The place where I work is very different from any other place that I have ever worked at before. As I have probably mentioned before (and I remind the S.O. every night), I am having a hard time adapting to its manners and customs. Although purportedly existing to support “the warfighter”, so many of its denizens have very little idea of what is really important to the warfighter-or how to get things done rapidly. To many of occupants of the house named for the Man from Panemunde, tracing the trons right, or having the correct number of meetings, councils, and video teleconferences seems to be an objective unto itself. That’s a hard adjustment considering in my previous employ-results mattered; did the cargo get to its appointed destination when expected? Everything else was simply horse hockey.
And of course, being a large organization-there is little of what one would call, camarderie. For someone for whom beer with co-workers used to be an integral part of the routine, this is purgatory of a sorts. So too, is kind of the unwritten expectation that I should consume my noon time re-past at my desk. Like the teachings of Brother Bill, that last little custom is one I cannot, nor will not accept. Even it is only 30 minutes- I need to get away from the building at midday. I make up the time on the back side by staying longer, so rest assured the government is getting its pound of flesh money’s worth.
Of course some days, its damn near impossible to get away-so today when a meeting was cancelled-I booked for the elevator and out the door of the gulag building. Jumped in the car, and headed up to the Yuppie Mall to pay my first visit to the newly relocated Barnes and Noble. In the true tradition of life here in Shopping Mall USA, the store had been relocated from one shopping mall to a bigger shopping mall.
Now, it has been open a month. However during our forays out, I have been unable to persuade the S.O. to go with me. She will drag me to any old stupid garage sale or antique store-but spend a learning hour in a bookstore? Perish the thought. Today I had enough. I needed to wallow amid the smells of coffee and fresh newsprint. Besides, I’m not going to see my little bookstore in Soho anytime soon am I? ( I had to hold back tears when I saw those pictures again-I do miss it so.)
You know the rest, I took longer than I meant too, came back a little later than I should have, and had to rush through the Krystal drive through, after which-wolfing down Crystal burgers with one hand, while trying to show the guard at the gate my ID with the other-I returned to work. A healthy, nutritious lunch!
I also came back some 65 dollars poorer. But I have new additions to my library:
I thought this might be a timely read in light of the current events in Georgia. While I am in disagreement with Buchanan as often as I am in agreement, he agrees with me about Iraq being a drain on American resources that in the long run will hurt the US more than it helps it.
We also are of a like mind in that we both regard the end of the British Empire as one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century, and a big -if not the number one reason-the world is as screwed up as it is today. Pat is unabashedly in favor of the West “uber alles”. I am too.
That said, his theory is a controversial one, namely that the British bungled their way into World War I, and then following that mistake allowed Winston Churchill to, without intending to, pursue course of actions that ultimately cost the British their Empire. His central thesis is that had the British and French not guaranteed the Polish in 1939, over time they could have sat back and let the Germans and Russians kill each other while the west watched-thus doing us all a great favor by ridding the world of both the Germans and the Russians. Or at least weakening them both to the point that we win anyway.
I am not so sure I agree with that premise-Hitler would probably have attacked France anyway -if only for the reason of erasing the stain of Versailles- but it is an interesting premise. We’ll see what he has to say as I read the book this week.
Up next was a book I heard about on NPR by Howard Fineman:
The thrust of the book? America cannot make up is mind about a lot of things:
Shouting is not arguing, Fineman notes, but often hot-button topics, media “cross-fires,” and blogs reflect the deepest currents in American life. In an enlightening book that cuts through the din and makes sense of the headlines, Fineman captures the essential issues that have always compelled healthy and heated debate–and must continue to do so in order for us to prosper in the twenty-first century. The Thirteen American Arguments run the gamut, from issues of individual identity to our country’s role in the world, including:
• Who is a Person? The Declaration of Independence says “everyone,” but it took a Civil War and the Civil Rights and other movements to make that a reality. Presently, what about human embryos and “unlawful enemy combatants?”
• Who is an American? Only a nation of immigrants could argue so much about who should become one. There is currently added urgency when terrorists are at large in the world and twelve million “undocumented” aliens are in the country.
• The Role of Faith. No country is more legally secular yet more avowedly prayerful. From Thomas Jefferson to Terri Schiavo, we can never quite decide where God fits in government.
• Presidential Power. In a democracy, leadership is all the more difficult — and, paradoxically, all the more essential. From George Washington to George W. Bush, we have always asked: How much power should a president have?
• America in the World. Uniquely, we perpetually ask ourselves whether we have a moral obligation to change the world — or, alternatively, whether we must try to change it to survive in it.
Probably be a while till I get to it-but I am interested in his conclusions.
And finally, in tribute to E @ L who is living where I should be-I purchased a Wodehouse collection. I’ve never really read P.G. Wodehouse in depth-just excerpts. Any real man and golfer should have read the man.
Your tax dollars at work! Something tells me I will be back there for lunch-sooner rather than later.
And what does Buchanan have to say about the 10 million Jews, gypsies and homosexuals that Hitler killed? He would have done it any way? We’re better off without them? The hours you waste reading this trash are hours you’ll never be able to get back again.
I’m not sure what he says-yet. However if it is like many of Buchanans books he’s going to trace it to the fact that if World War I had been avoided so would World War II. Much of his theories rest on a linear progression of things going exactly just so.
Besides its not like I get out any more so I might as well read something.
When we lived at Selfridge ANGB I found ‘The Golf Omnibus’ by Wodehouse at the library while looking for any books by Woodhouse. What a great book on golf! Mashie niblicks and all. Wooster and Jeeves quickly followed but I never really enjoyed most of the rest of them but maybe I stopped too soon.
