“Terror in a World Full of Rabbits”

Would you consider Fascism to be a reactionary or revolutionary movement? Why?

Within the tragic shadow of the Great War, much of Europe struggled to democratize itself within the rapidly emerging modern era. Additionally, the Bolshevik Revolution came to successful realization in Russia, firmly rooting Communism within the context of European existence. With the emergence of Fascism in Central Europe, historians arguably define its development as reactionary process, emerging as a counter-weight to balance the political scales in Europe. Growing fear over Communism, coupled with the instability of young democracy, produced heightened levels of uncertainty within Europe. Additionally, as economic depression forced more and more Europeans out of work and into poverty, Europeans, particularly Germans, felt overwhelming displaced, disillusioned, and disenfranchised. Kurt G.W. Ludecke, in The Demagogic Orator, describes with perfect clarity the existence for so many post-war Europeans. In reflecting on the appeal of the speeches of Adolf Hitler, he states:

I was a man of thirty-two, weary of disgust and disillusionment, a wanderer seeking a cause; a patriot without a channel for his patriotism, a yearner after the heroic without a hero. The intense will of the man, the passion of his sincerity seemed to flow into me. I experienced an exaltation that could be likened only to religious conversion.

Nationalism remained the secular religion of the masses of Europe, despite the brutal war such sentiments had contributed to. The conception of the State as a metaphysical entity continued to give the chaotic existence of Europeans an anchor with which to survive the swirling maelstrom. It is from the anchor of Nationalism that Fascism arose. While Mussolini’s conception of Fascism, itself unclear until 1932, indeed shows itself to be the product of reactionary action and thinking, it is arguably an incomplete realization of what Fascism is intended to be. The history of Italian-German relations during the Fascist era is testimony to this. Mussolini’s ultimate deference to Hitler’s Nazism, the true incarnation of Fascist ideology, distinguishes the Italian model as imperfect in realization. As Mussolini stated in his Fascist Doctrines, “For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.” The conception of Fascism as a “living faith” achieved ultimate realization in Nazism.

Hitler’s full realization of Fascism in the form of Nazism sets the political ideology apart and makes it a truly revolutionary movement. While Fascist doctrine is grounded in opposing aspects of modernity such as Communism, Socialism, Democracy and Liberalism, Nazism manifests in a more encompassing manner; not only does it deny the political ideologies of modernity, it actually REGRESSES to a political and social mentality rooted in traditionalism and xenophobia. This idealized conception of hyper-nationalism, harkening to a mythological existence which denies the social and individual awakenings of The Enlightenment and French Revolution while simultaneously imbuing the believer with a sense of racial and national superiority, instilled within Germans a sense of utility. As described by Freidrich Jünger this emerging form of nationalism, the true heart of Nazi Fascism, “wants to awaken a sense of the greatness of the German past. Life must be evaluated according to the will to power, which reveals the warlike character of all life . . . A mighty mysterious bond of blood links the lives of individuals and subsumes them in a fateful wholeness. Blood, as it were, sings the song of destiny.” The German myth of “Blood and Soil” became the spiritual, secular, and political compass of the Nazi state.

Given the disillusionment caused throughout Europe following the stark and brutal reality that the First World War impressed upon the beleaguered continent, the inception of Fascism is indeed a reactionary movement. However, it’s evolution into a dominating and world-altering political and social influence under Hitler shows that defining it as such is inadequate. For the ideology of Fascism, particularly Nazism, to so successfully overwhelm and bury the psychological and existential reality of The Great War and successfully convince ANY European individual that violent action and warlike existence is absurd. The fact that it successfully warped the mentality of millions is downright terrifying and proves that from reactionary roots, a truly revolutionary movement was born.

“The Peace of Might” and “Postwar Idealistic Naïveté”

1B) Based on your understanding of the causes and events of the Great War, do you believe the war guilt clause and subsequent demand for reparations from Germany were justified?

