Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dominic Harr
The comparisons to World War II are meaningless unless you consider all of the completely valid reasons why many people in the U.S. -- and many Europeans, too -- had no interest in taking the side that the U.S. eventually ended up on.

The historical event that we call World War II began as a long-standing conflict between two different forms of Marxism/socialism on the European continent -- the nationalist (German) model and the international Communist (Soviet) model. In stark, objective terms, you cannot even make the case today that the U.S. fought on the "right" side in that war (consider that the death toll in Eastern Europe under Stalin exceeded the death toll in all of Europe under Hitler's Nazism).

The Spanish Civil War was a perfect case in point. Most Spanish who supported Franco were well aware of what this national fascism was all about, and they found it a perfectly acceptable -- even desirable -- alternative to the brutal totalitarianism that prevailed under the Spanish communists.

44 posted on 12/12/2006 9:07:51 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
In stark, objective terms, you cannot even make the case today that the U.S. fought on the "right" side in that war (consider that the death toll in Eastern Europe under Stalin exceeded the death toll in all of Europe under Hitler's Nazism).

Hmmmm . . . very interesting historical perspective. I like people who think outside the box, like that.

You certainly have a point about why we stayed out of the Spanish Civil War. Altho I'm not sure that really was the root of WWII. As I understand it, Hitler and Mussolini threw their support behind Franco primarily out of a desire to dominate Europe, not for ideological reasons.

I tend to feel that the roots of WWII were not ideology but men with territorial ambitions. I'd argue the seeds of WWII were sown even earlier, in WWI. Germany was defeated, impoverished by the reparations payments, which left average Germans looking for someone, anyone, who could just stablize things. There were, broadly speaking, two main thoughts on how to achieve that -- socialism and fascism. Along came Herr Hitler, a charismatic, ruthless man . . . Unfortunately, Herr Hitler also had territorial ambitions and this 'racism' problem. Details, details. :-) The real problem was his territorial ambition. I truly suspect the Iranian Prez Ahamedincias;ierfeaie (can't spell that name to save my life) might also have such ambitions. I suspect this opposition in Iraq is the evidence to that regard.

All of this, I think, allows a very interesting comparison to today. We're backing a govt in Iraq most of us wouldn't want to live under. And like WWII, you have two schools of thought -- the 'stay out of it' side and the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' side.

And I would argue that WWII is just one of the lastest of a long line of historical examples of why we can't just "stay out of it". Because then the little wars become 'big' wars.

Like the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians. In Spain, we could have (should have?) supported the anti-Franco groups with arms and supplies. To 'bleed' the Axis powers. To show them they would face opposition in any attempt to expand their control. There is a chance that could have lessened, or even prevented, an eventual large-scale conflict.

49 posted on 12/12/2006 10:12:47 AM PST by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson