History rarely shouts this loudly to beware the intellectuals, because they side too often with evil
Ronald Reagan died at the weekend, just as George W. Bush and his closest allies, our John Howard and Britain’s Tony Blair, met on the beaches of Normandy to commemorate D-Day.
Or let me put it this way. The American president who helped defeat communism died just as the leaders who now fight Islamic fascism honoured the invasion that destroyed the Nazis.
In one instant, we are reminded of the three wars America and its friends have fought in the past 60 years against totalitarianism — the fascism of the Nazis, the communism of the Soviet Union, and the Islamic fascism sponsored by regimes such as Iran’s.
And, each time, which class of people in the West tended to side with these enemies of humanity, in thought, deed or omission?
Who? The intellectuals of the Left — the folk who contrast the messy world of free people with the disciplined perfection of steel dreams and paper plans, and find freedom ugly.
Before World War II, many sophisticates in Britain and France urged against confronting Hitler.
It would just goad him, they said. And didn’t he have reasonable claims?
When Winston Churchill railed at the “dishonour” of making “peace” with such a tyrant, he was dismissed as a warmonger. A blimp.
Even when the war broke out, fashionable thinkers of the Left also demanded we not fight Hitler because (they often failed to add) he was then an ally of Stalin’s Soviet Union — and communism has long been, as French philosopher Raymond Aron put it, the “opium of the intellectuals”.
Writer George Orwell was disgusted, saying in 1943: “The English Left-wing intelligentsia worship Stalin because they have lost their patriotism and their religious belief without losing the need for a god and a fatherland.
“I have always held that many of them would transfer their allegiance to Hitler if Germany won.” Thanks to Churchill, it didn’t.
B Y the time Reagan was president, Hitler was long dead and even the magic of Marx had faded as the sick reality of his plans became hard to hide. Yet it was still thought rude in polite circles to call communism by its true name.
So, oh, the horror when Reagan in 1981 declared: “The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism”, a “sad bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written”.
The Soviet Union was an “evil empire”, he added later, but “a march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history”.
Reagan made sure of it. Instead of detente, he gave the Soviets competition. When they put more missiles in Europe, so did he. He spooked the Russians by spending more on defence, confronting them in Angola and Afghanistan, and planning a “Star Wars” defence system to make their missiles useless. He challenged the Soviets to prove they truly meant peace by tearing down the Berlin Wall.
For that, he, too, was called a fool and a “warmonger” by journalists, artists and academics. Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, an economist, scoffed: “It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in East Europe are miserable.”
Pundit John Kenneth Galbraith insisted “the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years”. As late as 1989, MIT economist Professor Lester Thurow claimed Russia’s “economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States”.
But that very year the Berlin Wall was torn down by people who with their bare hands proved Reagan understood man’s hunger for freedom far better than did his “intellectual” critics. And two years later, the Soviet Union crumbled, exhausted from trying to match Reagan’s challenge.
How much safer we are. Russia no longer menaces us with instant death. Hundreds of millions of oppressed people are now free. Countries such as Poland that were once enemies are now allies, helping us in turn to free Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today we face a new threat. And again an American president speaks with moral clarity, warning us in 2002 of an “axis of evil” — North Korea, Iran and Iraq.
AGAIN we are at war with fascists and barbarians, and have so far liberated 60 million people from two totalitarian regimes as we try to bring freedom to the Middle East before it brings super-armed catastrophe to us.
But where are our intellectuals? Again warning us to make deals with tyrants and terrorists. Again warning us that defending ourselves will make things worse. Again warning that the fascists are less menacing than our own democracies, led by the US.
How telling that Bush, like Reagan and Churchill, is accused of being a dangerous idiot for believing there is indeed good and evil, and evil must be fought if freedom is to survive.
Is that really a sign of stupidity? If so, save us from the intellectuals, for our freedom is not safe in their feckless keep.
By: Sauron - 11th June 2004 at 04:05
Geforce
Are you suggesting that by grouping Nazi Germany, the USSR and Saddam’s Iraq, is somehow favouring the right-wing?
What facts were ignored or invented? Hitler, Stalin and Saddam caused mass murder. Argue the details if you like. The main facts are quite clear.
Are you disputing the acuaracy statements made or the quotes in Steve’s post? I don’t see anything in your comments that counters them. What bothers you obviously, are the connections and opinions made about more recent events.
Henry Ford whatever his views about the Jews or any other group, didn’t promote the idea of mass murder or participate in the extermination of any group, left or right. Even if he had (add those of J. Kennedy and Lindbergh and anyone else you care to), you wouldn’t use his views to justify Nazi crimes? Or Soviet ones? Hardly
I didn’t call your comments “useless” but the Jews waiting to be shot probably weren’t interested in the “exact meaning” behind their situation. They needed a very practical solution to their immediate problem, not academic discussion.
