Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Top Ten Stupid Socialist Blunders


The following is a list of the ten worst blunders committed by socialist and collectivist states throughout history. These blunders range from crimes of pure negligence and stupidity to acts of violence and genocide. I have tried not to pick isolated incidents (of which there are many), but rather the items on this list are microcosms of the larger structural flaws in collectivist ideology. This list stands as a stark remainder of the failures caused by the implementation of socialism throughout history and why it should never be attempted again.


10. Chilean Inflation

Winning by a narrow margin in the 1970 election, Chilean president Salvador Allende became the first Marxist to be democratically elected as the leader of a Latin American country. During his first speech as head of state, Allende vowed to “destroy the economic basis for capitalism” and nationalize Chile’s copper mines—the main source of the country’s income. To the contempt of Chilean conservatives, businessmen, and the United States government, he attempted just that. Through excessive spending and buying out of shareholders, Allende was able to requisition most of the nation’s mines and factories. In 1972, however, the effort had become increasingly militarized, with armed party members seizing many of them by force.

These immoral and anti-capitalist tendencies of his eventually ran the Chilean economy into a fatal nosedive. By 1972, the government was 300 million dollars in debt, real wages had dropped nearly ten percent, and the inflation rate was 163%. The country was also relying more on agricultural imports to feed its people, increasing 84% since 1970.[1] Due to the gross mismanagement of the economy, American banks stopped giving the Chilean government loans, and as a result, Allende printed more money. When he was finally thrown out of power in a military coup in 1973, the inflation rate had reached a whopping 508%.[2] Salvador Allende’s successor, Augusto Pinochet initiated free market policies by privatizing the factories and paying the nation’s debt. The economy finally improved and the inflation rate stabilized.

Imbecilic monetary policy and economic mismanagement are trademarks of collectivist regimes. When a government engages in such irresponsible behaviour as seizing property and printing money, it is no wonder that other countries would be wary of doing business with them. Chile was certainly not the only socialist nation to have a runaway inflation rate, but it stands as a perfect example of how economic mismanagement can cripple the economy of such regimes.


9. Suppression of Free Speech in East Germany
The Stasi spied on you before Obama made it cool.

            From 1961 to 1990, Germany was split into two states by the Berlin Wall. The eastern half of Germany, known as the German Democratic Republic, was governed by the Stasi, a brutal secret police force.  The Stasi were meticulous at gathering information and keeping files on individuals they considered subversive, which in GDR, was just about everyone. Speaking out against the regime or discussing the Berlin Wall was strictly forbidden in GDR and censorship of information was strictly enforced by the state. If you were suspected of questioning the tenets of communism, then you would be imprisoned and tortured by the Stasi as a political prisoner. Other topics that were similarly forbidden to discuss in GDR included capitalism, fascism, pollution, the standard of living, education, homosexuality, pornography, alcoholism, and depression. Art that was not approved by the state was also banned.[3]

The split of Germany into two halves is significant because it acts as a natural experiment to show what happens when two previously identical nations adopt radically different policies. Under the capitalist-leaning west, the country prospered, whereas in the socialist East, a concrete wall was built to prevent people from fleeing. Proponents of collectivism never cease to argue how capitalism is tyrannical and oppressive, but if you compare the freedom of speech in GDR to the Federal Republic of Germany, it is the socialist state that is more oppressive. It is common among most socialist countries that freedom of speech is curtailed to some extent in order to maintain the illusion of homogenous public support.  One would be hard-pressed to argue how capitalism is more oppressive since freedom of speech and of the press is usually taken for granted in open societies. Unfortunately, we will never know the true cost that censorship had in GDR since great works of art that did not fit the vision of the state were hidden, destroyed, or were simply never created.

8. Personality Cult in Gaddafi’s Libya

In Socialist Libya, you can have a watch in any colour you want, as long as it's Gaddafi.

            In 1969, when he was only 27 years old, Muammar Gaddafi overthrew King Idris of Libya in a bloodless coup and began his 42 year-long rule of the country, which he later renamed The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. His political ideas, outlined in The Green Book, can be loosely described as the marriage of socialism and Islam. In typical fashion of both ideologies, Gaddafi fostered a cult of personality that would make Stalin or Saddam Hussein seem like the pinnacle of modesty in comparison. Prior to his violent overthrow in 2011, it would have been impossible to walk down the streets of Tripoli without seeing images of the dictator plastered all over the city. Much of the wealth generated by the country by its oil reserves was siphoned off by Gaddafi to fund his extravagant projects and vacations abroad. He also used state funds to supply weapons to global terrorist organisations and his government was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.


           The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was just one of many socialist regimes ruled by a dictator who used the state as his personal bank account. Gaddafi didn’t give a fuck about the Libyan people, he only cared about himself. His idiosyncrasies, such as his all-female-virgin bodyguards, his massive bulletproof tent, and his eccentric outfits testify to his narcissism and corruption. Libya would have likely been a better place today had its wealth not been embezzled by Muammar Gaddafi.


