|
samboct -> RE: disproportionate, much? (12/30/2008 6:12:36 AM)
|
Well, this thread is making another point- that the English are as forgetful as anyone else concerning the lessons of history.
"Proportionate" responses only work when two essentially reasonable countries are having a spat- such as England and Argentina over the Falklands. Let's face it- neither country was going to get invaded, nobody was going to rattle the nuclear sabers, and civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. Both sides clearly respected the Geneva convention. Some ships were sunk, some airfields got bombed, airplanes got shot down, but basically it was a military vs. military clash within tightly proscribed rules.
Proportionate responses harken back to the days of Chamberlain and Hitler. Hitler took over the Sudentenland- Chamberlain's response was well they're Germans by race anyway. Hitler annexed Austria- well, they're happy about it. (Not all of them were.) Hitler marched into Czechoslavakia- well, there are some Germans there too, and if we give him this country, he'll be sated. (The Czechs claim with more than a little justification that they were a bone thrown to Hitler and that they were betrayed by England and France.) Chamberlain comes back waving a treaty and claims "Peace in our time." Then Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939 and England finally went to war- Chamberlain style. But did England really go to war? Or was it a "proportionate response"? Let's see, the orders were for the RAF to avoid attacking things like cities since civilians lived there, even if thats where the armament factories were, harbors where warships were berthed because private property might get bombed by accident, and any other military installations where civilians might get hurt. No men on the ground were engaged. In practice, the phony war meant RAF raids against shipping in the open seas, with a distinct lack of success (I think the RAF didn't sink a German capital ship until 1944- not a sterling record.) or the Royal Navy doing a better job against German raiders. Note- truth be told, the Germans were also pretty non-inflammatory in their war efforts- at least with the ocean raiders. Merchant ships were stopped and sunk or captured as prizes but generally the crews were either well treated as captives or put into lifeboats and a distress call given a day or so later so they'd be picked up. Submarines followed the same code.
The gloves didn't come off until France was invaded and they pulled that old bulldog Churchill out of purdah who became Prime Minister in May, 1940, but by that point, Hitler had already invaded the rest of Europe.
Let's consider an interesting what if- What if Churchill had become PM back in September 1939? I doubt he would have been happy with the so called Phony War. What if he prevailed upon France to attack Germany with England then? In all likelihood, there would have been a fair chance of success- the German military machine was largely unbuilt, while the French had the largest army on the Continent, along with the most aircraft and the most tanks. Add in some British tommies and you've got something of an invasion force that Germany would have been hard pressed to resist.
Would invading Germany have been a "proportionate response"? Well, maybe not- but it might have stopped Hitler in his tracks, well before 50 million had died.
This is the problem with "proportionate responses". They only work if your opponent is "reasonable". Obviously Hitler wasn't. Given that Hamas and plenty of other Arabs/Muslims/towelheads want to see all the Jews in the sea and are clamoring for a bloodbath, it looks to me as if they aren't reasonable either. Hence, a proportionate response is merely an invitation to keep going- its seen as weakness, not strength. And strength is the only thing that unreasonable people respect. The Israelis have learned that lesson well- but it looks like the English have forgotten it.
Sam
|
|
|
|
