Universal Health Care: An Idea Whose Time Came a Long Time Ago
Bill Press had a good opening to his latest column:
As usual, the president said it best: “Millions of our citizens do not have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health care. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.”
And the president was right. However, that wasn’t Barack Obama in 2009. That was Harry S. Truman, addressing a joint session of Congress, in 1945. Can you believe it? His legislation to provide universal health care failed by only a few votes, and Congress has done nothing about it ever since.
It’s just incredibly frustrating that we’ve basically been stuck in this same holding pattern for over sixty years. But I think it’s important to keep this stuff in mind when people make broad characterological assertions about why the United States doesn’t have a robust social safety net. Truman ran on a platform of single-payer health care in 1948. And he won the election. If we had the kind of political system wherein politicians who win elections then get to enact their agenda—the kind of system that exists in Canada and the UK and most other countries—then we would have had a single-payer system decades and decades ago. The difference is the institutions, not the intrinsic nature of the people.
69 Responses to “Universal Health Care: An Idea Whose Time Came a Long Time Ago”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 19th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
We are still waiting on your oped on the harm of allowing every vote in the Senate require 60 Senators. Get crackin’ I think you have a strong argument and the issue is just waiting to get exposed.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Of course, the other side of the coin is that if we had the kind of political system wherein politicians who win elections then get to enact their agenda, Truman might not have won.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“That was Harry S. Truman, addressing a joint session of Congress, in 1945. Can you believe it?”
Oh yeah, I can believe it. That was the New Deal Democratic party, the one that actually gave a shit about working people. You know, the one that didn’t screw working people over with massive illegal immigration, didn’t give filthy rich Wall Street bankers a blank check on the Treasury, didn’t spend $ billions on useless mideast wars to make AIPAC happy, etc. etc.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
MY,
You won’t think your idea is so great if the GOP takes over again. Hell, they (and the spineless Democrats) do enough damage with the existing system.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
How do you explain Bush’s ability to get his platform enacted then? Quite simplistic idea there, imo. Or an apologist for the laziness of Obama to fight for what he believes in and campaigned for – either way – you choose.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
We have all sorts of checks and balances because we were the first constitutional democracy. At that time, no one really trusted THE PEOPLE. Maybe we should have constitutional reform. The French are on their fifth constitution. Or maybe we prefer the stability and the traditions that we have. Personally I’m rather discouraged right now. I thought we just had a revolution and all we got was a paint job. Well, it’s a very nice paint job.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
It was also the party of the white racist south. I much prefer the modern democratic party.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Oh yeah, I can believe it. That was the New Deal Democratic party, the one that actually gave a shit about working people. You know, the one that didn’t screw working people over with massive illegal immigration, didn’t give filthy rich Wall Street bankers a blank check on the Treasury, didn’t spend $ billions on useless mideast wars to make AIPAC happy, etc. etc.
Well, and they failed to pass it. So I’m not quite sure what the moral of the story is.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I’m interested in the role McCarthyism played in all that. In Western Europe, all governments created some kind of universal health insurance (among other programs) after WWII because they were scared of the communists. Meanwhile in the US, commies were rounded up, and the socialist party never really took off.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
When you have to get a super majority in the House and Senate plus an OK from Speaker Gingrich and Vice Chancellor Limbaugh, well, nothing gets done.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
FROM: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
“The Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats are finally hitting the inevitable wall that was bound to confront them because of the president’s congenital inability to be a bold leader, and because of the party’s toxic decades-old decision to betray its working class New Deal base in favor of wholesale corporate whoredom.”
June 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
SANDY LEVINSON LOVES THIS
June 19th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I agree that our institutions are flawed but if you look at the changes to our institutions which have recently come close to passing you see things like a flag burning amendment and a amendment banning gay marriage. Should we be weakening resistance to changing our institutions given the changes that are likely to come?
June 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Yeah, and if that rabbit had had a gun, he woulda shot the ass off that hound.
The scary part is that Matt actually believes this stuff. This is the young persons version of the perpetual motion machine or the engine that runs on water that Detroit has hidden from us for all these years. It’s an age-appropriate way of pretending there aren’t really huge corporations letting us die for the sake of a buck, and the age it’s appropriate to is about 8.
