I'm not really in the mood to discuss the Middle East again...my blog needs more variety than that. You'll all get bored reading it. I wouldn't necessarily get bored writing it, but hey - there's nothing wrong with a little bit of Alternate History.
Anyhow, due to a variety of factors (including some college acceptances), I have the father of our country on the brain. George Washington was, in many ways, the quintessential American. He was an uncouth gentleman (by British standards, at least), a rugged frontiersman, a hardened warrior, and a charismatic leader. Washington's favorite place to be was Mount Vernon, his estate in northern Virginia, away from the hustle and bustle. But the taxes the British imposed on the goods he bought - and sold - spurred him into action in the Revolutionary War. Washington was a major figure in American politics and the young American military, as the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army and one of Virginia's delegates to the Continental Congresses. Washington suppressed a mutiny following the war's end, was present as the Constitution was framed (he was made president of the Convention), and was elected the first President of the United States by one of the largest margins of victory in the nation's history. In fact, George Washington is the only man in American history to receive 100% of all the electoral votes. He's certainly deserving of the title "Father of our Country" and worthy of the continued admiration and respect of his countrymen.
But he very nearly wasn't.
As a younger man, as we all know, George Washington served in the Virginia Militia in the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War). Essentially, he was a British soldier. He served in the Ohio River Valley, first delivering messages to the French, then fighting them and their native allies. A few black marks on his record, including an incident of friendly fire, led him to resign his commission. This was a sore point for him, as he'd yearned for a high-ranking position in the British Army from a young age. But his disciplinarian approach to leadership and his natural authority on the battlefield could have scored him that commission, were it not for the several mistakes he'd made in the past. If the British regiment that exchanged fire with Washington's men hadn't been in the same place at the same time, his reputation may have been saved - or rather, his reputation may not have fallen in the first place. George Washington, the American hero, might have become a general in the British Army. If that was the case, George Washington's name would only be spoken - only be remembered - as a man who led British forces against the Americans in the battles of the Revolution. If the British had won, he probably would have been Lord Washington, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
As much as I admire and respect Washington, I don't think he was vital in our gaining independence. There were plenty of other individuals, in the political sphere and the military, who were just as influential in our victory as Washington. Victory may have taken longer without Washington, and it may have taken a different road, but I believe victory would eventually have come. This Alternate History situation isn't one where the United States doesn't exist - it's one in which the United States as we know it today is different altogether. Let's start with the constitution, the convention for which Washington presided over. I can't say for certain, but I think that many of the President's powers were delegated with Washington in mind. Commander-in-chief of the military, eh? That would throw a wrench in...well, just about every American war in the last half-century. Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan, the campaign against ISIS...this may sound like a bit of a stretch, but is it? Without Washington, who's to say how the convention might have gone? The constitution probably would have been completely different. And given that the Constitution governs the land, America would be completely different as well. Maybe the Civil War would have played out differently. Maybe our expansion would have taken a different path. Maybe we never would have gotten involved in the War of 1812, or World War One, or any of the other wars. Maybe American history would be an entirely different story of entirely different wars and entirely different events. Without Washington to set the precedent for the presidency, the Oval Office would be a radically different place. Presidents would have less power, as would the federal government. Many elements of the unwritten constitution wouldn't have been recognized without Washington. The America we know today would look very different.
One last note - what would our capital be? Would it be in the same place, with a different name? Or would it be in Philadelphia or New York? It's odd, but that question is the one that bugs me the most.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
The World This Week: Drones
As many of you are undoubtedly aware, I attended a Model United Nations conference in Washington over the weekend. DC's a great town, of course - I had a memorable trip by all accounts. I spent two hours hunting in vain for an F4U Corsair at the Air and Space Museum on Friday (apparently, the Corsair is at their Virginia site), and even though it snowed and sleeted then, it was sixty degrees last night. I haven't walked around comfortably in short sleeves in so long...I'd almost forgotten what it felt like. There were schools from across the nation and groups from South Africa, Panama, Greece, and Gambia. Unfortunately, I think I may have picked up some sort of bug in the hotel - I'm feeling rather under the weather at the moment. But the real highlight of the trip, of course, was the conference itself. I represented the nation of Zimbabwe on the Committee for Disarmament and International Security (DISEC), and the primary topic of discussion was the use of drones. Specifically, the use of drones by three nations in particular, two of them being the United Kingdom and Israel. You can guess which country completes this trio. As is usual for me at Model UN conferences, I got into the role - this, of course, put me at odds with the land of the free. This conference served to give me a great deal of insight into the strife between the western powers and the developing nations of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Drones, more technically referred to as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have been in use for some time. The earliest UAVs were balloons laden with explosives utilized by the Austrians in the 19th Century. For much of the 20th Century, drones that would be more easily recognizable by today's standards were seen as the expensive, unreliable toys of wealthy nations. This changed in the eighties, when the Israeli Air Force used surveillance and decoy drones alongside fighters to crush their Syrian counterparts in the field (or rather, the sky) of battle. In the years since 9/11, UAVs have been used for surveillance (one was several thousand feet over Bin Laden's compound, for instance) and to conduct strikes on suspected terrorists. The issue is that drone strikes often fail to acquire their intended targets. And when this occurs, civilians are too often caught in the crossfire. In nations such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, where drone strikes are prevalent, civilians of all ages report to being terrified of the instances. Many nations view the use of drones in their airspace as a violation of their sovereignty. The US has hardly let up on its use of drones during Obama's presidency - if anything, the number of strikes (reported strikes, at least) has increased. To be fair, the media tends to publicize drone strikes that went awry more than they do drone strikes that went according to plan. At the same time, I think we can all agree that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes is unacceptable. Different sources claim that different portions of the casualties are civilians. But perhaps the most questionable aspect of the drones is the definition of 'militants' killed in strikes. 'Militants' are defined as all males from the ages of 16 to 45. If your gender and your age match up, they can take you down, with no questions asked. It's frightening, it goes against due process, and it removes pilots from the equation.
I think we can all agree that drones are, objectively, one of the most terrifying things in the world today. You could be sitting in your living room, watching the TV or reading a book, and suddenly you could be shot full of shrapnel, without even a hint of warning. If drones are ever used against us, that would be the reality. These UAVs are absolutely petrifying, and part of it is because they remove human thought from the direct process. We don't make a big deal out of things when our Air Force pilots misplace a payload or accidentally launch missiles into populated areas, and there are two reasons why. One: our pilots are so well-trained and the technology of the weapons is so advanced, such instances almost never occur. I can't even name any instance from the past ten years of Air Force pilots bombing civilians off the top of my head. The most recent example I can think of off the top of my head would be the bombings of Baghdad in both Gulf Wars, and in both cases, military bases and governmental structures were the intended targets of the pilots' strikes. And, as previously stated, they usually hit those targets. In my Model UN debate, the delegation representing the United States proposed measures to improve the technology of drones, and to train specialized drone pilots. While I disagreed with that in the context of the debate (Zimbabwe and many other developing nations feel that drones violate their airspace), I agree with it on a personal level. UAVs represent our best efforts to remove humans from bombings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhR4ZhGOEw). Drone pilots are only connected to the battlefield through video cameras. They don't take off in the drones, or land in them. Personally, my vote would be for drones that simulate a cockpit for their pilots, once we have that technology at our disposal. It may seem far-fetched at this point, but give it ten or fifteen years...that aside, I just don't trust artificial intelligence. There are undoubtedly some people (there were in my MUN conference) who will advocate to remove pilots from the scenario altogether. I don't trust that. I don't trust some computer algorithm to decide the fates of individuals across the globe. While drones aren't inherently any worse than combat aircraft, they have the potential to become considerably worse. We can't be factoring pilots out of the UAV equation...we have to factor them back in.
Drones, more technically referred to as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have been in use for some time. The earliest UAVs were balloons laden with explosives utilized by the Austrians in the 19th Century. For much of the 20th Century, drones that would be more easily recognizable by today's standards were seen as the expensive, unreliable toys of wealthy nations. This changed in the eighties, when the Israeli Air Force used surveillance and decoy drones alongside fighters to crush their Syrian counterparts in the field (or rather, the sky) of battle. In the years since 9/11, UAVs have been used for surveillance (one was several thousand feet over Bin Laden's compound, for instance) and to conduct strikes on suspected terrorists. The issue is that drone strikes often fail to acquire their intended targets. And when this occurs, civilians are too often caught in the crossfire. In nations such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, where drone strikes are prevalent, civilians of all ages report to being terrified of the instances. Many nations view the use of drones in their airspace as a violation of their sovereignty. The US has hardly let up on its use of drones during Obama's presidency - if anything, the number of strikes (reported strikes, at least) has increased. To be fair, the media tends to publicize drone strikes that went awry more than they do drone strikes that went according to plan. At the same time, I think we can all agree that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes is unacceptable. Different sources claim that different portions of the casualties are civilians. But perhaps the most questionable aspect of the drones is the definition of 'militants' killed in strikes. 'Militants' are defined as all males from the ages of 16 to 45. If your gender and your age match up, they can take you down, with no questions asked. It's frightening, it goes against due process, and it removes pilots from the equation.
