Skip to main content

After the German army surrendered in 1918, the so-called stab-in-myth ("dolchstosslegende") arose, to the effect that Germany was sold out to the Allies by the leftists, socialists and Jews.  This of course is traditionally associate with Hitler, who was one its firm believers, but it arose as early as 1919, well before the beginning of the Nazi movement.

Smelly Hippies
     DFH: The real reason why we lost the Vietnam War.
And the whole idea, of finding a "traitor" upon whom to blame a lost war, goes back a long way.  In 1450, for example William de la Pole, a high-ranking commander in the English army, was blamed for the final loss of the English possessions in France and, famously, captured, subjected to an irregular "trial" and beheaded in an open boat as he tried flee England.  It was said that he only realized his fate when he was greeted with the words "Welcome, traitor" upon his capture.  

And in one form or another, the stab-in-the-back myth been with us ever since.  In the 1940s Roosevelt was blamed for "selling out" Poland at the Yalta Conference, and Patrick Buchanan was still hawking this myth as late as 1997, in case there were still a few people around who still held a grudge against FDR. Blaming the liberals, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, and the rest of the DFHs for the loss of the Vietnam war was another example.

SitB is most useful where there's been a defeat in an expensive (in lives and money) foreign war, which ends in defeat or a dubious victory that scarcely seems worth the cost.  

Thus in a domestic war, or a war where the homeland is completely occupied by the invader, the causes of the defeat, typically some combination of overwhelming force of the invader and incompetence on the part of the defender, will be readily apparent to everyone, and the notion of a shadowy cabal of traitors in high places cannot easily take root.  This was one of the considerations which led to FDR insisting on unconditional surrender of Germany in WW2.

And one sees it elsewhere.  For example, Greece had spurned the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres which would have granted Greece substantial territorial concessions within the former Ottoman Empire. Instead, Greece attempted to conquer a good part of what is now western Turkey, which ultimately resulted in a catastrophe for Greek arms, and the consequent loss the lives of some 30,000 Greeks in September, 1922, at Smyrna (whether through massacre or otherwise is still in dispute).  

     "Trial" of the Six: dolchstosslegende in practice.
A few days later the Greek government was overthrown and, in what became known as the Trial of the Six the new regime organized a sham trial and prompt execution of six of the principal leaders of the previous regime, on the supposed grounds that they had been responsible for the disaster.  Of course the leaders of the coup had been deeply involved in the war themselves and probably bore a good chunk of the blame for its loss.

The stab-in-the back myth still has a terrific amount of utility.  Unlike warmongering itself, which can whip up the populace, but which wears out under the pressure of casualties and destructions, dolchstosslegende can be used for decades, with the typical formula being:  

The country was betrayed in the war X years ago, and that's why it's so screwed up today.  Those Y traitors are the same people responsible for the loss of that war.  Vote for Z instead.
The myth is particularly enabled by foreign wars where the fighting and destruction occur outside of the common experience of the people, and the troops return in good order.  We see it again in this hideous Bergdahl affair.

Here for example is David French, writing in the National Review two days ago:

Fewer soldiers understand giving the enemy what it wants for a man who likely betrayed his brothers.

That’s not war. That’s a form of surrender.

And I am sure you may have noted similar lingo from the right wing noise machine.  Among their droogie followers, who lack the prancing nuance of so many of the right wing commentariat, have taken action, as Wonkette notes:
The “Bowe is Back” celebration was shaping up to be a showdown, with protesters bombarding the city with angry phone calls and threatening to flood the tiny Central Idaho town during the annual June event, previously called “Bring Bowe Back
The Bergdahl affair is already starting to run out of steam -- after all, how many times can you call a returning POW a traitor before the shock value starts to wear off.  But there will be other occasions, just as Benghazi presented, for the stab-in-the-back theory to find some application.  
1898 05 26 Major Esterhazy
     Walsin Esterhazy, the real traitor in the
   Cas Dreyfus, went unpunished,
    thanks to anti-semitism.
Or it may take some other form, such as what was presented in French in the Dreyfus Affair, where actual treason was occurring on the French General Staff, but instead of finding the real perpetrator, the decision was made to fix the blame on the only Jew in the command.  

The shoddy thinking and appeals to mob prejudice among the anti-Dreyfusards are replicated these days by Frank Gaffney, Andrew McCarthy, Pamela Geller, and Peter King, to name just a few of those attempting to stir up (and profit from) hatred of Muslims.  