    Following the aftermath of the First World War, the fledging Weimar government was left holding the reins of disillusioned and war-weary Germany. The inevitability of The Great War, a topic of historical debate, was not on the table at the time Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles in June of 1919. The nation of France, led by Georges Clemenceau, felt the effects of the war’s devastation keenly. A generation of young, able-bodied men killed, wounded or missing and an industrial infrastructure shattered by war and German occupation was an incredibly bitter pill to swallow, given the proverbial “sour stomach” the French suffered due to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. France had been bested by the German military machine twice in a half-century. By June of 1919, France was vehement about besting Germany in the peace.

    Given the multitude of factors that led to The Great War, the idea of placing blame upon Germany and forcing it to pay reparations was an absolute failure on the part of the League of Nations and France. The rise of militarism and nationalism in Europe during the pre-war era was fueled exponentially and metaphysically by the Second Industrial Revolution and European Imperialism. This reality of existence for Europeans birthed an era dominated by competitive state systems. The European nations, particularly after the unification of Germany, jockeyed against one another for resources, prestige, and the right of self-determination. As political and socioeconomic tensions throughout Europe increased alongside the hubris of the European nations, the system of cooperative and secret alliances between the European powers turned the continent into a ticking time-bomb, waiting to go off.

    It is with a great sense of irony, to read the sentiments of Clemenceau during the peace process:

Not only does she make no secret of her aim, but the intolerable arrogance of the German aristocracy, the servile good nature of the intellectual and the scholar, the gross vanity of the most competent leaders in industry, and the widespread influence of a violent and popular poetry conspire to shatter throughout the world all the time-honored traditions of individual, as well as international, dignity.

Considering the fact that not only Germans, but French soldiers marched to war in late summer of 1914 with an overwhelming sense of patriotic romanticism and eager heroic idealism helps the historian to understand that no one nation understood fully the consequences of its actions. War was the European way, the cultural tradition of settling disagreements at the national level. In France, as well as in Germany, the generation of men soon to lose their lives to the static trenches and industrialized death of modern war, felt anxious and eager to march against one another. This cultural and psychological angst was best described by a Frenchman prior to the war. In a letter written to Henri Massis and Alfred de Tarde, he states, “The existence that we lead does not satisfy us completely because, even if we possess all the elements of a good life, we cannot organize them in a practical, immediate deed that would take us, body and soul, and hurl us outside ourselves. One event will permit that deed – war; and hence we desire it.” While this was surely not the sentiment of all Europeans, it was the mentality of enough that the war, despite efforts to avoid it, was welcomed by the European powers.

    Only after the smoke had settled and a generation of European men lay dead, wounded or missing did Europe realize its folly. The psyche of Europe had been eternally scarred, The Great War shattering the soul of the warring nations. A cloud settled over the continent and infected the hearts and minds of Europeans. The works of survivors and witnesses the likes of Valéry, Remarque, and Salomen served as testimony to the disillusionment, loss and brutalization which had changed the European conscience. Germany, through internal revolution, had ousted the imperial government which had plunged the nation into war. The newly elected Weimar government sought peace and stability much along the lines suggested by American President Woodrow Wilson. In A Peace of Might, the Weimar Peace Delegation took its stand against the vengeful French government, proclaiming, “The peace to be concluded with Germany was to be a peace of right, not a peace of might.” Weimar Germany had suffered, on a psychological level, just as much as the rest of Europe and had lost its own generation of young men, just as France had. The Weimar government came to Versailles seeking a just peace, one that would allow wounds to heal and stability to take root, thus allowing a chance for a peaceful and strengthened Europe. However, France, in its short-sighted arrogance, chose revenge over wisdom. With Woodrow Wilson’s failure to secure backing for the United States’ entrance to the League of Nations, the fledgling democracy of Weimar Germany lost the one chance of fair, mediated peace. The Weimar delegation recognized the inherent dangers in dividing the German state and crippling its infrastructure and economy through forced reparations. The “Peace of the Might,” as was enacted by the Treaty of Versailles, would later prove to be the threshold Europe would cross, leaving one destructive war behind in order to speed toward and even deadlier one.

2) Wilson and Lenin both have peculiar visions of the meaning, significance and lessons to be learned from the Great War, and yet both have been accused of naïve idealism. In your opinion, and based on the historical reality they confronted, who was more naïve?