7. Venezuela Shortage of Consumer Goods
Fuck, they're all out of Gatorade.


            It is characteristic of socialist regimes that their economic policies are self-destructive and betray a lack of understanding with basic laws of supply and demand. Due to its recently discovered oil reserves, Venezuela has become a moderately wealthy country, but its socialist leanings have kept the general public from enjoying any prosperity. During the reign of Hugo Chavez, extensive price controls were enforced that prevented certain goods from being sold above a given price. Even after Chavez’s death, the country continues to pass idiotic controls, such as a 30% ceiling on profits earlier this year.[4] All these regulations and price controls have produced results one might expect—widespread shortage of consumer goods. Some examples of products that are absent from Venezuelan store shelves include flour, sugar, cooking oil, deodorant, milk, butter, beer, coffee, and most desperately, toilet paper. The nation’s Toyota and Chrysler plants recently closed their doors as tires also became increasingly scarce. Many citizens rely on black markets to acquire certain goods, and must deal with the exorbitant prices and endless queues just to purchase a small bag of rice.[5]


            If you never bother to consider the long-term consequences of such policies, price-controls and profit ceilings seem like they might be beneficial, especially to the poor. Many people also take the wide selection of consumer goods in American grocery stores for granted. Most don’t bother to think where these goods come from, why they were produced, or how they were transported to the grocery store. Thus, many people don’t stop to consider how price controls will affect the supply of goods and assume that if the state is making things cheaper, then it must be for the better. However, those firms that produce and supply these goods do so to turn a profit.  If there is no money to be made by supplying Venezuela with toilet paper or deodorant, then firms will take their business elsewhere. The disastrous effects of price controls in socialist Venezuela demonstrates the disconnect between fluffy socialist rhetoric and the cold facts of reality and human nature. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a world full of cheap and plentiful goods, but a world in which you wipe your ass with newsprint.

6. Communist China Starves to Death


            Between the three years of 1959 to 1961, China suffered a famine in which 40 million people starved to death. The famine was caused almost exclusively by the distribution policies of the government, but those sympathetic to Maoist communism erroneously put the blame on “enemies of the state” or natural disasters. When the government of China initiated The Great Leap Forward, private farms were abolished and the responsibility of grain distribution was placed in the hands of the state. The communes in charge of food production had to produce enough grain to meet state-imposed quotas, and the surplus grain they kept for themselves. However, as the government quotas increased, there became less and less grain left over as surplus. It also didn’t help that the communes had adopted idiotic farming techniques contrived by Soviet pseudoscientist, Trofim Lysenko, which further stunted crop yields. As a result, all the grain being produced by Chinese communes by 1959 was being seized by the state and the peasants starved en masse. For the next three years, China would experience the worst famine in recorded history, marked by violent crime, suicide, death, widespread cannibalization, and the market of human flesh. The eating of children and babies was common, where parents would swap each other’s children so they didn’t have to eat their own offspring.[6]


            Unable to see why the glorious and infallible doctrines of communism could cause such a catastrophe, the Chinese government naturally blamed “enemies of the state” and sent armed thugs across the country to seize any food they could find from peasants. They also initiated what came to be known as the Four Pests Campaign, which encouraged the killing of rats and sparrows, thought to be main destroyers of crops. Millions of sparrows were put to death. However, this only prolonged the famine since the mass death of sparrows allowed crop-eating insects like locusts to thrive and this further stunted the crop production.[7]
Don't kill the sparrows. They're your comrades.

            Widespread famines are not uncommon in socialist countries, but they are almost unheard of in capitalist ones. The fact that even some of these famines were the direct consequence of policies enforced by those socialist governments is a strong indictment against this reprehensible ideology. Fuck Chairman Mao.

5. Lev Mekhlis

            On the eastern front during World War Two, each division under Soviet command was appointed with one political commissar. The purpose of these commissars was to instil party solidarity with the soldiers and to ensure the war against Germany was conducted according to communist party guidelines. During the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, they proved themselves to be largely ineffectual, as they frequently substituted the orders of the commanding officers with their own. This led to many needless and bloody Soviet defeats. One of the most notorious commissars was named Lev Zakharovich Mekhlis. He was a favourite of Josef Stalin, being such a vocal proponent, as well as participant in the Great Purges of 1936-38. For the whole course of the war, Mekhlis was sent around from headquarters to headquarters, executing Red Army officers for alleged insubordination. His presence was resented by the entire army. Mekhlis was adamant that deserters, malingers, and panic mongers were to be shot on the spot.[8] He also interfered in matters of command, being partially responsible for the fall of Sebastopol and Kerch to German forces in 1942. His orders at Kerch forbade the troops from digging in, and forced the command to move to the front trench. The Germans shelled the front trench and as a result, all Soviet division commanders at the battle were killed.[9]


            The nature of collectivism and socialism allows those like Mekhlis who have no discernable talents besides following orders and murdering people to rise to positions of authority. Mekhlis knew how to suck up to Stalin and he could spout socialist rhetoric, but he was a demonstrably ineffective military commander and he was responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths. Collectivist ideology breeds complicit pieces of human waste like Lev Mekhlis.

4. Explosion of Birth Rates in Communist Romania

            During the early 1960s, Communist Romania was approaching zero population growth. Nicolai Ceausescu, the dictator of the country, decided that if the Romanian population was to grow, it would be through government legislation. Thus his government passed laws that abolished abortion, outlawed contraceptives, and divorce, collectively known as Decree770. Gynaecology exams were also mandated and pregnant women were closely monitored by the government to ensure that they did not get an abortion. Romanian couples who did not have children were forced to payer higher taxes, whereas non-working mothers received subsidies from the state. As a result of these policies, Romania’s birth rates exploded, nearly out of control. In 1968, Romania’s population had increased by nearly 100%.[10][11] It also didn’t help that Communist Romania faced a debt crisis during the 1980s that reduced the standard of living drastically. Families were forced into overcrowded apartments without heating or adequate food. Orphanages became bloated, nightmarish hells full of starving unwanted children. Even long after Ceausescu was thrown out of power, his idiotic pronatalist policies could be seen in the Romania’s overcrowded orphanages, prisons, and mental asylums.[12]


            The failure of these policies stands as testament to the ineffectiveness of central-planned economies and of collectivism in general. Outlawing all forms of birth control has the tendency to make birth rates explode, but in the poverty of communist Romania, such high birth rates could not be sustained. How his country was going to accommodate all the children being born under these policies, Ceausescu likely did not take into account. I believe such negligence is characteristic of most laws passed by other socialist regimes.


3. Massacre of Innocents in Cambodia


Cambodia was subjected to the brutal dictatorship of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979. Pol Pot rose to power following the escalation of American bombing campaigns during the Vietnam War. In 1970s, American bombings had spilled over into Cambodia, galvanizing hatred towards to west and an embrace of The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot’s anti-imperialist rhetoric. Pol Pot’s dictatorship was marked by mass killings, starvations, imprisonments, and torture. The dictator’s wrath was mostly directed at racial minorities such as Chinese and Vietnamese, as well as intellectuals, of whom Pol Pot was distrustful. Others who were targeted for killing included businessmen, artists, professionals, Buddhist monks, former government employees, and anybody accused of “economic sabotage.” Most victims of the regime were not shot, but were beaten to death savagely with tools such as shovels and pickaxes in order to save bullets.[13] All this bloodshed was an effort by Pol Pot’s communist government to establish a radical agrarian socialism, where former city-dwellers were forced to work in the fields for long hours each day. For those who dared criticize the regime, prisons such as Tuol Sleng were established where inmates would be starved and brutally tortured for months before being executed. Estimates range about how many were killed by The Khmer Rouge, but the figure is generally accepted to be in the millions, possibly as high as three million.[14] The systematic effort by the Khmer Rouge to murder its own people goes to show the true face of socialism. As with most collectivist states that commit genocide, most of those executed are innocent—their lives completely disposable, extinguished on a whim by a sociopathic dictator. So many of those who were exterminated were intelligent and productive people, and would have worked to make the world a better place had their lives not been wasted in the pursuit of a twisted socialist utopia.


2. North Korea
"This isn't my hair-dryer!"

            The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is such an exhibition of bureaucratic incompetence and human cruelty that it would be difficult to pick one single blunder for this list. Since its official establishment in 1948 DPRK has run up a laundry list human right abuses. Economic mismanagement caused a massive famine between 1994 and 1998 in which 3 million people died. Even today, long after the famine officially ended, food is still scarce throughout the country—especially in the countryside. Peasants regularly starve to death in the hundreds. In 2013, the UN estimated that 84 percent of the country had “poor” levels of food consumption. Meanwhile, the current dictator of DPRK, Kim Jong-Un does not want for anything; in 2012 alone, he spent nearly 7 million dollars on goods like handbags, luxury watches, cosmetics, and alcohol. In that same year, he also spent 1.3 billion dollars on ballistic missile programs.[15] The North Korean Army, which is the fourth largest in the world, has an annual budget of 6 billion dollars.


            The most appalling side of North Korea is not its gross economic mismanagement, but its unsympathetic brutality towards its populace. Those who have escaped the many prison camps throughout the country testify to acts of extreme cruelty and barbarity. Inmates in these prisons face constant threats of arbitrary beatings and executions by the guards, who reportedly enjoy torturing inmates with cattle prods. Women are regularly raped and given forced abortions.[16] The number of political prisoners within North Korea has grown dramatically over the past five years, with an estimated quarter million imprisoned in 2011.[17] Considering the North Korean government does not release statistics to this effect leads one to wonder how much abuse is happening in the country that we don’t even know about yet.

            Such a disgraceful track record of abuse as that of DPRK is not uncommon for most other collectivist countries on this list. DPRK is but a single entry in the long list of failed socialist states. It is a sad reflection on the mental development of the west that some delinquents still apologize for the crimes of this regime.


1. The Great Purges Decapitate USSR
Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, a prominent victim of the Great Purges.

            Josef Stalin was paranoid of everyone. As dictator of the Soviet Union, he saw enemies wherever he looked for them: among his friends, family, the army, the intelligentsia, fellow party members, and acquaintances. Stalin began his purges in 1936, seeking to eliminate the Old Bolsheviks who fought in the Russian Civil War as well as any political rivals, but as the purges progressed, individuals from all facets of society became targets. Nobody was safe. Ninety percent of Red Army officers were purged, including three out of five Marshals, thirteen out of fifteen army commanders, and all sixteen army commissars.[18] Many talented commanders like Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Alexander Yegrov, Iona Yakir, and Vitaly Primakov were all put to death. Prominent journalists, writers, politicians, engineers, and architects were also killed or imprisoned. All in all, declassified Soviet documents reveal that 681, 692 people were killed from 1937-1938—an average of one thousand executions a day.[19] Many more were arrested and died later in the gulags.


          The needless loss of so many Russian intellectuals and leaders meant that the Soviet Union was wholly unprepared to deal with the German invasion of 1941. Stalin’s purges had effectively decapitated the Red Army of all its best officers. Even the Soviet military doctrine which was written by Tukhachevsky, was replaced by a crude, and wholly ineffective one written by Kliment Voroshilov, a diehard Stalinist. Many of the tragic disasters on the eastern front during the early years of the war such as Smolensk (1941) and Kerch (1942) occurred as a direct result of the lack of well-trained, experienced Soviet officers.

