Army to occupy the Rhineland.  In effect, to “remilitarize” the Rhineland.

France did nothing.  Good on paper at seeking revenge and justice even than it simply lacked the stomach to push the Germans out.   But why did the French do nothing?  Well…France was broke.  It had just defaulted on its international loans.  And a proper call up of the French troops would have been prohibitively expensive.   France was also suffering from capital flight.    But I would argue for something easier to explain:

France just couldn’t stomach another war.   It wasn’t psychologically ready for a fight.   Neither in spirit, body or mind.  So it looked the other way, and Europe paid the price.

Nevermind France’s clear military superiority over Germany in 1936.  Meanwhile, Hitler had given orders should the German Army come into contact with the French, to withdrawal. 

Hitler’s audacity, his intuitive “reading” of the French must be applauded.    Thus the importance of individuals and their decision making must not be overlooked in World History.   It was Hitler that decided to invade Russia, starting the domino effect that eventually cost 20 million people their lives.  It was Napoleon that decided to invade Russia as well, eventually costing him control of France.

Perhaps he knew that democracies and decisiveness simply do not belong in the same sentence.  To be decisive a nation must have a Vision.  But the nature of democracies is their shortsightedness.   And how can it be otherwise?   From 1933 until 1940, France had 16 Prime Ministers.  Germany had one leader.    No way to govern a country.   No leadership.   No vision.

It was from this date in time that Germany actually began to slowly dominate Europe, culminating 5 years later in the embarrassingly easy capture of France.  But one can argue the balance of power in Europe changed completely on the day the Germans marched into the Rhineland.

But if one must be honest, than we should say France did “the right thing”.    (Where was England?) War is expensive you know!  And democracies are well known for hiding behind Reason and Economics when it comes to fighting someone their size.   After all, that is what Democracies do best.  France could not “afford” a confrontation with Hitler, and Atlas Shrugged.   

But weren’t France and German equally in economic dire straits?  Indeed they were.  Except one country had a leader we’ve all forgotten about, and the Germans had their Chavez, their Castro, their Lenin.  

My point is that Democracies look like pussies whenever reason is involved.   Because “reason” dictates  as war is expensive you find a way out of it.  Which is what the French did.   But “civilized nations” don’t stand a chance against a determined bully that doesn’t have to worry about newspaper editorials or public budget hearings.

France had a window.  It did.  An opportunity to close the door on Germany’s ambitions and save the destruction of a continent and the lives of tens of millions.    And so did the British.   And they collectively fucked it up.  The bully occupied the civilized nation, drank its wine, made love to its women.  Damn near burned Paris down. 

In America 1945, a million lives were probably saved by the advent of the A bomb.  Stalin saw first hand the capabilities of this weapon.    And he didn’t have one.   From 1945 until 1949, America had the rare opportunity to attack the Soviet Union on its terms and wipe it out.  An A bomb on an airfield there, a naval base here….done.   Bombers, divisions, tanks…meant nothing.  Zero.   Which was also the number of nuclear weapons Russia had. 

By 1950 that window had closed.   Which is the same year Stalin signed off on North Korea invading the South.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

The problem is no sane man, or person would ever advocate such use of a weapon accept in the most dire of situations.   Russian tanks would need to be on the Washington Mall for that to happen.   Or in Trafalgar Square.  

But if the US had attacked Russia with nuclear weapons in say 1947 or 1948, than what folks?

A Korean War?

Vietnam even?  Ho Chi Minh’s not so much of a bleeding heart nationalist without that unlimited supply of Russian SAM’s now is he?

Would Russia had even invaded Afghanistan, the very first domino that fell in 1979, leading us to the chaos we have in that crazy place today?

My argument is that democracies are sane, and civil, and well, that tends to cost rather than save lives. Not an opinion.  An historical fact.  If we could have gone back in time to March 6, 1936, and said to ourselves “look, the German’s are going to retake the Rhineland tomorrow”, and with full knowledge of what March 6, 1945 looks like what is the answer?

You grab that well known French leader by the collar, (Pierre-Etienne Flandin) break a bottle of French red burgundy over his head and say,


In 1960, during the American Presidential Election one of JFK’s talking points was the “missile gap”.  After winning the election, he was basically told by Eisenhower,

“What missile gap?”

The irony of it all is JFK’s nonstop haranguing of the Eisenhower Administration for this mythic missile gap helped him win the election.   

Not only did it not exist, but was actually decidedly in the Americans’ favor.   American numbers dictated first strike nuclear capability.   If the United States wanted, it could have started a nuclear war, and gotten away with it.   A window existed.    Another opportunity to inflict crazed and unthinkable violence upon another country for the sake of….what? 

I mean…what good could have possibly come of this?

Well, let’s take a 20-20 hindsight look at this:

Eastern Europe would have been freed.   Germany would have been reunited in the 60’s and not 3 decades hence.   The Cold War would have ended.   Military expenditures would’ve dropped?   Nuclear testing would have ended.

All you gotta do for all these things to happen is push a red button.  A million people may die, but look at how many schools you can build tomorrow!!! 