    In comparing the selected works of Woodrow Wilson and V.I. Lenin, it is initially difficult to disseminate the naïveté from the idealism both men present to their audiences. Another layer of difficulty comes from the historical context in which both men present their perceptions of the world following the Great War. On one hand, the historian has Woodrow Wilson, a democratic leader of a largely isolationist, and relatively unscathed, nation seeking mediated peace among the embroiled powers of Europe. The other hand contains V.I. Lenin, a revolutionary Marxist, head of the smallest Soviet party rallying for support in a nation revolting against the provisional democratic government. To find similar undertones in the mentality of such polar opposites is indeed a challenge.

    Both men, as stated before, are without a doubt idealistic in their perceptions of what the future held for Europe. Wilson, pushing for the (ultimately successful) establishment of the League of Nations, saw within the shattered husk of Europe the potential for a cohesive and unified state of nations, capable of protecting mutual interests on social, economic, and political levels. He states, “the free peoples of the world must draw together in some common covenant, some genuine and practical co-öperation that will in effect combine their force to secure peace and justice in the dealings of nations with one another.” The League of Nations, in Wilson’s view, would serve as the vanguard of international European peace and would be the institution from which a European Union would form. Wilson also had the foresight to understand that failure to produce a just peace with Weimar Germany would result in lingering animosity and would start the League off on bad footing. Unfortunately for Europe, Wilson was unable to garner the support of the United States government in order to establish and American mediatory presence in the League of Nations, thus sounding a death knell for European democracy.

    Lenin, stalwart in the face of chaotic and crumbling Russia, remains ever the ideologue in his evaluation of the historical reality which surrounded him. The myth of the Great Revolution, held onto by Marxists as an element of their secular religion, was not to come in the manner that Lenin and the Bolsheviks initially believed. Lenin, however, recognized the revolutionary situation as it played out, and adapted his ideology to suit the needs of the circumstances. Because the goal of Communism was already known, there existed no need for the traditional Capitalist stage. According to Lenin, the necessary tools were already at his disposal:

To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will “do all the thinking for all” and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a “committee,” but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary . . .

The “professional revolutionaries,” Lenin’s Bolsheviks, had already begun the change to Communism in Russia. Lenin figured that in the wake of the war, according to traditional Marxist ideology, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia would act as a vanguard for the new world order, spreading throughout an ideologically weakened western Europe, thus bringing the Communist ideal to fruition in the post-war world.

    Both men were certainly idealistic in their perceptions of the post-war world, however, Lenin proves to be the more naïve of the two. While Wilson was extremely, if not overly hopeful in establishing mediated peace within war-torn Europe, he had tremendous foresight and wisdom to recognize the precipice upon which Europe was poised. Lenin, on the other hand, pragmatically took advantage of the situation at hand in Russia. However, his greatest asset proved to be his greatest liability. Belief in Marxist ideology, either traditional or the adaptation he created to meet the needs of fragmented Russia, blinded Lenin to the real-world situation that existed in Western Europe. Additionally, historians have the advantage of hindsight. From the 21^st century, it can be seen that Wilson’s warnings were to be heeded and his hopes were to be realized; an unfair peace disenfranchised Germany, opened the door for the rise of fascism, and pushed Europe toward the Second World War while the close of the 20^th century saw the creation of the European Union. At the same time, the 20^th century witnessed the meteoric rise of Communist Russia and its whimpering demise 79 years later.

The Least of all Evils.

This is my response to the following question:

In your opinion is the Bolshevik “revolution” attributable more to the ideology of Marxism/Leninism or the upheaval of total war?

The success of the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 can be attributed to both the ideological aspects of the Marxist/Leninism and the condition of the Russian state brought about by involvement in the First World War. I use the term “seizure of power,” one often associated with the Nazi party in 1933 Germany, because the course of revolution is not enough to tip the scales in Russia. The combination of Russia’s long history of peasant disenfranchisement, coupled with the destructive degradation of the war and the infusion of the social conscience with Socialist rhetoric and revolutionary propaganda served to create an inflammatory mix, destined to bring the house of Democracy down in a splendid conflagration.

The root of the Bolshevik “revolution” lies within the social framework of the working and peasant classes. As Russia lagged behind in the second industrial revolution, it lagged further behind in social revolution. Western Europe had already benefited from the fruits of the French Revolution and its conception of man’s inherent free-will and reason. As Perry and Berg point out, however, Russian peasantry, while emancipated, still existed within “an autocratic structure that was as ineffective as it was antiquated.” Democracy had bypassed the Russian masses much like technology was doing. By the time Russia entered the First World War, the Russian Army, composed mostly of peasants and lower-class workers felt completely isolated from any sort of control over their own destiny within Russia. This mentality is shown with absolute clarity in the Sketches of Peasant Life by Tian-Shanskaia. In her writing, she states that the peasantry “have a deep affection for the land . . .” and “have not acquired the habit of intensive labor; they are deprived of the light of knowledge, and they suffer an oppressive poverty. The problem seems to be that whatever goal a peasant entertains, be it merely the acquisition of a pint of vodka or a pair of galoshes, it is beyond his reach, no matter how hard he works.” Laboring under this sort of existence in a time of peace, there is little left to the imagination of the historian when confronting the issue of Russian soldiers mutinying in 1917.

The First World War had the same psychological and morally destructive impact on the soldiers of Russia that it had on veterans of other belligerent nations. It is the gap between the fighting man and the authority waging war, far greater in Russia than in the west, that creates a receptive mentality for the Bolshevik rhetoric to take root and grow. The Maxist/Leninist conception of fraternity and equality was undoubtedly appealing, despite concessions made by the Provisional Government. “Bread, Peace, and Land,” as espoused by Lenin and his party held far more attractive options to the war-weary and disenfranchised masses of Russia. The failure of the Provisional Government to extricate the nation from war in addition to its failure to conduct land reform turned the populace against it, viewing the Imperialistic tendencies as offering little more than the Tsars. The Bolshevik party promised a new direction and had a clear agenda, more so than any of their political opponents, thus granting Lenin and his party the necessary leverage and support it needed to assume power in Russia and stave of complete social, economic, and political collapse.

A Matter of Pride

The following is my response to the question “How do you explain the atrocious unrelenting way the (First World) war played out?” The question was posed on the discussion board in my 20^th century European History class.

Undoubtedly, a major factor to the pure destructive make-up of The Great War was the advancement of military technology (fueled by Imperialism, Nationalism and the second Industrial Revolution) which preceded the outbreak of hostilities. The advent of the machine gun, poison gas, armored cars, airplanes, and tanks ushered Europe into the age of modern industrialized warfare. Humanity, despite its attempts to establish diplomatic forms of arbitration and mediation at the turn of the century, had successfully created weapon systems capable of unleashing destructive forces never before seen on the battlefields of Europe. Additionally, these new forms of mechanized death devolved the old standard of rank-and-file tactics to a series of artillery barrages, attacks, counterattacks, withdrawl and entrenchment. Fortified trench networks and barbed wire mazes served to create the dreaded “No Man’s Land” between the opposing soldiers, a killing field which fed millions of young Europeans to the hungry mouths of interlocking fields of fire, snipers, and artillery shells. However, it is more than just the ability to kill impersonally in mass numbers that fed the demon of carnage during the stagnant trench war for Europe. More important was the willingness of European youth to sacrifice themselves for the metaphysical conception of “the state.”

The young men of Europe were in a state of unrest, waiting for their proverbial moment in the sun. This was an era of social revolution, of a desire for Europeans to move beyond the old ways of their fore-bearers and enter the Modern world. At the same time, Nationalism was the underlying social movement, one that had roots deeper than class tensions, gender disputes and a burgeoning sense of globalization. In “The Young People of Today’” Massis and de Tarde open with a statement regarding the “deepest tendencies . . . of patriotic faith’” that existed among the young men of France. Additionally, the writers point out that the sentiment of many is that “‘[t]he existence we lead does not satisfy us completely, even if we possess all the elements of a good life, we cannot organize them in a practical, immediate deed that would take us, body and soul, and hurl us outside of ourselves. One event only will permit that deed – war; and hence we desire it.”

