Archaeologists Unveil Majestic Roman Ruins That Rival Riches of Pompeii

New York Times ^ | September 30, 2008 | Elisabetta Povoledo

[SunkenCiv]

Photo: Ostia Archeological Authority

[SunkenCiv]

Well put.

[BroJoeK]

"Yeah, Sort of like Rome before Julius. You are insisting on a technical definition of “empire” as a political statement that does not correlate with the reality of American ascendance."

What I do insist on is that words have actual meanings, and that it's less than truthful to seriously abuse their definitions.

In this example, ancient Rome, 1900 France and Britain all had representative or republican governments at same time they were actual empires.

They also had voluntary alliances which were not part of their empires. And the difference is, for instance, Britain ruled over her empire, but did not rule over her alliances. Got is so far?

Yes, Britain may well have been the leader of some alliances, but there was no way for Britain to arbitrarily impose her will on her allies. They were all sovereign countries.

Today, unlike Britain in 1900, the US has NO EMPIRE, though we do have many alliances, and are usually the leader. But "leader" is no way the same as "ruler."

To be an "empire," you have to RULE. America has never RULED.

[Rebelbase]

“Sigh. I suppose Manhatten and Brooklyn will be excavated some day too.”

I’m curious to see how Manhattan is recorded in the geologic record 100 million years from now.

I hope God lets me live long enough to see it.

[BroJoeK]

"That idea was the topic of a book a few years back (well, probably about ten years ago), did Buchanan cite anything? It wasn’t his idea."

I have to give Buchanan his due, he writes like a serious historian, even though most historians, no doubt, do not consider him one. So the answer is "yes," everything is referenced to source material.

In this particular case, Buchanan's first point is not really controversial. Italy was allied with France and Britain during the First World War, and that alliance broke apart after the rise of Mussolini. The fault was primarily Mussolini's -- he was an arrogant SOB intent on conquest, and he offended the sensibilities of Britain's Antony Eden.

But Buchanan's more interesting point is that, at the time, Germany was still very weak, and a united front of Italy, France and Britain could well have put an early stopper on Hitler's territorial ambitions. So, by Britain's refusing to accommodate (or appease) Mussolini, they helped drive him into the much more dangerous arms of Hitler.

And, at the same time, by refusing to make nice with the disgusting dictator Mussolini, they were eventually forced to make very very nice with the far more dangerous dictator, Stalin!

So, Buchanan's theme is that Britain's interests would have been much better served if they had been more realistic, and less idealistic.

[Hegemony Cricket]

You’re making some really great points here. I think perhaps another word describing the current American relationship with our allies might be “hegemony” - whaddya think?

[SunkenCiv]

Well, I don't buy for one second that Eden was an idealist, nor do I think that Hitler was going to back down in any case -- it's as if Pitchfork Pat never heard of Von Ribbentrop's and Molotov's negotiations and the non-aggression pact between the USSR and the Third Reich. I suppose he discusses that too. Doesn't seem to understand it though. I guess he's never heard about how Eden brought down his party's government in Britain by his "idealism" in the Suez Crisis -- but of course, Pat hates the Jews and Israel. Too bad such an intelligent guy is so [bleep]in' twisted.

But anyway...Italy wound up being enticed into the WWI alliance. The UK and France figured the A-H empire was at the breaking point (they said the same about Germany, and were dead wrong both times; by the time the US forces joined the fight in Europe, the BEF was wrecked; the larger but still mauled French army had not only learned from its mistakes, it also sent the appropriate personnel to help train the AEF, which went on to literally win the war for the Allies) so Italy was promised a generous slice of postwar Austria-Hungary if it would join the alliance and attack.

It turned out to be a stalemate for a long while (despite some claims made on behalf of Italy, the same kinds of claims made for the UK and France in that war) -- at least on enemy soil though -- then with a slight shift of resources, the Central Powers smashed Italian forces, forced a retreat and loss of some of Italy.

