Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show tackles all the leading issues of the day, including the ouster of Liz Cheney as Republican Conference Chair in the House of Representatives. I argue that anti-Trumpers are welcome in the GOP...but Congresswomen who pick constantly at the scab of Trumpism and Jan. 6th are not helping the party advance its agenda and defeat socialism. Ergo, Liz needs to go as Conference Chair. When the people of Wyoming have the opportunity to replace her with a more bonafide conservative, that sounds like a smart move to me as well.
Brian and I also talk about the vaccination of school-age children against COVID-19 and the progress of the vaccination campaign in general, Dr. Fauci v. Dr. Paul, and the state of the Left's ongoing tirade against law enforcement. When will the boys in blue get some relief? Answer: when the Democrats and progressives stop needing minority votes. So...never.
In our "This Day in History" segment, Brian and I talk about the Nazi invasion of France in 1940 and the degree of historical knowledge possessed by rising generations, the strange case of Rudolf Hess, history's most star-crossed amateur pilot, the presidential aspirations of Pat Buchanan, and more!
Listen in now, before the global frenzy to do so crashes the internet!
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-may-12-2021-dr-nick-waddy/
***
While you're at it, read this GREAT article about America's ambiguous position in the world...by none other than Brian O'Neil's brother! I agree with this analysis: America is culturally broken and thus in a very poor state to defend its global hegemony. On the other hand, we have an elite that regards America as the glue that holds the world order together and is likely therefore to favor foreign interventions without thinking out the risks, costs, and lack of unity at home. This could be a recipe for some big messes in international affairs, and some big embarrassments in foreign policy and on distant battlefields. Stay tuned.
Dr. Nick
ReplyDeleteI did not listen to your conversation with Brian about the 1940 Nazi Invasion of France. On that note, I will tell you what I think I know off the top of my head.
1. After World War 1, the French built The Maginot Line witch they believed would protect them from a German invasion.
2. During the 1930s, France had a popular front government under a Socialist Prime Minister Leon Blum who happened to be Jewish, which fanned the flames of antisemitism already heavily existent in France.
3. When the Germans invaded in 1940, the French Communists and the French right-wing groups (supported by the Roman Catholic Church) were at each other's throats because of the popular front government. Consequently the communists did not want to fight Germany because Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. The French right-wing (Vichy) sided with The Nazis.
4. A French General De Gaulle left for England where he formed a Free French Movement. He was also a tank expert and warned that the Germans would go around the Maginot Line and attack through the Ardennes Forest in Belgium, which they did.
5. All of the above is the reason(s) that France failed to repel a German Invasion.
6. After the war General De Gaulle had a lot of French communists executed, plus a lot of right-wing Nazi collaborators.
Never underestimate Charles De Gaulle!
Viva La France!
Dr. Waddy and Ray from Jack: Ray: I think all the reasons you cited to be plausible but I tend to believe that the western part of WWI, fought mostly on French and Belgian soil, exhausted the French. Sympathise as we may, perhaps most of us cannot empathise with those who lived the unprecedented, unimaginably harrowing experience of that war. My American Grandfather never discussed his experiences there, where I know he was involved in hand to hand fighting and was gassed. Of course many veterans have had similar experiences but those of the Great War were perhaps indescribably troubling to their early 20th century perceptions of human progress. The French experienced them INTENSIVELY and simply may have lacked the heart for another match with the Boche. Just imagine them thinking: "Oh no, not again!"
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy et alfrom Jack: For sure the German forces did not lack in motivation, being convinced that they fought to redress the obvious (say Versailles ,wrongs done their country, unjustly in the view with which they were taught). Besides,the sociology of the German military was not one of blind obediance. German offi ers were urged to build a " big brother" relationship with the ra ks. The French, apparently had 2000 fighter planes available but engaged far few, while urging the Brits to commit air forces vital for the defense of Great Britain.?? The French, being questioned by Churchill's staff, could not explain this.
ReplyDeleteJack,
DeleteThanks for reminding me that the French were 100% plus exhausted after WW 1! I suspect Petain was more aware of this than many French, hence his willingness to come to some sort of agreement with Germany as soon as possible. I think he got a raw judgment after WW 2 for Vichy, where the forces of that regime simply got out of his control.
