April 20, 2003

Notes: William Hitchcock, The Struggle for Europe

Notes


William Hitchcock (2002), The Struggle for Europe (New York: Doubleday: 0385497989).

p. 10: Simone de Beauvoir... Americans, she write, "approved of all Truman's speeches. Their anti-Communism bordered on neurosis; their attitude towards... France... arrogant condescension"... "we had loved them, these tall soldiers in khaki who had looked so peaceful; they were our liberty." Now they represented "our dependence and a mortal threat".... de Beauvoir's line of attack on the United States, echoed in the writings of hundreds... missed a crucial part of the overall picture. The Iron Curtain was quite real... a decidely nasty form of political order... could well ahve been visited upon France, Germany,a nd Italy, were it not for those tall U.S. soldiers in khaki. De Beauvoir failed to see--did not wish to see--the nature of the "people's democracies" being erected in Eastern Europe under Soviet coercion... distressed intellectuals did not publish memoirs and go on the lecture circuit; they wrote forced confessions and went to prison..."

p. 17: ...Under this agreement, some 2 million Soviet D[isplaced ]P[ersonds] were repatriated from the Western portion of Germany under Anglo-American control; to these may be added another 3 million in Eastern Germany already in Russian hands.... Of the 5 million returning Soviet citizens, only about one-fifth were allowed to return to their homes an dfamilies. The rest were sent to forced-labor camps or executed...

p. 21: ...The position sof the American and British leaders are fairly easy to destermine.... Yet the intentions of Stalin are far harder to know.... Stalin certainly thought of himself as a disciple of Lenin, charged with brining to fruition the world Communist revolution that had started in Russia in 1917. He understood history in Marxist terms, and believed that the capitalist world order would soon collapse due to its internal contradictions.... But socialism could triumph only if the Soviet Union remained strong and secure. The country had suffered terribly.... Stalin's foreign policy in 1945, then, was a rather defensive one... provide Russia with security... in Eastern Europe the political order... friendly to Soviet interests...

p. 41: Labour's [1945] victory revealed the profound effect... six years of wartime sacrifice and privation... selflessness, unity, and camaraderie that had obvious poiltical utility for the Labour Party... legitimated ideals... about the role of the state in improving the welfare of the average citizen... 1945... more a repudiation of... the 1930s...

p. 43: ...Sir William Beveridge... principal piece of social legislation... "Social Insurance and Allied Services"... 1 December 1942... comprehsneive plan for social security... unemployment benefits... national health service... children's allowances... commitment to a policy of full employment... first blueprint of the welfare state...

p. 49: ...Grudgingly, the Americans offered a loan of $3.75 billion at 2 percent interest.... The loan negotiations created much rancor in Britain, whose financial weakness was due to its sacrifices in a war fought on behalf of all the democracies. Now, the wealthiest country in the world was reluctant to assist.... The Economist caught the tone... "we have, at present, no real option but to accept the American offer... [But] we are not compelled to say we like it.... Our present needs... direct consequence... we fought ealiest... longest... hardest.... In moral terms we are creditors; and for that we shall pay.... It may be unavoidable, but it is not right."... It is remarkable to think that just two years later... Truman... would call for... over $20 billion... Marshall Plan. Despite British disappoiintment... the aid did alleviate... the worst anxieties of the new government... without the loan, the entire Labour program of 1945-51 "would not have been possible"...

p. 52: ...wartime rationing... continued in large measure until 1949, and ration books were not discontinued until 1954.... This "age of austerity"... provided the Conservatives with much political fodder... the government... had made a calculated decision to insist on austerity so that resources could be mobilized for exports and for the creation of a new network of benefits and services on which its reputation, finally, would stand.... Labour... spared no effort in creating a vast, comprehensive, and expensive system of social services that was designed to provide every Briton with a basic modicum of health, education, and insurance against poverty...

p. 54: The first wave... nationalization... government placed one-fifth of the country's productive capacity under the control of the state... civil aviation, telecommunications, coal, railways, road haulage, and electricity, gas, iron, and steel... no... redistribution of... wealth... not a worker's democracy but... the "mixed economy"...

p. 56: ...very quickly it became clear that the government had massively understiamted the cost of the NHS. Bevan assumed... free health care... healthier public... fewer trips to the doctor.... In its first nine months, the NHS overran its budget by more than 50 million pounds. By 1951 it cost more than 400 million pounds a year to run...

p. 63: Marshall's speech was little more than a statement of American good intentions.... This is why Bevin's role was so crucial in th eformation of the Marshall Plan.... immediately contacted the French foreign minister, Georges Bidault... European Recovery Program... $12.5 billion on the European recovery.

p. 64: Marshall's public assurances that his plan was... "directed not against any country of doctrine"... the effect of the plan was to speed up the division of Europe...

p. 87: Was there a quid pro quo between the United States government and De Gasperi, promising American aid in return for the expulsion of the Communists from the government? The Italian left has always assumed so... De Gasperi was working to deepen Italo-American relations, secure more aid, and win a strong U.S. declaration of support for the anti-Communist parties in Italy.... The Americans reacted swiftly.... American records make it clear tha the Italians, like the French and the West Germans, had learned... the threat of Communism worked to galvanize American action and win economic aid.... [De Gasperi] backed by his own deeply anti-Communist party... sought to break.... unnatural coalition with the secular, Marxist, and revolutionary PCI. The Cold War was not imposed upon unwilling Italians by an imperialist America. The Italians quite willingly brought it on themselves.

p. 90: The creation of the Cominform marked an open declaration of war on American policy... France... the PCF organized a wave of strikes... Marseilles... large crowds stormed the law courts and the town hall, where they beat up the mayor... vandalized and looted as 40,000 strikers roamed the streets... miners... 3 million people on strike.... American ambassador's sources told him that the Communists were working under the direct orders of Moscow.... AFL channeled financial aid and strategic advice to the non-Communist French unions... urged them to split off from the Communist-dominated... CGT.... new union aided... by... perception that the CGT... under the thumb of Moscow...

p. 114: Now events followed the pattern visible in Poland and Hungary.... Communist propaganda spewed forth from the Ministry of Information.... Three democratic ministers... received mail bombs... police and trade unions... moblized to intimidate..... Communist... Interior Minister Nosek had begun a purge of non-Communist police officers... democratic parties demanded their reinstatement... Nosek refused... democratic ministers... resigned en masse on 20 February. In France and Italy, this move had been the preliminatry to a reformulation of governments that excluded the Communists. This is what the ministers hoped [President] Benes would now do. He did not... Communists staged immense rallies... mobilized... police, unions, and army leadership... declared that they would resort to violence if they were not given control of the government. Benes was caught on the horns of a dilemma. He could reject the demands of the Communists, overrule the results of the 1946 election (in which they had freely won a majority), and court civil war and Soviet intervention. These were serious concerns: there were 250,000 pro-Communist demonstrators in the streets of Prague, and the Soviets had sent Deputy Foreign Minister Valerian Zorin to the city to "confer" with Gottwald. Or Benes could concede to the Communists and let Gottwald form a Communist-dominated government. Either way, democracy in Czechoslovakia would be ruined. The frail and elderly Benes, in a decision that forever tarnished the reputation of this good man of peace, relented, and offered Gottwald what he wanted. On 25 February, Gottwald was again named prime minister.... By their precipitate resignations, the democratic ministers enabled Gottwald to take power by constitutional means. There was no coup in Prague; there was only a turbulent but legal transfer of power to Communist hands...

p. 130: In March 1949, Kostov was removed form the Bulgarian politburo... arrested... four months of nonstop torture... confess[ed].... Still, Kostov proved a tough nut to crack. During his show trial... Kostov suddenly broke away from his memorized text... declared his innocence... dragged away... judge proceeded to read the confessions Kostov had made under torture... found guilty... Kostov alone... hanged.... Hungary would provide another stage... Rajk... loyal Communist... masterminded the destruction of the democratic parties of Hungary... torture.... In Hungary, as elsewhere, there were virtually no prisoners who refused to confess.... Rajk and seven other defendants... Budapest show trial... September 1949... borken men, quite willing to admit that they had been recruited by French and American agents in the 1930s... U.S. spymaster Allen Dulles... conspired to assassinate the Hungarian Communist leadership... words of the prosecutor, Rajk... had sought the "introduction of a bloodthirsty dictatorship on the fascist pattern, the betrayal of the independence of the country, and colonization on behalf of the imperialists.... the head of the snake which wants to bite us must be crushed.... The only defense against made dogs is to beat them to death"...