I think we can all agree that drones are, objectively, one of the most terrifying things in the world today. You could be sitting in your living room, watching the TV or reading a book, and suddenly you could be shot full of shrapnel, without even a hint of warning. If drones are ever used against us, that would be the reality. These UAVs are absolutely petrifying, and part of it is because they remove human thought from the direct process. We don't make a big deal out of things when our Air Force pilots misplace a payload or accidentally launch missiles into populated areas, and there are two reasons why. One: our pilots are so well-trained and the technology of the weapons is so advanced, such instances almost never occur. I can't even name any instance from the past ten years of Air Force pilots bombing civilians off the top of my head. The most recent example I can think of off the top of my head would be the bombings of Baghdad in both Gulf Wars, and in both cases, military bases and governmental structures were the intended targets of the pilots' strikes. And, as previously stated, they usually hit those targets. In my Model UN debate, the delegation representing the United States proposed measures to improve the technology of drones, and to train specialized drone pilots. While I disagreed with that in the context of the debate (Zimbabwe and many other developing nations feel that drones violate their airspace), I agree with it on a personal level. UAVs represent our best efforts to remove humans from bombings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNhR4ZhGOEw). Drone pilots are only connected to the battlefield through video cameras. They don't take off in the drones, or land in them. Personally, my vote would be for drones that simulate a cockpit for their pilots, once we have that technology at our disposal. It may seem far-fetched at this point, but give it ten or fifteen years...that aside, I just don't trust artificial intelligence. There are undoubtedly some people (there were in my MUN conference) who will advocate to remove pilots from the scenario altogether. I don't trust that. I don't trust some computer algorithm to decide the fates of individuals across the globe. While drones aren't inherently any worse than combat aircraft, they have the potential to become considerably worse. We can't be factoring pilots out of the UAV equation...we have to factor them back in.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
The US This Week: "The Mess"
This week's topic could really be this month's topic, and it's a doozy. In this post's title, I referred to it as "The Mess." I figured that "Israel, Iran, and the Different Branches of the Federal Government" was a bit too long of a title. And that is what this situation boils down to, in essence. These past weeks have highlighted the partisan divide when it comes to foreign policy, and it's very difficult for anybody to speak of this matter in an objective manner. Most people aren't trying to be objective, though...and I'll be doing my best.
The mess started a few weeks ago, when Congress - and by Congress, I mean Congress's Republican majority - invited Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, to speak before a joint session of the two houses. Why? To offer his take on the negotiations with Iran, on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. "We've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," Netanyahu said in his speech. "Well, this is a bad deal." Of course, Netanyahu is biased on the matter, given the insignificant fact that many Iranians would like to see Israel blotted off the map. In the past, the relationship between Israel and Iran was a neutral - even positive at times - one, but the two countries have been increasingly hostile ever since the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970's, which marks the period where Iran's relationship with the United States took a drastic turn for the worse. Iran's last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was vehemently anti-American and a huge supporter of his country's nuclear program. Iran's current leader, Hassan Rouhani, was initially thought to be more moderate than his predecessor. I think many of us would agree that he is, but not by very much. Rouhani is more of a diplomat than a warmonger, by all accounts - but that doesn't mean he's our friend. Under Rouhani, Iran has bulked up its military capacity. He views the United States as a global bully that needs to be defeated in the diplomatic battlefield. And Congressional Republicans and their constituents think that Obama's negotiations with Iran are the equivalent of a surrender.
Netanyahu's speech is only the beginning of the congressional Republicans' self-appointed battle with Iran. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) drafted a letter to Iran, a letter signed by 47 of the senate's 54 Republicans. The letter essentially stated that any agreement Obama made with Iran could be nullified by his successor, or the Congress. The Senate, as we all know, has the constitutional authority to ratify or nullify treaties. Undoubtedly, many will argue that an arms agreement is a form of a treaty - with justification, I would say. The framers and the founding fathers would certainly have seen any such action of the sort as a treaty. And if it hasn't dawned on you by now, Cotton is virtually nothing like Arkansas's most famous son. He served as a Captain in the 101st Airborne in Iraq and Afghanistan. His views on Guantanamo Bay are that it has only one issue: too few inmates. Cotton's critics quip that the Senate's first veteran of the War on Terror believes that the US is already at war with Iran. Perhaps they have a point, but here's the catch - doesn't Iran believe that it's already at war with the US? Rouhani referred to the diplomatic "war" with the US as a form of Jihad. Iran has bulked up its military considerably in the past few years. It is, for all intents and purposes, a military power. Among the only things the Islamic Republic lacks, at this stage, are nuclear weapons.
The partisan divide is fully in play here. The Democrats want to make peace with the rising power of the Middle East, even if it means risking the chance that Iran may develop nuclear weapons. The Republicans have no intention of letting Iran develop nuclear anything, even if it means coming across as the bully Iran thinks we are. Democrats think Republicans acted appallingly by warning Iran that Obama's actions in forming a compromise can be refuted. Republicans think that Democrats are going Chamberlain's way and trying to appease a hostile rising power. It's left versus right, compromise versus strength, appeasement versus tenacity.
So where do I stand on all of this? Before I discuss that matter, let's examine two key points: what do we stand to gain from any compromise with Iran? And what do we stand to gain from forcing it into submission? Well, each one has its pros and cons, the pros of one being related to the cons of the other. If we compromise with Iran, we can boost our credibility in the Middle East as something more than an oppressor from overseas. If we refuse to compromise, that credibility will decrease (or remain the same). But if we do choose to compromise, we risk the possibility that Iran, a nation which is extremely hostile to us (and even more so to our closest ally in the region, Israel), will develop nuclear weapons. If we refuse to compromise and clamp down on Iran, we can eliminate that chance before it's even born. At the end of the day, the individual's take on the matter should boil down to whether or not they think Iran can be trusted not to use their nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction. And I do not trust Iran at all. I don't trust Rouhani, and I've already asserted that he's one of Iran's more moderate leaders. What would happen if a man of Ahmadinejad's ilk comes to power in Iran in the next few years, with their nuclear program in full swing? Any compromise will leave Iran's nuclear program open, and give them the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. And in my eyes, that risk is unacceptable. I believe we can all recall what happened the last time the US had probable cause to believe a hostile Middle Eastern nation had WMDs. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have never been on friendly terms (I would hardly consider Iran-Contras "friendly"). And hey - we are a superpower. We crushed the Empire of Japan, signed Nazi Germany's death warrant, founded the United Nations, relinquished much of our empire, and protected the world. For a time, at least. We've had dark splotches, of course, and plenty of them -Vietnam, Cuba, and our economic imperialism in South America come to mind. But in recent years, we've made an effort to do what's right. We routed Saddam Hussein's army to free Kuwait from his tyranny, liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, and routed Saddam Hussein's army again. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, the dark splotches persisted here - the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban's continued resistance cost America and the nations of the Middle East dearly, and the removal of Saddam paved the route for ISIS. It's a screwed-up world we live in, and we've plenty some of the screwing. But we are still the most powerful nation in this screwed-up world, and that doesn't mean nothing. We ultimately don't have to compromise with Iran at all. Through economic and political actions, we can force them into submission. Is it bullying? Absolutely. Is it imperialistic? Arguably. But will it make the world a safer place for the people who call it home? Almost definitely. It will cost no American or Iranian lives, and not too much money - we have other trading partners, should we implement sanctions on Iran, as do they. Western sanctions would hurt them, but they wouldn't cripple or kill. Many Iranians already hate us. Giving in won't make the Iranian people as a group like us - in most cases, it will only hurt us. The Nazi regime gloated as the nations of Western Europe bowed to their desires. Why should we believe Iran, a nation with plenty of human rights violations under its belt, would behave differently?
That entire paragraph essentially boils down to this one point: I don't trust Iran in its current state with its current leadership, and I see no reason for the US to compromise with it. It's a big gamble for us, and we stand to gain very little. In my eyes, the risks far outweigh the potential rewards.
The mess started a few weeks ago, when Congress - and by Congress, I mean Congress's Republican majority - invited Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, to speak before a joint session of the two houses. Why? To offer his take on the negotiations with Iran, on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. "We've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," Netanyahu said in his speech. "Well, this is a bad deal." Of course, Netanyahu is biased on the matter, given the insignificant fact that many Iranians would like to see Israel blotted off the map. In the past, the relationship between Israel and Iran was a neutral - even positive at times - one, but the two countries have been increasingly hostile ever since the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970's, which marks the period where Iran's relationship with the United States took a drastic turn for the worse. Iran's last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was vehemently anti-American and a huge supporter of his country's nuclear program. Iran's current leader, Hassan Rouhani, was initially thought to be more moderate than his predecessor. I think many of us would agree that he is, but not by very much. Rouhani is more of a diplomat than a warmonger, by all accounts - but that doesn't mean he's our friend. Under Rouhani, Iran has bulked up its military capacity. He views the United States as a global bully that needs to be defeated in the diplomatic battlefield. And Congressional Republicans and their constituents think that Obama's negotiations with Iran are the equivalent of a surrender.
Netanyahu's speech is only the beginning of the congressional Republicans' self-appointed battle with Iran. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) drafted a letter to Iran, a letter signed by 47 of the senate's 54 Republicans. The letter essentially stated that any agreement Obama made with Iran could be nullified by his successor, or the Congress. The Senate, as we all know, has the constitutional authority to ratify or nullify treaties. Undoubtedly, many will argue that an arms agreement is a form of a treaty - with justification, I would say. The framers and the founding fathers would certainly have seen any such action of the sort as a treaty. And if it hasn't dawned on you by now, Cotton is virtually nothing like Arkansas's most famous son. He served as a Captain in the 101st Airborne in Iraq and Afghanistan. His views on Guantanamo Bay are that it has only one issue: too few inmates. Cotton's critics quip that the Senate's first veteran of the War on Terror believes that the US is already at war with Iran. Perhaps they have a point, but here's the catch - doesn't Iran believe that it's already at war with the US? Rouhani referred to the diplomatic "war" with the US as a form of Jihad. Iran has bulked up its military considerably in the past few years. It is, for all intents and purposes, a military power. Among the only things the Islamic Republic lacks, at this stage, are nuclear weapons.
