← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 4637 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-01-27
2003-01-27 12:47 | User Profile
January 26, 2003
Europe urges restraint, but Bush knows best
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
NEW YORK -- Time's European edition asked its readers what nation posed the greatest threat to world peace. Of the 268,000 respondents (as of this writing), 7.8% replied North Korea, 8.9% named Iraq and a shocking 83.3% said the United States. Good work, President Bush. The Time poll mirrors feeling around the globe, with the exceptions of Israel and Britain. American neo-conservatives, however, will dismiss this poll as just another example of European wimpiness, irrelevance and anti-American prejudice.
So will George Bush and his hawkish entourage, who have made it plain they don't care what the rest of the world thinks so long as America and Israel get their way.
Last week, France's able foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, warned his nation would delay, or might even veto, efforts by the Bush administration to strong-arm the UN Security Council into a rushed war vote against Iraq. Germany, China and Russia backed France.
American right wingers harbour particular venom for France. Americans expect their allies to be obedient. While Washington constantly hectors Europe to take more international responsibility, Europeans are not expected to disagree with American policy. To Americans, France often appears downright insubordinate. Ever since Gen. Charles de Gaulle, Paris has refused to take orders or accept being a junior ally of the U.S.
Europeans see the Mideast very differently from North Americans, thanks to their long experience in the region, and their media, which provides far more accurate, balanced and diverse reporting on the region than do ours.
Americans accuse the French of arrogance, rudeness and illusions of grandeur, which is often true. The French rightly accuse American politicians - epitomized for Europeans by President Bush - of being arrogant and ignorant, as well as loud, uncultured, impatient and dreadfully lacking in those two fundamentals of civilized education: geography and history. French intellectuals warn American TV and movies are spreading "cretinization" to Europe's youth, a charge easily confirmed by an evening's viewing of North American television.
American neo-conservatives know Europeans sneer at them as dangerous ideological crackpots, the 2003 version of 1930s militant Marxists. The neo-con's riposte (oops, a French word) "We saved you in two world wars. Now we have to do it again. You're no better than those wimpy, socialist Canadians." Foolish intervention
These chest-thumpers are unaware that without France's military intervention in the War of Independence, there would be no United States. Or that Germany was effectively defeated in 1917 by Britain and France when the U.S. foolishly intervened, thus preventing a fair, negotiated peace that would have prevented the evil Treaty of Versailles, the Bolshevik Revolution, Adolf Hitler and World War II.
Most Americans believe their nation alone defeated Germany in World War II. Not so. Stalin's Soviet Union defeated the Third Reich, destroying 100 German divisions in titanic battles on the Eastern front that made D-Day seem a minor battle. By the time U.S. forces landed in Europe, Germany was almost defeated, without a navy, air force or oil.
Smirking Gallophobes love to revile the French for being faint-hearted fighters in World War II. But France lost 210,000 dead fighting the mighty Germans. The Maginot Line worked as planned, contrary to popular belief. America's great fortress, Corregidor, failed miserably.
America lost 292,000 dead in the war, including both the European and Pacific Theatres, where the U.S. totally and brilliantly defeated Japan. Poland lost more soldiers than America, 320,000; even unwarlike Romania lost 300,000 men.
Europe, including the USSR, lost at least 13 million soldiers and 25 million civilians killed in World War II. When Russia opens its secret files, the numbers may soar. "Wimpish" Europeans know something more than Americans about the cost of war. Take the damage of 9/11 and multiply it 1,500 times and you get a taste of the devastation caused by World War II.
Europeans still have fresh memories of their brutal, futile colonial wars. America, about to embark in Iraq on its first large-scale colonial adventure since it annexed Cuba and the Philippines in 1899, has forgotten, and seems fated to relearn, the cost of empire.
By and large, Europeans like and admire Americans, as do most people around the globe. There are some chronic America-haters in Britain and France, to be sure, on both right and left, but in general Europeans are opposed to the unilateralist, aggressive policies of the Bush White House, not to America. But it's also plain, Bush's thirst for war and oil are cultivating strong new strains of anti-Americanism.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, obsessed to the point of psychosis with Iraq, refuses to heed the cautions of its old European friends, listening only to exhortations of Israel's far right wing, whose American supporters now dominate the Pentagon and National Security Council. The White House won't listen either to the sensible advice of Israel's far-sighted Labour party leader, Amram Mitzna, or to its Arab allies.
President Bush claims he is about to wage war for America's security. But the rest of the world scoffs at this claim, knowing his true objective is oil. By generating ever increasing antipathy towards the U.S., the Goliath-like Bush administration is actually undermining the security of the U.S. and of Americans abroad.
French intellectuals warn American TV and movies are spreading "cretinization" to Europe's youth, a charge easily confirmed by an evening's viewing of North American television.
Ain`t that the damn truth. Not only that, but [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=5653&st=0&]this Neo-con icon[/url] agrees wholeheartedly! :lol:
2003-01-27 19:36 | User Profile
Most Americans believe their nation alone defeated Germany in World War II. Not so. Stalin's Soviet Union defeated the Third Reich, destroying 100 German divisions in titanic battles on the Eastern front that made D-Day seem a minor battle. By the time U.S. forces landed in Europe, Germany was almost defeated, without a navy, air force or oil.
Mr. Margolis touches on an important but little-recognized source of festering resentment towards the US. He's not quite correct concerning WW II, Germany was still very much alive and kicking at the time of the Sicily landings in 1943, which was the first major land engagement in which the US played a significant role. But the point remains a valid one.