Dr. Waddy et al from Jack:That's an interesting concept: the Brits might have wanted to negotiate at the time of Hess's flight in May 1941(?). They had survived the harrowing hazards of 1940and early '41 with relatively good morale. But the Uboats were manifesting a mortal threat and they were heavily engaged in and around the Med. By then they must have expected to be attacked by Japan, without the certainty of an American alliance. If the Boche had taken the canal and the Japanese the Indian Ocean, a linkup could have been in store. Did the Brits know about the imminent invasion of theUSSR? Churchill was firmly in charge; did he still think Britain could hold on? I'm reading Manchester's bio of Churchill now and I'll see what it says.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al from Jack: Ok, I know a little more. Britain was still in extremis:Churchill was very much concerned that Spain would join or fall to the Axis. That would have given Gibraltar,theCape Verdes and the Azores to the Boche, with catastrophic consequences at sea for the Brits.How much more could they take? Churchill implored FDR to make a demonstration of U.S. naval strength off the Azores and to consider joining in the war; FDR declined. Most national leaders would have considered negotiation and Hitler might have wanted to temporarily secure his western flank until he had destroyed the USSR ,so he might have been opento flim flamming a Britain for which he still might have harbored hopes of friendship (sans Churchill). But Churchill was a most unusual leader.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy, Ray and anyone else who can help me on this from Jack: Churchill appearsto have regarded the potential loss of the Med to be an existential threat to Britain. The threat to the Empire is obvious but what made that so vital in his eyes? Was it only his Victorian provenance? I mean, the Brits did lose the Empire but they are still very alive and kicking.
ReplyDeleteJack,
DeleteI'm sure you have not forgotten that Churchill was an almost pure 19th Century man. He got Great Britain through World War 2 but with a lot of help, in my opinion. However, he was still a 19th Century man. I think he went downhill mentally and physically after World War 2, and could no longer face the horrible realities of The Cold War. In the end, I think all he saw was "The Empire" and his place in it riding around fighting "the heathen" in the far flung outposts of "The Empire". No doubt he was a great man. His books about "The English Speaking Peoples" and his memoirs of WW 2 are his legacy. He was a true son of Great Britain. The only reason the Brits are still kicking is because they are now on their death throes.
Ray, your knowledge is impressive!
ReplyDeleteDespite all of France's weaknesses leading up to the German invasion, it's my view that France and Britain could easily have prevailed in that conflict. Germany had essentially no clear advantages except superior strategy and tactics, born of their failures in WWI. The Germans did so much wrong in the 20th century...but they were also among the first to conceptualize how modern war would and should be fought. Bully for them.
Jack, that the French were exhausted by their WWI experiences is entirely plausible...but the Germans emerged from that miserable conflict strengthened, in many ways, and capable of even greater exertions, so one has to wonder (as the French did): what was so wrong with the French?
Ray, I agree that Petain has been judged too harshly by some. Having lost a world war to the all-conquering Germans, what could the French do but try to make the best of things?
Jack, I would agree that Britain was most likely to come to terms with Germany in June or July 1940, when they felt exposed to a German invasion and had not yet been enraged by German cruelty. By 1941 a rapprochement was a lot less feasible. Having said that, they would have been foolish not to hear Hess out...
Why would Churchill have been so concerned about the Mediterranean? It seems to me that it could have been seen as a proxy for "globe-straddling maritime empire". If you can't hold the Med, then why would you be able to hold onto...anything that the Germans and Japanese and Italians were determined to take? The Mediterranean itself might not have been vital, but prestige arguably was, and British hegemony was already looking threadbare...
Ray, I'm not Churchill's biggest fan, but I think in a way you do him an injustice. Yes, he was an Empire man, BUT after WWII he pivoted with some dexterity to a bipolar world system in which Britain would be a bit player. He was prepared to sacrifice A LOT, it seems, to maintain American good will.
