We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – what we have lost edition “Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.”
– A J P Taylor’s English History, 1914-1945. From the first page.
(Hat-tip: Institute of Economic Affairs at its new site. It manages to tie its insights about licensing laws and trade to the glorious English football victory over Mexico last night in the latter country.)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
“You can have open borders OR a welfare state, but not both”
Yes – although government had been growing, even as a proportion of the economy, since the 1870s, it was still fairly limited in 1914. Although it had gained control of about 90% of education – with late 19th century Britain imitating what Prussia and then Austria had done in the late 18th century.
Even Scotland moved from its historic local church (“Kirk”) controlled schools (although this system did have the backing of statutes) to a state school system.
As for immigration – when the only real poor relief, for an able bodied person of working age, was the Workhouse (not even that in most of Scotland before 1845 – because most of Scotland before then had no Poor Law tax at-all) and no anti discrimination regulations, mass immigration was not really a problem.
It should also be noted that before the rise of government benefits and public services (and anti discrimination regulations) immigration to the United States from Latin American nations was fairly small – although the southern border was wide open.
Certainly you could come to Britain from anywhere in the world – my great-grandfather did (most likely because he could not afford to travel to the United States), but you got no hand-outs when you got here, and if people did not want to employ you, or rent you accommodation – they did not have to (that was true up to 1965).
One of the first things that libertarians used to be taught is that free migration will not work where there are public services and benefits – and it certainly will not work if there are special regulations and policies designed to help some ethnic groups at the expense of the natives.
For example, arresting and handcuffing someone who has been stabbed several times – because he is white and the police are now trained to take the word of nonwhites over whites (“anti racism is not about treating everyone the same” – as the trainers admit), or watching a white person being attacked by a gang (in Birmingham) and doing nothing against the gang – but then the police move in and physically attack-the-victim – and then arrest him.
With endless public services and benefits, and crazy “laws” and policies, a multi ethnic society (which did not really exist in 1914 – outside the East End of London – and even there was mostly white-English) will not work.
Although it may,perhaps, work in a strictly limited government society.
On the economic side there were very disturbing signs even before 1914.
For example, unions had been put mostly above the law – partly by the Act of 1875 (which legalized paramilitary tactics such as picket-lines to obstruct the entrances of a place of business) and even more by the Act of 1906 – which meant that Britain “had to” introduce unemployment benefit (1911) which nations such as France and Germany did not have, indeed British union law was possibly the worst-in-the-world after 1906 – it was thought (at least from 1875 – Disraeli) that British industry was so strong it could withstand any level of “social reform” to (supposedly) help “the masses” – a very dangerous attitude.
The defeat of Gladstone in 1874 meant that the promised abolition of Income Tax did not happen – and it started to go up (as did local taxation – after the Disraeli measure of 1875 that made local councils undertake about 40 different functions – whether or not local taxpayers wanted the council to do these things) – with Progressive Income Tax being pushed through in the early 1890s – “we are all socialists now” as that flippant man Sir William Harcourt (who conspired to push Gladstone into retirement) put it.
By the way – a friend of mine down in Hitchin used to work as a researcher for A.J.P. Taylor.
“He always had his conclusion first – and asked for evidence to support it, he did not want evidence that opposed his conclusion”.
That was presented to be me as a charming feature of A.J.P. Taylor – I do not find it charming.
But, in this case, the basic thesis Taylor was presenting is valid – Britain was a much less statist society (a much freer society) in 1914 than it later became.
So was Sweden and other nations that did NOT go to war in 1914. The trend towards greater statism, the decline of liberty, can be seen both in the countries that went to war – and in the countries that did not.
Could we have avoided war in 1914?
Even John Morley (the biographer of Gladstone) who famously resigned from the Cabinet over the war in 1914, was not clear that it could have been avoided – his reasoning for resignation was that he had spent his life opposing high government spending (including against his young “Social Reformer” friend Winston Churchill) and with war government spending would explode, and leave a great debt even after the war – and that was true. He did not say that war could be avoided – only that, whether or not it could be avoided, the consequences would be terrible – which was true.
The German Ambassador to Britain in 1914 believed that Britain could not have avoided war – that Berlin had backed Britain into a corner (no one seriously believed that he Germans would leave Belgium and northern France if allowed to occupy them – and that would be a dagger pointing at the heart of England – something that no government in London, over the centuries (going back to Elizabeth the First and before) could tolerate.
However, not being able to avoid war in 1914 does NOT justify the horrible incompetence with which the war was fought – British and French losses in money and human lives were vastly higher than they need have been.
But that would take us back to old arguments here – so I will not go into the horrible incompetence of 1915, 1916, 1917… – I will confine myself to what many French officers said about their own high command in 1914.
The Battle of the Frontiers offensive was quite mad – with the lives of vast numbers of brave Frenchmen thrown away, by a high command that did not even understand Napoleonic warfare (let alone how warfare had changed since 1815 – learning nothing from the French defeat in 1870).
