Key points: Aldous Huxley: “The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.”
Tutorial questions: Do nations ever learn from history? Does anybody?
People never learn. Conflict is inherent in social relations and diplomatic solutions have to be sought to avoid bloodshed. Nothing changes; for 2000 years mankind have been in conflict and there are battles after battles with no clear victor, yet man will inevitably fight again with his neighbor. Everything is completely different; in terms of weapons, the world is ever changing, from the stone throwing days to nuke throwing, the scale of death has increased dramatically. Man has conquered the science of killing his fellow brother. In the past, village conflict would have only led to the death of one or a dozen men at most whereas nowadays, we have the potential to destroy the entire planet in one day. The history is in the books. There are records of war upon war from the beginning of literature. Have we learnt the science of peace or the art of diplomacy? I think not! It is realism. Every rational leader knows not to trust his neighbor. If there is anything we can learn from history, it is that we cannot trust our neighbor. Without an overarching body to monitor, intervene and resolve conflicts between states, we live in anarchy! If there is no international court or international police force, the law of sovereignty that was passed in the treaty of Westphalia cannot be upheld. Apparently, all states have the right to administer any form of government and economic policies they wish, democratic or not, however in present times, states like the US think that they have the power to intervene and promote western liberal thought upon oppressed citizens. Iraq and Libya!
The Great War and Versailles
Key point: The First World War was the pre-eminent event of the 20th Century, establishing the global agenda for the remainder of the century – and beyond.
Tutorial questions: What were the origins of the First World War? What did the Allies want at Versailles? What did they get?
the cause of the first world war was the master Aryan race. They wanted more territory, resources and domination over the inferiors. The allies at Versailles wanted to bleed Germany’s economy and take away any ability for them to muster up any resources for another war. They got exactly that and they sent Germany into a depression, the cause for the second world war. Germany was the base of knowledge for our entire human race. All the Engineering sciences were developed in Germany and later throughout the world by the Aryan race. This is a fact and there is evidence sprawled all over the literature. Germans were highly educated men and they realized the fate of leaders. Leaders have to organize the planet. Leaders had to organize and maximize the resources available. Germans were accustomed to a certain class of living, one evidently higher than the rest of the world and in order to maintain that class, they had to take the initiative and make an effort to colonize and distribute these resources equally. It must be remembered that it was the Germans who came up with political philosophy as well. They figured out that the best way to organize society was through socialism; governmental central command! Their neighbors were not literate enough to understand this simple concept as back in the day of the horse and carriage, there were little globalization of language, communication and diplomacy. It was not possible in those days to negotiate global communism with an african wielding a machete and a chinese man wielding a sword while the Germans had nukes in their back pocket!
The Slow Death of Versailles
Guest Lecture - Dr Aiden Warren
Key point: According to scholars such as Gerhard L. Weinberg, the intent of World War II was quite different from that of World War I; this time, in fact, it was a struggle not only for control of territory and resources but about who would live and control the resources of the globe and which people would vanish entirely because they were believed inferior or undesirable by the victors.
Tutorial questions: Why did Churchill and Stalin meet in Moscow in October 1944? What was attempted? What was accomplished?
they met to decide how to organize the resources of the world to supply the demand of the masses. It was a conflict between communist thought and liberal thought. As no one can really prove which economic ideology is better, they decided to split up the world and put it to the test. The east got communism and the west got capitalism. The difficulty came when defining the borders and it was at the borders that conflict reigned. Lets not forget that it was the Germans who had the nukes and the socialist agenda prior to World War I. They had the power and the knowledge. I truly believe they wanted to help the world. It was just a matter of making the stupid people realize that they needed to submit their sovereignty, individual and collective, for a superior power to reign over them. One can compare the German expansionism to the British Imperialism. The British were legitimately a superior power, and hence they had to conquer to share their knowledge and wealth with the rest of the world, at the cost of a few lynchings and commodification of inferior people. After World War I, the Russians fell to German socialist thought and the Jews went west and persuaded the US to follow capitalist thought. Up to World War II, the Germans and the Jews spread across the globe, trying to infiltrate their economic philosophies and hence World War II was basically a conflict of ideology.
The Hiroshima Decision and the Beginning of the Atomic Age
Key point: At the beginning of the atomic age, there were no rules, no concept of nuclear deterrence, and, particularly, no taboo against nuclear war.