The New Deal drowned in the immense wave of prosperity created by the New Deal. After being educated on the GI Bill and buying homes on 3% loans from the FHA that they reached by driving on roads build in the late 30s by the government, the ‘Greatest Generation” decided they didn’t need government help. And as long as the government could ‘prime the pump’ by spending half of the federal budget on armaments and the Space Race, and another third on freeways, that seemed to be true.
Imagining that none of this would have happened if we had a parliament is simply childish.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Julene,
There isn’t a republican equivelent of the Blue Dogs, Nelson, etc. When they have a majoirty their Senators all get in line. Sure Spector or Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar would talk tough about something but check out the votes, in th end they always voted the party line.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“If we had the kind of political system wherein politicians who win elections then get to enact their agenda—the kind of system that exists in Canada and the UK and most other countries—then we would have had a single-payer system decades and decades ago.”
So every elected politician should get to enact his or her agenda? Or just Presidents? Either way, your argument is totally absurd.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@Gmorbgmibgnikgnok –
The problem is that the GOP is already operating as if we were in a parliamentary democracy, while the Democrats still think it’s the 1940s or something. The GOP in Congress has solidified to an unprecedented degree, with pretty much everyone voting in lockstep for Bush’s agenda and now against Obama’s agenda. That’s why the 60 vote “rule” in the Senate is so awful. Democrats, on the other hand, refuse to even acknowledge that there is a party line, let alone toe it.
Also, I don’t think a Republican government under a parliamentary system could be any worse than Bush was. At least in a parliamentary system his own party could have thrown him overboard at some point.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Let’s face it. The GOP today is a real political party, whereas the Democrats are a loose coalition that can agree on an agenda only intermittently. The GOP marched with Bush because that is what parties do. And many of the elected officials suffered as a result – they were thrown out of office. Too many Democrats would never risk their job security by trying to follow an agenda. They look at the President’s agenda, look at what the Republicans are saying, then try to cling to the middle. They do not want to stick their necks out and lead. Douchebag Democrats.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
As reported by FOXDC yesterday: “Michigan Congressman John Dingell knows the complicated details of America’s health care crisis better than almost anyone on Capitol Hill. He should. Dingell has been introducing a bill that would establish a single-payer health care system in the U.S. in every single Congress since 1957…He was sworn into office in December of 1955, after a special election to fill the seat held by his late father. The elder Dingell also pushed for national health care, putting forth a bill for its establishment in 1933. So the Dingell family has been pushing for reform of health care in the U.S. for a remarkable 76 years.”
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/061809_rep_dingells_health_care_push
June 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
serial catowner: They have corporations in Europe too, you know.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I duno.
UK – Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
France – Presidential republic
Germany – Federal republic
With not so different outcomes. Rather than institutions in general, I would blame the US Senate, the most corrupt group of people in the universe.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
You won’t think your idea is so great if the GOP takes over again. Hell, they (and the spineless Democrats) do enough damage with the existing system.
This is doubtful. As MY says, “The difference is the institutions, not the intrinsic nature of the people.” Those enjoying universal health care elsewhere got it because of their institutions, not because its in the genes of Scandinavians or something.
Every country has conservative parties. Those countries that are less conservative get conservative parties that reflect this. These other countries’ conservatives are not tearing down their universal health care programs, and often times praise them.
Other countries aren’t more liberal because their institutions magically passed all sorts of liberal causes. Those issues need to be politically popular, too. These countries are more liberal because at the most basic level, their institutions allowed for programs that fostered interconnections between people. This then creates a greater political impulse toward issues promoting social justice.
That’s why the public plan should be the number one thing on everyone’s agenda. Having a substantial portion of the middle class invested in a government program that encourages such interconnectedness allows the program to succeed (the NIH in the UK). Once established, it’s difficult to dislodge by Conservatives. And, it pushes everything left.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
oops, NHS.
June 19th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
In Western Europe, all governments created some kind of universal health insurance (among other programs) after WWII because they were scared of the communists.