I didn’t call the teaching of history “useless’ nor do I regard it as so.
Arthur
You are undoubtably correct that some bright folks in the USSR foresaw the collapse of the USSR in the 1970’s. I doubt if publishing desenting views about Soviet economic practices was big buisness in the USSR back then or very wise. So we all agree the conclusions these guys reached were wrong. I can live with it. I wonder if any of them ever had the grace to admit they got it wrong?
Sauron
By: Grey Area - 10th June 2004 at 23:03
However, what with the more moderate interpretations of “if you don’t like it here, go back to your own country.” This may shock some people, but you can hardly call it racism. That’s what I meant.
No-one ever seems to say it to white immigrants though, do they? A lot of black and brown people whose parents were born here seem to hear it, as well.
By: Arthur - 10th June 2004 at 22:40
I do have to admire Steve Rowell’s wonderful attempts to plaster all and everything on the political left as Hitler-supporters by association. If only it weren’t so pathetically obvious…
By: Geforce - 10th June 2004 at 21:59
I doubt if Steve is concerned with accuate chronology, exact context or precise definitions
Have to side with Arthur. It’s an easy solution to describe historical facts as being leftwing. In fact Sauron, you might describe my semantic discussions as useless, however, defining the exact meaning is the first step. You can’t just ignore ‘these facts’ wheter you are right or leftwing. You can use an argument to prove your statement, but you can’t just invent ‘facts’, otherwise you make the same faults as the totallitarian regimes you all fear.
And I did matter for the Jews. In fact, it was even an Israeli commission who started a campaign against western-European gov’ts (Netherlands, Belgium and France) to recognise the holocaust as an isolated case from the rest of WWII.
Almost forgot Henry Ford. Replace the word “T-4” by “Jew” and one might have an idea of where the nazi’s got their idea of rationally exterminating a whole population. Ford was not a nazi, true, but you can hardly call him a “lefty”, can you?
“Teaching history is not useless” I hope. 🙂 Otherwise I’ll be damned (as long as the gov’t is giving my pay-checks though at the end of the month). Teaching history to a bunch of biased right/left-wingers is.
Grey Area,
You were right, I was wrong, sorry. Fascism indeed is a 20th century-term, I looked it up. 🙂 The mythology is 2000 years old though. But still I would be carefull defining racism. Saying your race is superior, as did Hitler, is pure racism. However, what with the more moderate interpretations of “if you don’t like it here, go back to your own country.” This may shock some people, but you can hardly call it racism. That’s what I meant.
By: Arthur - 10th June 2004 at 21:32
Yeah, woo all those leftist intellectuals who sided with Hitler. Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh both admired the Time Man of the Year 1936. And Joseph Kennedy, the famous liquer-runner, indeed wanted to appease Hitler.
So what’s your way of handling with those dangerous intellectuals then, Steve? The Pol Pot solution?
The sad thing is, that posts like this don’t do anything but promote ignorance. Anything better than a leftist intellectual since those are all suspect, and a perfect excuse to be an ignorant rightwinger. Guess that’s why you thanked Steve, Sauron? Trying to teach lessons from history (which in itself is pretty much useless) without seeing the need for historical accuracy or even chronology might well help in creating masses of Ignorant Rightwingers, i don’t think it leaves much for debate. After all, if you disagree you are a leftist intellectual which means you love Hitler. Subtle.
Fun thing though, wasn’t it right-wing Richard Nixon who appeased Mao’s China? Wasn’t it right-wing president Gerald Ford who supported the Khmer Rouge in order to prevent Vietnamese influence in Cambodia?
Sauron,
Soviet dissident economists foresaw the Soviet collapse from the early- to mid 1970s onward. The guys you quote appearantly didn’t bother to read stories from the inside.
By: Sauron - 10th June 2004 at 19:18
Steve
Carefull now. You will get the lefties on the forum all riled up. Seriously, thanks for the posting.
Geforce
I doubt if Steve is concerned with accuate chronology, exact context or precise definitions. Nazi Germany, the USSR and Saddam’s Iraq were all murderous regimes regardless of what terms or definitions you use to discribe them. It matters little to the millions of Jews murdered by Hitler, whether or not Germany was fascist or national-socialist (or that fascism was in power in Italy years before Hitler). Seems to me that it was clearly both because fascizm is as you know, strongly nationalistic.
As for communism, nothing alters the plain fact that the so called intellectual left who reside comfortably in western democracies have consistantly supported communism in all its various forms. Lenin’s “usefull idiots”.
Lester Thurow wasn’t the only economist to praise the USSR’s economic achievements. Paul Samuelson, Nobel Laureate, wrote in 1985 (inspite of all contrary evidence) that “What counts is results, and there can be no doubt the the Soviet planning system has been a powerfull engine for economic growth”.
Prof Seweryn Bialer of Columbia U. wrote in 1983: “The Soviet Union is not now nor will it be during the next decade in the throes of systemic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused resources of political and social stability to endure the deepest difficulties”.
