the US spends 30 times more on military strategies than on developmental help - if it was the other way round the world would be a safer place
***************
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If we had adopted this policy 60 years ago, we, as well as the French and the British, would all be speaking German, saluting the Nazi flag, and living in a land that does not grant the freedom of speech you so obviously cherish. Granted, it is a much different world today, but has human nature really changed that much in the course of two generations?
If Britain and America hadn't actively supported Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s (as a bulwark against the spread of communism in central Europe), WWII would probably not have taken place.
It's also worth remembering that England and France (and later the USA) declared war on Germany, not vice versa, and that there is no reason to suppose that Germany had any designs beyond the recreation of a greater 'Fatherland'.
Several European countries remained neutral for the duration of the war, and felt no great threat to their national sovereignty from Germany. I don't understand why you think we would all be speaking German if Germany had won WWII. But even if that were so, then in the case of the US this seems reasonable enough - after all there are more US citizens of German origin there than of any other nationality :)
The main theme in the UK's foreign policy is to prevent any one (other) country domninating Europe. Thus over the centuries Britain has fought for and against Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Russia etc. This has nothing to do with "freedom" but all to do with maintaining a divided Europe.
If a fraction of the money spent on arms during the first half of the C20th had gone to relieving the dire poverty and hardship imposed on Germany by a vindictive French Government in the aftermath of WWI, the politics of post-war Germany would have been very different.
It is partly an analysis of the causes of WWII that convinces me that money spent on redistribution of wealth and development of opportunities does more to promote peace than accumulating vast amounts of weapons of mass destruction which do nothing to decrease the paranoid phantasies of those frightened of losing their control of world resources.
2 comments:
If we had adopted this policy 60 years ago, we, as well as the French and the British, would all be speaking German, saluting the Nazi flag, and living in a land that does not grant the freedom of speech you so obviously cherish. Granted, it is a much different world today, but has human nature really changed that much in the course of two generations?
***************
If Britain and America hadn't actively supported Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s (as a bulwark against the spread of communism in central Europe), WWII would probably not have taken place.
It's also worth remembering that England and France (and later the USA) declared war on Germany, not vice versa, and that there is no reason to suppose that Germany had any designs beyond the recreation of a greater 'Fatherland'.
Several European countries remained neutral for the duration of the war, and felt no great threat to their national sovereignty from Germany. I don't understand why you think we would all be speaking German if Germany had won WWII. But even if that were so, then in the case of the US this seems reasonable enough - after all there are more US citizens of German origin there than of any other nationality :)
The main theme in the UK's foreign policy is to prevent any one (other) country domninating Europe. Thus over the centuries Britain has fought for and against Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Russia etc. This has nothing to do with "freedom" but all to do with maintaining a divided Europe.
If a fraction of the money spent on arms during the first half of the C20th had gone to relieving the dire poverty and hardship imposed on Germany by a vindictive French Government in the aftermath of WWI, the politics of post-war Germany would have been very different.
It is partly an analysis of the causes of WWII that convinces me that money spent on redistribution of wealth and development of opportunities does more to promote peace than accumulating vast amounts of weapons of mass destruction which do nothing to decrease the paranoid phantasies of those frightened of losing their control of world resources.
**************
Post a Comment