Here's quick refresher on the events of the Czech Crisis of 1938. Historians today usually see it as appeasement of a mad dictator, or Chamberlain and France's Daladier buying time against the Third Reich at Czech expense to build up their defenses against the "gathering storm". Some see Neville Chamberlain's motives as a pathetic attempt to align Britain with Hitler's regime to stem the tide of Stalin-style Communism. What ever the case, these events are a key I believe to understanding the course of war and "brinkmanship" for American foreign policy after World War II. It led to NATO in 1948--a good idea, I think--but also to CIA-backed overthrows of governments in Iran and Guatemala in the 1953 and 1954, respectively, and, most disastrously, our long and bloody hot war in Indo-China.
We could go into multiple CIA operations in Castro's Cuba (in an unholy alliance with elements of the American Mafia) , Chile (the overthrow of the elected President Allende in 1973) and all over Latin America through the training provided to ultra-violent and torture happy Latin American military forces--some of whom headed death squads. This was done in the 1960's thru the 80's by the School of the Americas in the Panamanian Canal Zone. Here is some material on the Panama training center through a 1999 PBS News Hour segment:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sotamericas_9-21.html
Critics called this school "The School of the 'Golpes' (Coup de tas) " because the graduates frequently went back to El Salvador and Guatemala and Uruguay, et al, and had no trouble killing social democrats, liberals, nuns or any other group of people who somehow seemed a threat to their designs.
Anyway, here is the clip, taken from Frank Capra's 1942 "Why We Fight" documentary, a propaganda series to provide American soldiers and sailors with an overview of what they were engaged in:
The "Negotiation Equals Appeasement" formula was adopted for a long time by Cold War conservatives (and Kennedy-Johnson Democratic hawks like Walt Rostow, MacGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara.) It abated for a while after the Fall of Saigon but came back into vogue during the Reagan Era and the heat was turned up against the tiny nations of Nicaragua and Grenada, starting one brief war and almost triggering another direct war against the Sandinista government. (It was American sponsorship of the Somoza dictatorship that helped bring the Sandinistas to power and America befriended the Contra forces which resulted in their being financed by the arms-for-hostages Iran Contra Scandal and the likely drug trafficking of CIA-sponsored groups bringing cocaine into American cities like Los Angeles in the form of "crack".)
That program against the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador was sold under the banner of Munich Redux--we can't negotiate with them because they aren't Nicaraguans tired of American-backed dictators, they are just puppets of Moscow and Havana. So much for nuance in foreign policy.
This underhanded program was halted by the glare of publicity by Congressional Investigations in 1986-7 (remember Lt. Colonel Oliver North, who lied to Congress, was freed from jail time on a technicality, and is now a Fox News Celebrity?) The Sandinistas eventually fell of their own weight, as did the Soviet Empire under Mikhail Gorbachev reform programs. Some die-hard conservatives despised even Reagan himself for meeting with "Gorby" in bilateral summits in late 1980's. This was not the "Winston Churchill 1940" game-plan they wanted---where all relations between opposing major powers have to be entered into either war or full surrender of one side or the other. Many Americans over-learned the lessons of the Munich Pact. The attacks of 9/11 gave us a renewed sense of fighting a foe who could not be negotiated with. The Bush Administration took advantage of this group-think and George W, Bush went after Saddam Hussein, his father's 'bete noire" with trumped up tales of weapons of mass destruction and ties to the fanatics in Osama Bin Ladin's al-Queda.
Here is the sad tale of this latest quagmire, told from the perspective of Media Critic and former ABC newsman Danny Schectner in the 2004 documentary "Weapons of Mass Deception". It is available on DVD and is worth seeing even today for a primer on how we got into the war and how the mainstream media--not just FOX--went along for the ride--literally.
Ok I seem to have lost Part One somewhere...
ReplyDeleteActually the first part of this is on the "Video" section of my site. It's the Elvis Costello song "Peace In Our Time" from 1983.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting account of the evolution of US foreign policy over the past 60+ years and the role of the 'infowar' and propaganda Doug. It is perhaps worthwhile pointing out I think that when Chamberlain made his famous declaration, a war against fascism (involving many British volunteers) had already taken place in Spain. I mention this because the 'official' history leaves the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War out of the picture and therefore also excludes a significant constituency of opinion in Britain at that time that defeated the home grown fascism of Oswald Moseley. The choices were not simply between Chamberlain and Churchill, other things were happening which eventually led to the landslide victory of Labour in 1945. I would suggest that these developments were far more important than the debates within Britain's political establishment at the time and the reason that Britain was able to withstand the Nazi onslaught during the Battle of Britain. I am rushing to go to work right now Doug, but will return to your post to add some further thoughts later. Excellent blog.
ReplyDeleteQuite so, AA. The 3,000 or so Americans who volunteered to fight against superior fascist arms in Spain with the International Brigades are often left out of the 'official' history as well, although 1,000 of them lost their lives in a struggle that would soon be fought by Americans in the millions.
ReplyDeleteMany of the survivors and supporters of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade would be labeled "pre-mature anti-fascists" and harassed by Washington, jailed for a year at least for not naming names before Congressional Committees or left unemployable during the post-war Witch Hunts against communism in the 1947-5O's period of "McCarthy Era" witch-hunts..
I think this latter video raises some questions about freedom of the media and what that means. Can the media ever actually be 'free'? Criticism is sometimes made of Cuba for example that the media is controlled by the government, I believe that is ultimately true in every country.
ReplyDeleteThat is particularly true I think of the mass media at least which perpetually militates against the 'underground' or 'samizdat' press by throwing up a wall of sounds and images to blot it out as far as it can.
The blogosphere is I think similar to an electronic samizdat press, but with a 'circulation' which is both much smaller and yet at the same time.... far more widely distributed.
It would be nice to think that this is an important new development, but when we consider the International Brigades in the context of black and white footage of Chamberlain (or FDR) we have to acknowledge that information and dissident opinion always gets out and always has it seems. This may take some of the gloss out of the internet which is actually more a symptom of the technologies used to suppress information than those developed to make it more abundant. In other words the reason dissent is forced onto the net is because it has been progressively expunged from the wider media whose propagandist clamour has now reached cacophonous proportions.
I think one of the most disappointing facts about modern life is the consolidation of media outlets in a few corporate hands which, as you allude to, can too often resemble a centralized "Pravda" school of journalism.
ReplyDeleteIn Chamberlain and FDR's day, there were media tycoons like Lord Beaverbrook and WR Hearst who could distort the news and put heavy-leaden spin for or against the messenger. They at least had radio addresses to get a message across. The Internet is almost a throwback to the old days of spreading pamphlets in small presses as Tom Paine did to arouse the American colonials to tyranny. The problem is how to find those fine singular minds in a sea of people posting simply reverberations of corporate group-think.
From what I read of WWII, it seems Britain and a few other countries, were very slow to see the menacing build up of the army and weapons in Germany. Churchill tried to warn the powers that be, but they wouldn't listen, not until it was too late. What did we think Germany were doing with this build up of weapons?
ReplyDeleteMany famous people visited that country and were very concerned. Why weren't those in government at the time? Churchill pleaded for our aircraft factories to be allowed to start making planes, he could see what was coming.
How, Hitler must have enjoyed seeing the clips of Chamberlain waving that slip of paper! I'm afraid Poland didn't stand a chance right from the start. Even a child wouldn't have trusted that man!
However, I am not an expert on that period and I know it was a complex situation... What a dark time it was, what spirit it asked of the people!
I guess we fight because there is no other way to stop the menace of those who tread over others, to get what they want!!
Cassandra
Would you say that this is why the Taliban fight Nato?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see this "I hold a paper with Herr Hitler's signature and mine on it" footage, and not wonder what everyone was cheering about, Cassandra, I agree.
ReplyDelete(There were serious journalists in America like George Seldes and Dorothy Thompson who had Hitler and Mussolini's number, understood that their regimes wanted destruction and revenge at any cost, but very few listened over here of course.) The pervading economic crisis of the Depression and the myth of geographical safety precluded getting involved "over there" until France fell in 1940 and the US America First-Isolationist Movement began to unravel.
I'm certainly no expert myself but I suspect the shock of what had happened during 1914-1918 and the terrible losses of men and sometimes women in Britain and France dulled a lot of people's senses on both Right and Left to what was apparently self-evident about Hitler. It's almost as if they wanted to believe he was reliable and had a limited agenda. I know some thought Germany's grievances were somewhat just given the demands in economic payback and loss of territory by the Versilles Treaty. But to even think of another world war must have seemed nuts to some--hence the marginalization of both Churchill's small group and the serious anti-fascist Left in western Europe and America.
I think the Taliban are a different kettle of fish Since moving into Afghanistan they have taken over 90% of that country, simply to impose their religious beliefs and way of life on the people. I truly think that is a fight we won't win. The Russians tried and gave up!
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Taliban fight Nato because there is no other way, in this instance, they don't care how they go about things. They are not on the side justice, but on the side of mob rule, as many of the original citizens will tell you!
Cassandra
It is late here, Doug. I'll answer you tomorrow! Nite, nite, Cassandra
ReplyDeleteAnd Nato is?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how the bumper heroin harvest protected by British and other Nato troops which makes a bag of smack on the streets of our cities cost less than a cappuccino in Stars and Stripes-bucks.... fits in with this hypothesis?
Poppy Day this year has a particularly ironic twist in the UK
Invaders always get killed....it goes with the (stolen) territory I'm afraid.
Sorry, I think Nato have lost their clout. What started off as a pretty good idea is now a shadow of its former self!
ReplyDeleteWe live in hope
ReplyDeleteWithout hope, what is there?
ReplyDeleteWhen Hiter first came along, he offered such great hope for a people hungry for leadership, someone to pull the country up by its bootstraps. Then he got rather greedy and things went terribly wrong. When you see how he armed that country and formed a great fighting force. One wonders what he could have done for Germany if he hadn't have lost the plot.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I think you are right, people wanted to believe all would be well and they were blinkered. It IS understandable, I suppose.
During WW1 whole villages of men were lost because they all joined up as one and fought together. Each one of their stories is embued with a strong sense of tragedy and of promises unfulfilled. They were emblematic of their generation and left families haunted by grief and loss. So it is understandable people wanted to believe in that piece of paper waved by Chamberlain. Many knew it was only a matter of time before there would be a another war, but no one was listening.
Will we as humans ever get it right? The beauty of this planet leaves me breathless with wonder, but my god, where are we heading, when will the fighting end and negotiation take over?
Cassandra
There was I believe a strong element of denial, Cassandra, twenty years after the end of a war almost no one thought would be as terrible as it was started in August, 1914.
ReplyDeleteWill we ever get in right? Greed, old wounds of repression and fear and dogmatism work against that but I think if peace could be made in a place like Palestine, it would have a major effect in showing the way for people in other regions. That, needless to say, won't be easy.