Morally Paralyzed (Thomas Sowell)

Townhall.com ^ | July 24, 2007 | Thomas Sowell

[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.

[Misterioso]

What I’m telling you is that you haven’t answered my question. Name some names, or admit that your original claim was a shot in the dark without any target.

[MarkL]

As an aside, the Bush administration is looking to work with Iran as a "partner" to provide security and stability in Iraq: I am wondering just what planet I'm living on... This is like the farmer working with the fox to ensure security and stability in the hen house! Unbelievable!

Mark

[Misterioso]

Your original question: Did you know that the US practiced eugenics in the late 1890s? I know there was a eugenics movement years ago. Your attempt to smear America as a country of racists offended me and I called you on it.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Rummyfan]

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.

Thank you Dr Sowell. I don't think the President will leave this for the next administration to deal with.

[Blind Eye Jones]

“In short, totalinarism was the end of an era of Social Darwinism (Hitler, Mussolini, et al.)”

Now we have Social Islamism. Still the same kind of belief but wrapped in a different cloth. I didn’t know that about the US.

[jazusamo]

Oh how I hope you are correct, if it should be a dem administration we will be in big trouble.

[P.O.E.]

Look at TV.

There’s a concerted EFFORT to remove shame, conscience, courtesy, etc. These are the internal guideposts that lead to behavior. By stomping on individual contemplation and doing what’s right, this leaves the door open to group-think.

[Utah Girl]

Excellent article by Thomas Sowell, as always. The saying keeps coming to my mind “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” ~~ George Santayana

We’re seeing today exactly what happened in the thirties. The liberals and the dems remind me of kids who stick their fingers in their ears and say “la la la la la” when confronted with reality. And I think the one thing above all else I despise about Bill Clinton is the fact that he thought he could talk his way out of anything. And the fact that they held all night bull sessions at the White House to talk about everything. Those on the Left just talk stuff to death and think they have done something constructive about problems.

[jazusamo]

Good point...The isolationist-pacifist movement of the thirties was a strong influence and there are many similarities to it now.

[ulm1]

bump

[litehaus]

Are we France? No, but Israel may be.

NOT if Bebe gets back into power they won't be.....Pray!

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

I'm surprised that I find myself having to do this...but here an example. BTW sorry if I offended you.

Eugenics and the United States, 1890s–1945

One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881 Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf ("Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race") even though he was married to a deaf woman. Like many other early eugenicists, he proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race. In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.[14] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[15] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia Law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[16]

"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 with flags of other countries with compulsory sterilization legislation.Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of "racial hygiene". Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".[Quoted in Selgelid, Michael J. 2000. Neugenics? Monash Bioethics Review 19 (4):9-33 ]

[Misterioso]

OK. Truce. I should have let it go. You wrote “the US practiced eugenics” which I took to mean that the federal government was doing such a thing. Sorry for starting this fuss. You are obviously quite knowledgible and I imagined someone not so much.

[SoldierDad]

And that kind of thinking will only result in more attacks, and I believe they’ll be at least as big as 9/11/01, or worse.

[wbill]

Good Article, but it fails to mention that the French, while numerically superior, were technologically inferior, and incompetently led.

Still and all, the premise is correct. A united front against Hitler in the mid-30s would have snuffed out his particular ambitions. I still think that war was inevitable, though, with the Allies and Germany squaring off against Russia and/or Japan. But, that's just one opinion.

[M1Tanker]

Bump for reference.

Remember that Churchill was openly mocked up until everything he predicted came to pass.