In a paradoxical sense, the youth of Europe felt disillusioned with the opportunities created by their collective past, while at the same time clung to the romanticized ideals of the historic culture of war. As Stefan Zweig writes in his Vienna piece, despite understanding and having experienced the brutality and horror of The Great War, he remains admittedly awash with nostalgia for the fraternity of the opening days of war. In speaking of his lost generation, he writes, “[t]hey did not know war, they had hardly given it a thought. It had become legendary, and distance had made it seem romantic and heroic.” The Great War presented opportunities, from the perspective of European volunteers, to become more than what society had allowed. It was a chance for men to become heroes and to revel in the Esprit de corps, the sense of giving oneself to a more noble cause than the individual; it was an opportunity to heroically sacrifice oneself for the embodiment of the State.

In the face of wanton destruction and untold brutality, however, pride in the nation can only carry the soldier so far. As the war dragged on and death clung to Europe like a low-lying fog, the soldiers on all sides no longer fought for the pride and defense of their respective nations. The war became a fight for individual survival, both physical and psychological. Pushed forward by commanders perceived to be still infected with the romanticism of the opening salvos, the soldiers in the trenches weathered hell on earth simply to stay alive. Remarque, in a passage from All Quiet on the Western Front, details this existence in perhaps the most telling manner:

We have become wild beasts. We do not fight, we defend ourselves against annihilation. It is not against men that we fling our bombs, what do we know of men in this moment when Death is hunting us down – now, for the first time in three days we can see his face, now for the first time in three days we can oppose him; we feel a mad anger. No longer do we lie helpless, waiting on the scaffold, we can destroy and kill, to save ourselves, to save ourselves and to be revenged.

The soldiers and nations engaged in The Great War entered a conflict for which they were culturally and psychologically ill-prepared. Pride, the driving force of the conflict, served to be the ultimate death-dealer. As the nations of Europe battled on, it was Pride that drove a generation to early graves; it was Pride that pushed the continent beyond the point of exhaustion and it was Pride that made The Great War so unrelenting.

I need to blog more…….

I have decided that, while I usually lack the energy to blog in any sort of regalr fashion, I do have a wonderful outlet for writing and intellectual stimulation in the wonderful instituation known as Undergraduate research.  I am going to make good on an intention which formed somewhere in the past six months and start posting written works from school in my blog.  I take pride in what write for my history classes and I am told often by Nikki that I am a great writer (I don’t see it), but after this PSA post, I am going to start.  Enjoy.

The Philadelphia Phillies win the World Series!!!

And no one cares……………………

Bleh……….

I’m pretty sure that I am getting sick.  I’ve felt fatigued the past few days and have had a dull, aching headache I can’t really seem to get rid of.  In addition, I’m congested, but in a really gross old-nastiness-rooted-in-the-deep-recesses-of-the-nasal-cavity kind of congestion, and over the course of the day my throat has been bothering me more and more.  Now is not the time for me to get sick!

It is only Wednesday, I have a midterm paper to finish writing in addition to a mid-term Friday.  I don’t get my sick leave from work until Sunday, but I can’t call in without getting written up until next Friday.   Grrr….. and now I have to sit through two hours of Art Appreciation lecture.

All I want to do is take a nap and wake up when my B.A. is done…….

I should be doing homework, but……

Instead I am multi-tasking between watching the Steelers game, Stumbling, and actually trying to read about art.  Anyway, I stumbled across a new blog site, one in which my XBox 360 will blog about me an my gaming.  It will take a few days for it to collect data and start generating posts, but I think it is a perfectly ridiculaous and awesome bit of technology.  Here is the link:  http://www.360voice.com/tag/CaptainHate1021.  Too bad I didn;t find this earlier, I’d be curious to see what my Xbox would say about my 5 hours of Dead Space last night, which promptly finished at 4 am……

On the precipice….

Today I started my final year as an undergrad.  I’m excited, nervous, and scared as hell.  The light is very much at the end of the tunnel, my B.A. almost in my grasp, and while I am exhilerated about reaching the end, I realize it is not an end, but rather a whole new beginning.

I’ve spent most of my summer break flip-flopping between whether or not I want to pursue my credential and teach at the secondary educational level, or push on and get an M.A. in history to teach at a collegiate level.  I finally made up my mind and decided to take the quickest (and safest?) route toward teaching by pursuing the credential.  Then I went to my first class session today.

