Sunday, October 01, 2006


In world history peacemongering has a terrible history.

What wories me is simple. The Rhineland 1938. A small war would have put the Austrian Corporal out of business. Instead the peacemongers prevailed. What we got in exchange for two years of peace was 1939-45. Not a good bargain. If we don't solve this jihad problem we may very well wind up in an atomic war. Something I'd rather avoid.

Thomas Sowell has some similar thoughts on peacemongering.

The most catastrophic result of “peace” movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, “peace” movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm “as an example to others.”

British Labour Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If “peace” movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war “peace” movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

“Peace” movements don't bring peace, but war.
My sentiments exactly.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Now, what happens when this idea is coupled with Belmont Club's three conjectures?