            Those who are sympathetic to Soviet Russia laud the will of the communists to resist and ultimately beat back the Nazi invasion. However, the reason why the Germans had such success against the Russians in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa was  due to the unfit state of the Red Army to repel such an invasion. Stalin’s purges had consolidated his hold over the country and eliminated any opposition, but they were ultimately wasteful and unproductive. The Purges also indirectly led to millions of Russians being needlessly slaughtered during World War Two.







[1] http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=671
[2] http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?action=read&artid=671
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_east_germany#Censored_topics
[4] http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032014-694100-shortages-black-markets-emerge-in-socialist-venezuela.htm
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/26/venezuela-food-shortages-rich-country-cia
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/books/horror-of-a-hidden-chinese-famine.html
[7] Summers-Smith, J Denis. In Search of Sparrows, pg. 122-124
[8] Roberts, Geoffrey. Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War (1939-1953), pg. 97
[9] James Lucas, War on the Eastern Front: The German Soldier in Russia 1941-1945

[10] http://study.abingdon.org.uk/geography/new/AS/AS_population/Population_policies/pop%20policies%202003/Romania/tsld004.htm
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ISSgupUtpU
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)#Terror
[14] http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm
[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/pyongyangs-hunger-games.html?_r=0
[16] http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/north-korea-accused-of-genocide-by-south-korean-human-rights-group/
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/world/asia/05korea.html
[18] Courtois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism. Pg. 98
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Number_of_people_executed

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Why Study Military History?


Military history is a sub-discipline within the larger field of historical studies that focuses on the documentation and explanation of armed conflicts. Military historians may study tactics and strategies used in past wars, or the leadership, technology, and politics surrounding them. They strive to understand how wars begin, how they are fought and why, as well as how they end and the consequences they have in the long-term. Since wars have been waged since the dawn of recorded history, military historians have existed for just as long. Throughout university history departments, which have been increasingly dominated by identity studies, military history is often viewed as an antiquated field. It is frequently neglected by those who believe war is not important for analysing the larger causes and effects of history. Others may argue that war is too morbid and unpleasant a subject to read about or that learning about wars is not relevant to today’s world. There are also relatively few professors that specialize in the study of war and universities tend to be reserved about offering courses solely on the topic. Nowadays, identity studies and social history are the main fields of interest among historians and classical topics like war have been placed on the backburner. I believe that this neglect of military history is a misguided attitude, since the lessons of war are now more relevant than ever. Those who have the most to benefit from studying military history are soldiers, especially officers, in whose hands rests the responsibility for many lives besides their own. It is the duty of the officer more than anyone to learn from the mistakes of the past and strive not to repeat them in the future. However, they are not the only ones to benefit from studying military history. Due to the nature of wars today, it is as much the duty of the ordinary person, as well as the soldier to pay heed to the lessons of battlefields past. We must not make the error of neglecting them.


One of my favourite quotes is by George Santayana who said that “Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” Military history, of course is no exception. If high-ranking officers are ignorant about how past wars were fought and won, how can they be expected to command their troops to wage them effectively? Many of the most grievous disasters in war have occurred when officers issued commands out of ignorance of past mistakes. Adolf Hitler for example, would likely have conducted his invasion of the Soviet Union much differently, if not at all, had he possessed a greater knowledge of Napoleon’s campaigns in Russia. Many of the errors committed during the Battle of Stalingrad are eerily similar those made by Napoleon at Borodino. Both Hitler and Napoleon had ordered their men to march across the vast territory of Russia, thereby stretching out their supply lines. Even with the advent of motor vehicles, the Wehrmacht were mostly supplied by the same means as Napoleon’s armies—by horse-drawn carts. Once Hitler’s forces reached Stalingrad, they were already unprepared to hold the city in the long-run due to its poor logistics. Both Napoleon and The Wehrmacht underestimated the Russian will to resist and ignored several other decisive factors such as disease, local resistance, and Russian weather. Hitler’s obsession with Stalingrad and his irrational commitment to its capture was the same fatal flaw that underlined Napoleon’s attack on Moscow. The Germans should have also taken greater efforts in resupplying their troops and preparing them for harsh winter conditions, both things that Napoleon similarly neglected. Hitler’s invasion of Russia was poorly conceived and it reveals his fundamental lack of understanding of past military mistakes. Nearly a million Germans were killed at Stalingrad for following the orders issued by this madman. When the reins of power are thrust into the hands of someone like Hitler who was largely ignorant about matters of strategy and command, the horrors of the past are bound to repeat themselves. Although it is fortunate for most of the western world that he did not succeed in his goals, Hitler’s failure stands as a grim testament to the consequences of ignoring the past.   