There is some good news, however.  Dolchstosslegende can only prosper in a country that has serious problems and is on the verge of serious and maybe irreparable destruction.  Whether this is a cause of a country's political fall, or a symptom of some deeper social disorder is probably not capable of determination.  

But the social harm is obvious.  We all know the German example.  It's not the only one.  I mentioned the Trial of the Six, which poisoned Greek politics for a long time.  And for the last 40 years the Republicans have blamed everything on the DFH's who yanked us out of Vietnam just before victory was about to be had.

Our country is still very strong, and that strength comes from the basic devotion of the people to fairness, education, and democracy.  Of course there are always the outliers, the Huey Longs, the General Walkers, and the Ted Cruzes, and they may be able to fool some people for a while.  I don't rule out the possibility of short-term harm, as the irrational blinds us, or some of us anyway, to what is true.  But ultimately the haters and the dividers will not prosper, and when they are gone, it will be into the dustbin of history.

Originally posted to Plan 9 from Oregon on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:04 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


What's going to be the next wingnut "outrage" after the Bowe Bergdahl affair runs out of gas?

2%3 votes
28%32 votes
3%4 votes
8%9 votes
56%63 votes

| 111 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hippies lost the Vietnam War? (16+ / 0-)

    I thought we lost in Vietnam because the Viet Cong armed citizenry kicked us out with their privately held firearms.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:19:17 PM PDT

    •  Hippies want you to think that, don't believe them (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, subtropolis, keyscritter

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently the NRA wants us to believe that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis, Cartoon Peril

        I've heard that line of argument used when arguing gun control.

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:28:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  meh. GOP will never (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin, Cartoon Peril

      accept reality.

      English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education - sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street. E. B. White

      by Youffraita on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:33:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  nah, it was us hippies (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, Cartoon Peril, david78209

      we forced the US to fight with one hand tied behind its back and then forced it to surrender to the commies.

      Really, it was us. We worked hard for that -- we even brought down a President (Johnson) over it. I for one am glad to claim some of the credit.

      Of course, the fact that the US was losing badly to a bunch of "ragtag farmers" (who were no such thing, actually) didn't hurt either. Neither did the fact that draftees who didn't want to be there were fragging their officers and/or smoking horrendous amounts of weed instead of fighting the Viet Cong.

  •  I want a Lego VW van (6+ / 0-)

    Green and white, 1968, walk-through front seat.

    Like the one I used to have, sigh.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

    •  heh, I had a 69 green and white 3 row seating (4+ / 0-)

      and just a freakin goat....

      I swear I had that van in places that nowadays I would be scared to take my 4x4....leaning over like it was gonna tip yet it still made it though whatever I threw at it and got me home...from sand to rock to a foot of water......

      I used it to tow a drunk cat out of a huge puddle he had swamped his truck in let him roll and he immediately stalled it in the next puddle/wash crossing.......that time I knew he was drunk and just gave him a shower as I drove past......

      Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
      I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
      Emiliano Zapata

      by buddabelly on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:03:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You left out the most important one for the US (20+ / 0-)

    The Civil War.

    Firstly, according to the South, there never was a Civil War between citizens of the same country. It was the War between the States in their sovereign and independent character when the Confederate States were not part of the United States.

    Secondly, it was Mr. Lincoln's war, in which he tricked Southern hero Gen. Pierre A. T. Beauregard into shooting back first.

    Thirdly, it was the War of Northern Aggression that Lincoln and those N*****-loving Yankee Black Republican Abolitionists had been planning since they nominated Lincoln to run for President.

    Fourthly, Yankees are low-down savage scum, basically Englishmen, and are incapable of honor or decency, while the South is the only true seat of honor, of the Southern Aristocracy descended from the freedom-loving Scots-Irish. (Nobody tell them that the Scots were sent into Ireland by that furriner William of Orange to keep the Catholics down, which is how they became Orangemen.)

    Fifthly, the Confederate Constitution is what the US Constitution was supposed to be, representing the true and original intent of the slaveowning Founders.

    Sixthly, the South only lost its Lost Cause because they were outnumbered and outgunned by grossly mentally and morally inferior soldiers, and because of a conspiracy to keep European countries from recognizing the evident moral superiority of the South, and also the economic imperative of buying Southern cotton, which would cease to exist without slave labor.