Dr. Nick
DeleteThanks for the nice compliment. Seriously, the left-wing in France in 1940 could not fight the Germans because they did what the Soviet Union told them to do, and the right-wing was eager to make a deal with the Germans precisely because of the left-wing position. It backfired on them when the Germans decided to occupy all of France, and Vichy became a real puppet. Also, France was already divided about the Jews because of the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century.
In any event, Great Britain and France let Hitler have everything he wanted, and then when he invaded Poland they decided to "be brave" and declared war, even when they knew damn well they had no real capability to engage the German Army in Poland. So all of a sudden the Brits and the French got self-righteous about The Slavs, so to speak. They sure did nothing when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, nothing at all.
(The Mediterranean was a "British Lake" what with the Suez Canal, and Malta, and most of all Gibraltar. They had to fight there after Dunkirk to hold on to a core area of the empire.)
Don't forget that the Germans successfully invaded part of Great Britain when they invaded and occupied The Channel Islands.
Don't misunderstand me on Churchill. After all, I am a straight White guy and his is one of my heroes, seriously. He was a great man, and we will never see those of his ilk around again, not ever. But he was a child of his times and his class, and a true believer in The British Empire. I have no problem with the empire as such. As far as his U.S. relationship goes (his mother was American as you know), it failed, because Roosevelt and his people wanted to be on charge, and wanted no equal relationship with Great Britain, which is what Churchill wanted, and begged for (in a way) with his Fulton, Missouri "Iron Curtain" speech. The damage was already done at Yalta and Potsdam anyway.
And don't forget that many Brits wanted a Labour (Brit spelling) government after the war, no matter what. Also, Great Britain was literally BROKE after WW 2. The Socialist made sure it got broker. Ha!
Dr.Waddy and Ray from Jack: Germany was almost physically untouched by the Western war; still Eastern Germany did suffer wartime invasion from the Russ. Perhaps because of something (?) in French culture, the French suffered greater disillusionment at the lie the war put to the early 20th century prospect of a golden age at hand for all. Ray: with the possibility of the departure of Scotland, perhaps Great Britain's days are numbered.But, I remain inspired for England by the last lines in K ing John: "Come the three corners of the world in arms,And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue If England to itself do rest but true". I am an intense Anglophile.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Manchester agrees with your perception that the Allies could have won early on. He says the Boche were weak in the West in 9/39 due to a heavy commitment in Poland and that the French were nominally strong enough to have invaded Germany (another of Hitler's successful gambles; fortunately his luck eventually ran out). Manchester supported this with post war testimony from a German general to that effect.
ReplyDeleteRay, that's a good point that Stalin ordered the French communists to play nice with the German occupiers. That made the Germans' task much easier. Say what you want about those commies, but they do make a mean Molotov cocktail...
ReplyDeleteEh. Churchill was okay. You might say that he thrived on conflict, though, and was obsessive about beating the enemy du jour, to the exclusion of all other considerations. Like he said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." That's a cute turn of phrase, but it contains more than a grain of truth to it...and the devil, lest we forget, has his detractions. To put it all another way, the post-WWII world was one in which America and the USSR were dominant, and the Brits were Yankee handmaidens. Churchill played a huge part in creating that world...so at the very least you'd have to say his policies partly misfired.
Jack: Those rumblings in Scotland are worrying, yes, but Boris should stay strong and ignore them. In fact, it might be time to revoke Scottish home rule and deprive Sturgeon of her high horse.
Interesting about the Western Front in '39, Jack. Seems very plausible. The means of violence are redundant, though, when one lacks the will to use them.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Churchill did his do at the time it was, without exception, needed. Even he was probably humanly incapable of foreseeing the results, beyond British survival. Even then he recognized and trumpeted the Soviet threat. What more could we ask of him?
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: I was wrong to say "Even then..." It was of course soon after the war Churchill spoke out against the Soviet threat. Manchester says he yet hoped for a summit conference with Truman and Stalin when he became PM again in1951!
ReplyDeleteGood point, Jack, and that NO ONE had a very good sense of what the post-war world would be like during the Second World War, including Churchill. He was only human. At the time, winning -- at all costs -- seemed like the order of the day.
ReplyDelete