And after the “Miracle of the Marne” in 1914 (for which, YES, Joffre and the others must be praised), but the French and the British were very slow, they allowed the Germans, who could have been cut off (yes the war could have been “over by Christmas”) to get away.
This is not hindsight – senior French officers at-the-time begged the high command to move faster, to cut the retreating German army off.
Meanwhile the Russian Army flung itself into disaster.
With the 2nd Army being ordered to march into the German trap at Tannenberg (Russian scouts had reported it was a trap – it was known). General Jilinsky replied to General Samsonov’s desperate plea not to march into the German trap with this …. “General Samsonov will not be allowed to play the coward – the advance will continue” – General Samsonov obeyed his orders, and marched his army into the German trap – and then shot himself, it was very Russian.
And the 1st Army “not technically getting lost” – quite true, they knew they were in Germany, they were not lost – although they were not 100% clear on where, exactly, they were – and what they were supposed to be doing. It is not true that General Rennenkampf refused to help the 2nd Army (although he was on bad terms with Samsonov), there were lots of lakes and other such, and Pavel Rennenkampf also got somewhat confused.
The “bottom line” is that the British army was small in 1914 – and that both the French and Russian armies were hopelessly outdated and unprepared for war.
Only the Germans were ready – which is why they declared war on Russia and then on France.
The German Declaration of War upon France in 1914 is incredibly dishonest – almost every word in it is a direct lie. But there was a truth behind it – that truth being that the Germans were ready for war and the French (like the Russians) were NOT.
In France and Russia (and Britain) it was felt that “pluck” (courage) was what was important – that men could achieve anything if their cause was just and they were brave enough. In Germany war was treated as a science.
Even in 1918 there was some of that Allied attitude left – General Haig’s famous order to the men in response to the German Operation Michael Offensive – with faith in the justice of our cause, I place my trust in you.
With faith in the justice of our cause, I place my trust in you – a cynic might say that this means “I do not know what I am doing – YOU do something”, and I am no admirer of General Haig (quite the opposite) – but my grandfather, James Power, was moved when he heard the order (and he was an ordinary soldier) – most of the men were moved by it.
I find myself moved by it right now – although I understand the dark side of relying on the justice of the cause, and personal courage.
As much as I condemn Haig and co – they were right on this, the cause was just – and without personal courage, in spite of endless horror, there can be no victory.
Paul:
If the Germans had only known how disastrous Plan XVII was for the French, they would never have bothered to invade via Belgium, and thus there would have been no casus belli for Britain. The Schlieffen Plan was predicated on the French army being handled far better than it was.
Denizens?
The-Pedant-General – very well put Sir. I missed your comment – I was tired (as I normally am these days) and I just did not see it.
If I had seen your comment I would have praised it at once – please accept my apology for my oversight.
Your point is, for example, why immigration is so much more of a disaster in New York City than it is for Florida – New York City has more government benefits and public services than any other place in the United States (this has been true since Wagner was Mayor of NYC) – so it either attracts the wrong sort of immigrant (the parasite sort) or it corrupts honest immigrants (turning them into parasites – even if they start off with honest intentions).
JohnK – as you know the French army in 1914 did not lack courage, the men in their brightly coloured uniforms marched (sometimes with brass bands playing) into the teeth of the German machine guns and artillery – ten out of ten for courage, but sadly no tactical knowledge at all. I am reminded of the bitter exchange between two French officers late in the war 1870 – “where are the reinforcing soldiers you promised me?”, “here they are – they are right in front of you”, “no – these are brave men who are going to get themselves killed, you have sent me no soldiers”.
To the Germans war-was-a-science (as they repeatedly said – and it was “value-free” it did not matter, from the point of view of military science, if the war was just or unjust) – to the allies war was about having a just cause, and being prepared to lay down one’s life for it. Even in 1918, after four years of horror, the appeal of General Haig to the British soldiers, believing in the justice of our cause, I place my trust in you, was deeply moving for the British forces (my grandfather among them). For the scientific Germany army such sentiments would have been regarded as besides-the-point – indeed as silly – and by 1918 some ordinary German soldiers were more interested in looting than anything else (one reason that Operation Michael broke down – in spite of the scientific tactical superiority of the German army, and they still were superior in SOME of their scientific tactics), even in 1914 they had been no objection to the policy (and it was an official policy) of “Terribleness” in relation to Belgium – deliberately burning historic libraries and so on. Just as there was no objection to using the Belgian and French civilians as forced labour, and using electrified fences to prevent their escape into the Netherlands (the voltage in the fencing was lethal – it was very scientifically advanced for the time).
Whether Imperial Germany could have held down northern France and large areas of Russian in the long term I do not know – but that was the German war-aim.
They understood that the occupation of large areas of France in 1870-71 (which Bismarck himself had doubts about), had made France an enemy for ever, and Imperial Germany also understood that Czarist Russia had a much faster economic growth rate than Germany (something most history books leave out – it does not fit their narrative to admit that Russia was already the 4th largest industrial power on Earth in 1914 and would have have overtaken Germany in a decade or so) – so both France and Russia had to be DESTROYED – that was the reasoning of 1914.