In the spring, I was enrolled in what is deemed a “reading seminar” course for history.  The class, taught by my newly selected advisor Dr. P, was an in-depth analysis of the development of European intellectualism from the Renaissance to the 20th century.  We read, analyzed, and discussed everything from Dante’s Inferno and the works of St. Thomas Aquinas to Darwin, Hume, and Freud.  Never in my academic career have I been involved in a class that made me think so much!  I even told Dr. Pytell that I left the discussions with a headache because my brain was used so much.  **Side-note – I think the brain is a muscle as well as an organ, the more you use it, the stronger it gets, but you need to pace the workout or you’ll strain something!** Week after week, through the readings and analyses and discussions, I was able to reconnect with all the reasons why I love the subject of history and being involved in academia.  I met with Dr. P often and we discussed my academic future often.  In a matter of 10 short weeks, Dr. P became more than an advisor and professor.  He also became a mentor.

Today I attended the first class session of the history research seminar, taught by Dr. P.  I decided to enroll in this particular course not only because of the instructor, but also because of the subject manner in which we will be discussing.  The research seminar will focus on The Holocaust, a subject which I have studied alongside my specialty of the Second World War.  I am not required to take this course, as the requirement is already fulfilled on my transcript.  I’ve decided to take it as a challenge laid against myself, an opportunity to really see what I’m made of.  The research seminar I took at UCR some 8 and a half years ago was a crowning achievement in procrastination and slacking (10 weeks to research and write a 20 page paper, I researched for a week and wrote it in 24 hours).  This time around, my goal is to do everything right, with th eultimate goal of producing a quality research paper that can be used to highlight my historical aptitude and academic prowess.  Walking into class, however, I was still in the frame of mind of CREDENTIAL.

Sitting in the classroom, I told Dr. P that I had finally made my decision and was going to pursue the credential.  He looked at me and acknowledged that he wresteled with that same decision when he was younger, and commended me on my decision.  This commendation was followed with an aside, “I still think you should go to Grad school..”

Following class, I took the opportunity to catch up with Dr. P as we walked to our cars.  During the course of our conversation, he told me that he felt my intellect and potential was above that of the majority, my work was solid and showed maturity, and that my entering an M.A. program would be an extremely rewarding experience.  When I told him of my fears over finding a teaching position (the field of history suffers from a lack of job opportunities), he basically told me that I my experience, work and maturity would serve to put me far forward in the hunt for a position.  I can’t recall EVER getting such unsolicited praise for the work I’ve done.  Needless to say, when we parted ways in the parking lot, my ego was thoroughly inflated.

Since we’ve been together, Nikki has been telling me I need to go to Grad School, that I would find the experience to be rewarding beyond belief.  More than anything I want to teach history.  I want to finish m B.A., quit Costco, and move into academia, but getting the Bachelor’s is the easy part.  The leap after, into the great unknown, terrifies me.

Politics, politics, politics……

I don’t usually mix politics and ….. well….. anything.  I try not to at least, but seeing as it’s an election year and the battle lines have been drawn between red and blue, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal, I try as much as possible to keep my head down and just get through to the election process.  Being the only Democrat AND liberal in my immediate family, I take more than my fair share of shots and am often told how “wrong” or “misguided” my political views are.  For the most part it boils down to this:

I don’t listen to the speeches the candidates make.  They’re politicians and all politicians have lied, cheated, bamboozled, fandangled, and twisted things to one degree or another to get where they are at.  It comes with the territory.

Our political parties get up in arms about how left-wing or right-wing they or their opponents are, how ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal the opposition is.  I’m a historian, and I’m going to set the record straight.  You want to talk about the left and right wings??  Okay, watch and learn:

Nazi’s are on the Right, Stalin-era Communists are on the Left.  Considering the fact that we haven’t established a military state complete with the Gestapo and Stalinist purges, coupled with the mass executions of millions of citizens, I’d say our politics are pretty damn run-of-the mill-smack-dab-in-the-boring-middle.  So rant all you want, Republican+Democrat = Two sides of the same EXACT coin.

Our politicians need to stop worrying about lobbyists and special interests and start focusing on what is best for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not the Let’s-pretend-we-are-so-different political parties.