Not really. Post-war Western Europe was broke and in ruins. People were more scared of starvation than communism. The post-war United States was channelling its military infrastructure into making fridges and chrome-fendered cars. As serial catowner says, “the New Deal drowned in the immense wave of prosperity created by the New Deal.”
And yeah, this isn’t going to be rectified by a parliamentary system — it’ll be rectified when money is no longer regarded as speech for First Amendment purposes, which is the basis of the corporate whore gang-bang that is American politics.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The New Deal drowned in the immense wave of prosperity created by the New Deal. … the ‘Greatest Generation” decided they didn’t need government help.
Matt says it’s the institutions. Serial catowner above says (implicitly) it’s the national character. To each I would add simple history — WWII history. In 1945 (the year of Truman’s speech) much of Western Europe was rubble, economically reeling, and destined to get worse before it got better. Communist parties were large and actively demanding relief for the suffering. These factors go a long way to explaining why those governments felt compelled to create generous social safety nets in the ensuing years. The U.S., by contrast, was booming (thanks to the war more than the New Deal) and far fewer saw any compelling need for generous social provision.
Wartime and immediate postwar prosperity vs. austerity — those two contrasting experiences of WWII are a big part of why one side of the Atlantic went the social democratic route and the other didn’t.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
People were more scared of starvation than communism.
It wasn’t either-or; it was both-and. For social democratic politicians, generous social provision was a way to address both problems, and thereby ensure their continued electoral viability. Starving people wouldn’t vote communist if the social democrats gave them help.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Ultimately one person (President) can’t and shouldn’t represent all people. And what Congressmen need aren’t “spines” or “a good talking-to” but a swift kick where it hurts – in the wallet.
Ultimately all Congress supposed to do is listen to the will of constituencies, but at this point money is still allowed to do the people’s talking and walking. An end to filibuster threats won’t make a damn bit of difference, and as we learned from AIG and Blackwater, neither will a different sign on the door. Crappy legislation that passes with 60 bought-off votes from life-tenured attention whores as opposed to 70 is still crappy legislation.
It’s all about campaign finance reform (and maybe term limits) in the Congress. And a whole hell of a lot of “community organizing” from folks like you and me. Wow, if only we had a national leader with community organizing experience and a bully pulpit…
June 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
This is a really one-sided look at things. What if someone you didn’t want in power got into power and was able to enact his respective agenda, no holds barred?
I don’t think you’d be so cheery about the idea.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Can we stop moaning about what ifs? It reminds me of all the wasted energy complaining about the refs in the NBA playoffs. Play the game!
June 19th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
What if someone you didn’t want in power got into power and was able to enact his respective agenda, no holds barred?
What’s the point of having elections then, if you win but can’t implement the things you actually campaigned on? SCOTUS is there to make sure the agenda is not actually illegal. The prospect of losing the next election is there to discourage the winners from implementing a deeply unpopular agenda.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
The New Deal drowned in the immense wave of prosperity created by the New Deal.
Truth! Though I don’t think it could have been sustained indefinitely even with the wisest decision-makers; golden ages end.
And yes, the creation of these systems wasn’t purely a matter of moral sparkles, there was a good dose of Kaiser Wilhelm-style welfarism, We actually created a lot of similar systems but linked them – The VA, the GI Bill, home loans – to military service so that they bought off the people we were most worried about (people returning to a Depression-wracked economy with fresh military skills and memories of victory through martial solidarity) and auto-expired with the generational turn.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
In Europe, they keep the corporations in check. In America, we’ve legalized bribery so the corporations keep the government in check.
This is the BS you tell yourself so you can ignore the problem, and thus won’t have to find a solution.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
You mean like Bush did in 2001? You’re right. I wasn’t very cheery about that, but, I heard that elections have consequences, and accepted it.
I didn’t realize that I should have been expecting the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster every piece of legislation that George Bush campaigned on. They would only have needed 41 of their 48 Senators to do so. It would have been easy.
The cloture rule is not in the constitution. It is not supposed to be a form of minority veto.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The Democrats could end the filibuster if they wanted to – or at the very least threaten to end it. But they like it too much. Republican filibusters protect the cowards from actually having to act as leaders.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
What if someone you didn’t want in power got into power and was able to enact his respective agenda, no holds barred?
