To any clear thinking person it should be obvious that war is the final arbiter of all great conflicts. Those who speak of negotiated peace speak of fiction.
The great world wars have made this world what it is today, for better or ill, and there are numerous lessons to be learned regarding current geo-political conflicts. Thus I draw your attention to two very fine books.
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman , and A World at Arms by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
Tuchman’s volume is about World War I, and Weinberg’s about World War II. Tuchman is a riveting popular historian who has the ability to tell a great story and make history come alive. Weinberg is more of an academic whose attention to detail, military and political, is simply jaw dropping.
An interesting theme crops up in both books that is both timely and intensely important.
Both Tuchman and Weinberg single out pacifists and peace movements and their murderous aftermath for special attention.
Tuchman points out that the peace movements in France and England that preceded WWI practically immobilized both countries’ heavy industries to such an extent that when war finally did break out, France and England were, she estimates, at least sixteen months behind the Germans in heavy production. You see, the peace movements advocated a policy of appeasement. Give the Germans what they want and they won’t go to war.
As if.
Tuchman also points out that England and France were tragically behind Germany even in small manufacturing. Soldiers marched to war without proper winter uniforms. Hence, British and French soldiers froze to death on the Western front.
It is true that tens of thousands of soldiers perished on the Western front via the new technology of machine guns and from outmoded military tactics, but thousands were slaughtered because of the peace movements that self-righteously refused to recognize reality, that refused to confront evil.
You would think that lessons would be learned from World War I. You would think that the pacifists and appeasers and so-called peace activists would have lost all credibility, but truth has a funny way of getting buried in the avalanche of big lies.
And, I suppose, the word “peace” or the current fashion “social justice” has an almost narcotic effect on man. They hear the labels often enough and they get, well, kind of stupid.
The peace movements that preceded WWII were an almost carbon copy of the nonsense spewed before WWI — except that communications had improved greatly. Newspapers like the NY Times wielded immense power. And of course, The NY Times, then as now, astonishingly dim, saw no reason to get involved in foreign conflicts.
Further, the peace movements in America, France and England were utterly penetrated by Hitler’s and Stalin’s agents. And Hitler—in a replay of the Kaiser’s attitude— absolutely adored the peace movements. He kept a close eye on them and smiled the whole time. They were, he understood, his best allies. As long as these fools kept up their blather Hitler would be able to swallow whole countries.
Once again, the pacifists and peaceniks advocated appeasement. Just give Herr Hitler what he wants and surely he won’t go to war.
The Rules of Peace Movements:
# 1: They never confront true evil.
# 2 : They do not learn from history.
# 3: They are always secretly financed and penetrated by the enemy.
Weinberg points out that by the time Great Britain declared war on Germany, England (and America) were two full years behind Germany in armament production. Once again, the peace camps made sure that the great Democracies were at their weakest at a time when they were literally fighting for their very existence.
Thus another world war dragged on for more years than should have been necessary and millions of lives were lost, lives that could have been saved if evil had been confronted at an earlier stage.
It’s not a great leap to the Viet Nam War. Because of the peace movement at home—see Obama’s buddies Bill Ayres and Barnardine Dohrn—we betrayed our allies and the North Vietnamese slaughtered hundreds of thousands of political enemies.
After that, The Khmer Rouge were emboldened to commit genocide in Cambodia: a million men, women and children were suffocated with plastic bags. These barbarians knew that America would not interfere, not after Viet Nam. Not after the peace movement.
And now the various peace movements are on the march again. Against Israel. These peace movements come under various guises. There are the outright Jew-haters of the EU and the Arab Muslim world. But even more dangerous are the scores of Jews—overwhelmingly but not exclusively Democrat—who advocated for and who remain nostalgiac for Oslo, a process that led directly to the murder of thousands of Jews.
And then there is a special hell reserved for those who—and this includes the Israeli government—ethnically cleansed Gaza of Jews all in the name of peace, turning Gaza into a front line terrorist state controlled by Iranian proxies.
Blessedly, the Israeli left is now dead and discredited. The notion of a two-state solution is understood as code for yet another Final Solution.
The Israeli left that staggers along is entirely financed by European Jew-haters and, in the case of J Street—an Obama offspring—by Nazi collaborator George Soros, petro dollars from the Gulf states and a shady financier from Hong Kong.
Of course the Holocaust denying Iranians garner lots of support from current peace movements. The Israeli nuclear posture is seen as the real danger in the Middle East, not the corrupt theocrats of Iran who steal elections, stone women to death, hang homosexuals, and torture and murder their own citizens. Flotillas, flytillas and the BDS movements are supported by Muslim terrorists, state and non-state players. And the progressive Democrat Peter Beinart—who , naturally, works for George Soros—publishes a despicable screed advocating BDS because he really, really loves Israel
I pity Beinart’s wife and children. His brand of love is rather ghastly.
And so, the next time you see a peace demonstration cloaked in all its moral vanity, keep in mind that these people are committing mass murder.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
10 Comments
I believe Mr. Mill’s quote says it all:
J.S. Mill: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Neville Chamberlain – the king of the Pacifists, died in Nov 1940 – while England was fighting for her existence. He died not knowing if his pacifist policies would be fatal to the country he led.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, true, but he was not a disarmer. During his administration, Britain continued the large-scale procurement of Spitfire and Hurricane fighters and the deployment of the world’s first integrated radar defense network.
His judgment was bad, but I don’t think he had the kind of visceral dislike for Britain that Obama seems to feel for this country.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
David – you make a valid point – but when you look at the Luftwaffe of 1938-early 1939 and compare Britain’s’ rearmament – it was woefully inadequate.
It was almost “too little too late”.
