Friends, don't miss this week's Newsmaker Show with me and Brian O'Neil. And yes, I called it in, so no radio germs for me!
Brian and I talk first about my experience on one of the last cruises to take place in the Age of Corona. We then move on to a great discussion of several historical themes, including: the Stamp Act and Rand Paul; the U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the prickly question of national sovereignty in wartime; the War Relocation Authority (i.e. Japanese internment in WWII) and its implications for civil liberties; and the checkered reputation of Harry S. Truman as a Cold War President.
Listen in! Hey, what else have you got to do???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1E0d1BAOmM&feature=youtu.be
Dr. Waddy: About 10 years ago, in my reenactment avocation, I was asked to portray a Rev. War Loyalist recruiter at 18th century historic Fort Niagara. In short, my argument was as follows: "From 1754 to 1763 Royal George spent his treasure and his soldiers' lives to protect 'e from the Frenchy and the savage. And do 'E now deny him your support, which he craves to deny their return? " The Crown had a legitimate argument there and that had much to do with George III's intransigence in enduring colonial resistance (insolence in his book and he was an arguably well intended King).Yes, the colonists had demonstrable support in Parliament throughout the war. Did we Americans benefit from the outcome? That can be argued, in sound intellectual discourse, to this day I think.
ReplyDeleteThe proven phenomenom of very much increased Federal involvement in the economy and the very welfare of the nation may well be tested in this present crisis, be it actual or manufactured by those with political intentions. Certainly, it was not withdrawn after, say, WWII. And that suggests the "seizing of the moment" by those who seek consummate government control.Can it happen again? We'll see!
I think Jack, we are seeing it...(consummate government control). I think perhaps you and I have the same thoughts in this matter.
DeleteDr. Waddy: Unless I misheard it B-2 bombers could not have been empoyed in Vietnam: they had not been actualized by then. Probably they were the old cold war horse, the B-52.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that the Communist takeover of China was accomplished by historic forces beyond the comprehension of President Truman or most Americans. I simply do not see how Truman could have prevented it.
But: I do see the consummate irony, as you so rightly pointed out, in our (yes. very creditable) late '40's containment policy and the capture of China by its Communist faction. I think Kennan was writng mostly about the Soviets
Another great Newsmaker, Dr. Waddy. Welcome back! I don't have much of a comment in regards to this weeks Newsmaker. I do though, think FISA ought to be reformed, I also like Rand Paul and he has every right to be concerned about civil liberties.
ReplyDeleteI also might add though, it looks like I might be eating my words in concerns of the Democratic nominee. I will say though, the next several weeks will be difficult ones in regards to Biden and President Trump, especially for the President in regards to this virus from China. Moving forward to the months ahead, we shall see.
Dr. Waddy: To continue: The Maoist conquest was a shock; but it was a creature of Chinese history and little of our doing.It was a product of dynamics beyond our ken. Yes, we in the West are aware of Marx's appeal but we cannot fully comprehend its impact in the Far East.
ReplyDelete"Consummate government control" indeed! People are calling for some very sweeping changes, but it remains to be seen how far we'll go. The response to mass unemployment will be particularly interesting. Also, could key industries be federalized? It's happened before. Luckily, Congress and the President will be jealous of one another's power, and the states and localities will go their own way, to a degree. The media, and its constant criticism of the Trump administration, will also (ironically) make problematic the unchecked expansion of federal power. It's a dynamic and complicated picture.
ReplyDeleteJack, I'd say the British had a very good case for laying limited taxes on the 13 Colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. Their real undoing was the "benign neglect" of the preceding century or so. We were used to being left alone, so we were bound to chafe at the sudden imposition of colonial oversight.
Kennan was writing about the Soviets, sure, but containment was all about denying to the communists any opportunity to expand their world empire. We failed utterly in that respect in China in 1949. Could Truman have prevented Mao's triumph? I can't say for sure...but I'd say generally speaking that the USA can do anything it likes, if it really puts its back into it. You can bet that Stalin was exerting himself in China in 1949. Were we?
I don't understand the reference to B-2s? Did I mention them in the interview?
Linda, it sure looks like Biden will be the nominee, but to be fair to you his capacity for self-harm is formidable, and we could yet see a brokered convention, if Uncle Joe bites the big one. Don't issue your mea culpas just yet.
Dr. Waddy: I thought I heard your interviewer mention B-2s in Vietnam. Maybe I misheard.
ReplyDeleteIn Korea, just after the Communist takeover of China, a Chinese army which had earned the contempt of Americans for its ineffectiveness against the Japanese proved a very strong opponent. Yes, Mao had fought an effective unconventional war with the invaders but that onslaught China sent into Korea was massively conventional. It suggests what we might have faced had we decided to invade China; nothing less could have dislodged the Communists, who had survived incredible hardship in their rise. The Nationalists would probably have been of little help. Stalin had the bomb by then and he might well have intervened. Did the political will to face this exist in the U.S. and Britain so soon after WWII?. (Of course one could ask that of Russia too).
Mao scoffed at the use of nuclear weapons against China and he may have had a point. After 1927 he was based in rural China.