That’s what happened in 2001. I’ve given up on counter-majoritian institutions being equally usable by both sides. Sure, the Bush tax cuts would have been made permanent, but then again it could just be rolled back with the new functional institutions after the next election.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
If we had the kind of political system wherein politicians who win elections then get to enact their agenda—the kind of system that exists in Canada and the UK and most other countries—then we would have had a single-payer system decades and decades ago.
I suppose that also includes the prospect of post-war British socialism, which was one giant, laughable, tragic, and steaming pile-of-shit failed experiment. Had another Democrat been elected in 1952, he could have been an Attlee-Bevin redux.
It’s far better to not have had public healthcare rather than undergo the incredible poverty suffered by the British people under 30 years of Labour-Tory nationalisation consensus. At least you have enough money for sufficient heating in the winter, and don’t freeze to death.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Andrew, Why oh why, serialcatowner, etc.:
Regarding the New Deal, let me chime in with some history here (since I am a New Deal historian). It’s not correct to say that the New Deal was killed off by the economic prosperity it created – rather, the New Deal was killed off when the two wings of the party, the Northern liberal wing and the Southern conservative wing ruptured. From 1938 on (after FDR’s attempt to “purge” the Southern Democratic Party by backing New Dealers against “Bourbon Democrats,” Dixiecrats in Congress joined with Republicans in blocking most New Deal and Fair Deal reforms – including the 1938 Hospital Insurance Act, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill of 1943, 1945, and thereafter, and Truman’s 1948 health care proposal.
Arguably, the “breakup” of the Southern Democrats started way earlier than 1964 – you can trace it to FDR’s failed purge in 38, the bolting of the Dixiecrats from the 1948 Democratic Convention and Strom Thurmond’s run for president, and the substantial defections in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956.
Regarding how long it’s been since we first started pushing for universal health care, recall that it was Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party that first called for universal health insurance in 1912, and that year also saw the first introduction of a health insurance bill (in the MA state legislature). It’s almost been one hundred years.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Yglesias has clearly enjoyed the amenities of American capitalism without realising the necessary institutional sacrifices. Try living in Britain in the 50’s, then tell me you want a system of government where the an American Bevin has the chance of running the country.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
By the way, going from the world’s greatest and richest empire, to the poorest country in Northwestern Europe, in a generation, is what post-war Labour and Tories accomplished.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
By the way, going from the world’s greatest and richest empire, to the poorest country in Northwestern Europe, in a generation, is what post-war Labour and Tories accomplished.
Dude, there was also the small matter of the Second World War bankrupting the country, making decolonization necessary and well as spurring independence movements, etc. etc. etc. You make it sounds as if Britain was strong and thriving when Labour took power and they threw it all away. Quite the contrary.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I suppose that also includes the prospect of post-war British socialism, which was one giant, laughable, tragic, and steaming pile-of-shit failed experiment.
Why does it have to include socialism? Harry Truman didn’t campaign as a socialist. A socialist couldn’t have won in postwar America. A Democrat could, however. Did, in fact. Too bad he couldn’t implement his agenda because of all the ridiculous counter-majoritarian rules we have here.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Every country has conservative parties. Those countries that are less conservative get conservative parties that reflect this. These other countries’ conservatives are not tearing down their universal health care programs, and often times praise them.”
Different kinds of conservatives. European conservatives have been (in the distant past, anyway) extremely conservative – there were plenty of royalists in continental European parliaments into the 1930s.
American conservatives are an extreme and vulgar form of what was called (by the great Lassalle) Manchester liberalism in the nineteenth century. And Manchester liberalism was precisely then-liberal (but not Left) opponents of the nineteenth-century royalists.
The royalists never had any problem with a large and powerful state – they just wanted that state to be run by the king, the aristocracy and an established religion. Indeed, they generally strongly preferred a powerful state (the majesty of the crown and all that). State-run healthcare is perfectly possible within a powerful royal / aristocratic state.
