Posted on 07/23/2007 9:06:06 PM PDT by jazusamo
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.
It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.
Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing -- and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.
Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today -- "negotiations."
No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."
We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.
Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.
At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.
That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.
At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.
As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.
Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.
"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.
Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."
It was morally paralyzed.
History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?
We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.
It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.
Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.
The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.
Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.
Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities -- in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Good post. Thanks.
Are we France? No, but Israel may be.
“Purblind worldlings” still at work...
I find it difficult to believe that America could be “Morally Paralyzed” if not for the daily doses of disinformation, and/or misplaced priorities of news and information presented as truth by our MSM.
Americans need to know, otherwise we as a Nation are “Morally Paralyzed”.
The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.
They are correct.
Agreed, but we do get the daily doses of it from the MSM while they ignore much of the positive.
A very good article!
Save the Planet! Nuke Iran.
Yes, and Sowell is right on the money.
Great question. The answer is yes. Immediately following 9/11, we couldn't even stop immigration from countries who harbor terrorists, AND build a fence across our southern border. Too many people seem to think, we had no right to protect ourselves, because taking such protective measures would not have been "nice."
As much as it may be warranted, with the ongoing war in Iraq, the United States will NOT stand up to Iran.
The need for popularity, the need to hand the masses their happy fictions so as to maintain your own exalted and safe position amongst the political elite, aka Chamberlain's overwhelming popularity in 1938, will be the demise of western democracy as a governing concept. And that demise will result in a devastating dark age.
As much as I would like to disagree, I fear you are right.
In other words, the author identifies the problem with Iran, yet, offers nothing to solve the problem.
Similar arguments (ahem, problems) could be made in the context of North Korea and China.
He usually is.
Easier to let it happen than to stop it. And if Russian and North Sea oil triples in price as a consequence, well, that's a bad thing for the consumers and a good thing for the sellers. And China has been very, very friendly with Iran with just that in mind.
I believe Dr. Sowell has done articles on that subject as well. The way to deal with North Korea is to hold China responsible.
They will find out quickly that all such calculations go out the window...like that little piece of paper that made Chamberlain so enourmously popular. It's funny how people, taken in the mass, love those who let them run happily and ignorantly over the cliff thinking that they're just jogging to nice dip in the ocean.
Indeed. We know the problem. It's a problem that has been faced time after time in past centuries. The enlightened vs. the barbarians. We seem to give the barbarians the ball at the 20-yard-line because, gosh, they're so underprivileged compared to the rest of us.
The touchdown will be entirely our fault. And you don't want to see the end zone dance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.