Tutorial questions: Why was the bomb built? Why was it used? Was there no alternative? Was it a crime?
the bomb was built at a time where fear reigned. The only option to stop the bloodshed was available and was conceived in a hurry to subdue aggressors. It was used to demonstrate the power the enemy had as a means to put an immediate stop to the fighting. There was no other alternative. It wasn’t a crime. It was a time of great conflict and there was no other option available to end conflict. Nuclear weapons are not a tool of war. They were built to end war and demonstrate the power that had been discovered. Nuclear weapons are not a means of resolving conflict. Some states have collected stockpiles of nukes as a result of the system of sovereignty developed at Westphalia and are using their weapons as a deterrence for other states to invade. It is however an empty threat as it is not possible for a rational reasonable man to use a nuke. It might be debated that some leaders are not in right mind, however no matter how evil a leader may seem, he will understand that the little advantage he gets with first strike, he will be retaliated by an ally to the adversary. Hence a reluctance to use nuclear coercion in diplomacy. Now the bomb has been built, there is no removing this technology. This technology can however be seen as a blessing and used to our advantage. If it wasn’t for the need of deterrence, the power would never have been seen. Now that it is here, we can harness it and power the world with electricity!
Origins of the Cold War
Key point: The Cold War, dominating the first-half of the 20th Century, was a time of relentless and institutionalized tragedy; of proxy wars that destroyed lives in every continent; of gulags and forced confessions; and of countless thousands killed while trying to escape.
Tutorial questions: What was meant by “containment”? How was it supposed to work? Did it work?
the communists of Russia believed that they should persuade their fellow brothers of the best way to organise society, and the Americans did not want this to happen, hence a containment.. The Vietnam war was a containment strategy. There is no right path, however the Russians believed that Communist thought was the best way to organise society and the Americans thought the free market was the best way to organise supply and demand. I repeat ; there is no right path, however the West have come into financial crises and it looks like the Chinese have hoarded a lot of cash in this game of global monopoly. Now with the US in trade deficit for the last forty years, China and its tigers and dragons are able to conquer the world by beating the bully at his own game. Containment was about coercing, charismatically and forcefully the nature of the economic problem. Advocating to the masses for support through underground channels. Psychiatric management was even required for extremists like myself ... I have got an aerospace, mechanical and manufacturing background with behavior problems!?!
Origins of the Cold War
Guest Lecture - Dr Aiden Warren
Key point: Australia’s relationship with the United States could never be other than paradoxical.
Tutorial questions: For Australia, a middle power at the southern end of the world, any defence treaty with the United States could always find its justification. Do you agree? Or disagree? Why? Be Specific.
Australia does not have a huge economy to sustain the large defence force it needs to secure it vast borders. Hence a need for a big brother to promise security, however this brings an elephant into the room. Australia is socialist. There is high taxation for corporations and there is high tax for high income earners. The water, electricity, public transport, telecommunications, sewerage are all owned by the government. Health and education are not even private. There is even social welfare. Pensioners enjoy large handouts equal to minimum wage. There are homeless shelters catering for those who find it difficult to live on the welfare payments, as they indulge in drugs, alcohol, tobacco and gambling, and there are also religious groups providing meals to those who are unable, however the social inequality in its ally, the US of A, is devastating. The US is extreme capitalist and every citizen, except those in a lower socioeconomic class, strongly believe that competition and free markets is the best way to distribute resources equally and rightly. The fact that Australia is following The US into every war they wish to endeavour upon is a little paradoxical. The US is the west. Australia is pretty much in the East. That’s the western ideologies of free markets pitted against socialist values. However there is good political ties. The relationship with England probably has something to do with the close ties. In pursuit of peace, it is sensible to have a united partnership in attaining similar goals.
The Vietnam War and it's Lessons
Guest Lecture – Dr Aiden Warren
Key point: American involvement in Vietnam was, by any standard, the most disastrous episode in the history of United States foreign policy. The loss in national treasure ($US141 billion) and blood (58,000 killed) was staggering. And yet no politician, policymaker or analyst has ever seriously argued that the U. S. could have won the war. They have, however, at the time—and since then—offered a myriad of reasons why this was the case. There was, it seems, plenty of blame to go around.
Tutorial questions: David Reynolds concludes that the Vietnam War had not only brought America to the brink of civil war but also unsettled America’s allies as well. What does he mean by this? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
the Vietnam war was the battleground for the ideological fight for a short time. It was basically the Russian weapons against American weapons, and the fight went to the land, precisely because the power of the air force was too much. With one bomb the Vietnam issue could have been solved, but the Russians and Chinese on the other side would have retaliated, so gory bloodshed. America lost a lot of money in Vietnam. As they couldn’t use the nuke, they lost a lot of lives and machinery fighting the Viet Cong. The Americans might have had a lot of heavy weaponry, however they could not match the superior guerilla warfare unleashed upon them. They would have been slaughtered in their sleep, the same way the tooth fairy visits the delinquents of Australia to induce suicide. Not everyone in America always supports their government in all their decisions. It may be a democratic state, however the theory of elitism advocates that the superior ruling class put on the charade of elections to make the masses happy. Some of the idiots have looked over their shoulder to see the source of the shadows and have created an internal enemy which is more difficult to handle. With the spies of the KGB, internal belligerency of local socialist, and the negro problem, America had problems that it could not deal with. Its’ allies, a few of the West Europeans were also worried about the rest of the world closing in on them. Africa was an enemy with the thoughts of slavery in recent times. The Arabs don’t like the West. Apart from the tigers and dragons, Asia was also an enemy of the West. That’s pretty much the whole world against the West. To America’s allies, the Vietnam war looked like nuclear armageddon.