Manchester liberals opposed the powerful state of the royalists (for the wrong reasons, in my opinion). For a concrete example, royal states often provided public education (to those they felt could serve the crown), whereas Manchester liberals often opposed expansion of public education. (The Manchester liberals often expanded privately-funded education, but opposed the level of taxation that would make more public education possible).
That is, the predecessors of current European conservatives were in political battle with the predecessors of the current American conservatives.
June 19th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Myles SG:
You mean a system of government with a cradle-to-grave welfare state, the NHS, full employment, and a vibrant public housing and transportation system? I’ll take that over the present any day.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Try living in Britain in the 50’s, then tell me you want a system of government where the an American Bevin has the chance of running the country.
Is that Bevan or Bevin, you braying juvenile twat? Because if it’s Bevan you mean, then your continued presence on this site just proves the wisdom of his judgment that conservatives are worse than vermin. Nye Bevan and Tommy Douglas did more to make the world a better place on any given Tuesday than you will in your entire spoilt, frou-froued existence.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Re: In Europe, they keep the corporations in check.
I’m not so sure about that. Europe’s banks are (in many cases) in even worse state than ours. Also, we Americans don’t necessarily hear about all the little scandals and dirty deals overseas, but they do exist. The difference may well be cultural: in Europe the old aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige was inherited by the capitalist elite who replaced the old titled nobility, and they are thus willing to provide for the lower orders– taking a cut of the action of course. Old Bismark was a rightwinger par excelelnce, but even he supported old age pensions for the German masses. We have a few wealthy types who have imbibed that ethic in America (else the Roosevelts and Kennedys would be impossible), but all too often nouveau riche brutalism holds sway instead and our overclass has to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Is that Bevan or Bevin, you braying juvenile twat? Because if it’s Bevan you mean, then your continued presence on this site just proves the wisdom of his judgment that conservatives are worse than vermin. Nye Bevan and Tommy Douglas did more to make the world a better place on any given Tuesday than you will in your entire spoilt, frou-froued existence.
Ahh, how great it is to hear someone thirsting for the good old days, when Britain was continually humiliated, the people were shockingly poorer than the French and the Italians, when the thought that Britain would even be able to hold onto small islands in the South Atlantic would have been but punchlines of jokes, when Britain looks set to join the Spaniards and the Portugese in having miserable national retirements, when the British currency descended from the world’s reserve to the world’s trash-bin, when Sunny Jim had to spend his entire premiership desperately trying to keep Britain from the brink of national Armageddon, when Britain was rejected as unfit for the European Community, when it was regarded as the sick man of Europe, when Kissinger called Britain a tragedy unbearable to watch.
You presumably lived through all that, but it seems like you have forgotten. Well, let me refresh your memory with this quote from Kissinger:
“Britain is a tragedy – it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in.”
That was Britain after the war. Not the Britain of Victoria, not the Britain of the greatest empire in the history of mankind, not the Britain whose navy once ruled the high seas, not the Britain that was the world’s greatest power, not the Britain that excelled beyond its small, unimportant, damp borders.
Not that Britain, but the Britain of shortages, of being hit, year after year, in the face, on the chin, from all sides; of bitter decay, of the Suez syndrome, of desperation and of decline.
That is the Britain you want. Well, good luck getting your fellow countrymen to agree with you. Good luck convincing them that they should have lesser opportunities than their forefathers who went out to the high seas and the colonies afar. That they should deserve to starve and freeze on a small, unimportant, damp island. That while their ancestors were the greatest of men, they should now be the least.
Good luck with that, because I disagree with you, and the people of Britain disagree with you. Because I have faith in that the British people are a noble people, who have the courage to say “no” to poverty and penury, and the courage to say “yes” to competing, and winning, around the globe. What their forefathers have done, they ought to be able to do, for if they do not, then they surely have proved themselves the lesser of men.
Get yourself off your habitual snark, mate; the moment you can convince masses of the British people to vote for a repetition of post-war socialism is the moment your sentiments deserve any consideration.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
If we had the kind of political system wherein politicians who win elections then get to enact their agenda—the kind of system that exists in Canada and the UK and most other countries—then we would have had a single-payer system decades and decades ago. The difference is the institutions, not the intrinsic nature of the people.