The partisan divide is fully in play here. The Democrats want to make peace with the rising power of the Middle East, even if it means risking the chance that Iran may develop nuclear weapons. The Republicans have no intention of letting Iran develop nuclear anything, even if it means coming across as the bully Iran thinks we are. Democrats think Republicans acted appallingly by warning Iran that Obama's actions in forming a compromise can be refuted. Republicans think that Democrats are going Chamberlain's way and trying to appease a hostile rising power. It's left versus right, compromise versus strength, appeasement versus tenacity.
So where do I stand on all of this? Before I discuss that matter, let's examine two key points: what do we stand to gain from any compromise with Iran? And what do we stand to gain from forcing it into submission? Well, each one has its pros and cons, the pros of one being related to the cons of the other. If we compromise with Iran, we can boost our credibility in the Middle East as something more than an oppressor from overseas. If we refuse to compromise, that credibility will decrease (or remain the same). But if we do choose to compromise, we risk the possibility that Iran, a nation which is extremely hostile to us (and even more so to our closest ally in the region, Israel), will develop nuclear weapons. If we refuse to compromise and clamp down on Iran, we can eliminate that chance before it's even born. At the end of the day, the individual's take on the matter should boil down to whether or not they think Iran can be trusted not to use their nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction. And I do not trust Iran at all. I don't trust Rouhani, and I've already asserted that he's one of Iran's more moderate leaders. What would happen if a man of Ahmadinejad's ilk comes to power in Iran in the next few years, with their nuclear program in full swing? Any compromise will leave Iran's nuclear program open, and give them the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. And in my eyes, that risk is unacceptable. I believe we can all recall what happened the last time the US had probable cause to believe a hostile Middle Eastern nation had WMDs. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have never been on friendly terms (I would hardly consider Iran-Contras "friendly"). And hey - we are a superpower. We crushed the Empire of Japan, signed Nazi Germany's death warrant, founded the United Nations, relinquished much of our empire, and protected the world. For a time, at least. We've had dark splotches, of course, and plenty of them -Vietnam, Cuba, and our economic imperialism in South America come to mind. But in recent years, we've made an effort to do what's right. We routed Saddam Hussein's army to free Kuwait from his tyranny, liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, and routed Saddam Hussein's army again. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, the dark splotches persisted here - the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban's continued resistance cost America and the nations of the Middle East dearly, and the removal of Saddam paved the route for ISIS. It's a screwed-up world we live in, and we've plenty some of the screwing. But we are still the most powerful nation in this screwed-up world, and that doesn't mean nothing. We ultimately don't have to compromise with Iran at all. Through economic and political actions, we can force them into submission. Is it bullying? Absolutely. Is it imperialistic? Arguably. But will it make the world a safer place for the people who call it home? Almost definitely. It will cost no American or Iranian lives, and not too much money - we have other trading partners, should we implement sanctions on Iran, as do they. Western sanctions would hurt them, but they wouldn't cripple or kill. Many Iranians already hate us. Giving in won't make the Iranian people as a group like us - in most cases, it will only hurt us. The Nazi regime gloated as the nations of Western Europe bowed to their desires. Why should we believe Iran, a nation with plenty of human rights violations under its belt, would behave differently?
That entire paragraph essentially boils down to this one point: I don't trust Iran in its current state with its current leadership, and I see no reason for the US to compromise with it. It's a big gamble for us, and we stand to gain very little. In my eyes, the risks far outweigh the potential rewards.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Weird History: Stalin's Death
Last week, while discussing the death of Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of the Russian opposition, I made reference to the peculiar circumstances of Joseph Stalin's death, without going into specifics. Now, true to my word, I'll do my best to illuminate the circumstances surrounding Stalin's death, and the string of events that occurred in the months, weeks, and years beforehand.
What many people don't realize is that Churchill's plan was warranted. If you don't know what Churchill's plan was...Churchill wanted to keep the Nazis' military machine intact after the war and defend western Europe from the Soviets - possibly even invading Russia. And what we know of Stalin's intentions vindicates Churchill - the Soviet leader had every intention of turning all of western Europe into his own personal bloc. His entreaties towards de Gaulle, among other actions, serve as evidence of this. Knowing that Roosevelt was soft on communism, Stalin planned to walk all over the American president and have him hold Churchill back. In fact, when Roosevelt passed, Stalin was certain that the president had been assassinated by anti-communists and had Russian intelligence officials do their utmost to investigate the circumstances of FDR's death. Harry Truman was not so soft on communism, and refused to budge to the Soviet regime. It was under Truman's leadership that the US would airlift supplies into Soviet-blockaded Berlin and lead a UN coalition into Korea. This is the side of history everybody knows. What many people don't know is what was going on behind the Iron Curtain as these events transpired, and more specifically, what was going on in the heads of Joseph Stalin and some of his closest confidants, including one Ukrainian named Nikita Khrushchev.