Southeast Asia – Tigers and Dragons between Great Powers
Guest Lecture – Dr Julian Lee
Key point: The countries of Southeast Asia have historically acted as sites on which Great Powers rivalries have played out. As China’s power increases, they can still be seen to continue balancing the influence of powerful others. Against this background, the countries of Southeast Asia, both through their “miraculous” economic performances and their politics, have made important contributions to the shape of the contemporary world and the region’s security.
Tutorial question: David Reynolds observes that the four “tigers” – South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong – crossed the threshold of modernity even more rapidly than Japan. What does he mean exactly? And how does he make his argument?
The fact that the four tigers have strong economies is a triumph for the ideology rhetoric of the west. However, one has to be reassured that the Chinese race are strong. When I say the Chinese race, I do not refer to Chinese people in China. I refer to the entire Asian population. There may be a few half breeds as the Indians and Africans and Caucasians have have cross bred over the centuries, however the races I mention are all that exist in the human population on Earth. There are only four distinct families in the human race. I hate to discredit the Bible here, however Adam did not spawn four families. It might seem that I have veered off topic, however one has to consider alliances and diplomacy when considering the dragons and tigers. The Chinese have a docile front, offering their people to slave in the liberal ideology with Caucasian masters in the dragons and tigers, however chess is a long game of long term strategy that crosses generations. With the development of the nuke to end WWII, diplomacy was required to negotiate. Submitting to the superior race involves concessions and the dragons and tigers were nothing more. Yes they have crossed the threshold of modernity even more rapidly than Japan. They have adopted Western lifestyles and have prospered. We still have the problem of the financial crisis of the West. Liberal thought has failed the great powers and now we have to federate to bail out weak economies.
Who "won" the Cold War? And why does it matter?
Key point: The lessons of the end of Moscow-dominated communism – i.e., as to why events played out as they did – have shaped current public discourse as well as served as future policy axioms in Washington and Moscow.
Required reading: David Reynolds, “The Crisis of Communism,” Chapter 15, in One World Divisible, pp. 539-85.
Tutorial questions: Why did the Cold War end? Why did it end the way it did? And who was responsible for its end?
the cold war hasn’t ended. The Berlin wall may have fallen and Russia’s satellite nations might have broken free, however communist thought has not really left from the mind of the Russian or the satellite states. The west might have coerced free trade with China, however China’s government is still controlling major assets, industries and utilities. Vietnam endured a battle with the Americans. Australia is following socialist patterns even though tightly connected with the West. North Korea is communist and is provoking war in recent news. China even apparently has troops ready at the border. India will side with the east as Russia is a big and good friend to have. Then the problem of the Arabs : they hate the west. We are at the end of a century’s battle. We have to come together and embark upon new policy to weasel out of our little problem of organisation. If we were to leave the planning to the the professionals, we should be able to organise the supply for the demand of seven billion. We have the technology infrastructure in place to carry out such a challenge. Let's call this the point where the free market ideology of neoliberalism meets the welfare ideology of socialism and utilizes the logistics of our slave, science to distribute the globes resources equally and sustain a luxurious lifestyle for all the people in this little planet!
The Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Key point: Of all the potential threats to the global community today (including Global Warming and the War on Terror) nuclear weapons probably pose the greatest risk to humankind.
Tutorial questions: Does the spread of nuclear weapons make the world safer or more dangerous? And how can the international community prevent the spread of nuclear weapons?
the world is not more dangerous as those that possess nuclear weapons are rational and rational leaders do not put their people at a position where death is inevitable. The only way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is to unify the world and create a world federation council where all military and security concerns are handled by the one body. This includes the management of nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity. There is no need to destroy all weapons as we might find them necessary in our quest to conquer the space out there. The world would be safer place if and if only we can control the weapons. If every state goes about and makes their own nukes, they wouldn’t actually be able to use them. The legitimate leaders of each state are rational. The problem only arises if an insane man were to get ahold of a nuke or the type of charismatic stronghold that would enable him to utilize an army. This army would have to be an illiterate army like those of the underground African militias and Arab states. No person in their right mind would unleash the power of a nuke, however if we were to look at history, there have been many a head dethroned. With the amount of murderers and rapists in jail all over the world, it can be said that a large percent of the population are mentally ill. Hence, a high probability that a leader might attain an army and nukes with an evil mind. Hence the world is more dangerous as nuclear weapons spreads across the globe. The only way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is to eradicate the fear in the masses. In order to do this, we have to federate. The other option is the Hobbesian Jungle, where every state for himself, where nukes pose a threat. Individual and collective sovereignty must be submitted to the world federation. That includes the machinery of warfare. “There is only one way out, and that is the creation of Law and Order in the field of international relations”, Einstein.