So what are you implying? That the political system of the US has structural flaws? Of course, you know that this would be heresy!
June 19th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Myles:
Your argument willfully ignores the fact that Britain had been in economic decline since the 1890s, that the 1920s and 1930s had been miserable decades. It’s also ludicrous to imply that France’s rejection of Britain from the EC was due to British economic malaise, when it had a lot more to do with British disinterest from ‘45 on, combined with DeGaulle’s dislike of the British.
Moreover, your argument willfully ignores the fact that it was precisely the empire and the massive costs of the military force needed to keep it and fight two world wars in twenty years that saddled the British state with massive economic problems. It also ignores the fact that Britain’s economic problems were systemic, and certainly persisted through Tory rule in the 50s, mid-70s, and 80s.
Finally, I would note that, despite your fantasizing about a mythical rugged-individualist Britain, more people voted for Labour in 1951 than 1945, that the Tories had every opportunity to reverse Labour’s NHS and the welfare state when they were in power in the 1950s and 1980s, and that they chose otherwise. Moreover, the British’s supposed hatred for socialism didn’t stop them voting in Harold Wilson in ‘64 and ‘66 and ‘74.
And I would ask, in the memory of Humphrey Cooper Attewell (MP Harborough – Labour, 1945-1951), in what world would the 20th century have been better for ordinary British workers if the NHS and the welfare state hadn’t existed?
June 20th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Your argument willfully ignores the fact that Britain had been in economic decline since the 1890s, that the 1920s and 1930s had been miserable decades.
Not to distract from my main point, but the very misguided and ill-advised deflationary sterling policy of 1925 was the cause of the pain in the 1920’s. However, even that would have succeeded and the British empire survived if they had pushed on for a couple years more after the 1929 crash, except they got cold feet and the whole project collapsed. This is all from the Keynesian Paul Samuelson.
And in no way do I suppose the post-war Tories were any better than Labour. Milder, sure, but not discernibly better.
June 20th, 2009 at 1:13 am
So in other words, the “Treasury view” of trying to maintain the sterling was responsible for the fall of the British Empire, not Labour. And you admit that the fall of the British Empire (you still don’t mention the impact of the war) would have happened anyway.
June 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
[...] But Matthew Yglesias argues that no, it isn’t: [...]
June 20th, 2009 at 4:52 am
The epitaph to the Victorian myth of empire is marked with wreaths of poppies.
I’m done with Myles. Eventually, he may grow up.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Re: However, even that would have succeeded and the British empire survived if they had pushed on for a couple years more after the 1929 crash
The British Empire was not going to survive no matter who did what. Unless of course you design an alternate reality where there was no Hitler and WWII, no Soviet Union, and a USA that remained happily isolationist. Then it is barely possible that Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Portugal would still have their colonies. Though that would be almost as grotesque as slavery surviving into our era too.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The British Empire was not going to survive no matter who did what. Unless of course you design an alternate reality where there was no Hitler and WWII, no Soviet Union, and a USA that remained happily isolationist.
The point people failed to grasp is that if not for the fact of the tremendous pain in the 20’s and 30’s, Churchill would never have become premier.
By the way, the entire reason there was even a Great War was because of the Russian alliance. It’s funny how textbooks in Anglophone countries always make it sound like it’s the Central Alliance who’s got the full blame for the alliance system, but in fact a Russian alliance was probably among the grossest miscalculations in history. If anyone has learned anything in the last century, it’s to stay as far as you can possible can from the Russians, in whatever circumstances.
Of course, General Patton wanted to resolve the Soviet problem for once and all by turning the German divisions back on Russia, but the dim-wits that couldn’t prevent the Great War and its sequel did manage to prevent that.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:06 am
It’s funny how one can play the Great Game for a century against Russia, and still by the end of day be fooled into thinking an alliance with a living, breathing powder-keg could a good idea, to counter a ephemeral threat from a cousin!
June 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Myles:
Churchilll wouldn’t have become premier, why? Unless you’re arguing that Labour would have stayed in power in 1924 and 1929-1931, I disagree.