p. 124: What purpose did this assault on leading Communists serve? Stalin unleashed terror on Eastern Europe, just as he had done within the USSR, in order to sweep away any vestiges of the dynamic Communists who had seized power in the confused and turbulent years just after the war. He now wished to dispense with these revolutionaries and install in their place a leadership gripped by fear, held in place by terror, and unswervingly loyal to Moscow. To obtain this objective, he needed not just to destrooy his enemies but to bring them to surrender unconditionally to a system premised on Stalin's omniscience, his benevolence, his wisdom. The purges and the show trials were not simply about punishment, therefore, but about conversion. In his novel 1984, George Orwell chillingly articulates this deeper motive that lay behind the show trials. As his central character, Winston Smith, lies strapped to a table in an interrogation chamber, his tormentor, O'Brien, explains:

"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us, we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him."

Perhaps this is a fitting epitaph for the Stalinist era in Eastern Europe.

p. 131: In 1949, European manners and morals... rhythms of life... patterns of industrial, labor and social activity... quite familiar to [1900]... within a decade, these cherished patterns were forever altered... industrial sectors of the economy. Europe in the... 1950s grew at a pace never seen before or since... tripled...

p. 133: 1950... 1.7 million private cars in France; within ten years there were 5.5 million, and this figure would double again by 1966.... 1950... barely half a million private cars in the Federal Republic... Germany reached 10.3 million by 1966... TVs in France... 4000 in 1950 to 1.9 million a decade later... Italy... 4 million of them [by 1963]... Germany... only 2000 sets in 1953, but 8.5 million in 1963... the 1950s... decade of unprecedented material comfort, opportunity, and genuine liberty after so many yeras of harrowing fear and privation...

p. 134: What Marshall aid did do was allow European states to continue along a path of industrial expansion and investment... while at the same time putting into place a costly but politically essential welfare state... a transformation in Europe's economic life away from the cautious, deflationary 1930s to the Keynesian high-investment strategies of the1950s. In this sense, Marshall aid gave Europeans choices that they might not otherwise have had. Marshall aid allowed the Europeans to save themselves...

p. 136: Marshall aid, it was hoped in Washington, would provide the leverage the U.S. needed to cojole and perhaps compel Europeans to lower tariff barriers, pursue sound fiscal policies, stabilzie their currencies, increase intra-European trade, and above all maximize their productive potential... the huge shift in Euroepan attitudes toward expansionist economic policies, lower tariff rates, and transnational European cooperation suggest that the Marshall Plan profoundly marked the entire dialogue of European reconstruction.

p. 138: Marshall aid redounded to the benefit of the centrist, anti-Communist coalitions that held the fragile Fourth Republic together...

p. 143: It was the U.S. government that ceaselessly urged Europeans to pursue national stregies of recovery that stressed exports, lower tariffs, and high investment...

p. 161: Raymond Aron ridiculed the French Communist sympathizers... Jean-Paul Sartre, who insisted that the Soviet system was the only one available that offered the prospect of revolutionary chagne. For Aron, the West since the end of the war had shown that "there is no incompatibility between political liberty and wealth, or between free markets and a higher standard of life." The Soviet Union, by contrast, had transformed its revolution into "long term despotism," and held no appeal for those who valued liberty and well being. This debate... typifies the 1950s.... Indeed, the debate was not concluded until the very end of the Cold War... in retrospect... certain patterns... emerged in the 1950s... came to characterize West European society for the next half century... embrace the free market... accept the Cold War as at least a semi-peace... get on with life. The 1950s in Western Europe, then, was not the decade of Sartre but the decade of Erhard; not the decade of revolution but of stability and prosperity...

p. 171: ... The independence of Ghana now led British colonial officials to accept a new logic... independence... ought to be granted swiftly so as to preserve a modicum of control over the process.... Nigeria... 1960... Gambia... 1965.... In Kenya, a large white settler population resisted a swift withdrawal,a nd they had to be placated.... On balance, the British experience of decolonization in Africa was a successful one... swift, done with an earnest desire to promote viable African successosr sttes, and carried out with a marked absence of violence...