In my opinion we did contain the Chicoms though and probably saved Taiwan, the Philippines and perhaps even Japan.
The point could be made that we were in China during WWII and we should simply have stayed there but it might well have been Vietnam times who knows. "Course the leftist Boomers weren't ready yet to do their mischief.
Dr. Waddy: I do not doubt that the by definition murderous Marxist North Vietnamese regime would have had few misgivings about using Cambodia. As they demonstrated in their antiChinese rampage in Saigon after 1975, they were blithe to use their ideology as a mask for old racial animi.
ReplyDeleteThe insane Khmer Rouge, driven to that by Marxist idiocy, saw an opportunity in the N. Vietnamese incursion into their country, both in its assurance of support for their murderous intentions and in N. Viet assurances that the Americans would lose heart. And that came from N. Viet knowledge of the turmoil in the US over the war and its expectation, bolstered no doubt by American radicals in direct contact with them, that an American Cambodian incursion would greatly damage the public's support for the war. They cannot have been but impressed by well known Cinema idol Jane Fonda's exaltation of their cause (not comprehensive anti war expression, no, but enthusiastic celebration of the Marxist N. Vietnamese).
N. Viet General Giap confirmed after the war that the American "antiwar" movement was a source of great encouragement to them. They must also have been much motivated by the spectacle of a powerful country yet unwilling to control protestors as they, in their prison state, would most certainly have done.
Bottom line: The monstrously naive American left of 1970 bears direct responsibility for the subhuman Pol Pot's holocaust. They enabled him and that responsibility and their insolent refusal to acknowledge it, condemns them to this day. The present day American left, which has captured the "Dem" party, is their heritage.
And speaking of The Cold War, I invite all of you to watch (it's available for free out there on your internet) the Russian Army 2019 Victory Parade. It's about an hour long. Very impressive. It's held in Red Square in Moscow every year to celebrate the Soviet Victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, otherwise known as The Great Patriotic War, and NOT World War 2 as it is known elsewhere. Putin is there and so is Steven Seagal, at least I think I saw him. Of course my ghost is there too. So take a look.
ReplyDeleteUncle Joe: Ghosthood presupposes prior membership in the human race. Since you crept out of darkest Dis in full blown essential evil, to plague the orld, you are clearly an imposter.
ReplyDeleteSo are you going to watch the Russian Army 2019 Victory Parade or not?
DeletePresident Putin: Should you ever reign over a conquered US be assured that I am a longtime Russophile (really, I am). I am fascinated by Russia's dramatic history and geography and I like its architecture,music, the little I know of its literature and drama ,the stately names borne by so many Russians, traditional Russian dress , the courage of the Cosmonauts and the beautiful Orthodox religion. I greatly admire the steadfastness of the Russian people in the Great Patriotic War and greatly respect their celebration of their triumph. I am thrilled by the Russian national anthem, the words of which I understand you rewrote to purge it of its Marxist pollution and I believe you to be essentially a Nationalist with an understandable love of your great country. Not withstanding, I'll pass up the parade; the Red Army also did consummate evil despite its heroic defense of Russia itself and its motivation not in Stalin's disingenuous "patriotic" exhortations to save his own subhuman hide, but in genuine love for their land. Therefore, have mercy should I ever fall under your rule.
ReplyDeleteJack, your reservations about U.S. intervention in China are all valid. However, had any such intervention occurred, it obviously would have been BEFORE the Nationalists lost in the field. That would also be before the Soviets had the bomb. I would ask the question: if we were willing to put 600,000 Americans into the jungle to protect South Vietnam from communism, why not at least put the USAF in the air to protect China? You're right, though, that the risks would have been substantial.
ReplyDeleteJack, I of course agree with you that the American Left, in trumpeting the cause of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, condemned millions to slavery, torture, tyranny, and sometimes death. The lefties seem okay with it, though! Their consciences are clear, as always.
Stalin is right -- the Russians still know how to mount a great military parade. I'm no fan of Stalin (although I encourage him to comment early and often in this blog), but I have to give him and the Russian people credit for their extraordinary achievements in WWII. I also have to wonder -- what does Stalin's ghost make of Putin??? And I certainly second Jack's sentiments: Stalin, if you ever achieve global dominance, or even if you decide to hang out in my closet or under my bed, please be merciful! I always did have a soft spot for Marxism-Leninism, you know...
Dr. Waddy: Yes, but yet: In the Communists, the U.S. would, from 1945-50 have faced a far tougher , more able and numerous foe than the VC and NVA. The Nationalists benefitted from U.S. air power during WWII but they still proved feckless and would probably have been of little help. The Chinese Communists were possessed of a determination formed and tempered by the unparalleled hardships they faced from 1927-49. The Long March was a premier example of virtually "unconquerable constancy".
ReplyDeleteI was privileged to study under a Chinese history prof who had been a Nationalist officer. He said, "true revolution only comes to countries which have hit rock bottom. The Communists knew how very much change was needed; we didn't". In saying so he was not endorsing Mao's post revolutionary madness. He had been made an exile because of it.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but virtually all of these arguments were advanced against U.S. participation in Vietnam too...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Yours is a plausible point.
ReplyDelete