Re: Russia, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that France’s threat from Germany was “ephemeral.” Moreover, it’s a good thing that Patton was stopped from engaging in a land war against the Red Army; it would have been a nightmare bloodbath even in the best of circumstances, and it would have been with us allied to the remnants of the Nazi war machine. Not a good thing.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Moreover, it’s a good thing that Patton was stopped from engaging in a land war against the Red Army; it would have been a nightmare bloodbath even in the best of circumstances, and it would have been with us allied to the remnants of the Nazi war machine. Not a good thing.
Not really, no. You wouldn’t have believed how weakened Russia was by the war; it was probably even worse for them than for Britain. A second land surge, by the Wehrmacht no less would have wiped them out. This would have been especially useful, as it would have prevented it going nuclear, and would have kept nuclear forces within Anglo-Franco-American hands, and likely averted the Suez fiasco.
By the way, Wehrmacht is the army of von Stauffenberg, and the machine of which you speak is one of Canaris; not Nazis, bug honourable German officers.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
In fact, the Red Army likely would not have held for three months, absent supplies from the West. The productive capability of Russia at that point was severely constrained.
Imagine, for example, the same sort of B-29 bombings being applied over Russia, and the whole aeronautical might of the West being pressed upon Russia. It’s hard to imagine how they would have lasted.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
and it would have been with us allied to the remnants of the Nazi war machine. Not a good thing.
And how is this in any way possibly worse than being allied to the greatest mass murderer in the history of mankind, Joseph Stalin?
Let not your ideology blind you, my man.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Churchilll wouldn’t have become premier, why? Unless you’re arguing that Labour would have stayed in power in 1924 and 1929-1931, I disagree.
No. The point is that the incredible political mess of that era would likely have been avoided somewhat had it not been for both the deflationary policy as well as its truncated end. It is very unlikely that someone like Churchill would have become premier in more peaceable times. Much more like Halifax.
I should also note that the other great error was the prevention of Lord Curzon from the premiership on grounds of Commons non-attendance. He would have undoubtedly stabilised the situation at home and abroad to a much greater extent than was in fact achieved. And most likely, he would have resolved the Polish Question successfully, and prevented the German and Eastern European situation from spiraling out of control.
If there was any British post-war statesman able to stabilise the situation and return the empire to health, it was Curzon. Unfortunately, it did not come to pass, out of formality and pique.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
A lot of the subsequent difficulties were due to the weaknesses of the Baldwin premiership, which can only be viewed as being mediocre, if not outright incompetent.
It’s hard to find one overarching cause for the general stupidity and grave miscalculations of the British government during the interwar years, but a great deal of it was very much preventable.
I was always of the view that the accession of Edward VIII, regardless of his strange love life, represented a good chance to take Britain on the right path, as his father, George V, had a shockingly bad nose when it came to politics (being prejudiced against Curzon, et al). Sadly enough, it was not to be, and the successor, George VI, was as dumb as a brick. It’s one big tragedy, really. If anyone among the Windsors had foreseen the end coming, and had any idea of how to prevent it, it was Edward and his young brother George of Kent.
June 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Regarding the Eastern Front, that’s just rubbish. In 1945, Soviets on that front “had altogether 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed “Stalin Organs”); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA.[27]” The Germans simply didn’t have anything close to that.
The idea that the Red Army could have been crushed without killing millions of more people and further extending the war isn’t credible. And it’s been well-documented that the German army was thoroughly implicated in the mass murder of civilians *especially on the Eastern Front* – there isn’t any such thing as an “honorable German officer” in my mind.
Hmm…why do I think allying with Nazis would be worse? It’s not ideology speaking, it’s more like dead family members.
Regarding Churchill, I think you’re conflating “peaceful” times with “economically prosperous” times. Had the Great Depression never happened, but Hitler still rose to power, Churchill still would have been one of the leading anti-Nazi Conservatives in Parliament in 1939.
And again, you’ve not shown how exactly the Empire could have been restored to health – except that you seem to think it would have been a good idea to leave Hitler in power in Germany if war over Poland could have been avoided. And you still haven’t explain why it would be a good thing for Britain to hang onto the Empire.
