Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!myers From: myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Wisdom of European Heads of State Message-ID: <493@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 13:34:35 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.493 Posted: Wed Nov 28 13:34:35 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Dec-84 12:20:25 EST References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <3171@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 66 > > > >It is the past "wisdom" of such leaders that led to World Wars I and II. > >tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Tim, i'm surprised at you for making such an obviously untrue stmt. You > are usually very clever at distorting the facts. Perhaps you just weren't > thinking when you let this slip thru. What??!? I seem to recall that Germany, Austria, and Russia did not have elected leaders. The people of just about any nation don't want war, but leaders can always drag them into one (this is a paraphrase of a statement by Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg trials). > > First of all, both Wayne and you are making a mistake by putting the > responsibility for the "weapons in Western Europe" on the leaders. As > Wayne stated, they're elected. It is the wisdom (insert your own > quote marks as you see fit) of the *people*. In last year's elections, > the anti-defense groups made the election a mandate on the Pershing > missle issue. The people elected leaders who would act to install them. > No election is decided on one issue alone. As in America, the big issue was handling the domestic economy (according to the political analyses I read at the time of the W. German elections). But the left did better than they otherwise might have because of the missle issue. The difficulty of having the people fairly represented on all issues is a big failing of the typical Western "vote every four years" system of democracy. Democracy (with a capital D) must be preserved and extended, but it must also evolve. > The circumstances leading to WWI had nothing to do with a build-up of > weapons, and little to do with "wisdom" of the leaders. WWI started > very sloppily. I refer you to "The Guns of August" by Margaret Tuchman. Exactly. It had to do with leaders being unwilling to back down from their alliances because they did not want to lose face. Exactly as nuclear arms talks today are mostly about how not to lose face, and fighting to make the fewest concessions for chest beating purposes. > > WWII started because the leaders of the past did *not* have the wisdom > to keep their country prepared to defend itself, both in terms of > modern and plentiful weaponry, and in terms of morale. The type of > thinking Wayne refers to, if applied to 1937 Europe, would have > *prevented* WWII. It was the *opposite* thinking that led to WWII. > Perhaps. With WWI, all nations were heavily armed, and an approximate balance of power did nothing to stop the onset of the war. WWII MAY not have started if the balance had been more toward the allies. It would behoove us to remember the lessons of BOTH wars, which should lead to the conclusion that negotiated reduction of arms without disturbing balance of power relations MUST occur in order to insure the ecological safety of the planet. Increased scientific, cultural, and economic sharing and inter- dependency would also help to reduce international tensions which lead to conflicts. It will be a very narrow path to tread, perhaps, but it's the only way out I see. Deterance will not work forever. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers