The Times They Are A-Changin

"Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'”

 

Bob Dylan wrote these words in his great song, The Times They Are A-Changin in 1964, when he was in his late teens.  Every generation has come up with some sort of the “Times They are a Changing.”  Nearly every generation thinks their ideas are superior to their parents.  Dylan’s song was a masterpiece as well as a big hit.  I love the song.  But let’s look at it a little closer.  Is change good?  Depends on what you want to change.  Certainly, the prejudice of Dylan's times against black Americans needed changing.  Prejudice against any group is always bad and needs changing.  Dylan did not say what the change was; he left it open and perhaps on purpose.  

 

If you grew up in the 1950s things were certainly different than today, but then nothing ever stays the same.  There was bad and there was good.  What was good?  The 1950s Los Angeles, for example, was Mayberry compared to today.  Very little crime, you could walk, take public transportation safely for the most part.  I do not remember any gangs, drive-by shootings, car-jackings, or the like. The above lyrics of the song admonishes parents about not criticizing what they don’t understand.  Really?  This is a very subjective point of view.  Perhaps they did understand.  Bill Maher has an interesting video on Instagram about the “Trad dad” the traditional dad who told you that “because I said so” is a good reason for you to do it.  Today, modern parenting has been reversed.  Children are in command.  Jordan Peterson also has a video on Instagram about not doing something for your kids that they could do for themselves.

 

In the 1950s, if you wanted a car, or a bicycle, for example, you got a job saved money and bought one yourself. Today, mom or dad will buy it for you.  Parents today are their kid’s friend, not necessarily their parent.  A friend of mine told me about what he told his two sons when they were young: “I’m your dad, not your friend.”  Both grew up self-reliant and very successful.  

 

In the 1960s we had changes for sure:  Drugs became rampant, rebellion was a right of passage, crime increased. We had the Vietnam War, riots in the major cities, three major assassinations, President Kennedy, Martin Luther king and Bobby Kennedy.  Was change good? 

The Tragedy of the Italian Army in Russia. The Fate of 250,000 Soldiers on the Frozen Russian Steppe During World War II

 

Introduction

One of the lesser known but profoundly tragic episodes of World War II was the fate of approximately 250,000 Italian soldiers who were sent to fight on the Eastern Front in Russia. This deployment, ordered by Benito Mussolini in support of Nazi Germany, resulted in catastrophic losses and immense suffering, as the Italian Army faced the brutal Russian winter and the relentless advance of the Soviet forces.

The Context: Italy's Involvement in the Eastern Front

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Mussolini was eager to demonstrate Italy’s commitment to the Axis cause. Despite Italy’s limited resources and the unsuitability of its army for the harsh conditions, he sent the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR), which later expanded to the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). By 1942, Italian forces numbered over 250,000 men.

The Challenges of the Russian Campaign

The Italian soldiers were ill-prepared for the Russian climate. They lacked adequate winter clothing, modern weapons, and logistical support. The Russians had tanks, the Italians had mules. The Russian steppe, with its vast distances and freezing temperatures that could plunge below -30°F (-34°C), proved to be a deadly adversary. Disease, frostbite, and malnutrition became as formidable as the enemy’s bullets. The Soviets waited them out until they were at their weakest point then destroyed them with brutal frontal assaults.

The Soviet Offensive and the Collapse of the ARMIR

In the winter of 1942–1943, the Soviets launched Operation Little Saturn, which targeted the Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian armies holding the flanks of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. The Italian Army was quickly overwhelmed. Soviet armor and infantry broke through the thinly stretched lines, and the Italians, lacking anti-tank weapons and air support, were forced into a desperate retreat.

The Retreat: Suffering and Loss

The retreat from the Don River, often referred to as the "Ritirata," became a story of unimaginable hardship. Italian soldiers, many suffering from frostbite, wounds, and starvation, marched hundreds of miles through snow and ice, pursued by Soviet forces. The lack of transport, food, and medical supplies led to mass casualties. Thousands were captured and sent to Soviet prison camps, where the chances of survival were minimal.

 

In the last several weeks Italian Facebook sites have posted the anniversary of this complete and utter military disaster.  One story retold the story of how the German commander met with his Italian counterpart and ordered him not to retreat and fight to the death.  The Italian commander reminded the German that he had no tanks nor weapons to defend against the well-armed Soviets.  The German smirked and told him that was his problem.  The Italians were assigned to defend open ground without a hill in sight.  Of the 250,000 Italian soldiers sent to Russia, 90% did not return.

