Intervencionismo, Guerras e Alianças

A proposito do texto com uma pergunta proibida: "Was WWII Worth It? For Stalin, yes" Patrick J. Buchanan

Nao resumo o texto porque me parece demasiado importante. Que a Grande Guerra foi uma tragedia (incluindo as sementes que lançou para o fim da velha e civilizada europa e o estabelecimento do comunismo, fascismo e a Segunda) e culpa de todas as partes, ja parece menos dificil de ser aceite (isto, para rebater a visao errada e ingenua de que a culpa foi dos alemaes...). Que a Segunda Guerra foi tambem um tragedia e em muitos aspectos tambem uma tragedia que podia ter sido minimizada ainda continua a ser pouco aceite. O que parece claro foi que tendo sido a Inglaterra e a França a declarar guerra por causa da Polonia (tendo o causus bellis partido da recusa da Polonia em discutir o caso de Dantzig), acabou a guerra em Yalta na Europa, e o comunismo de Mao na Asia. Isto no meio do desabar do Imperio Britanico e o inicio das descolonizacoes enquadradas sob a influencia do bloco comunista, aproveitando estas a necessidade dos nacionalismos do terceiro mundo em motivar as populaçoes com uma ideologia de esperança de um "novo paradigma".

A minha atitute perante o horrivel e terrifico seculo 20, passa por achar que todas as reflexoes que demonstrem que muito do que se passou podia ser evitado e que muito do que podia ser evitado passava por uma atitue menos intervencionista e idealista, apenas comprova a tese Liberal que todo o poder politico e o "Estado", incluindo em questoes de segurança e externa, deve ser extremamente limitado.

Infelizmente, em cada tempo, temos os intelectuais da corte estatista que pretendem provar exactamente o contrario, e desta vez "vestidos" de liberais neo-conservadores. Por mim, e apesar das boas intençoes e idealismo (do tipo, "liberation", "levar a liberdade aos povos", etc e tal) de muitos, sao esses os "usefull idiots" do nosso tempo. Reparem que enquanto Bush com o seu idealismo pouco conservador fala de liberdade e democracia nos paises que rodeiam a Russia, todos esses paises sao atraidos para a NATO e os "serviços" ocidentais divertem-se a apoiar revoluçoes com apoios directos e indirectos. Esta e a logica de um "Bloco" tirar partido das debilidades momentaneas de outros "Blocos" rodeando o seu quintal. Mas a historia nao aconselha a tal. A Grande Guerra deu-se por causa de uma questao minima: a Austria fez um ultimato a Servia por causa de um atentado terrorista (assassinato do principe herdeiro) e a Russia declarou guerra a Austria, a França começou a mobilizar apesar dos pedidos de neutralidade da Alemanha. Depois foi o desastre.

Aliado traz aliado, e a logica das alianças misturada com um espirito intervencionista, faz com que em todos os locais reconditos do mundo, varios "Blocos" disputem sempre "nao sei o que", e que faz aumentar exponencialmente a probabilidade que um qualquer evento menor desencadeie um sequencia de eventos que a logica de Estado e a rede de interesses nao consegue parar, pondo todos os cidadaos do mundo, refens de erros tragicos de politicos que decidem tendo em conta a sua capacidade coerciva de fazer politica (financiamento, serviço militar, economia de guerra, idealismo, falhas de julgamento, informaçoes erradas, etc).

"(...) To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

"For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. … The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history."

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Castro murdered their tens of millions. Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th century.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried, or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland, and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland, and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms."