Hitler

by

Is History Repeating Itself in the Ukraine?


It is said that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.  In 1938 Adolph Hitler annexed a part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland.  His claim was that it was mostly inhabited by ethnic Germans which was true.  The Czech government lacked the military authority to resist the takeover.  England and France railed at this action, which Hitler called Anschluss, but did nothing of consequence.  Of course that was only the first step in Hitler’s desire to control all of Eastern Europe which history tells us he eventually did by late 1939.  In 1940 he turned on his “ally,” Stalin, and invaded the Soviet Union.  Prior to Hitler’s invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland he amassed his troops along the borders of those countries.  He invaded Poland on the premise that the Poles had actually attacked first, a total fabrication of course.

It is scary to watch the events taking place along the Russian and Ukraine border and not find the parallels with 1938 and 1939.  Putin has send at least 40,000 troops to that border region.  What are his intentions?  The Ukrainians have shown absolutely not hostile intent towards Russia.  To wit, thus far, they have acquiesced to Russia’s takeover of the Crimea.  To be sure, Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians but the land itself belongs to the Ukraine.  Russia has with malice taken territory sovereign to the Ukrainian republic.

Respect of a countries borders though a time-honored tradition is replete with skirmishes and wars over those borders.  Russia’s history tells us they have been particularly pugnacious is that respect.  The Czars of Russia felt it their right to occupy Poland and other lands they claimed some ancient, albeit specious, right to.  The old Soviet Union occupied much of Eastern Europe after 1945 by simply refusing to remove its troops following the defeat of Germany.  While countries like Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania continued to exist as entities, the did so only as puppets of the Soviet regime.  And even when Soviet troops were removed, those troops of any particular country were always subservient to the Russian army and the desires of the Kremlin.  The Hungarian uprising of 1956 showed the desire of the general population to remove itself from Soviet control only to be put down.

It is my fear the Putin and his Russian government is seeking a return to the days of the old Soviet.  We must remember that Putin is a product of that old regime.  He rose to prominence within the KGB.  The despotism and authoritarianism of the old Soviet seems to still exist within the likes of Putin.  It would not be surprising to find that Putin’s true desire is to return Russia to the old Soviet style government.  Wise men caution us that the best way to judge what a person is going to do is by what he has done in the past.

As much as I despise the idea of war, I think the United States and its allies need to ask the Ukrainian government if it would like a NATO presence in its country to protect against any Russian ideas of invasion.  If there is one thing NATO learn well, hopefully, during the cold-war years, is that a strong military presence facing its foes is an excellent deterrent.  The United States, in particular, needs to state that it is willing to at least offer, and follow through, such support.

The people of the Ukraine have the right to self-determination and the Russian government has absolutely no right to any land sovereign to the Ukrainian people.

by

Understanding Socialism


The Republican Party likes to demonize certain Democrat ideas of being socialist, the idea being a direct correlation between socialism and communism.  While socialism is certainly a hallmark of communism, it existed in certain forms long before communism.

In 17th Century Massachusetts the town of Dedham was founded as a utopian community.  In those days Dedham extend from what is now South Boston all the way to Plymouth.  Today’s Dedham is a smallish town not far from Boston.  The next utopian idea happen at what was called Brook Farm near Boston.  It too was a utopian/socialist attempt that failed.  But these were not isolated attempts.  Other attempts in states like New York happened throughout the 18th and 19th Century.  All, of course, failed, but none was ever condemned as they were mostly economic endeavours.

Socialism got its greatest traction in 19th century Europe.  It came as a result of the old feudal systems still in place in much of Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent because of Western European monarchies and their tendencies towards excesses of self-enrichment.  It is no coincidence that Word War I put an end not just to the Russian monarchy but also the Italian, German, Prussian, Polish, Austrian, and numerous others.  The cost of waging war is so great that the armed populace that monarchies sent to the battlefields turned on their own governments.  The Czar was replaced by the Soviet, the Kaiser by a Chancellor, and so forth.  The people, impoverished by these monarchies, demanded a redistribution of wealth and the leaders of the various revolutions were only too willing to oblige, and in doing so, gain wide-spread support for their particular cause.