And I would say the strike against Edward VIII was that he was a Nazi sympathizer. Which is a strike against him in my book.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Re: Imagine, for example, the same sort of B-29 bombings being applied over Russia, and the whole aeronautical might of the West being pressed upon Russia. It’s hard to imagine how they would have lasted.
North Vietnam had no trouble lasting out both France and the USA despite the imbalance in air power. And you seem eager that we shoul have committed the same collossal strategic blunder that Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon and Hitler made. With one exception no one has ever succeeded in an invasion of Russia. The exception of course was the Mongols, who came from the other direction and had nothing but five thousand miles of grass between them and Kiev.
Re: And how is this in any way possibly worse than being allied
During WWII Stalin was the lesser of the two evils. Not by much, but by enough to make it appropriate to ally with him rather than Der Fuhrer. And what are you carping about anyway? Seems to me that both WWII an the Cold War came to endings that, overall, you ought approve of.
Re: The point is that the incredible political mess of that era would likely have been avoided somewhat had it not been for both the deflationary policy as well as its truncated end.
To avoid the mess of the 1920s you really need not to have had WWI in the first place. Sure there were some policy flubs in the 20s too (both in the US and in Europe), but the Great Depression was pretty much inevitable given the damage, physical and demographic, and the vast imbalances that WWII created.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“had altogether 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed “Stalin Organs”); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA.[27]” The Germans simply didn’t have anything close to that.
I don’t know if you know this, but the right way to estimate any sort of Russian armed strength is to take their number of men, and divide the number by at least three. The quality of the Russian soldier is not at parity with the Allied or German soldier.
During WWII Stalin was the lesser of the two evils. Not by much, but by enough to make it appropriate to ally with him rather than Der Fuhrer. And what are you carping about anyway? Seems to me that both WWII an the Cold War came to endings that, overall, you ought approve of.
My understanding was that Mr Stalin killed more people than Hitler by the time of the war, not less? Or am I mistaken?
June 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
North Vietnam had no trouble lasting out both France and the USA despite the imbalance in air power.
I do not recall the Russian steppes being the same operating terrain as Southeastern Asian jungles. In fact, the steppes were the world’s best theatre for heavy-armour, movement warfare and high-intensity bombing, whereas a jungle would hae been the absolute worst.
The job didn’t involve running and taking over Russia; it simply involved toppling Kremlin, and what happens after is none of the West’s business. Anything non-communist would have been fine, and chaos fine too as long as it does not trend Communist.
And you still haven’t explain why it would be a good thing for Britain to hang onto the Empire.
I think you should read the data for that period to get a feel for how much of Britain’s income (not GDP, but GNP) was from overseas empire, informal (trade concessions, South America) and formal (India, Canada, Australia). It was certainly not due to the excellence of Britain’s manufacturing exports, but rather the British stranglehold on the high seas and the consequent dominance of international trade, which yielded economic rents.
A great many Home Counties middle-class families were seriously impoverished by the end of empire; it wasn’t just a psychological thing, but a genuinely ecoomic one. I personally have friends whose families lost their primary sources of income (Argentina, Malayas, Middle East) following the war.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Amd of course, the recent revival in Britain’s fortunes, chiefly following the Big Bang of 1986, and especially under the policies of the Blair premiership, were due to finance, again a form of economic rents.
You aren’t suggesting that Britain will get back on its feet by the might of British exports, are you? Because that hasn’t happened since the time of Bismarck.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
By the way, when I say empire, I don’t mean Africa; Africa was a waste of money and an ego trip. South Africa worked out well, but that was before the Scramble, which yielded some of the most useless territories conceivable.
And the British Middle Eastern empire was quite estimable. Had it held on, it would have likly meant joint Anglo-Franco control of the world’s oil supply.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Incidentally, BP, another source of economic rent for Britai, started out as Anglo-Persian Oil. So you can’t divorce the empire, or the aims of the empire, economic rents, from British prosperity.
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
By the way, when I say asshat, I don’t mean a hat you wear on your ass.