Skip to main content

View Diary: Charles Krauthammer compares Obama budget proposal to Civil War surrender terms at Appomattox (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the most favorable terms ever given to losers? (3+ / 0-)

    I suppose Krauthammer's analogy is accurate considering that the entire Confederate leadership wasn't summarily hanged (under martial law) for high treason, that the plantation owners (for whom the war was waged in the first place) were not dispossessed of their land which merely turned the freed slaves into tenant farmers and sharecroppers, that Reconstruction lasted only 14 years before it was severely weakened - by a Southern president of the USA!? - and eventually discontinued, and given subsequent history did little or nothing to change the fundamental nature of Southern society.

    Usually when you win you act like it, pressing your advantage, wringing every concession you can get out of your enemy, and ultimately trying to defang him completely or remaking him in your own image.   When you do enough to piss the loser off but not enough to either break them or change them, you end up with an enemy obsessed with settling scores and reclaiming a supposedly glorious past.  That's what happened to Germany after WWI and we all know how that turned out.  I'd argue much the same has happened to the Southern states as a whole: a victory that was not pressed has left us with an enemy itching for Round 2.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:49:39 AM PST

    •  '.. enemy itching for Round 2' (0+ / 0-)

      Neither WW1 'harsh' reparations, nor US's Civil War 'slack' forgiveness succeeded in preventing redo/redux.
      Leaving original oligarchs in power allows them to reenact their original escapades.

      I think WW2 Marshall Plan succeeded by bypassing the losing oligarchy.
      An equivalent might have helped common Southerners to avoid sharecropping fate.

      But precisely bypassing isn't easy. Recall that Wolfowitz was criticized for not co-opting middle management Baathists in Iraq. On the other hand, Baathist bureaucrats  may have been too corrupt to be 'usable'.

    •  What of buying peace versus paying for war? (0+ / 0-)

      What of buying peace versus paying the bills due for war?
      More than 10% of GDP:
      $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $13 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan ... 1952 as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels; for all Marshall Plan recipients, output in 1951 was at least 35% higher than in 1938

      But this, in the context of preventing future wars:
      Japan's recovery is also used as a counter-example, since it experienced rapid growth without any aid whatsoever.[citation needed] Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate and low taxes. Japan saw a large infusion of US investment during the Korean War


      I wonder if Japan's industry was as destroyed as Germany's.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site