It's even more valid for WW I, in which more than a year elapsed after declaration of war before US troops saw action. The AEF did not participate in divisional strength until the Meuse/Argonne campaign in late September 1918, barely six weeks before the armistice. Even then just 17 of the 125 Allied front-line divisions were American. Even Belgium had almost as many (Britain had 54, France 42).
Little wonder that Europeans with a sense of history often remark that the US is all mouth and no trousers.
2003-01-28 00:11 | User Profile
Didn't the German Army come within 10 miles or so of Paris in the summer of 1918 before the Allies stop the advance with American help and push back the German lines?
2003-01-28 02:18 | User Profile
Yes the Germans front-line did reach about 15 miles from Paris in early July 1918. Their advance was halted in no small part by US Marines in the famous Belleau Woods engagement. The subsequent counterattack in late July was, however, a largely French affair with some US involvement. I want to modify my earlier comments about the AEF not participating in divisional strength until late September. The first such action was in fact that of the US 1st Army against the St. Mihiel salient on September 12, 1918. The Meuse/Argonne action on September 26 was the first major Allied 'push' in which the AEF partcipated.
None of this should be taken as denigrating in any way the bravery and effectiveness of the US forces. My purpose is merely to make the point that in both World Wars, but particularly the first, the relative number of Americans who were placed in harms' way was the lowest of all the major combatants. Many Europeans are well aware of this, notwithstanding clumsy attempts by the American media particularly Hollywood to suggest otherwise.
2003-01-28 08:26 | User Profile
Dan,
We can go back even earlier. The 1st Inf. Div. eliminated a German position that allowed the Germans superior observation. This was at Cantigny on 28 May. Later on the troops of the 26 Inf. Div. would argue that it was they who first took on the Germans as a sizable force. (Seicheprey, 20 April)
Still, as you note, the Battle of Chateau Theirry represents a serious force committment that ended Ludendorf`s offensive.
It is true what you point out in terms of the number of ground troops involved. The U.S. fielded around 90 divisions in WW II. While this is a sizable force, it is still less than what some other countries fielded. Instead, the U.S. played up its strong points in ways that are not always obvious to most people.
While we know the economy was the biggest weapon the U.S. had, it was also what that economy was used for that gave the U.S. strengths that are overlooked. In a word it was the ability to project power in a way that had never been done before on such a scale. Having the sealift and airlift capabilities allowed us to project forces in areas where either they werent expected or if they were, there wasnt a damn thing the opponents could do anything about. You combine that with airpower that allowed strategic bombing and we are talking about real force demonstrated in other manners.
I know that German production rosed during 1944, but I cant help but to think what it could have been without the strategic bombing. Unfortunately for the allies, the British Bomber Command didnt, or for that matter, wasn`t able to do the same thing, instead concentrating on bombing residential areas which only made the Germans that much more determine to resist.
I think the best example of this can be found in the much neglected and ignored for the most part by Hollywood (and we know why) Pacific Theater of Operations. Despite the propaganda, the Japanese were every bit as dangerous as the Germans, and in one area moreso. They had a navy of strength that they could project a sizable force with. Margolis is correct to say that the U.S. fought a brilliant campaign in the Pacific. They did. More attention should be paid to this area of operations.
Youre right. Pointing out these things makes the flag waving idiots and other assorted tub thumper types mad, but hey, thats history. In short, the U.S. applied its strengths in a number of ways besides ground combat that other countries weren`t capable of.
2003-01-28 13:34 | User Profile
"Wimpish" Europeans know something more than Americans about the cost of war.
That may be true for Americans who reside north of the Mason-Dixon Line, my Canadian friend, but not for Southerners. We have never forgotten the real cost of war or the bitter taste of defeat.
I agree with everything else in the piece.
2003-01-30 20:48 | User Profile
WWII was, and still is, the most disgraceful, sickening, and destructive act in human history.
I would say Christ's crucifixion, but He knew what was going to happen and why it had to happen.
2003-01-31 22:56 | User Profile
Let's add a condition here: anything before the Dark Ages doesn't count.
But rban, that's surely much too restrictive, your tribesmen didn't start sneaking in until the mid 50s.
2003-02-01 08:03 | User Profile
Sniff, sniff...... Damn, you guys smell that? Smells sorta, I dunno, like a schmaltzy joo bobbing in the turd-choked Ganges or something.....
Open a window.
2003-02-01 10:35 | User Profile
Unless Saddam takes up Rumsfeldââ¬â¢s offer and imitates Kaiser, it will be Tomahawks away with timing being the only uncertainty. This is inevitable and everyone, including Europeans, knows it which is why all this is mere gibberish and positioning for leftovers. The gang of eight that threw in their lot with US did so because they are mostly small countries and having no cards to play chose not to be irritant. Britain is merely the whore that she has always been under Blair, and Italy is probably indifferent. The France-German axis will fall in-line as soon as they are guaranteed whatever they deem to be their appropriate share of spoils. The polls reveal a consistent lack of enthusiasm for Gulf War II among all Europeans, and whatever differences exist can be explained by degree of Zionist control of their respective medias.
The opinions of intellectuals matter not in the slightest, which, for the most part, is as it should be -- politicians can stay bought and chattering classes can pretend to stay informed by consuming the fruits of said intellectuals. Both groups will ignore their military men, who will not allow this opportunity to go to waste and take steps to ensure field-testing of various weapon systems, including deliveries to Iraq via ââ¬Ëelusiveââ¬â¢ third parties and as ââ¬Ëlostââ¬â¢ merchandise.
All this is just to say that the relative sentiments or memories of the masses of wars long ago are irrelevant -- though doubtless annoying when it comes to the decision making process in Tel-Aviv on the Potomac.
Rban: How very un-Aryan of you to neglect your own word overnight! <_<