    Above all, the War was fought exclusively over States' Rights, and had nothing to do with slavery, the Peculiar Institution of the South, in which its slaves were valued at more than all of their land, banks, factories, whatever.

    And then they put Black soldiers in charge all across the South! And let them vote, and serve on juries, and testify in court, and even bring lawsuits against Christian gentlemen! Can you believe it? And northern carpetbaggers and traitorous Southern scalawags, too.

    But the South will rise again! Hence in the bad old days the Klans and Jim Crow, and in our time secession movements, nullifications of Federal law, impeaching Obama for Presidenting while Black and un-American, screeching about Reparations and enslaving all Whites, attempts to shut down the entire Federal government, militias, and the ten million gun owners who inexplicably failed to turn up in Washington last month to arrest the entire Administration and Congressional leadership in accordance with the Constitution!!! and install a Constitutional!!! government. Which again only slightly makes any sense if it is the Confederate Constitution they are ranting about.

    Also Human Rights come only from God, so the government cannot grant rights to contraception or abortion or same-sex marriage or maybe even miscegenation. Those are Human Wrongs.

    Unfortunately, I could go on.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:50:58 PM PDT

    •  Excellent point about the "betrayal" of (6+ / 0-)

      the "Gallant South." Our political polarizations have deep roots in this particular Dolchstosslegende, going back 150 years. That suggests the US might be one of those countries "that has serious problems and is on the verge of serious and maybe irreparable destruction."

      By the way, if anyone "betrayed Poland" to Stalin, it wasn't FDR-- it was Churchill, at the Tehran Conference. But that will never be acknowledged by our right-wingers.

      •  How can you betray a country.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ....that you can't defend? One in which the other person's army is already present and ready to fight? If anything, geography betrayed Poland.

        This is the landscape that we understand, -
        And till the principle of things takes root,
        How shall examples move us from our calm?

        (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

        by sagesource on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:30:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And in that vein (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MugWumpBlues, spacecadet1
        Who Lost China?
        Birchers still think that Truman and Eisenhower in particular were working for Stalin at the time. Although Ike was probably just a dupe, and his brother Milton was his control.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:57:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thought about that, but I think the Confederacy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PrahaPartizan, kurt

      was nowhere near as popular in its day as it was imagined to be later.  I don't see the Confederate quisling-class which seems to be needed to make the stab-in-the-back myth work.  Southern idealization of the Confederacy had other goals, specifically as you mention, the suppression of the non-white population and returning to a state that approximated, as much as possible, the antebellum state of affairs.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:08:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They were called scalawags at the time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Southerners who "assisted" and "advised" elected Blacks who hod, of course, no experience in government. The scalawags both betrayed the Southern cause of White supremacy and used their influence to pillage the Southern economy. But the Klans got rid of them.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:35:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Confederacy propaganda (0+ / 0-)

        Someone wrote a book about Southern opposition to the confederacy maybe ten years back.   The Confederacy propaganda machine was pretty strong.  I recall reading that a Richmond newspaper claimed victory in a few battles the South lost, such as Gettysburg.   100% sure there was some of the same on the Union side as well.  

        “Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.” ― Will Rogers

        by MugWumpBlues on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't think the Dolchstosslegende (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DavidMS, kurt, KJG52

      applies to the Civil War because its essence is betrayal from within leading to defeat.

      AFAIK, no Confederate leaders have been accused of stab-in-the-back treason to the slavery cause.

      It does apply to the Vietnam War and the way some veterans and militarist revisionists view the antiwar movement in general and Jane Fonda and John Kerry in particular as traitors.

      A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

      by devtob on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:28:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All Confederate leaders were accused of (0+ / 0-)

        betraying the cause of States' Rights throughout the war by imposing national taxes on the states and conscription on the population. Numerous state officials were accused of betraying the cause by insisting on States' Rights against the interests of the Confederacy as a whole. Those who proposed arming slaves and bringing them into the Confederate armies were accusing of betraying the foundations of the Peculiar Institution. If slaves could be soldiers, the thinking went, then the South's whole theory of slavery was wrong. D'oh!

        Also Lee should not have surrendered.

        Also it was the fault of the Jew Judah Benjamin, the Confederate Attorney-General and then Secretary of War, and previously the first Jewish Senator in US history, representing Louisiana.

        Also the multitude of slaves who did not honor their masters' property rights, but took themselves off to Union lines, and worse, joined the Union Army once that was permitted.