Buchanan inflates a tired old argument that I found very persuasive in college back in 1980. For the anglosphere, the world was a British oyster during the empire days and many of their former colonies probably join Ali A. Mazuri in mourning its passing even if that was the conclusion that they would not have liked to reach. It’s hard to believe that Kenya, Nigeria, Rhodesia or even the Orange Free State are better off now then they were at the height of empire. But just like US and India and Pakistan, everybody wanted them gone back when they were in charge. Some seriously missed them when they decided to pull back from Suez and left the rest of the world to go to hell. Not Canada or Australia though. They still seem to like the British, or whatever it is they call themselves these days.
What is the measure of a Great Nation?
There is also “Human Smoke” which is the lefts point of view of WW2.
Chris Hitchens takes Pat to task for his take on WW2.
http://www.aldaily.com..a great source for all sorts of varied opinions etc.
Skipper,
After you read Buchanan, read William Stevenson’s biography of Sir William Stephenson who was code-named “Intrepid” as the head of British Secret Service during WWII. Compelling examination of the “need” for war in the 40s to avert international disaster.
Spike, Buchanan’s thesis will be that it is not and was not our problem. If it does not directly impact our physical integrity or our political integrity, then we have no business becoming involved. That’s been his theme for 30 years or more. I doubt this one changes.
It is appalling that someone as obviously bright as Pat Buchanan can possibly hold the view that appeasing Hitler and avoiding war with Nazi Germany would have accomplished anything other than the world described in the movie “V for Vendetta.” I’m not saying he’s not entitled to his opinion. Only that the opinion is based on little more than speculation in the face of hard, provable contrary EVIDENCE (which we all know lawyers can’t live without).
My other problem with Pat is he is too damn persuasive when you read or listen to him speak. It takes a while for the mystique to wear off and then you can think about the consequences of what he has to say: Do we really want to withdraw from the international scene and let the world do as it wills? What will that do to our economy?
Respects
OAM
I get the sense too that Buchanan feels that had Churchill not been on the scene, Britain would have behaved differently in the 20’s. Ergo no Hitler, no Holocaust. The hole in that logic IMHO is that it presumes no world depression-aggravated by Smoo-t Hawley tariffs which left Germany prostrate and ripe for a demagoge like Hitler.
Unless WWI had a different outcome-my opinion is WWII was pre-ordained.
Based on Spike’s comment, I nosed around the book. Buchanan specifically addresses the Holocaust on pgs 310-314. Bottom line up front- unless Hitler had been stopped in 1938 or prior, the Western powers were in no position to effect the Holocaust anyway given that it did not crank up till 1941 after Wansee. In effect he’s saying, ithe result would be no different. However the war might have been shorter if Britain and France had used the time to re-arm and stiffen the Maginot and Low Country defenses. A really big IF that was not very likely.
Can’t follow that logic at all. However there is a cogent arguement to be made that the West did not do enough to stop it early on until it had done its worst. That’s Hermann Wouk’s thesis anyway.
OAM, you are right about Buchanan’s writing style and it is a fairly easy read. As for withdrawing from the world-of course we can do that. We can however retrench our committments though and focus more on the art of the possible and fixing our own country first. On that Buchanan (and Obama) may have a point.
Best,
One other point that I do agree with Buchanan on-The US could have done more post Wolrd War to strenghten Britain’s position vis a vis the Empire. One of FDR’s and Truman’s failings was not seeing the Empire’s health as being in our own interest as well. Especially keeping Britain engaged east of Suez.
My personal opinion is that our failure to support Britain in the 50’s started us down the path to where we are today.
Skippy-san,
I suggest you read this work: “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.”
It will give you good insight on how the Nazi’s used the former Imam of Jeruselum, Haj Amin al-Husseini, placed there by the British Palestinian Mandate after the end of WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, to help spread the current feelings in the Middle East. How the Waffen SS had a Muslim regiment in the Balkins (from the current area of Albania/Kosovo) that was responsible for killing over 90% of the Jews there, and how he lived the life of a honored diplomat in Berlin durng the war, and was able to broadcast propaganda into the Middle East for the Nazi’s to the population there.
After the war, he esacaped to France, and they would have prosecuted him on war criminal charges, but he was too popular in the Arab world and they were still trying to hang on to French North Africa.
I think that this book, would give you a much better “What If” line of thinking than Pat’s book. “What if” they allies would have gone after this guy when we had him in France? “What if” as the mufti had stated that Adolf Eichman would have really told them the truth about him at his trial instead of saying that he only met him briefly (they show pictures and letters the two exchanged during the war). If he would have been captured, his young protogee, Yassar Arafat would not have risen to power.
Read this, and you can get a different insight into the mess we have in the Middle East now.
But why would they have gone after him then? Islam was not seen as an issue-and at the time had a reputation for tolerance of Jews that the Christianity had not matched yet.
No politician of any government would have seen him as anything other than an Arab.
Skippy,
He was a known agitator from his days as mufti in Jeruselem. He was the main instigator in the first “Infitada” back in the 1920’s which led to him having to escape Palestine under cover of darkness since he was wanted by the British. While in hiding in the Muslim world, he was the main agitator against non-Muslims in the region. When the Nazis came to power, he first went to Tehran where the Shah’s father accepted him with open arms until the Shah deposed him, then he fled to Bagdahd, and under cover of darkness again to Berlin.
Why go after him, he was considered the Muslim version of “Lord HaHa” the British propaganda guy for the Nazis beaming his propaganda to the Muslim world for jihad against the Allies. After the war, while in France, there was a move to bring him to justice, but France was too afraid of upsetting their colonial subjects in North Africa while they tried to regain their old colonial territories, and Britian still had the Palestine Issue to deal with. He was a known trouble maker, but nations then as now were afraid of dealing with him and the radical Muslim problem.