[the UK and France similarly enticed Romania, then screwed Romania when it turned quickly into a disaster during the German counterattack, which lasted about a month and reached the Black Sea]

The UK and France had to shift troops *into* Italy to prevent further loss of territory, then kinda shafted Italy in postwar arrangements. Given that, it's not too likely that anyone in Italy would have supported a second alliance with France and England. And Mussolini could see Hitler was serious, and wanted a piece of the pie Italy had been denied by its erstwhile allies.

The sense in which the war was unnecessary is really on the German side -- Hitler could probably have had it all, if he'd eaten up all the peripheral territories, then turned the Middle East to his own purposes, taken control of the Suez Canal, and taken over the oil supply, before he launched (or instead of launching) a two-front war against powerful European neighbors.

It was interesting to me that the German shifting of resources between fronts in WWII had been done in the same way (and for much the same reason) in WWI, and was even more successful in the earlier war.

[SunkenCiv]

Well put! Easily one of the best sidebars of 2008, IMHO. :’)

[BroJoeK]

"I think perhaps another word describing the current American relationship with our allies might be “hegemony” - whaddya think?"

define hegemony

"Hegemony (pronounced /hɨˈdʒɛməni/ (Amer.), /hɨˈɡɛməni/ (Brit.))[1] (Greek: ἡγεμονία hēgemonía) [from hegemon - LEADER... (1567)] is a concept that has been used to describe and explain the dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group or hegemon acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force.

"[2] It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance, as opposed to the related notions of empire and suzerainty.

"In international relations, a hegemon may be defined as a power that can dictate the policies of all other powers in its vicinity, or one that is able to defeat any other power or combination of powers that it might be at war with.

"Examples of (potentially) hegemonic states in history are the United States , the united Germany that had existed from 1871 to 1945,[3] or historically the Spanish and British Empire. [question: does Soviet Russia qualify as a "hegemon"? Answer: not really]

"The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegemonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition."

In answer to your question: I would argue that "hegemony" as generally used today implies an ugly, non-consentual relationship which is not the reality, nor has ever been for the US.

For examples, consider: what "hegemony" does the US have over the United Nations? What "hegemony" does the US exercise over, say, France or Germany? Can we dictate to Japan that they must increase their military and send troops to do our dirty work for us? I don't think so...

[BroJoeK]

"Well, I don't buy for one second that Eden was an idealist, nor do I think that Hitler was going to back down in any case..."

Just so we're clear, I don't agree with Buchanan, and am not trying to defend him -- only really trying to be fair, and not distort what he actually said.

Here we are talking about Buchanan's chapter 5: "1935: Collapse of the Stresa Front," which begins with two quotes from Mussolini:

"Austria knows that she can count on us to defend her independence as a sovereign state." (1934)

Next fall I am going to invite Hitler to...make Austria German. In 1934 I could have beaten his army...today I cannot." (1937)

In chapter 5, Buchanan explains how Mussolini went from an ally of Britain and France opposed to Hitler's Germany in 1934, to an ally of Hitler in 1937 helping with his expansionist plans.

The critical meeting happened in June 1935 (page 151), where Antony Eden met with Mussolini to work out a deal -- call it "accommodation" or "appeasement."

In the meeting, Mussolini arrogantly insulted and berated Eden. As a result, now quoting Buchanan:

"After this verbal beating, the "tender sensibilities of Eden left him with the impression that Mussolini was 'a complete gangster,' the 'Anti-Christ,' a view which never left him."

"Eden felt personally insulted and humiliated. So enduring was the bad blood between him and Mussolini that when Eden was removed as foreign secretary by Neville Chamberlain, Rome rejoiced.

"After the Eden-Mussolini confrontation, the British press, to whom Eden was the personification of the new and higher League of Nations morality in international affairs, turned on Mussolini, mocking and assaulting him as the world's worst dictator. British socialists, Liberals, and Labour Party members all joined in heaping abuse on the Italian ruler.

"Rome-London relations went rapidly downhill, and in Geneva the League, led by Britain, threatened sanctions if the invasion of Abyssinia [what the Eden-Mussolini meeting covered] went ahead.

"Isolated, Mussolini decided he had to act quickly."

Soon after, Mussolini was firmly allied with Hitler's Germany.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks! Great posts.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.