Now, you may ask, “Matt, what sparked this political rant??” I will show you!

I received this in an e-mail from my brother-in-law:

This is for my anti war Obama voting brother in law…the media is not what they always seem.  I checked these out because I couldn’t believe it.

It’s essential to separate facts from political rhetoric, particularly when discussing military conflicts and military fatalities. These military losses may surprise you! Military losses, 1980 through 2006 As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006: 1980 ……… 2,392 (Carter Year) 1981 ……… 2,380 (Reagan Year) 1984 ……… 1,999 (Reagan Year) 1988 ……… 1,819 (Reagan Year) 1989 ……… 1,636 (George H W Year) 1990 ……… 1,508 (George H W Year) 1991 ……… 1,787 (George H W Year) 1992 ……… 1,2 93 (George H W Year) 1993 ……… 1,213 (Clinton Year) 1994 ……… 1,075 (Clinton Year) 1995 ………. 2,465 (Clinton Year) 1996 ………. 2,318 (Clinton Year) 1997 ………. 817 (Clinton Year) 1998 ………. 2,252 (Clinton Year) 1999 ……… 1,984 (Clinton Year) 2000 ……… 1,983 (Clinton Year) 2001 ………. 890(George W Year) 2002 ……… 1,007 (George W Year) 2003 ……… 1,410 (George W Year) 2004 ……… 1,887 (George W Year) 2005 ………. 919 (George W Year) 2006 ………. 920 (George W Year) 2007……….. 899 (George W Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths George W. years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency when America wasn’t involved in a war! In 1980, during the reign of President Jimmy Carter, (Nobel Peace Prize winner), there were 2,392 US military fatalities! Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race: European descent ……………… 69.12% Hispanic …………………………. 12.5% Black …………………………….. 12. 3% Asian ………………………………. 3.7% Native American ………………….. 1.0% Other ………………………………. 2.6% Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom: European descent (white) ………. 74.31% Hispanic ……………………………. 10.74% Black ……………           …….. ….. 9.6 7% Asian …………………………………. 1.81% Native American …………………….. 1.09% Other …………………………………. 0.33% It’s all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. The Hillary-Obama campaigns say the current administration does not ‘listen’ to anyone and continues the war, costing precious American lives. The Clinton administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death than the Bush Administration, in addition, Clinton also forced the military to release Osama Bin Laden when we actually had him detained

The following is was my response:

in Response to your e-mail regarding military deaths from Carter to Bush Jr., I fund this information regarding military action during Clinton’s presidency.
1992-2003 — Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces “no fly zones” over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Southern Watch) ^[RL30172] 1992-95 — Somalia. “Operation Restore Hope” Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)^[RL30172]

1993-Present — Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1993 — Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.^[RL30172]

1993-95 — Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.^[RL30172]

1994 — Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.^[RL30172]

1995 — Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.^[RL30172] (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 — Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the “deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens” in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country “private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound….”^[RL30172]

1996 — Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of “private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees,” and to provide “enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui.”^[RL30172]

1997 — Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania. (See also Operation Silver Wake)^[RL30172]

1997 — Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.^[RL30172]

1997 — Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.^[RL30172]

1997 — Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. ^[RL30172]

1998 — Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.^[RL30172] (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 — Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.^[RL30172]

1998 – 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. ^[RL30172]

1998 — Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.^[RL30172]

1998 — Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.^[RL30172]

1999 – 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.^[RL30172]

1999 — NATO’s bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.^[RL30172] (See Operation Allied Force)

Considering the fact that the US provides the majority of military personnel and material utilized in NATO and UN military actions, and considering the world seemed to erupt into violence in the 90’s, simply showing military casualty statistics is a misleading representation of the context in which those casualties concerned.  I may be a conservative liberal Democrat, but I am also a military historian.

By the way, This e-mail is just for shits an giggles.  I’ve been pretty low-key on the political rhetoric, but I had to flex some nuts in response this time around.

Considering the fact that the state of California’s delegates are going to go to Obama, and the popular vote really doesn’t count for anything in our system, I figure it doesn’t matter who I vote for.  The next president isn’t going to magically fix all the problems in our nation or the world, but it was satisfying to flex my historical muscle.