 

In the annals of military annihilation this one must be one of the most devastating and the most insane.  Tyrants don’t care how many men they lose.  Certainly, the Russians did not care how many men they lost either.  This is a damming testament to the rule of tyrants.  We still have them today.  Vladimir Putin does not care how many soldiers he loses in Ukraine.  He cares only for his glory.  This is the madness of war.

 

For a good eye witness testimony of what the Italian Army went through, read the first person account of Italian soldier Mario Rigoni Stern in his book “The Sergeant in the Snow

Julius Caesar: Genius or Villain?

 Julius Caesar was one of the very best military commanders of all time. His military skills were unmatched.  Besides his military skills, Caesar was a charismatic figure beloved by his men.  Just his presence would give his soldiers confidence.  Other military leaders which deserve mentioning include Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Byzantine general Belasarius, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Bernard Montgomery, Erwin Rommel and many others.  However, what follows will be about Julius Caesar. 

 

In Roman times, successful military leaders often gained significant personal and political power. Many of these individuals leveraged their achievements on the battlefield to secure control within the political sphere. Julius Caesar exemplified this pattern, using the influence he had amassed through his military success to further his own political ambitions.

 

Caesar's pursuit of power was marked by a deliberate effort to consolidate authority. His growing dominance eventually provoked fear among his contemporaries, leading to his assassination in 43bc.  The conspirators who took part in his murder were motivated by a desire to halt the expansion of his power, which they viewed as a threat to the established order.

 

Up to Caesar's ascent, Rome operated as a Republic governed by elected officials and a senate. Caesar’s drive for absolute power represented a fundamental shift away from this system. Instead of serving within the framework of the Republic, Caesar sought to concentrate power in his own hands, challenging the traditional structure of Roman governance.

 

The Roman Republic had been a stable and successful system of governance for many centuries. Throughout its history, the republic was characterized by elected officials and a senate, which together maintained the balance of power and ensured the smooth functioning of the state. However, following the death of Julius Caesar, a significant transformation occurred within Roman politics. The traditional republican structure gave way to a new system; one dominated by emperors. Emperors were absolute rulers with total power at their whim.  The first individual to assume the title of emperor was Gaius Octavius, known as Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son, also known as Octavian; he ruled from 27bc to 14ad. Augustus established the imperial system that would continue for more than a millennium; until the Eastern Empire's (the Byzantines) fall of Constantinople in 1453, crushed by the Moslem Turks. 

 

Although Caesar has been lauded for his military skill, he brought about a form of government that was antithetical for freedom and rule by the people.  One man had all the power with no one to check it.  Emperors and tyrants are one and the same.  Today we have modern examples:  Sadam Hussain, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung Un and the Chinese tyrants that rule China with an iron hand.  Tyrants can order the murder of anyone they want.  The Russian tyrant, Putin, arranges for his opponents death; some fall out of apartments, some die from an arranged explosion of an aircraft, as happened to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group, was killed in a plane crash in Russia in August 2023, or Alexei Navalny, a prominent anti-corruption crusader and political opposition figure. He died in February 2024 at the age of 47 while imprisoned in a Siberian penal colony.  Many more examples can be shown by other tyrants.

 

History has shown that the form of government led by emperors and tyrants is not only oppressive but a failure of good government.  Adolf Hitler caused the death of millions and millions of people during World War 2.  He ordered a military attack on Europe and the Soviet Union and his military followed.  Along the way he murdered all the Jews he could find.  In Kiev, Ukraine, he butchered about 35,000 Jews.  The Byzantine emperors, for example, could order the murder of anyone the perceived to be a threat to their power or simply order that they be blinded, which happened regularly. The sixth century Byzantine emperor Justinian ordered the slaughter of over 30,000 people he surrounded and locked in a stadium until all were butchered.  After he did this heinous act, he ordered the building of the grandest Christian church, the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, which today is a Museum/Mosque.

 

For an excellent course on the history of the Roman Republic, see Hillsdale College’s free courses. Click here:  

 For an excellent history of the Byzantine Empire see the book "Lost to the West" by Lars Brownworth

 

 

 

A Comparative Analysis of the French Indochina War (1945–1954) and the United States Vietnam War Experience (1955-1975) - Contrasts and Parallels in Foreign Intervention and Decolonization

 

Introduction

The history of Vietnam in the twentieth century is deeply marked by two prolonged conflicts involving foreign powers: the French Indochina War (1945–1954) and the United States Vietnam War (1955–1975). Both wars were shaped by the context of colonialism on the French part and the global struggle against communism in the West, yet they differed in their origins, strategies, outcomes, and legacies. This analysis compares the French and American experiences in Vietnam, examining their aims, strategies, challenges, and long-term impacts.