        Also those Southern slaveowners who detested slavery, among them Presidents Washington and Jefferson, even if they only freed their slaves in their wills and not during their lifetimes. Pre-traitors! That is one of several reasons why some Southern states want to remove Jefferson from their history books.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:50:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can't say I blame anyone who considers Jane (0+ / 0-)

        Fonda a traitor. She gave direct aid and comfort to the enemy, did she not?

    •  Lee's loss at Gettysburg (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was all General Longstreet's fault.

      They found that out after Longstreet became the most high-profile Confederate officer who cooperated with the North after the war and was a major supporter of Reconstruction.

      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

      by Tony Seybert on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 12:57:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Longstreet et al knew the South was doomed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They knew that the idea of secession was being drummed into certain really stupid yet powerful slaveowners' heads by foreign interests who wanted to play the old "divide et impera" trick on the US.

        Chief and least subtle among these foreign interests: Napoleon III, who hoped that a civil war would provide the opportunity to swoop in,  using northern and eastern Mexico as staging points, and pick off each Confederate state, one by one by one.

        The key reason he wasn't able to attempt this:  Cinco de Mayo (aka La Batalla de Puebla) on May 5, 1862 delayed his efforts to take over Mexico and install the puppet Maximillian as its 'ruler'.   By the time Napoleon III finally did take Mexico and install Maxie in 1863, it was clear that nothing short of Divine Intervention would save the Confederacy -- and besides, Nap-3 soon found that just holding Mexico was proving to be more than, much less the hapless Hapsburg Maxie, could handle.    (Maxie would be dead four years later, executed by troops of the restored Mexican president Benito Juarez, and France's Mexican dreams would die with him.)

        Visit for Minnesota news as it happens.

        by Phoenix Woman on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:51:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Undermining The ELECTED Weimar Republic (15+ / 0-)

    You're overlooking a couple key points - the stabbed-in-the-back hysteria was to fracture the elected Weimar Republic. A communist takeover had been avoided in 1918, and various quasi-military takeovers by the Junkers and rabid antisemites had been quashed (including Hitlers Beerhall Putsch in 1923).
    The Weimar Republic was the thing Hitler hated most - an elected  parliamentary government  where the trade unions had great power through the Social Democrat Party

    Hitler needed to discredit the very idea of democracy as degenerate.

    Check the Wikipedia Dolchstoßlegende entry

    When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who used the stab in the back to seize power while betraying the nation. The Nazi propaganda depicted Weimar as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'—fourteen years of rule by Jews, Marxists, and 'cultural Bolsheviks', who had at last been swept away by the National Socialist movement under Adolf Hitler and the victory of the 'national revolution' of 1933".[2]
    That's worth repeating the Nazi themes so prevalent in wingnut attacks on Obama today:
    1) Corruption - "Most corrupt administration ever"
    2) Degeneracy - Obama the gay married Muslim etc
    3) National humiliation - Putin gives Obama a swirly while the world laughs
    4) Ruthless persecution of the opposition - IRS scandal, liberal death squads coming to drag the homeschoolers to FEMA camps etc

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

  •  Good diary. (Benghazi is different, I think) (4+ / 0-)

    Benghazi has so far been running a parallel track to the "we was sold out" line. It has been exploited for the "secret information" and the almighty conspiracy. The theories on Carlyle Group pulling off 9/11 are less elaborate than the theories for Benghazi, and for the same reason.

    Ultimately, humans want to understand why the inexplicable happened, and they can't tolerate a universe where bad triumphs over good, so they will accept any explanation that allows them to believe that there is a cause for a lost war or "that man" still being president. Since reality might be comprised of ten thousand decisions, one thousand minor crimes, five thousand moments of bad luck, and then just come down to money and food, reality never gives "the reason" for a war loss. "Those people surrendering" is easy to explain (and allows the audience to avoid any blame, since "our" soldiers never lost and "our" votes were all correct).

    Benghazi, though, is "There is a secret narrative that nobody knows, as evidenced by the fact that people refuse to confess it. The less they say, the more they prove they're not saying what there is to be said."

    "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

    by The Geogre on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:02:28 PM PDT

    •  Benghazi is getting to be a form of mental illness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PrahaPartizan, The Geogre

      There were clearly security problems at the embassy, and HRC was ultimately responsible for that.  I don't think there's any dispute there.  Anything else is just a delusion, but these are the "HRC killed Vince Foster" crowd, so I expect it will go on and on and on.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:13:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  HRC responsible? (0+ / 0-)

        I think she was responsible for re-approving private contractors as state dept. defense in Afghanistan. If we want a scandal, I'd go there -- remember the guys drinking vodka off each other's private parts? Right after that broke, the co. (former Blackwater) got the contract again.