If it weren’t for a mistake on a foggy evening of a Luftwaffe Heinkel navigator telling his commander that it was safe to jettison the bombs before returning to France – Bombing London by mistake – and causing Goring and Hitler to shift the entire focus from RAF airfields to London – giving the British a tactical advantage (this has to be one of the world’s worst run-on sentences) – but history might have been very different.
With Britain vanquished, it would have been exponentially harder for the US to fight Hitler – The European War came very close to being over – all before Pearl Harbor.
BTW while the exact details are foggy now I think the story of the Spitfire’s becoming part of the RAF arsenal was a near miracle. The Bf 109 was comparable to the Spitfire and the Nazis had far more of them.
As long as I am rambling on about the Spitfire here is a Spitfire “archeological find” in Burma!
http://tinyurl.com/bquuh35
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All peace movements believe that if both sides just understand each other and talk war can be avoided. If we just explained to the Japanese we didn’t want to cut off their supply of oil Pearl Harbor would never have happened. If someone sat down and told Adolf the Jews were just trying to live their lives Kristalnacht could have been avoided. If Bush had used the UN, he and Saddam could have worked things out.
Calling peacenicks naive dupes would shower them with undue praise. Too many are not naive and are perfectly aware of what would happen if they are listened to. I don’t think Jane Fonda has ever apologized for the deaths in Cambodia and VN.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. More commonly known today as “Peace through Strength”.
And that fountain of human knowledge, Wikipedia, says;
“For example, with reference to the foreign policy of Napoleon Bonaparte, the historian, de Bourrienne, said[3]
“Everyone knows the adage… Had Bonaparte been a Latin scholar he would probably have reversed it and said, Si vis bellum para pacem.”
Meaning that if you are planning a war, you should put other nations off guard by cultivating peace. Conversely, another interpretation could be that preparing for peace may lead another party to wage war on you.”
Why is the truth so obvious to some and so elusive to others?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’ll add another book to this list– a book detailing the life of an American president who understood the need for a strong military as deterrent, and unafraid to use it when another alternative isn’t going to work.
“Eisenhower In War and Peace” is the one of the best biographies I’ve read. While I politically disagree with the author (Edward Jean Smith) and dislike his tendency to insert his viewpoints through prejorative adjectives (I read an advance copy, perhaps some will be struck before the final goes to press), Smith’s research and citations are as exhaustive as they are impressive. The detail of Eisenhower’s Army service during WWI and the pacifism which followed is very germane to the conversation– Eisenhower saw firsthand how badly behind the US got during the interwar years.
The infiltration and use of “peace” movements by enemies of the US is something progressives like to run from at any cost, or excuse under “free speech and association.” Giving aid and comfort to those who would love nothing better than to see us all killed and our civilization destroyed is NOT protected, imo. It is a cowardice beyond the norm, and should be a point which all political views can point to as treason and a crime. Sadly, many people today will not call a spade a spade.
I truly hope the Israeli left is as dead as you say, Robert. I’m just not sure yet. (I also finished a biography of Rav Yehuda Amital. A complex man to say the least, but I can’t get over the feeling that his views in the 80′s & early ’90s may have given appeasers more clout than otherwise. I now need to go do some reading on Israeli politics…)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Daniel Mannix, an American naval officer, tells of some events surrounding the Washington Disarmament Conference of 1921, which he was required to attend as an escort for some foreign dignitaries.
This was the height of the pacifist craze. The League of Nations was to make wars impossible. All armed forces would be demolished. The resulting savings in taxes would be used to benefit the poor and needy.
and
My group of delegates came from a certain European country, a very little one, that had no navy. They were insulted at being met by a naval officer in uniform (we were ordered to wear our uniforms). The chief of the delegation, a little fat man, informed me that he was “a man of peace” and I “no better than a hired assassin.” I called a taxi to take them to their hotel and the chief delegate got into a terrific row with the taxi driver over where he was to put his suitcase. As a dove of peace he was the most bellicose person I’ve ever met.
and
Everywhere in the city was the same anti-militaristic attitude. Even walking in the streets, I was met by scowls and often muttered imprecations. This happened to all men in uniform. It seemed to me that they deserved better of their fellow countrymen after risking their lives for them. I am sure a number of these “pacifists” would have attacked me if they dared…One evening, as a representative of the Navy, I was required to attend–in full uniform–a large formal dinner given by the English Speaking Union. The speaker was Mr Arthur Balfour, the famous British statesman. In his speech he assured us that the United States did not need a Navy; we could depend on England to protect us. His remarks about our Navy were so abusive that people turned to glare at me. I felt that I should have vanished like the devil in a pantomine through a trapdoor but unfortunately none had been provided…At the end of his speech, the audience gave him an ovation. A number of them, both men and women, rushed up and actually kissed his hand…A high dignitary of our own Episcopal Church turned to me and said enthusiastically, “A wonderful speech, was it not?” I began to wonder whether I was crazy or whether everyone else was.
(from his book The Old Navy)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
That sounds like a very insightful memoir, David, and more proof that human folly and crowd psychology recycles itself eternally. Reading things like this, I have more proof that the same cycle of threat/denial/disaster/recovery has been repeating itself over and over for the last century, perhaps longer, with only the accelerating speed of the news cycle to increase the momentum.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The chief of the delegation, a little fat man, informed me that he was “a man of peace” and I “no better than a hired assassin.”
No profanity? I don’t want to get myself banned, so I’ll try to be delicate.
I don’t know what country that “little fat man” came from, but if it hadn’t been for the British and American and French “hiried assassins,” his country would have been overrun by the Germans during World War I. He would have had a choice between being a collaborator and being shot. He knew it. He was jealous that Mannix had….well, in both Hebrew and Spanish, the slang word for what I want to say translates into English as “eggs”…eggs and he didn’t.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0