Historical Background

Before the onset of World War II, Vietnam had been a French colony for over six decades, forming part of French Indochina—which included present-day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. During World War II, the Japanese occupation weakened French control and emboldened nationalist and communist movements, especially the Viet Minh. The Viet Minh, a coalition of nationalist and communist forces founded in 1941 under Ho Chi Minh, sought Vietnamese independence from foreign rule. With Japan’s surrender in 1945, the power vacuum in Vietnam intensified local struggles for independence. In the aftermath of WWII, France sought to reassert its colonial authority, leading to the outbreak of the First Indochina War in 1946. Meanwhile, as Cold War rivalry escalated, Western intervention shifted: following the French defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the United States gradually became the principal actor in Vietnam.

Objectives and Motives

French in Indochina (1945–1954)

The primary French aim was to reclaim its colonial possessions and restore its prewar status as an imperial power. French leaders considered Indochina vital for economic exploitation, prestige, and strategic presence in Southeast Asia. The war was thus fundamentally an effort at recolonization, confronting Vietnamese demands for independence. As the conflict intensified, French motives became entangled with anti-communist sentiment, especially as the Viet Minh were both nationalist and communist.

United States in Vietnam (1955–1975)

In contrast, the United States’ involvement was rooted less in colonial ambition than in the geopolitical imperatives of the Cold War. American leaders viewed Vietnam as a critical battleground to contain communism and uphold the credibility of U.S. commitments worldwide. The “domino theory” posited that the fall of Vietnam to communism would precipitate the collapse of Western-aligned regimes throughout Asia. Thus, U.S. intervention was framed as a defense of democracy and freedom, though it ultimately entailed support for fragile, often undemocratic governments in South Vietnam.

Strategies and Military Operations

French Military Approach

The French campaign relied on conventional military tactics, including the use of professional troops, colonial forces, and local auxiliaries. France attempted to establish strongholds in urban centers and key transportation routes while conducting large-scale operations against Viet Minh bases in the countryside. The French established the “hedgehog” defense—fortified outposts in hostile territory—and sought to control the population through administrative and police measures. Nevertheless, French forces struggled to adapt to the guerrilla tactics and popular support enjoyed by the Viet Minh.

 

Both the French and American strategies were hampered by significant resource limitations and unreliable support, factors that undermined their long-term prospects in Vietnam. The French, for instance, often struggled to field enough troops; by the end of their campaign, they relied heavily on colonial forces and North African units, indicating difficulties in securing sufficient metropolitan soldiers. Supply lines were stretched thin over challenging terrain, and logistical operations suffered from frequent Viet Minh ambushes and sabotage. Furthermore, French political backing was inconsistent, with mounting opposition at home as war expenses escalated and casualties mounted—contributing to wavering resolve within the government and among the public.

Similarly, American forces faced their own constraints. Despite deploying over half a million troops at the height of U.S. involvement, the task of securing both rural and urban regions proved overwhelming. The complexity of the terrain, long supply routes vulnerable to guerrilla attacks, and increasing antiwar sentiment in the United States eroded political will. Congressional debates over funding and strategy exemplified the uncertainty of American commitment, while the South Vietnamese government’s instability further complicated U.S. efforts to build lasting support.

 

While military victory was sometimes within reach, sustaining peace required ongoing conflict, daily casualties, and unsustainable expenses—realities that ultimately dashed hopes for long-term success for both nations. Local forces leveraged their intimate knowledge of Vietnam’s geography, strong community ties, and highly adaptive guerrilla tactics. These advantages enabled the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army to conduct effective operations, blend into the population, and recover from setbacks in ways the foreign armies could not match. In the end, local determination and strategic ingenuity proved decisive in undermining the efforts of outside powers to maintain control.

American Military Approach

The U.S. military strategy evolved over time, initially emphasizing training and equipping South Vietnamese forces. As the conflict escalated, the United States deployed hundreds of thousands of troops and unleashed massive firepower, including extensive air strikes (such as Operation Rolling Thunder), chemical defoliants (Agent Orange), and search-and-destroy missions. American commanders sought to “win hearts and minds” through pacification programs while also engaging in conventional battles, notably the Tet Offensive in 1968. Despite technological superiority, U.S. forces faced persistent guerrilla resistance from both the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. 

