Like a fool, I’ve tried to piece together a plausible narrative that describes what motivates the group dynamics at the fore of Gosford Park. The best I can say is that Lord Stockbridge wanted to remove his capital from investments in the British Empire and move them into more lucrative and modern industries, namely entertainment (because of his peculiar interest in the filmmakers’ business seemed to excite the jealousies of his family, many of whom made their living through imperialism). His murder insured that empire would go on blissfully without reflecting on its weaknesses, although we all know it would eventually fail.
This all came to mind as I watched Pat Buchanan on Morning Joe insist that Britain unnecessarily risked its empire fighting Germany in WWII. It seems that the mechanism that informs Buchanan’s historical analysis is that Britain’s decision to become involved in the war had the effect of expanding the war beyond what Hitler had intended. Indeed, the choices that British governments made created an ever-escalating conflict. To Buchanan, had the British not become involved, there would have been no loss of empire, a limited Holocaust, and no war in Western Europe. And because of the war that led to the loss of empire, the West lost its ability to contain extremism globally.
Resisting the urge to debate him on the points (how could German honor be satisfied without defeating the French republic?), I find what may seem to be a worldview antithetical to the one Bush expressed in the Knesset, equally as dangerous. Both speak against diplomatic engagement. Both are premised on the question of whether force can be used to maintain order. Both asks us to wait around until problems can only be resolved by armed intervention (I’ll give Buchanan at least the benefit of having a higher threshold than Buchanan). Both point to the weaknesses of the conservative opinion of diplomacy: unnecessary as a prelude to force.
May 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm
There is a pretty easy way to rebut Buchanan;s counter-factual. Its called World War One. The first point you made, the importance of defeating France, is key. Hitler was going to fight the French so he could avenge Versailles. The British were not going to abandon the French. Its pretty basic history.
Another key point is that WWI involved a lot of soldiers and workers from the colonies. After the war the Moroccans, Senegalese, the Indians and the Kenyans who fought for France and Britain were looking forward to a little democracy and self-determination too. I think both Ho chi Min and Zhou En Lai were guest workers/students in France during the war.
May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm
No war in Western Europe? So the Germans were just kidding about Paris?
I suppose his scenario has the Nazis and Soviets beating each other into irrelevancy (and that would produce less of a Holocaust how, exactly?), but that’s a best case (and what comes after, I wonder? Democracy springing from the ground like tulips in Spring?); more likely scenarios would probably involve the Germans (undistracted by the Battle of Britain, etc.) seizing a huge chunk of Soviet territory, possibly destabilizing the entire Soviet Union, leaving Hitler with lots of lebensraum and an unblemished track record…. But Great Britain would still have India!
No, wait…. Indian liberation movements were in full swing by then; though WWII may have accelerated the process, it’s pretty absurd to think that indendence wasn’t going to come (or the cost of supressing it wasn’t going to go up, and up, and up….).
The mind boggles.
Also, you’re right about the theoretical issue: there’s a lot of diplomatic ground between “devil may care” and “playing god.”
May 31, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yet I can remember Buchanan on the run up to the 2nd Gulf War ranting on television in favor of it. Some other guest talked about “innocent Iraqis getting killed.” Pat retorted there are “no innocent Iraqis.” Jawhol, Reichsfuhrer!
(I am 100% sure I mispelled my fake WWII movie German)
As has been said before, Pat may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but he is a tool.