        I'd blame her for the initial approval of Keystone XL.

        However, the less than optimal security in Benghazi was due in general to a funding request for security for State being denied by the House of Representatives and the GOP trying to get at Hillary, in particular. After that, there was a strategic decision not to make Benghazi a fortress. That was perhaps a mistake, but, if the attackers were organized and al Qaeda affiliated, then the attackers chose the weakest point, wherever that would have been. If it was not organized and planned, then, yes, it's a fault. (I.e. you can either say, "They lied! They lied! It was al Qaeda, and they knew it!" and then realize that the group would have attacked any weak spot or say, "It was a mistake" because it was a spontaneous flare up of violence).

        "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

        by The Geogre on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:00:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Uncle Joe and The Peanut (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alhambra, kurt, KJG52, citizen dan, jasan

    Have we forgotten about the US dealing with the hated Rooskie communists during WW2 and how the state department and the war department and everybody else in FDR's administration sold out the US to the Soviets?  Everybody knows we could have won the war ourselves without any Soviet assistance.  Just ask any right-winger.  We didn't need to deal with the Soviets to reach some form of arrangement over central Europe when we were dealing from a position of weakness in that arena.  How many people realize that the war in Europe was over before the US tested the A-bomb, which suddenly put the glint into right-wingers' eyes for world domination?

    And, then let's remember how the Republicans managed to surf the national political scene for twenty years with their slamming the Democrats over how the Democrats "lost" China.  As if.  The Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, was as corrupt and inept as the day is long and caused his own downfall consequently.  During WW2, our general in the Burmese theater, Vinegar Joe Stillwell called Chiang "The Peanut" derisively because of his inability to lead the Chinese in any sort of resistance against the Japanese anywhere.  His skills in conflict didn't improve when the civil war against the Chinese Communists resumed after the WW2 truce with them and he ultimately lost the civil war.  No right-winger has any idea just how the US was supposed to have done more to help the Chinese Nationalists than they did, but that hasn't kep them from accusing Democrats of having "lost" China deliberately.  That smear in large part fueld LBJ's decision to get more heavily involved in Vietnam because he wasn't ready to watch the Repubicans start smearing him and other Democrats for losing South Vietnam, even though the SVN government exhibited the same corruption and incompetence which had plagued the Chinese twenty years earlier.  It's just a variant of a tactic intended to confuse the under-informed on policies which can be desperately important.

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:58:01 PM PDT

  •  Ted Cruz and his ilk (4+ / 0-)



    "The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy." Kurt Vonnegut - "A Man Without a Country", 2005.

    by BOHICA on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 10:02:38 AM PDT

  •  Who can forget when Dr. Spock (5+ / 0-)

    (the baby care author, not the Vulcan) was blamed by the right for our loss in Vietnam.  I remember the op-eds in the papers about how we lost because Benjamin Spock's book, Baby and Child Care the #2 bestselling book for fifty two years, after the Bible.  Presumably, it led to a generation of coddled children smothered with love, not fit to be great warriors.  (He was also a big anti-war activist, but that came later).

    From wiki:

    At the time his books were criticized by Vietnam War supporters for allegedly propagating permissiveness and an expectation of instant gratifications that led young people to join these movements, a charge Spock denied.
    So we were stabbed in the book by pediatricians, mothers, and a whole generation of babies, who weren't as tough as the chicken hawks that would later get us into the Iraq War.

    That's quite a big stab in the back.  That's worthy of a teabagger insane asylum.  But assholes like William Safire were writing columns promoting this shit in the New York Times after we had clearly blown Vietnam.

  •  Cartoon Peril, Benghazi was not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, dansmith17

    an embassy, it was a consulate, huge difference.  Blame HRC, nope, put the blame where it really belongs on being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Shit happens and you sometimes die.  That consulate was trouble and Stevens was a hands on kind of guy and it cost him his life, that is a tragedy.  If the republicans wanted to do something about all of these issues, they could simply put more money into security or the can stfu.

  •  Wow. Lego hippies lost the Vietnam War. (0+ / 0-)

    And I bet the sh*t they smoked stank of plastic.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site