Challenges and Limitations

French Obstacles

France confronted several challenges: an unfamiliar and inhospitable terrain, language and cultural barriers, limited resources, and a lack of popular support among the Vietnamese population. The Viet Minh’s ability to mobilize peasants and wage protracted guerrilla war undermined French efforts to secure the countryside. Moreover, international opinion increasingly favored Vietnamese independence, and support from the communist bloc—especially China and the Soviet Union—strengthened the Viet Minh militarily and diplomatically. 

American Obstacles

The United States faced its own difficulties. The South Vietnamese government was plagued by corruption, incompetence, and lack of legitimacy, which complicated efforts to build an effective fighting force and gain popular backing. Like the French before them, Americans underestimated the resolve and adaptability of their adversaries. The jungle terrain, ambiguous front lines, and the seamless integration of guerrilla fighters into local communities frustrated U.S. military planners. Mounting casualties, media coverage, and domestic opposition further eroded support for the war.

The Role of Ideology and Nationalism

In both conflicts, the Vietnamese resistance was driven by potent forms of nationalism and anti-colonialism. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh effectively united diverse groups under the banner of independence and social revolution, leveraging communist ideology as a force multiplier. For many Vietnamese, the struggle was not just against foreign domination, but for self-determination and social justice. In both wars, the foreign powers failed to grasp the depth of Vietnamese nationalism, mistaking it for mere communist subversion.

International Dimensions

French War in the Context of Decolonization

The French war unfolded amidst the global wave of decolonization, with Asian and African countries demanding sovereignty. International sympathy increasingly favored the Vietnamese cause, as seen in the debates within the United Nations and among emerging non-aligned states. The communists received material and moral support from China (after 1949) and the Soviet Union, giving the Viet Minh a strategic edge.

U.S. War in the Context of the Cold War

American intervention was deeply enmeshed in the bipolar struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States. North Vietnam received extensive aid from the communist bloc, enabling it to sustain military operations and political resistance. The war’s escalation risked drawing in China and the USSR, raising the specter of superpower confrontation. Global opinion grew increasingly critical of U.S. actions, with widespread protest movements and diplomatic isolation.

Endings and Outcomes

French Defeat and the Geneva Accords

The French war ended in disaster at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, where Viet Minh forces besieged and overwhelmed a major French garrison. The subsequent Geneva Accords divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel and set the stage for national elections, which were never held. France withdrew from Indochina, marking the end of its colonial empire in Asia. The outcome reflected the triumph of indigenous nationalism and the limits of colonial power.

American Withdrawal and the Fall of Saigon

After years of stalemate, escalating costs, and growing opposition, the United States initiated a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, culminating in the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. The South Vietnamese government collapsed in 1975, and North Vietnamese forces captured Saigon, unifying the country under communist rule. The effectiveness of the Paris Peace Accords was questioned by many observers at the time, as evidenced by repeated ceasefire violations documented by international monitors and the rapid resumption of hostilities. The American defeat had profound consequences: a loss of prestige, domestic turmoil, and a reevaluation of interventionist policies. For example, the war's aftermath led to widespread protests, legislative changes such as the War Powers Act of 1973, and a period of national introspection regarding the limits and costs of foreign interventions.

Comparative Analysis

·      Similarities: Both the French and American wars in Vietnam were ultimately unsuccessful efforts to impose foreign visions on a determined and mobilized population. Both relied on superior military technology, struggled to win local support, and underestimated the importance of Vietnamese nationalism. Each war ended in withdrawal and defeat, with Vietnam achieving unity and independence.

·      Differences: French intervention was primarily colonial, seeking to reclaim lost imperial holdings, while American involvement was motivated by ideological containment of communism. The duration, scale, and intensity of the U.S. war far eclipsed that of the French, with far greater resources expended and casualties incurred. American intervention had broader global implications, directly linked to the Cold War. The French war ended with partition and a promise of elections; the American war ended with outright unification of Vietnam under communist rule.

Legacy and Impact

The legacy of these wars continues to shape Vietnam and the world. For Vietnam, decades of conflict left deep scars but forged a resilient national identity. For France and the United States, the wars prompted soul-searching about foreign policy, military intervention, and the limits of power. The lessons of Vietnam—about the challenges of counterinsurgency, the pitfalls of underestimating nationalism, and the costs of intervention—remain relevant to policymakers and historians alike.