Britain? The Kaiser and inner circle spoke perfect English and his grandmother Queen Victoria is supposed to have died in his arms (at least he was deeply moved by her death) – but on the other hand, he and his advisers detested liberty (partly because Kaiser Wilhelm II detested the Classical Liberalism of his English mother and her husband the Classical Liberal Kaiser Frederick – but mainly because of the influence of the “Historical School” of Collectivist academics in Germany).
To the academic Collectivists who dominated German thinking by 1914 (Germany being the most educated nation on Earth – and being educated is not always a good thing, it depends on what one is educated to believe), both Britain and the United States, and the principles they represented, were in the way – and had to go.
Although there were dissenters even at the highest rank – for example General Falkenhayn, who killed so many Frenchmen at Verdun and British solders on the Somme, did not support the war – because he did not believe in the Collectivist doctrines that were replacing traditional Christianity and personal honour. He was a tormented man – torn between his duty as a German officer and his traditional morality, this conflict continued in the souls of his family in the Second World War.
For example, when General Falkenhayn was sent to the Middle East, he did all he could to stop the Islamic slaughter of Jewish and Christian civilians – to the rising thinkers of the German universities such an attitude was stupid sentimentalism, the Ottoman Empire was an ally, and it was acting as it traditionally acted – so why was Falkenhayn upset?
Indeed German agents in the Middle East had long told sections of the population that the Kaiser had secretly converted to Islam (he had NOT) and that, when they won the war, the French and British women would be taken by the faithful – a traditional Islamic practice (taking the women of the infidels) that dated back to the teaching, and personal example, of Muhammed himself – as the well educated German intelligence officers were well aware.
As for Imperial Russia – the tragic heroism continued, it was not just in 1914 – when the Russian army (utterly unprepared for war) flung itself at the Germans (who had declared war upon both France and Russia) – in order to distract them (the distraction WORKED – some German divisions were pulled back from the invasion of France) – it was, basically, a suicide attack by the Russian army.
“Why did the Imperial Guard not save the Czar?” the old school boy question, is answered by the bitter truth that most of them were dead by 1917.
For example, the Battle of Kovel in 1916 – Grand Duke Paul refused to make the “dishonourable” flanking attack he had been ordered to make, and instead insisted on a frontal attack.
The Imperial Guard Army, including the Imperial Rifle Regiment and the Preobrazhensky Guards, advanced along three causeways in a swamp, with the Germans shooting them from three sides (three sides – this is tactically much WORSE that what General Haig did in various battles – he never ordered the British army to advance where they would be shot and shelled from three sides), and bombing them from the air, and their own (Russian) artillery shelling them – because Russian forces were not supposed to be in this position (the Russian artillery did not know they were shelling Russians).
30 thousand of the most loyal men in Russia were killed – total casualties (killed and wounded) were 55 thousand.
It was one of so many battles when the best men in Russia, the most decent, the most honourable, were killed.
Leaving the criminals and members of Marxist cults (such as the rogue aristocrat “Lenin”) who the Germans supported the coup of in late 1917 – yes many decent men were still alive in 1917, but not enough, not enough. Perhaps the best man left was Baron Wrangel – but the “Black Baron” was not in command of the Whites till it was too late.
The war for Russia (more than any other European power – because it lost more men) had been reverse eugenics – the best men had died, and the worst men (who had avoided military service, in various ways, or avoided actual combat) survived – filled with the desire to loot, and to rape, and to murder.
This continued under Marxist rule – the best men (of whatever social class), the people willing to speak up for victims, and to conduct themselves honourably, were killed – the worst men (the most dishonest in their speech, the most criminal in their conduct, and the most cruel) tended to survive (although some of them were killed as well) – and have children.
This is normally the case under Marxist regimes.
lucklucky – as you may know, police forces only became compulsory in English and Welsh counties after the Act of 1856.
Oddly enough, the public were not eating each other in 1855 – even in counties that had no police force. The idea of a modern-style police force was first tried out in Ireland (that laboratory for statist experiments – where the lying history books claim “laissez-faire” was practiced, this is the reason I do not tend to cite history books – because they are just so wrong, wrong about basic matters-of-fact – and not just about Ireland, about so many things – again basic matters-of-fact) in the early 1800s – the Royal Irish Constabulary.
Public prosecutions (other than for crimes against the Crown) were unknown in English law before the 1870s – the Common Law was about being accused by another person of committing a crime (a violation of the body or goods of someone else), and that was the basis of the trial – there was no public prosecution for normal crimes.
To be fair to the Grand Duke Paul, he as in very bad health indeed – he should not have been in a position of command. Medical advice was strongly against it.
He also showed personal courage – as he continued to do, right up to his murder by Marxist cultists in 1919.