p. 192: ...France was liberated from Algeria just as Algeria freed itself from French control. The immense sums spent on fighting could now be channeled back into modernization... France could pursue a policy of selective engagement... using economic leverage to hold the Francophone community together. These gains, however, had come at a terrible cost. The French had lost 13,000 soldiers killed in action; perhaps 350,000 Algerians died--and at least half of these were killed by the FLN itself. The French left behind a shattered Algerian economy, with 3 million people having been displaced from rural villages...

p. 213: ...Tito... brokered a deal: Nagy would be given a written letter of safe conduct from Kadar and be allowed to return to his home, where he would desist from political activities. Kadar agreed... but no sooner had Nagy stepped out of the embassy than he was abducted, flown to Romania... imprisoned.. after yet another show trial... shot, probably on Khrushchev's orders. The crises... lay bare Nikita Khrushchev's puzzling, contradictory policies. Here was a leader who took great risks to depart from the orthodoxies of Stalinism. He tried to reinvigorate the Communist movement by reclaiming its ealier dynamism and promise for a better future. But his idealism and romanticism ran up against a stubborn fact: Eastern Europeans did not like Communism.... This Khrushchev coul dnot accept, and so he, like all his predecessors, fell back on the one means of governance he truly understood: force...

p. 213: ...Khrushchev faced what he saw as a new and profoundly disturbing problem: the growing disparity in power between the two German states.... As the Weest boomed, the East Germans were going bust. Worse, Ulbricht... had intensified efforts to build socialism in the GDR by forcing the pace on collectivization, seizing private property, and enforcing strict obedience to the ideological tenets of the SED. As a result, the refugee problem... persisted... hundreds of thousands of East Germans continued to leave... reunited with family members... better economic opportunity... most common reason... was the pressure to join in political organizations... working as an informer...

p. 223: ...de Gaulle's team believed that if France was to get out of the economic doldrums, it must embrace open markets.... France sharply reduced its tariffs... from 1959 to 1970, French GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.8 percent, a rate not matched by any european country, including Germany (4.9 percent), Italy (5.5 percent), and Britain (2.9 percent). De Gaulle's government built on the Pinay-Rueff reforms by pursuing an aggressive industrial and modernization strategy...

p. 260: ...16 March 1978... Red Brigades... leader of the Christian Democratic Party, Aldo Moro... terrorists wanted to take him alive, and they did, killing his entire retinue of bodyguards in the process in a brutally efficient kidnapping.... But the Christian Democratic government of Giulio Andreotti refused to be drawn into negotiations.... Moro was murdered on 9 May.... The Moro murder proved a decisive turning point... the Italian political class now closed ranks behind a strategy to defeat the terorrists... General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa unlimited powers to launch an antiterrorist campaign. Even the Socialist and Communist Parties did not object, for the Moro murder had made it clear that no Italian politician, judge, policeman, or businessman was safe... Dalla Chiesa began to make progress.... But... the terrorists resonded with increased ferocity.... In 1978, 2379 attacks... in 1979, 2513...

p. 301: ...Helsinki... thirty-five countires... hammered out statements in three central areas... Basket One... the inviolability of the borders in Europe... Basket Two... trade relations, giving the Soviets access to European technology and Europeans access to East European markets.... Basket three... public commitments to "respect human rights and fundametnals freedoms, including th efreedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief," and to "promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person." The Russians thought they had won the better deal, and so did many shortsighted commentators... the Soviets gave dissenters... a powerful tool... the USSR at Helsinki "received a better title to something it already had... East European empire. But the West was given a means to facilitate the transformation of that Empire."

