Max Boot has a wonderful screed regarding the naïve cynicism and moral relativism of the anti-anti-terror crowd, and particularly the once-great BBC. Key portions:
As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same."Posted by Kevin Murphy at July 14, 2005 11:03 PMSavage naively wondered, "Who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" Savage thought the real problem was that Britain had lost "her meaning, her soul," but "the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won't help this forward an inch." "Personally," he added, with hilarious understatement, "I do not care for Hitler." But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting him: "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."....
Orwell's words, written in October 1941, ring true today: "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."
There was one more piece from Savage's letter that Boot did not use in the column, which I agree was great. I posted it here. Savage, a Brit writing in 1942, wrote:
"(Hitler) is, however, “realler” than Chamberlain, Churchill, Cripps, etc, in that he is the vehicle of raw historical forces, whereas they are stuffed dummies…living in unreality. We do not desire a German “victory”…but there would be a profound justice, I feel, however terrible, in a German victory."
Some things never change.
Posted by: A Senior Administration Official at July 15, 2005 10:11 AM