And remember Afghanistan?  No Soviet troops there, right?  Well, let’s take it one step further; dare I say no 9/11? 

By breaking a few eggs in the late 50’s/early 60’s we can have some pretty damn good omelets in the future for our kids to enjoy.

Except that’s not what Democracies do, remember?  We’re not in to this whole “just push the red button” thing, right?    In a way we are smug aren’t we?  After all, what if Hitler had The Bomb?  He already had the V-2 rocket, and the world’s first jet fighter.   What if had indeed created the world’s first Atomic Bomb.  Scary thought?

You know London would have been in ruins.   And Moscow, and in August 1944 Paris.
Hitler was willing to break eggs.

What if the civilized, liberal part of the planet had been on the receiving end of all this?  Would we had been so undignified today at the mere thought of “jumping” an enemy now in order to saves lives a decade hence? 

One can argue we in the West have had our opportunities for Peace.   Only problem is we disdain the look of blood on our hands.    Tongue only partially in cheek, we hate the casualties.  We recoil at the “dirty work” to be done.  

Sending a drone into a village is child’s play.   If you want real peace, an everlasting world order, you gotta kill somebody.   Peace comes through violence.  Not through talk.    Only problem is you may need to take a black eye yourself.    So let me ask….is there anybody in the room at this party willing to be the first to take a black eye for world peace and harmony?

Democracies are great if you live in one....but are they really the best thing if a thug has to be stopped in its tracks with unforgiving force and violence? 

Iran.  Allow me to sneak this example in here.  Iran had a leader.  An unhinged son of a bitch with a secret police.  But as the saying goes, he was “our SOB”.    Women wore miniskirts in Iran.  They swam on beaches.  On the other side of the planet, another heavy fisted leader, Park of South Korea had been trying to do the same thing, ie bring a country out of the rural phase of development and into the industrial world, very much kicking and screaming.   He was assassinated by his own people, but he succeeded.   Why did the Shah fail?

Just as it seemed the Shah was about to actually succeed in modernizing Iran he is of course overthrown.  We know the rest of the story.   Yet all that really transpired was nothing if not just the exchange of one dictatorship for another.  Right? 

Not exactly.

Did the Shah ever have massive tank battles with Iraq?

Did he fund the Syrians and Hezbollah?   Was China his best and only friend?

Oh, and now Iran and Mother Russia like to have tea together.

You can try (please do, I’d love to hear it) and argue with logic that Iran is better off now.  Just don’t try and use statistics to back up your case.  You’ll fail.  But to call up my inner Reagan, is Iran better off now today than it was in 1979?  Is the Middle East a safer place today with a crazy theocracy in charge of the asylum?   Or would the world be a better place today if the American Military had simply propped up the Shah in Iran in 1979?

A few weeks ago an American Navy Seal(don’t ask me why we have Navy Seals fighting in deserts and mountains….I still haven’t figured it out) died.  Killed in Action.   And the whole country is pissed off.  Upset if you will.   Over one guy.   Yes one guy is one guy too many.   Nevermind Seals by design don’t aspire to become clerks sitting behind a desk.    It’s simply a matter of fact that American Society will continue to see soldiers die.  

And this is why I’m writing this particular post. 

We want to be the World’s International Policeman. 世界宪兵

I once watched a movie in China where a character(to paraphrase) proclaims, “America, bringing peace and love to the world one invasion at a time!”

Ok, let’s play Devil’s Advocate, shall we?  Would Syria had been better off if the US Marines had just gone in and taken over the place?  Look yourself in the mirror and ask the question;   is the situation in Syria today really preferable to a simple US invasion?  

We want to wreak death and destruction on those who threaten our way of life, and yet we really aren’t sure if we want to pay for it with blood.   I encourage you all to visit   In 2017 to date the USA has lost 4 soldiers in Iraq.  Add that poor guy in Yemen.  It’s five.  Since 2001 America has lost around 5700 KIA, excluding non combat deaths.  

In Vietnam we lost 47,000 killed in combat.   Our population was 200 million.

In Korea we lost 33,000 killed in combat.  Our population was 150 million.

Today it is 320 million.   As we all know, the advent of instant news takes the power out of the hands of the traditional authorities to manipulate the narrative.   The control of which is the reason why China’s CCP is still in power today. 

We need to ask the obvious question: 

Have we become too civilized for our own good?   No cop, either local or global, can wear white gloves. 

As such, I believe the Chinese have figured us out.  It is this knowledge they have of the United States that drives its decision making today.    The firm belief, grounded in observation and more than an ounce of truth is that America simply cannot take casualties.   

A sure truth hardened with smug Chinese conviction everytime CNN broadcasts yet another death of 
a Seal, and the nation comes to a halt.

So now today another window of opportunity exists.   And it regards China.(I’ve been told this is a Chinese blog.)

China may see the light of day, and slow down on its military building spree, but I’m betting that magic moment won’t happen until they have already built 5 aircraft carriers.    

Because democracies are not in the business of taking on someone their own size.  China is counting on it. 


Popular posts from this blog

KTV in China

The worst sex I've ever had with China Girl is with China Wife

Pros and Cons of a Chinese Wife