It should be obvious that studying military history is useful for soldiers, but what about the average person? Even though the majority of human beings do not command armies or fight in battles, the lessons of war are still relevant to everyone and should be given a higher regard in the discipline of history. Even those who find the topic of war distasteful and would rather not have anything to do with it are not removed from the system that wages them. Wars often require the public support of a civilian population to be successful. When the public grants its approval for its nation to wage war beyond its capacity to win, casualties and hardships will ensue. The First World War began with enormous public support. European governments of the early twentieth century, especially Germany, fostered a militaristic zeal among the population and thus one of the costliest wars in human history began without any meaningful resistance. People paraded in the streets to celebrate the onset of the bloodiest war ever fought. It is easy in hindsight for us to condemn those over-enthusiastic supporters for their naivety. We feel they should have known about technological improvements in weaponry throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that made the prospect of war deadlier than ever. Machine-guns, airplanes, barbed-wire, and high-explosive ordinance turned Europe into a bloodbath between the years of 1914 to 1918. The immense size of European standing armies at the dawn of World War One only meant that a quick decisive war (as the public wished it to be) was impossible. The use of human-wave tactics against heavily fortified positions was trademark of trench warfare and was responsible so many dead. These tactics were adapted from those used in European warfare since the invention of gunpowder. When these out-dated tactics clashed against modern weaponry, it led such battles as The Somme, Ypres, and Verdun. It is debatable whether the First World War would have been as catastrophic, or if it would have occurred at all, had more people resisted their governments’ call to arms from the onset on the basis that such a war was counterproductive and ill-conceived. But hindsight is always 20/20. If we wish to mitigate the misery and destruction that wars bring, our duty is to educate ourselves about wars in the past: why they begin, how they are waged, and how they end. A public that finds itself ignorant of past conflicts is unprepared to face those of the future.

Pre-war celebrations in Britain

The study of warfare also has great value from a psychological or anthropological perspective, since many themes, feelings, and rhetoric in wars remain constant over time and therefore reveal unalienable lessons about human behaviour. Parallels can even be drawn between conflicts today and those of classical antiquity. The Tet Offensive of 1968 of the Vietnam War was an incident from which many important lessons can be gleaned. In early 1968, the American public was assured that the ongoing war in Vietnam was nearing a close and that they would soon emerge as victor against the wretched North Vietnamese. Tet would change all that. During the Tet New Year’s celebrations on 20 January, 1968, when a three day truce was traditionally observed, North Vietnamese commandos stormed major cities in South Vietnam, including Hue, Khesanh, and Saigon and slaughtered thousands.  Although the Americans quickly retaliated and recaptured all the cities lost during Tet with minimal casualties suffered, the damage had been done. The American public’s perception of the war back home had deteriorated. Even though Tet was a decisive American military victory, it showed them that the Communists were willing to sacrifice themselves on masse to get rid of the Americans. It demonstrated the tremendous will of the North Vietnamese to resist American occupation, whatever the cost. In short, it revealed to the Americans back home that Vietnam was not going to be the quick and easy victory they had hoped for, which ultimately influenced the decision to withdraw from Vietnam over the next five years.


But the Tet Offensive was only a microcosm of a larger trend in warfare, namely that a prolonged and unnecessary war in enemy territory is never beneficial, and that a people occupied by a foreign army will tend resist at all costs. Tet is certainly not the first instance of this. When he Athenian armies invaded Sicily in 415 BCE, they were in comparable situation to the Americans at Vietnam. Like the US, Athens possessed one of the fiercest armies in the western world. According to Thucydides in The Peloponnesian War, The Athenian expedition force to Sicily consisted of 5100 hoplites, 750 Mantineans, 1300 irregulars, and nearly 200 triremes, greatly outnumbering the Sicilians. The Athenians saw a few early victories, but once the Sicilians made a concerted effort to resist the invasion with the help of Sparta, attitudes about the war back in Athens began to sway. Just like after the Tet Offensive, anti-war sentiments on the home front undermined the campaign abroad. The Athenians began to question why they were even fighting in Sicily to begin with. The Athenian general Nicias expressed these sentiments when he argued to the Ecclesia that a war against the population in Sicily could not be won, given their enemies were too numerous and arduous to conquer. This lack of support for the invasion itself led to a lack of support for the troops they had already committed to the field. As a result, the entire expedition force was obliterated; everyone was either slaughtered or sold into slavery.


We should not be too quick to condemn the Americans for waging an unwinnable and counterproductive war in Vietnam. It is easy to compare the disastrous invasion of Sicily to the Vietnam War only through the clarity of hindsight. The truth is, history rarely offers cookie-cutter examples of past events to live by. That is why studying history is necessary—so that we may learn from the past and adapt these lessons to the unique circumstances and nuances of the present. The Vietnam War and the Invasion of Sicily were completely different events but the parallels between the two are obvious. They reveal that the outcomes of wars are often determined as much by people at home as they are by the troops in the field. Oftentimes, the public will clamour for war, but once war becomes a reality and victory is not as swift as people had imagined, they withdraw support and then seek to cut their losses. There have been countless examples throughout history of nations swept up in the fervour and rhetoric of warmongering without any real understanding of how the war is to be fought or why. Only by a firm grasp on the consequences of past wars can we hope to mitigate the bloodshed of future ones. It is only by the study of military history that one can know the true costs and rewards of waging war. Therefore, a public that is ignorant about military tactics and strategy is likely to support a war that is against its own interests or in which they become its many victims. All the examples I have cited, from the Invasion of Sicily in 451 BCE, to the First World War, The Battle of Stalingrad, and Tet are all disasters which reveal the cost of ignoring history.


I can imagine some people may disagree with me on the basis that wars are a thing of the past and that it would be best not to learn about ancient battles because they have no relevance to today’s world. The death of war has been proclaimed many times before. On the eve of World War One, many people thought that a large scale conflict was impossible due to the complex system of alliances that existed at the time. For the ninety-nine years between the Battle of Waterloo and the invasion of Belgium in 1914, there was a shaky peace throughout Europe. But as we have seen, peace was not to last. With tensions between Ukraine and Russia still unresolved as of June 2014, we still face the possibility of war in Europe today. The lessons of Sicily and Vietnam are more relevant than ever, with American involvement in Iraq ending as recently as 2011, a conflict that in many ways echoed these two. We still get threats of annihilation from North Korea every few months. Last year, as Americans urged their President to intervene militarily in Syria, we can see that for many people history continues to repeat itself. I do not believe that another large-scale armed conflict like the World Wars will necessarily occur any time soon, but it remains a distinct possibility. As long as there are human beings whose interests oppose each other, war will continue to rear its head from time to time.