Sauron
By: Grey Area - 10th June 2004 at 17:37
Fascism is a 20th century invention.
The term itself was coined by Italian extreme right-wingers after WW1 and is an allusion to the fasces – the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in Imperial Rome – in a clear attempt to identify their ideology with the former glory of Rome.
The concept of continuity with these ancient glories is an important part of Fascist mythology and ideology – thus, Italian fascists portrayed themselves as the direct heirs to the Caesars while German fascists pretended to a similar relationship with the “Teutonic Knights” of legend.
No semantics are involved or necessary in damning Fascists as racists. One of the central planks of fascism is the notion that “decent” – ie, white – people are under threat from an all-pervading external and alien influence.
There’s always a clearly definable “other” cultural or ethnic group cast in the role of scapegoat and source of all ills. If that isn’t racism, then what is it?
By: Geforce - 10th June 2004 at 17:26
I would leave out the words nationalism and racism. Fascism itself is a 2000 year old invention, nationalism and racism (scientific racism – blood ties) are 19th/20th century. I think the word imperialism would be more appropriate, ie wanting to expand. Killing thousands of people can happen, but more as a result rather than the original goal (=economy). I know, it all sounds like semantic crap, but we have to be carefull using these kind of terms. Ofcourse I’m not legitimising Mussolini’s actions in Africa, which were most certainly racist, but the ideology of fascism itself was not.
By: Grey Area - 10th June 2004 at 17:21
No, MINIDOH. That’s being anti-semitic – although, strictly speaking, those who hate Arabs are also anti-semitic.
Not having it? Check in any reputable dictionary!
Fascism, on the other hand, is a system of government marked by the centralization of authority around a dictator or ruling elite , stringent social controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship and (usually) a foreign policy marked by belligerent nationalism and racism.
In fact, fascism was not racist at all.
It was, and remains, racist. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Moseley and their noxious ilk not racists? Perhaps in an alternate reality!
By: Geforce - 10th June 2004 at 17:18
Geforce, isnt being anti Jewish facist?
Nope. In fact, fascism was not racist at all. Sure, it was influenced during the war period but it’s starting point was not racist. Even nationalism doesn’t have to be racist (look at the US today, a “multicultural” world of intollerance). Nazism was anti-semite, anti-Gay, anti-slavic etc.
Did you know that the first decades after WII few talked about the Jewish suffering in the concentration camps? Dachau was used as a usefull tool to inform the public opinion about the dangers of totallitarianism (= communism), and hence, the holocaust itself deserved little attention untill the sixties.
By: MINIDOH - 10th June 2004 at 17:09
Geforce, isnt being anti Jewish facist?
By: Geforce - 10th June 2004 at 16:22
J’accuse …
Is this your opinion or did you copy it? I know you will acuse me of being an intellectual leftist (hence the quote in the introduction :D) but there are some anachronic mistakes in your historical essay. A totallitarian regime is NOT the opposite of a democratic regime first of all, in fact, totallitarianism and democracy can cooperate quite well, McCarthyism being just one example. An authoritarian regime though doesn’t necessairly have to be totallitarian, just have a look at the 17th century Dutch Republic. I’m not saying this, but a neo-con historian named Francis Fukuyama. You use words in a wrong context. Germany was not fascist, it was national-socialist. A huge difference, a difference that wanted Mussolini cooperate rather with the allies than with Hitler. Islamic fascism? Huh? Can you give me a definition of fascism? Un-democratic?
Another example: you say it’s the “leftists” who made it possible WWII happened. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Short-sighted. In fact, I could even claim the opposite. It was nationalism that made Hitler’s party to gain voters: the humiliating consequences of the treaty of Versailles. In 1918 all major European allied powers wanted to punish Germany severe for triggering WWI. Germany had to pay back everything which was impossible ofcourse. France was quite nationalist in this matter too. Only the US and it’s president Woodrow Wilson was more reasonable stating that first concern was stability in Europe and NOT punishing Germany. But ofcourse, he’s a lefty.
Intellectuals can be a pain in the ass, I know, but history is MORE complicated than you might think. Comparing the war in Iraq to the war against Germany resembles a lot to the offical nazi-historiography: they also compared their fight with previous leaders such as Frederik Barbarossa and Bismarck. So either you are way too simplistic, or you are just writing propaganda pretending to make history look easy. History itself can be quite a weapon you know, especially if you try to look for continuity. Churchill is not Bush. Again, this is not my personal opinion, but Robert Kagan’s (A pagan ethos, I suggest you read his book, it’s only 156 pages or so).
In your reply I would like you to avoid follwing words/constructions
– leftist intellectual
– tree hugger
– artists
– freedom = democracy
– you anti-US ***** bugger off
Sign In
June 10, 2004 at 11:57 am