Here's where things get twisted: Stalin wanted to start World War Three. He wanted to finish what he'd started in the early to mid-'40's and conquer western Europe, forcing the United States into submission. And what's more disturbing, Stalin was beginning to increasingly resemble one of his allies-turned-foes. Not Churchill or Truman, no. Stalin, in his later years, was taking actions that would have made Adolf Hitler quite happy. Stalin was, to put it mildly, an anti-Semitic. To put it more accurately, his brand of anti-Semitism would not have been out-of-place in Nazi Germany. In the late '40's and early '50's, Stalin was plotting to deport all Soviet Jews to the gulags of Siberia. He had many Jewish and non-Jewish physicians arrested as well. His paranoia increased as time went on, and he arrested his own doctors for suggesting he relax a bit. His health declined throughout the early '50's, which brings us to the first few days of March '53. Stalin was in his Kuntsevo dacha (vacation house). One night, though, he went silent. After almost an entire day, staff and guards entered Stalin's quarters, and found the dictator semi-conscious in a puddle of his own urine. The guards called Stalin's inner circle, a number that included Khrushchev, and they made their way out to Kuntsevo - hardly rushing to their comrade's side, I might add. Since his own physicians had been arrested, the inner circle sent out for a doctor. I might add that the accounts I've seen don't make their requests seem rushed or urgent.
Stalin died on the evening of March 5th, 1953. In the immediate aftermath, his inner circle publicly praised their late Secretary General. In private, though, many of them confessed their relief at Stalin's death. Most of them had been petrified of him. Whereas Hitler had been adored by his lackeys, Stalin ruled over his subordinates like the tyrant he was. Stalin's autopsy lists the cause of death as suffocation following a stroke (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2292123/Stalin-died-natural-causes-Autopsy-published-time-says-Soviet-leader-suffocated-suffering-stroke.html). But I still think some on Stalin's inner circle were involved in the death. At the very least, they weren't doing their utmost to pull Stalin back from the brink of death. I would say Khrushchev and his fellows let Stalin die, if they weren't involved directly in some sort of plot. It's entirely possible that they slipped something into Stalin's wine at some point. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trust any document coming out of the Soviet Union, not even an official autopsy. I'm not sure if the Soviet regime would censor sensitive details in the autopsies of the people it executed, but I would hardly put it past Stalin or Khrushchev to do so. Practically entire country lived in fear of Stalin. Perhaps the doctors were involved in some sort of a cover up, and Stalin died of poisoning. Or perhaps Stalin simply had a stroke, and his comrades simply did their utmost to let him die. I'm hardly a conspiracy theorist - I'm not going to say there's no way that Stalin died of natural causes. In fact, it's quite likely that he did die of natural causes. But we have no way of being certain. At any rate, Khrushchev was not sorry to see Stalin die. Khrushchev had no interest in going to war with the West, and he was hardly a fan of his predecessor. This makes me suspect Khrushchev may have tried to speed up his leader's inevitable passing.
What many people don't realize is that Churchill's plan was warranted. If you don't know what Churchill's plan was...Churchill wanted to keep the Nazis' military machine intact after the war and defend western Europe from the Soviets - possibly even invading Russia. And what we know of Stalin's intentions vindicates Churchill - the Soviet leader had every intention of turning all of western Europe into his own personal bloc. His entreaties towards de Gaulle, among other actions, serve as evidence of this. Knowing that Roosevelt was soft on communism, Stalin planned to walk all over the American president and have him hold Churchill back. In fact, when Roosevelt passed, Stalin was certain that the president had been assassinated by anti-communists and had Russian intelligence officials do their utmost to investigate the circumstances of FDR's death. Harry Truman was not so soft on communism, and refused to budge to the Soviet regime. It was under Truman's leadership that the US would airlift supplies into Soviet-blockaded Berlin and lead a UN coalition into Korea. This is the side of history everybody knows. What many people don't know is what was going on behind the Iron Curtain as these events transpired, and more specifically, what was going on in the heads of Joseph Stalin and some of his closest confidants, including one Ukrainian named Nikita Khrushchev.
Here's where things get twisted: Stalin wanted to start World War Three. He wanted to finish what he'd started in the early to mid-'40's and conquer western Europe, forcing the United States into submission. And what's more disturbing, Stalin was beginning to increasingly resemble one of his allies-turned-foes. Not Churchill or Truman, no. Stalin, in his later years, was taking actions that would have made Adolf Hitler quite happy. Stalin was, to put it mildly, an anti-Semitic. To put it more accurately, his brand of anti-Semitism would not have been out-of-place in Nazi Germany. In the late '40's and early '50's, Stalin was plotting to deport all Soviet Jews to the gulags of Siberia. He had many Jewish and non-Jewish physicians arrested as well. His paranoia increased as time went on, and he arrested his own doctors for suggesting he relax a bit. His health declined throughout the early '50's, which brings us to the first few days of March '53. Stalin was in his Kuntsevo dacha (vacation house). One night, though, he went silent. After almost an entire day, staff and guards entered Stalin's quarters, and found the dictator semi-conscious in a puddle of his own urine. The guards called Stalin's inner circle, a number that included Khrushchev, and they made their way out to Kuntsevo - hardly rushing to their comrade's side, I might add. Since his own physicians had been arrested, the inner circle sent out for a doctor. I might add that the accounts I've seen don't make their requests seem rushed or urgent.