Conclusion

The French Indochina War and the American Vietnam War stand as cautionary tales of foreign intervention in the 20th century. Despite differences in context and motivation, both powers failed to achieve their goals in the face of Vietnamese determination. Today, the history of these conflicts serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between local aspirations and global rivalries, and the enduring significance of Vietnam’s struggle for independence and unity.

 

A House Divided Falls: How Religious Infighting led to the Downfall of a Christian Empire

Introduction

The Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, was one of the most powerful and enduring empires in history. Its rich heritage, culture, and religion were deeply intertwined with its political and military might. However, the longstanding feud between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church played a significant role in weakening the Byzantine Empire, ultimately leading to its conquest by the Muslim Turks.  The roots of the downfall were laid around the birth of Christ when the Roman Empire changed from a Republic to being ruled by emperors.  Some emperors were good and capable, but many were tyrants who ruled by decree.  Emperors were the rulers, the law and the judges:  the worst form of government possible.  We have some fine examples today:  North Korea, Russia with Putin, the Chinese tyrants, and many other autocrats in the world.

The Great Schism

The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, known as the Great Schism, occurred in 1054 AD. This division was the result of centuries of political, cultural, and theological differences between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. The primary issues included the authority of the Pope, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The split was marked by mutual excommunications and a breakdown in relations, leading to the formation of two distinct Christian traditions. The Roman Catholic Church, centered in Rome, held sway over Western Europe, while the Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople, dominated the Eastern regions. Today it is estimated that there are over 45,000 Christian denominations.  This is what happens when we take our eye off the ball and fight about inane issues, when we agree on the major theological points such as the divinity of Christ, the truth of the Bible, the resurrection and forgiveness of sins.  In my experience, I find that many disagreements are really misunderstanding of the issue, such as faith alone, the resurrection and redemption.  You will find differences in any one denomination.  If you ask five Catholics a theological question you will get six answers; the same in Protestant circles.  This, in turn, leads to making your opponent an enemy and refusing to cooperate in anything.  

The Impact on the Byzantine Empire

The schism had profound consequences for the Byzantine Empire. The division weakened the unity of Christendom, making it more difficult for the empire to rally support from Western Europe in times of crisis. The mistrust and animosity between the two branches of Christianity meant that alliances were fragile and often short-lived.

The Crusades

The Crusades, a series of religious wars initiated by the Roman Catholic Church, further exacerbated the tensions between East and West. While ostensibly aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Muslim control, the Crusades had a significant impact on the Byzantine Empire. The Fourth Crusade, in particular, was disastrous for Byzantium. In 1204, Crusaders sacked the capital of eastern Christianity,Constantinople, causing immense destruction and further weakening the empire. The establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople led to a period of fragmentation and instability.  The Crusades did more damage to their fellow Christians than to their Muslim enemies.  Another example of the rot of division.

Political and Military Weakness

The internal divisions and external threats left the Byzantine Empire vulnerable. The constant warfare and the strain of defending its territories against both Western and Eastern adversaries took a toll on the empire's resources and stability. The weakening of central authority and the loss of key territories further diminished the empire's ability to resist invasions.

The Rise of the Ottoman Turks

The Ottoman Turks, a Muslim dynasty, began their rise to power in the late 13th century. They gradually expanded their territory, encroaching on Byzantine lands. The weakened state of the Byzantine Empire made it an easy target for conquest. In 1453, the Ottomans, led by Sultan Mehmed II, captured Constantinople, marking the end of the Byzantine Empire. The fall of Constantinople was a pivotal event in world history, signifying the shift of power from the Christian Byzantine Empire to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

Conclusion

The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was a significant factor in the decline of the Byzantine Empire. The division weakened the unity of Christendom, undermined potential alliances, and contributed to the empire's vulnerability to external threats. The rise of the Ottoman Turks and their eventual conquest of Constantinople marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, a testament to the profound and lasting impact of the Great Schism on the course of history.

Recommended Reading:

1.         Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth, Crown Publishers, 2009,  Brownworth has a terrific podcast on this subject called "12 Byzantine Rulers."