In the first half of the 20th century, socialist groups were not necessarily liberal or left-wing.  The formal name of the ultra-right wing Nazi party of Germany was the National Socialists.

The United States in the first 20 years of the 20th century had a number of socialist mayors, congressmen, and other elected officials.  And if you lived in the United States in 1936, 1937, and 1938, and understood the evil that Hitler was visiting on his people, you supported the German Communist party as it was the only opposition to Hitler at the time within Germany.  They were throughout World War 2 the underground in Germany.  Similarly, it was French Communists who were a large part of that underground.  All that, of course, changed when the war was over.

Socialism has existed in some form in most countries since World War 2.  By definition, socialism is any government-owned or administered production and distribution of goods.  By that definition socialism does not exist in the United States in any form, and is constitutionally prohibited from existing.   But as soon as you expand that definition to include services the waters become muddy.  Health care is by definition a service.  But so too is airport administration.  That means most U.S. airports are run, in a socialist manner, at some level of government.  Does that mean we should turn of administration of O’Hare Airport in Chicago to private enterprise?  I would hope not, and I doubt any Republican will ever support such a measure even if it does mean they must compromise on their definition of socialism.

If Republicans are truly anti-socialist, as many claim, they are going to have to turn over to private corporations all seaports, AMTRAK, the Tennessee Valley Authority, all state-run liquor stores, all state lotteries, all draw-bridge operations, all transportation authorities, all port authorities, all air traffic control, all public hospitals, and many other operations.  If you think about it, any and all of these functions could be run by privately owned corporations.  The only question is, in the desire to eliminate any possible socialist type government operations, are you willing to give up these?

If, for example, our airports were turned over to corporate America, I for one would stop flying.  I simply do not trust private enterprise to act in my best interests.  And therein lies the central concept of why we entrust certain parts of our existence to the government.  We quite simply have more trust in the government looking after our best interests than we do corporate America.  And to this end, health care, which corporate America has so totally failed to include all Americans, needs to have government participation at a greater level than previously experienced.  Here, in Massachusetts, the Mitt Romney inspired required health care coverage has been a huge success in spite of its critics.  If anything, corporate America has benefitted from the Massachusetts experience in health care.

The bottom line is this; when corporate America has not given a service through lack of desire, has abdicated responsibility for whatever reason, or has refused to offer essential services to all Americans, we expect our government to step in and either provide the service, such as most forms of surface transportation, or make a provision whereby corporate America is compelled to make their service available at a reasonable rate to all Americans, and this is the case of health care.

Most Republicans want to bring an end to AMTRAK and turn its operations over to corporate America.  I am guessing they have not bothered to read much history, because it was corporate America that begged out of the passenger rail industry in 1971, with but four exceptions, the Southern Railroad, the Boston & Maine Railroad, the Rock Island Railroad, and the Rio Grande Railroad.  All except the B&M gave in to government take over within a few years.  It is difficult to imagine that so much has changed, even in the densely populated northeast, that any private corporation on its own can turn a profit in the passenger rail business.  But do you want to imagine a US that does not have it?

Republicans are not being the least bit truthful about any government enterprise that they call “socialist.”  It is not socialism they fear, it is their loss of leverage at the corporate level they fear.  What will happen to corporate America if the government requires fairness, openness, and equal access?  The Reagan deregulation made certain that corporate America not be responsible to anyone but its board of directors as witness the blatant abuse of power and privilege during the Wall Street meltdown.  They will never admit to this being true but rest assured, it is!  But rest assured, socialism, even as it exists in democracies such as Canada and England, is not being suggested by anyone in the Democrat Party, or anyone else for that matter.  It is simply a Republican ploy to make undesireable something that will actually serve the good of all.