p. 326: "Harsh words: yet [Thatcher] viewed the miners, or rather their leaders, as "revolutionaries who sought to impose a Marxist system on Britain whatever the means and whatever the cost." To be sure, Arthur Scargill, the leader of th NUM, was a Marxist.... But the miners had genuine grievances. Their industry was dying. In 1923... 1.2 million workers.... In 1947... coal still provided 90% of the nation's energy... number of workers... 700,000... By 1974, coal supplied only one-third of th enation's energy needs... 200,000 workers... In 1984 alone, the mining industry cost the government 875 million pounds in losses. To restore the industry to solvency, the government hired Ian MacGregor.... His brief was to consolidate the coal industry... more efficient... close down uneconomic pits... lay off the workers... the government expected that this plan would lead to a miner's strike.... The government also had learned the lessons from previous encounters with the miners: the police were better trained and equipped to confront the massed "flying pickets" that had halted coal deliveries in 1972. The strike beganin March 1984... closure of... Cortonwood... Scargill saw this as an opportunity to bring his whole union out in strike agains the policy of closing mines that failed to make a profit... significant number of miners... did not wish to strike... did not put the strike to a nationwide ballot... got local branch leaders to use their clout to win a strike vote at the local level, where intimidation, pickets, and peer pressure could be so much more effective. This allowed the NUM to avoid putting the strike to a vote, a fact that Mrs. Thatcher never ceased to emphasize... Nottinghamshire... 73 percent against the strike... Midlands... northwest... northeast coalfields also... against the strike... workers in related industries... resfused to come out in support... governmetn just managed to meet demand for energy... Scargill had solicited funds... from... Gaddafi...

p. 349: Gorbachev... half of the population of his village died of hunger in 1933... paternal grandfather... arrested in 1934 for failing to meet production targets... sent to a labor camp... mother's father... arrested on charges of being a member of a right-wing Trotskyist organization... tortured and imprisoned...

p. 349; Gorbachev... 1966... head of the party in... Stavropol. Four years later... leader for the entire... region... seat on the Central Committee. During the 1970s... close contract with Yuri Andropov.... 1978... a secretary of the Central Committee with full responsibility for agriculture... 1980... full member of the politburo... 10 March 1985... general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union...

Posted by DeLong at April 20, 2003 11:45 AM | TrackBack

Comments

"But the miners had genuine grievances. Their industry was dying."

Their industry probably deserved to die. It is ludicrous to protect jobs that are no longer economically viable. At best, the government should help retrain these workers to find other employment. Why force the poor to pay higher energy bills?

Posted by: David Thomson on April 20, 2003 09:00 PM

"Raymond Aron ridiculed the French Communist sympathizers... Jean-Paul Sartre, who insisted that the Soviet system was the only one available that offered the prospect of revolutionary chagne. For Aron, the West since the end of the war had shown that "there is no incompatibility between political liberty and wealth, or between free markets and a higher standard of life." The Soviet Union, by contrast, had transformed its revolution into "long term despotism," and held no appeal for those who valued liberty and well being. This debate..."

Raymond Aron was a great man. I sometimes need to be reminded that not every French intellectual is some sort of stark raving lunatic. Sadly, the filth of Jean Paul Sartre is probably far better known in the United States.

Posted by: David Thomson on April 20, 2003 09:07 PM

Their industry probably deserved to die. It is ludicrous to protect jobs that are no longer economically viable.

Except that the private enterprises which bought many of the pits managed to do very well, thank you, out of it. Thatcher's assault on the miners was a purely ideological power-grab, designed to decapitate the unions. And people have long memories: my suspicion is that the good baroness will be cremated in order to stop people forming queues to spit (or worse) on her grave.

(It was good that the obituarists remembered that Sir Paul Getty was one of those who anonymously contributed to the miners' support fund.)

Posted by: nick sweeney on April 20, 2003 11:23 PM

"...arrested on charges of being a member of a right-wing Trotskyist organization..."

In what parallel universe was Trotskyism a right wing movement? They are usually refered to as the "left" opposition.

Posted by: Scott Martens on April 21, 2003 03:09 AM

>In what parallel universe was Trotskyism a right wing movement? They are usually refered to as the "left" opposition.

Some years back now, in an online forum, and long before the Trotskyst provenance of many neoconservatists had gained its present notoriety, I hazarded the heterodox hypothesis that the secret of Trotsky's enduring appeal through successive generations was the fact that at one time or another he had enthusiastically espoused practically every conceivable ideology going.