Stalin died on the evening of March 5th, 1953. In the immediate aftermath, his inner circle publicly praised their late Secretary General. In private, though, many of them confessed their relief at Stalin's death. Most of them had been petrified of him. Whereas Hitler had been adored by his lackeys, Stalin ruled over his subordinates like the tyrant he was. Stalin's autopsy lists the cause of death as suffocation following a stroke (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2292123/Stalin-died-natural-causes-Autopsy-published-time-says-Soviet-leader-suffocated-suffering-stroke.html). But I still think some on Stalin's inner circle were involved in the death. At the very least, they weren't doing their utmost to pull Stalin back from the brink of death. I would say Khrushchev and his fellows let Stalin die, if they weren't involved directly in some sort of plot. It's entirely possible that they slipped something into Stalin's wine at some point. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trust any document coming out of the Soviet Union, not even an official autopsy. I'm not sure if the Soviet regime would censor sensitive details in the autopsies of the people it executed, but I would hardly put it past Stalin or Khrushchev to do so. Practically entire country lived in fear of Stalin. Perhaps the doctors were involved in some sort of a cover up, and Stalin died of poisoning. Or perhaps Stalin simply had a stroke, and his comrades simply did their utmost to let him die. I'm hardly a conspiracy theorist - I'm not going to say there's no way that Stalin died of natural causes. In fact, it's quite likely that he did die of natural causes. But we have no way of being certain. At any rate, Khrushchev was not sorry to see Stalin die. Khrushchev had no interest in going to war with the West, and he was hardly a fan of his predecessor. This makes me suspect Khrushchev may have tried to speed up his leader's inevitable passing.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
The World This Week: Boris Nemtsov
Oh, Russia, you've done it again.
In spite of the best efforts of a few individuals, the Russian Federation hasn't come very far since the days of Stalin. Putin's Russia is a land-grabbing, backwards, politically incorrect, oppressive place with economic woes out the wazoo. One of the few things to be said for it was that people didn't vanish in the middle of the night, and political players who opposed the leader didn't turn up dead. Now, we may not even be able to give the Russians credit for that.
A murder was committed in Russia this past week. Normally, this wouldn't be headline news - murders are committed everywhere in the world all the time, and nobody assumes that they'll cause Stalin to rise from the grave and start a third world war. But three things make this case particularly important: the man who was killed, the manner in which he was killed, and just where he was killed. The victim of the murder was Boris Nemtsov, a leader in the Russian opposition (those individuals opposed to Putin's regime) and a well-known critic of his president. He was one of the heads of Russia's Republican Party (yes, in Russia, Republicans are liberal), and had been arrested previously for speaking against Putin and the Russian government. That's normal, standard stuff over in Russia, as it has been throughout the country's history. He was gunned down in a drive-by shooting, and the perpetrators are unknown. But to many across the globe, particularly the Russian opposition, one factor makes it plain who the culprit is. That factor, of course, is the proximity of Nemtsov's murder to one of the most secure places in all of Russia - the Kremlin itself. Nemtsov was shot down on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, less than a mile from the Kremlin's walls. The Kremlin, of course, is Putin's official residence, and one of the most heavily-guarded areas in Russia. In short, a political opponent of Vladimir Putin's was gunned down by unknown assailants within sight of Red Square. The circumstances are suspicious, to say the least.
This isn't to say that we should automatically point the finger at Putin, of course. There is no official evidence linking the killings to the government at all - this is all conjecture. Nemtsov's death has rallied the Russian opposition, which is hardly in Putin's best interests. Vladimir Putin has struck me as many things over the years, but he's never struck me as a fool. Putin doesn't command the same fear of his people that Stalin did - nobody had the guts to stand up to Stalin, and if they did, they died on the spot. I don't think Putin's about to order the execution of the millions of people involved in the Russian opposition. This could be the spark that destroys his ultra-conservative government, and he probably knows that. Just as the Charlie Hebdo shootings sparked waves of marches and encouraged free speech in western Europe, the assassination of Nemtsov is certain to galvanize the Russian opposition and give their movement much more weight, now and in the future. The license plate on a car suspected to have been involved in the shooting was traced to one of Russia's Caucasian border provinces, not far from Georgia and Chechnya. It's not out of the question that an Islamic extremist may have silenced Nemtsov, who was Jewish. It's also not impossible that the opposition killed Nemtsov to make a martyr out of him and frame Putin's government. It seems unlikely, but far stranger things have happened in the history of Russian politics. Just look at Rasputin's influence on the last Tsarina and the mysterious circumstances surrounding Stalin's death (I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet five dollars that Khrushchev had a hand - more on that next time). Of course, it's entirely possible that all this is evidence that Putin is responsible. Reverse psychology is very real in the political world. The "I stand to gain nothing for this" could be a logical ruse to throw people off Putin's trail. The license plate on the car found could just be another clever ploy. Putin's quite capable of being devious, sly, and downright sinister. The point is, we don't know. At any rate, Putin's launching an investigation with his own people and offering a three-million-ruble award (over $60K) for information leading to the apprehension of culprits. The Russian president joined world leaders in announcing the crime, but unlike many of those leaders, he isn't hinting that he believes Putin was responsible. As with so many things these days, we'll just have to wait and see.