It is foolish to disregard the importance of military history. Identity studies, social, and political history all have their place in the field, but war has been one of the dominant forces of change in our civilization. As such, military history deserves no less consideration than the study of gender, politics, race, class, or religion. 


Sunday, September 30, 2012

Top 10 Dictators of All Time


Cracked.com can go eat a dick. If you are the kind of person who is amused by their easily digestible list-formatted articles then you probably have the attention span of a small rodent. Anyone with a high-school education is capable of devising such lists. It is also a socialist haven for angsty teens to churn out shit like this . It requires a miniscule amount of writing talent to list a bunch of arbitrary items and write facetious remarks about them. Most of the articles deal with trivial nonsense anyway like “ten ways your anal beads will give you more than you bargained for”.

Anyways, the following is a list of the top ten dictators of all time. They are chosen based on how they have led their respective nations to glorious triumph. I do not intent to include Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, or Mao Zedong. That would be too cliché and obvious. In case you haven’t been able to tell, this entire post is a work of satire, so if you are offended by the things I have written, you can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.



10. Augusto Pinochet

What do you get when you mix Francisco Franco, Milton Friedman, and George Lopez into one? Motherfucking Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet is an odd exception to the history books. There are many who consider him to be a ruthless dictator who plunged the nation of Chile into poverty, while others praise him for saving the nation from communists. Although he was undoubtedly a ruthless dictator, his economic policies lifted the nation of Chile out of a terrible recession and brought relative prosperity to the country. He was a member of the coup d’état which ousted the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973. Augusto was greatly influenced by free-market capitalist philosophy. Once he took power, he sought to implement his capitalist philosophy in the best way he thought possible—by slaughtering everyone who disagreed with him.

In 1975, Pinochet’s government conducted Operation Condor. Its main objective was to purge South America of all the socialist and communism scum. Over 60,000 deaths occurred as a result of Pinochet’s government and Operation Condor. Evidently, murdering communists can get a bit tiring after a while, so in 1990, Pinochet peacefully stepped down from office. The British government saw this as an opportunity to charge Pinochet for all those shenanigans he thought he could get away with. The British Government, in all their stoic arrogance were not aware of the fact that nobody fucks with Augusto Pinochet. So, in 2000 he moved back to Chile and lounged around on the beach with his amassed fortune of 29 million dollars until he died in 2006 at the petrified old age of 91.


9. Suharto

Pinochet’s communist body count is absolutely dwarfed when held up to the reign of Suharto. You really have to stand in awe at the carnage that occurred under his regime. Much like Cher, Madonna, or God, Suharto was obviously way too cool to have a second name. Cool, he definitely was. A Suharto by any other name would not sound nearly as sweet.

He wrestled power from the socialist government of Sukarno to become president of Indonesia in 1967. Suharto was likely pissed off because Sukarno’s name was too similar to his. Anyway, following his rise to power, Suharto and his government purged the entire country of all socialists and communists, dragging political party members out of their houses and shooting them in the street. No due process for those motherfuckers. The purges resulted in the deaths of over half a million communists, thus laying the groundwork for Suharto’s thirty-two year presidency.

The killings didn’t stop there however. Next on his sights was the defenceless speck of an island called East Timor. Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1974 and didn’t get tired and go back home until twenty years later. The invasion was marked with such violence and death that it could best be described as genocide. What is interesting about the East Timor genocide was its lack of publicity in American media. Despite the outright slaughter of the Timorese people, the American psyche is almost devoid of the whole incident or the aforementioned communist purges of 1967. They were probably all too busy watching the new season of Night Rider.

8. Muammar Gaddafi

His time in office may not be marked with the brutal violence of the two aforementioned dictators on this list, but what he lacks in bloodshed, Gaddafi makes up for it with pure batshit insanity. Have you ever been lounging around your harem; smoking your hookah and praising Allah when you get the sudden urge to kick all the Italians out of your nation? Well Gaddafi sure the fuck did. The Libyan dictator of over forty years was unfortunately murdered last year by savage barbarians; obviously ungrateful for the favour he had done his people.

Up until his violent ousting in 2011, Gaddafi claimed that the rebels had been hypnotized by potions given to them by foreigners. Like many great dictators whose greatness in misunderstood by the world around them, Gaddafi was prone to paranoid behaviour and idiosyncrasies. The former Libyan flag was a solid green field, He thought that Israel was responsible for the JFK assassination, and he travels with an entourage of female virgin bodyguards (although many such bodyguards have later claimed to have been sexually abused by the dictator). The list of nonsense goes on. However for dictator standards, Gaddafi was generally well liked.  Even after he had been murdered, Gaddafi still had a considerably loyal following and was known to travel through the streets of Tripoli in an open limousine. The Pope could sure learn a thing or two from the man.

7. Maximilien Robespierre

Apart from looking like a gremlin, Maximilien Robespierre was arguably one of the most psychopathic despots of the eighteenth century. Robespierre, although not technically a dictator in the traditional sense, was one of the lead figures in the French revolution in 1789 and thereby held an extraordinary amount of political influence. 