"In 1897 Trotsky became involved in organizing the underground South Russian Workers' Union. He was sent to Siberia after being arrested for revolutionary activity. After four years in captivity, he escaped and eventually made his way to London [Note here: Trotsky was clearly another of those asylum seekers, rather like Disraeli's grand father, for those inclined to apoplectic rage about such things]. Trotsky joined the Social Democratic Party and while in England he met and worked with a group of Marxists producing the journal Iskra. This included George Plekhanov, Pavel Axelrod, Vera Zasulich, Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov.

"At the Second Congress of the Social Democratic Party held in London in 1903, there was a dispute between Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov. Lenin argued for a small party of professional revolutionaries with a large fringe of non-party sympathizers and supporters. Martov disagreed believing it was better to have a large party of activists. Martov won the vote 28-23 but Lenin was unwilling to accept the result and formed a faction known as the Bolsheviks. Those who remained loyal to Martov became known as Mensheviks. . . Trotsky supported Julius Martov."
- from: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LRUStrotsky.htm

Better known is the fact that by the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917, Trotsky had made the transition to Bolshevism and the standing of a close comrade of Lenin, from which status he became the successful commander of the Red Army during the Russian civil war that followed the revolution. After Lenin's death in 1924, he became alienated from the troika of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin which assumed power and in the ensuing debates over the path to be taken in the Soviet Union on the road to Communism, he came to advocate permanent world revolution in opposition to the chosen route of socialism in one country first, leading in due course to his exile from the Soviet Union in 1929.

By the early 1930s in exile he was writing polemical critiques of the Soviet command economy and advocating markets instead:

"If there existed the universal mind that projected itself into the scientific fancy of Laplace; a mind that would register simultaneously all the processes of nature and of society, that could measure the dynamics of their motion, that could forecast the results of their inter-reactions, such a mind, of course, could a priori draw up a faultless and exhaustive economic plan, beginning with the number of hectares of wheat and down to the last button for a vest. In truth, the bureaucracy often conceives that just such a mind is at its disposal; that is why it so easily frees itself from the control of the market and of Soviet democracy." [Trotsky: Soviet Economy in Danger (1931), quoted by Abba Lerner: The Economics of Control (1944), p. 62]

Successively a reformist, a revolutionary to achieve a transformation to socialism, a world revolutionary and then an advocate of markets and democracy, Trotsky effectively covered the whole ideological waterfront. At some point, like the proverbial stopped clock, he was bound to be right.

Posted by: Bob Briant on April 21, 2003 06:03 AM

"In what parallel universe was Trotskyism a right wing movement? They are usually refered to as the "left" opposition."

Somebody obviously needs to read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” People like Trotsky often need to find a cause requiring their full existential commitment. The particular beliefs can be of secondary importance. Hitler’s Nazis, for instance, took it for granted that some of their best converts would be Communist ideologues. It is not at all unusual for both the radical right and the extreme left to sound identical to each other (ie. anti-Semitism).

Posted by: David Thomson on April 21, 2003 01:50 PM

>It is not at all unusual for both the radical right and the extreme left to sound identical to each other (ie. anti-Semitism).

There's an enlightening passage in Robert Conquest's study of Stalin where he writes of a report-back in 1936 by the British ambassador to Nazi Germany - the contingent of ex-Communists in a march past of the SA [the Nazi Brown Shirts] were the best turned.

Stalin evidently had no insuperable ideological problems over contracting a Friendship Treaty with Nazi Germany on 28 September 1939, after Britain and France were already at war - Norman Davies: Europe (1996), p. 1001. Relations were so cordial that liaison officers were exchanged across the mutual German-Soviet border running through what had been Polish territory before the German invasion at the beginning of September.

Posted by: Bob Briant on April 21, 2003 03:42 PM

The right wing fascist and leftist extremist have much in common. They are both utopians who are hostile to rational thinking and contemptuous toward the concept of individual rights; there should be no hesitation to sacrifice individuals for the sake of the collective. Such a political arrangement inevitably must search for scapegoats to blame when things go wrong. This is a central reason why anti-Semitism is so pervasive.

A democratic society is deemed to be messy and complicated, and therefore is perceived as inferior. It is perceived to be far better to have a powerful ruler to make the decisions for the rest of the community. This is why Joseph Stalin was so enamored of Adolph Hitler. The latter shared his essential value system. They were blood brothers under the skin.

Posted by: David Thomson on April 22, 2003 09:06 AM
Post a comment