Once again, the rest of the world is being decent enough to remind us that things aren't all that bad stateside. We live in a nation where Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Reince Priebus (the chairs of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, respectively) can go out, get a cup of coffee, and voice their opinions about people with political power without having to worry about being shot dead in the street. And we, as American citizens, have that right as well. Maybe we aren't the best country in the world when it comes to this sort of thing, but we're miles away from being the worst.
In spite of the best efforts of a few individuals, the Russian Federation hasn't come very far since the days of Stalin. Putin's Russia is a land-grabbing, backwards, politically incorrect, oppressive place with economic woes out the wazoo. One of the few things to be said for it was that people didn't vanish in the middle of the night, and political players who opposed the leader didn't turn up dead. Now, we may not even be able to give the Russians credit for that.
A murder was committed in Russia this past week. Normally, this wouldn't be headline news - murders are committed everywhere in the world all the time, and nobody assumes that they'll cause Stalin to rise from the grave and start a third world war. But three things make this case particularly important: the man who was killed, the manner in which he was killed, and just where he was killed. The victim of the murder was Boris Nemtsov, a leader in the Russian opposition (those individuals opposed to Putin's regime) and a well-known critic of his president. He was one of the heads of Russia's Republican Party (yes, in Russia, Republicans are liberal), and had been arrested previously for speaking against Putin and the Russian government. That's normal, standard stuff over in Russia, as it has been throughout the country's history. He was gunned down in a drive-by shooting, and the perpetrators are unknown. But to many across the globe, particularly the Russian opposition, one factor makes it plain who the culprit is. That factor, of course, is the proximity of Nemtsov's murder to one of the most secure places in all of Russia - the Kremlin itself. Nemtsov was shot down on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, less than a mile from the Kremlin's walls. The Kremlin, of course, is Putin's official residence, and one of the most heavily-guarded areas in Russia. In short, a political opponent of Vladimir Putin's was gunned down by unknown assailants within sight of Red Square. The circumstances are suspicious, to say the least.
This isn't to say that we should automatically point the finger at Putin, of course. There is no official evidence linking the killings to the government at all - this is all conjecture. Nemtsov's death has rallied the Russian opposition, which is hardly in Putin's best interests. Vladimir Putin has struck me as many things over the years, but he's never struck me as a fool. Putin doesn't command the same fear of his people that Stalin did - nobody had the guts to stand up to Stalin, and if they did, they died on the spot. I don't think Putin's about to order the execution of the millions of people involved in the Russian opposition. This could be the spark that destroys his ultra-conservative government, and he probably knows that. Just as the Charlie Hebdo shootings sparked waves of marches and encouraged free speech in western Europe, the assassination of Nemtsov is certain to galvanize the Russian opposition and give their movement much more weight, now and in the future. The license plate on a car suspected to have been involved in the shooting was traced to one of Russia's Caucasian border provinces, not far from Georgia and Chechnya. It's not out of the question that an Islamic extremist may have silenced Nemtsov, who was Jewish. It's also not impossible that the opposition killed Nemtsov to make a martyr out of him and frame Putin's government. It seems unlikely, but far stranger things have happened in the history of Russian politics. Just look at Rasputin's influence on the last Tsarina and the mysterious circumstances surrounding Stalin's death (I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet five dollars that Khrushchev had a hand - more on that next time). Of course, it's entirely possible that all this is evidence that Putin is responsible. Reverse psychology is very real in the political world. The "I stand to gain nothing for this" could be a logical ruse to throw people off Putin's trail. The license plate on the car found could just be another clever ploy. Putin's quite capable of being devious, sly, and downright sinister. The point is, we don't know. At any rate, Putin's launching an investigation with his own people and offering a three-million-ruble award (over $60K) for information leading to the apprehension of culprits. The Russian president joined world leaders in announcing the crime, but unlike many of those leaders, he isn't hinting that he believes Putin was responsible. As with so many things these days, we'll just have to wait and see.
Once again, the rest of the world is being decent enough to remind us that things aren't all that bad stateside. We live in a nation where Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Reince Priebus (the chairs of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, respectively) can go out, get a cup of coffee, and voice their opinions about people with political power without having to worry about being shot dead in the street. And we, as American citizens, have that right as well. Maybe we aren't the best country in the world when it comes to this sort of thing, but we're miles away from being the worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)