The aim of the revolution was to overthrow the current French monarchy, by which the French peasants felt they were being oppressed. It was influenced by many of the Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, who advocated liberty and basic human rights.  After the monarchy was overthrown in 1789 in a bloody revolution, Robespierre sought to implement these philosophical ideologies in the most appropriate manner possible—terrorism. I never read anything by Rousseau that advocated the political use of terror or gruesomely beheading your enemies, but apparently Robespierre had read The Social Contract a little more thoroughly than I had.

In 1793, Robespierre and the other members of the Revolution funded the Committee for Public Safety (which is not much different than the Department of Public Safety today). Its main objective was to gather up enemies of the Revolution and slice off their heads with the guillotine. It is estimated that over 40,000 people were executed by Robespierre’s orders simply because they didn’t hate the Monarchy enough. Hell, even Georges Danton, who was a member of the committee himself was guillotined because he had the audacity to propose that maybe they shouldn’t kill so many innocent people. Goddamn pacifists. After guillotining everyone he possibly could, it is rumoured that Robespierre even guillotined the executioner himself.

Evidently, the old saying is true: “what goes around comes around”. In 1794, the people had enough of Robespierre’s shit and he was guillotined himself. It never does pay to be a douchebag.


6. Sappurmurat Niyazov

Niyazov was one of those few dictators who was crazier than he was evil. He was the President of Turkmenistan from 1990 to 2006. After declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, Mr. Niyazov promptly threw modesty to the dogs and established himself as Turkmenbashi: President for Life. Like all dictatorships run by illiterate, narcissistic fatsos, Turkmenistan was in for a wacky and hilarious sixteen years of totalitarian rule. Probably compensating for an astronomically microscopic penis, Niyazov developed a personality cult around himself that would make Stalin and Gaddafi look like the epitome of self-restraint. Giant golden statues of Sappurmurat line the streets of Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s capital. One of them was even designed to always face the sun. 

The trademarks of Niyazov’s rule however, are his arbitrary edicts on banning things. He has gloriously declared that the following things are to be purged from his nation: gold crowns on teeth, makeup on women, dogs, chewing tobacco, and AIDS. Who knew that the spread of a deadly disease could be halted by the demand of a dictator who looked like an anthropomorphic lima bean?

Apparently Niyazov believed himself to be a great philosopher as well, writing a book called Ruhnama. During his reign, he forced all his subjects to read and memorize it. Nobody could obtain a driver’s license in Turkmenistan until they did. Although I’ve never had the privilege of reading it myself, I couldn’t imagine the self-praise of an illiterate man could really classify as profound philosophy. Niyazov unfortunately perished in 2006, leaving the world with a howling vacuum of comedic antics.


5. Idi Amin

Whether or not Idi Amin was a human or simply a shaven wookie is still being determined by modern scientists. What we do know is that After Uganda declared independence from Britain in 1970, Idi Amin was declared president of the nation. He retained this position for the eight years between 1971 and 1979. During these eight years, he somehow executed up to 500,000 political dissidents. Ambition sure goes a long way.

Prior to ruling Uganda with an iron fist, Amin was a heavyweight boxer, rugby player, and military lieutenant, neither of which are qualifying factors for the leader of a nation. He was known to be good friends with aforementioned Muammar Gaddafi, with whom he allied in his war against Tanzania. In 1977, Britain became disgruntled with Uganda’s domestic policy of slaughtering its own citizens and thus severed diplomatic ties with them. Idi Amin twisted this incident into an indication of personal success, claiming he had conquered the entire British Empire. Idi Amin was also known for his Anti-Semitism and his fanhood of the tyrannical state of Saudi Arabia.


4. Leopold II

As an employer, what do you think would be some methods which you could implement that would increase the efficiency of your employees? Giving them free coffee? Extending their break hours? Maybe a casual-dress Friday? Well, Leopold II of Belgium didn’t believe in any of that humanitarian bullshit. If you did not meet the quotas demanded by Leopold and his colonial goons, they would chop your hands off. That was sure to make you more productive!

During the colonial era of the nineteenth century, the ownership of Africa was carved up among the European nations. For instance, Britain got modern-day Uganda, South Africa, Egypt, and Zimbabwe, Italy got Libya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, France got Algeria and Tunisia, while Belgium got the Congo. Although the country of Belgium was only a tenth of the size of the Congo, they were determined to exploit its mineral  resources to the maximum extent. The Congo (or the Congo Free State, as he renamed it) was rich in natural resources such as ivory and rubber. Just like the modern superpowers of today, King Leopold allocated much of the resources he owned to collecting these natural resources for his great nation. Adhering to the general philosophy of the time, Leopold thought that black people were inherently uncivilized and thus needed the guidance of the white man to point him in the direction of prosperity. At least, that’s what he told everyone. In reality, he ran the Congo as a brutal mercenary state and is thought to have massacred up to fifteen million Congolese. He also had a pretty cool beard.


3. Caligula

Why do all the modern dictators have to have all the fun? There is no doubt that the emperors of days past were just as psychotic and nutty as the ones we have today. Gaius “Caligula” Julius Caesar certainly stands testament to this fact. The Roman Empire saw its fair sure of inbred crazies rule the throne, especially during the so-called Pax Romana from27 BCE to 180 CE. In fact, when Rome came under the rule of Nerva in the year 96, he received the glorious title of the “first good emperor” simply for not being batshit crazy.

I believe that Caligula certainly stands head and shoulders above all the other bastards that Rome was unfortunate enough to have been ruled by. Nero, Elagabalus, and Commodus don’t even hold a candle to this guy. Caligula (whose name affectionately meant “little boots”) succeeded Tiberius to claim the throne in 37 CE. Tiberius was paranoid to the extent that Richard Nixon would seem like a Buddhist monk in comparison. When Tiberius died in 37 CE, the bar wasn’t set very high for Caligula.

From what we can tell, the first few years of Caligula’s reign were actually quite prosperous. He abolished all the random treason accusations that Tiberius had filed against people and gave out generous bonuses to the military. Everyone loved Caligula at first, for the simple fact that he was not Tiberius. However, in approximately 38, Caligula fell under the curse of some unknown illness from which he nearly died. However, he eventually recovered and subsequently plummeted Rome into a spiraling abyss of degeneration.

Caligula tried his hand at becoming a general, given his extensive military background, but all accounts of this tell he was a failure. He was known to send the military off to nonsensical campaigns, such as marching entire legions up to Germany to collect sea shells (or spoils of the sea, as he called them). There are some accounts that he had an incestuous relationship with his sister Drusilla and after her death, Caligula had her deified. He also had his horse made into a counsel and was reported to have been constantly drunk and over-sexed.

Like Sappurmurat Niyazov, Caligula also had a bit of a vanity complex. He thought he was a god and ordered all the heads on the statues of gods in Rome to be replaced with his own. One of the most lavish of his endeavours however, was when he ordered over a hundred ships to be tried together across the Bay of Naples and proceeded to cross them on horseback. He allocated so many resources to this feat that he drained the Roman treasury and the population of Rome suffered a famine. I can’t really blame him for this though. Modern leaders waste just as much money on nonsense like social security and Medicare, while these things aren’t even half as awesome as what Caligula did. Apparently the Praetorian Guard didn’t quite share my enthusiasm for Caligula’s antics, so they murdered him in the year 41.


2. Nicolai Ceausescu

With a shit-eating grin like that, you just know this guy is going to be a first-rate dick. Nicolai Ceausescu was the last communist dictator of Europe. He was the president of Romania from 1965 to 1989. Despite being a Communist, he ardently opposed his fellow reds in The Soviet Union after they invaded Czechoslovakia in 1966. The declaration of independence from The USSR granted Ceausescu and Romania positive recognition on the world stage. All the praise kind of went to his head because he developed an insane personality cult around himself. Ceausescu staged daily parades and ceremonies dedicated in his own honor in which millions of people were forced to attend.

It goes without saying that the media in Romania was extremely controlled. Unless you wanted a one-way ticket to one of Communist Romania’s most prestigious rehabilitation centers (AKA: getting your dick sliced off in prison), You did not dare vocalize your dissent of the government or of Ceausescu’s glorious administration.

That wasn’t the worst of crap he inflicted upon his people though. In 1966, Ceausescu decreed that abortion and birth control were now banned, thereby rustling the jimmies of polygamists and swingers nationwide. This was to have the effect that pretty much everyone reading this would think it would. The population of Romania exploded, sending child abandonment rates skyrocketing and orphanages bursting at the seams. Many of the negative effects of this moron’s policies are still felt in Romania today. The lesson to learn here is that abortion is awesome and should be available to all.

The Romanian people were so pissed off at Ceausescu that they lynched him and his wife in a bloody coup in 1989. To this day, he is the only dictator of a former soviet country to have been killed by his own subjects.


   1.  Pol Pot

In order to fully understand the regime of Saloth Sar (or Pol Pot as he is better known), it pays to learn just how he and his fellow clowns came into power. During the end of the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon thought that it would be a good idea to bomb the hell out of Cambodia. His argument was that there were VC’s hiding out in the Cambodian jungle and the only way to snuff them out was the paint the nation with a healthy coat of napalm. However, this was to prove disastrous for those non-combatants who had nothing to do with the war. Over 150, 000 innocent Cambodians were murdered during these bombings. As it turns out, Cambodians weren’t exactly pleased with what was going on, so many of them joined the CPK (Communist Part of Kampuchea) in retaliation. It was led by none other than Pol Pot. To this day, it seems that The USA still hasn’t learned that bombing innocent people in foreign countries doesn’t exactly win you the support of their population. Just ask pretty much every country in the middle east right now.

The CPK, fueled by the hatred of the US and the Cambodian government that in part facilitated their violent barbarism, overthrew the current government in 1970 and took power. As is the trend in communist countries, Cambodia was quickly transformed into an oppressive prison state. Pol Pot first abolished money, calling it a capitalist institution of “privilege and power”. Daily executions of random people were also the norm, many innocent civilians were bludgeoned to death, and others rotted away in prisons. Pol Pot transformed what was initially a peaceful agricultural land into a genocidal playground.

Like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot was a proponent of systematic, racial purity. He thought that only the Khmer were the master race; everyone else was subhuman. He organized mass executions of Non-Khmer Cambodians and Vietnamese alike. Despite being taught at a French University during his youth, Pol Pot also had a dislike of smart people. He purged Cambodia of everyone he considered to be intellectuals: university professors, rich folk, and just plain old people with glasses. Any display of individualism was not looked upon kindly by the CPK. It was the ultimate peasant society. It was the epitome of Communism.

Pol Pot lived to old age and died in 1998. The slippery bastard was never tried or convicted of his crimes.