2.        The Lost World of Byzantium, Jonathan Harris, Yale University Press, 2015.

The Folly of Liberation Theology

 The father of Liberation Theology, Father Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, died on October 22, 2024, at the age of 96.  Gutierrez had a huge following in South America and was quite influential with Catholic and Protestant religious progressives worldwide.  Liberation Theology is a radical Christian movement, mainly promoted by the religious left.  Pope John Paul II was vehemently against this type of theology.  John Paul II believed that Liberation Theology as a politicized form of Christianity that was a Marxist interpretation of the Bible.  He should know, since he lived in Poland under the Marxist tyranny of the former Soviet Union.  The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines Liberation Theology like this: “ A religious movement that arose in late 20th-century Catholicism and was centered in Latin America. It seeks to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs. It stresses both heightened awareness of the “sinful” socioeconomic structures that cause social inequities and active participation in changing those.” 

The thrust of Liberation Theology is centered on the oppressor and the oppressed.  It is a militant anti-capitalist world view.  Our current pope, Pope Francis, is in my opinion, a follower of Liberation Theology.  He has often railed against capitalism and praised tyrannical regimes, such Castro’s Cuba and the tyrants of South America.  He has also made a deal with the Devil, China, whereby the Chinese tyrants get to appoint Catholic bishops who toe the communist Chinese line. He sees the poor as our modern-day saints and capitalists as the enemy of the people.  According to the Britannia quote earlier, it sees capitalism as a socio-economic sinful structure.  What is sinful about it, is not specified.  I see it as an arbitrary assertion without evidence.  Robert J. Spitzer, in his book “Ten Universal Principles” in his chapter on the Principle of Reason states that “what can be asserted without evidence, can be denied without evidence.”

 

So, what is wrong with capitalism?  They don’t specify.  Let’s look at some sample societies that don’t have capitalism.  Who oppresses whom?  Do capitalist society oppress?  It’s possible, but can you provide an example?  A capitalist society such as the United States or Western Europe, do they oppress their citizens?  I need an example.  Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic entity.  Why do all people of the world rush into the United States from anti-capitalist countries.  Have you seen the rush of the American border in the last 40 years? In the last four years nearly 10 million illegal aliens have crossed our borders.  Has anyone rushed the border of a Marxist/Socialist country?  Why would these people risk their lives to come here and not Cuba or Venezuela, for example?  Here is the eminent economist Milton Friedman describing capitalism vs socialism:  Click here for this short video.

 

Where have all the innovation and scientific achievements come from, socialist or capitalist societies?  Which countries help Ukraine in their war with Russia, for example?  Which socialist country has come up with what Microsoft or Apple Computer invented.  Who invented the Internet?  Where does innovation come from?  Which country has cutting edge medicine, socialists or capitalists?  Many socialist countries have universal health care but where would you go to have an operation, Cuba, North Korea, or the United States?  

 

Here is another short clip comparing capitalism vs socialism.  Click here.   

 

Now, let’s talk about the religious aspect of Marxist/Socialist vs capitalism.  Does the Bible say which is best?  No, it does not.  Does the Bible say we need to help our poor?  Yes, it does, but it does not say how we must do it, as long as we do it.  In Luke 6, Jesus says, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.” He promises that the poor will inherit something far greater than any of the riches of this world. He goes on to say that those who suffer now will not suffer in the kingdom (Luke 6:21-22). So, the question becomes, where do people succeed in living a good life? in a socialist country like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or the United States or Europe?  Which Marxist/Socialist country can you point to as being successful?  We have never seen a successful Marxist/Socialist country, yet people still cling to the socialist pipe dream.  Was the Soviet Union a success?  Countries like Brazil keeps going to socialist leaders such as the current Brazilian leader, Venezuela and other South American countries do the same with zero result. Rich countries such as Venezuela have been devasted by socialist regimes such as the current one.  When will they see the light?

In Defense of Colonialism

 In today’s woke culture, the mere mention of colonialism will get you a negative reaction akin to supporting slavery.  This is not an apologetic for colonialism but a look at the reality of what colonialism produced. Let’s look at the history of colonialism and see just what it accomplished.  I know that colonialism produced some bad actors and bad results, but what society has not?  Colonialism provided much needed structure, government and functioning infrastructure in places where there was none.  Colonialism ended in Africa and many other areas shortly after World War II.  What has happened in Africa since?  Well, let’s look at some examples, among others:  

Somalia.  Somalia, a former Italian colony, has had no government since the early 1990s when the Somali Democratic Republic collapsed, and a civil war started among numerous warlords.  The United States and other European countries sent military forces to stop the bleeding and got involved in the civil war instead. Remember the US disaster in Mogadishu?  A fine book called, “Black Hawk Down” by Mark Bowden was written telling the story of US special forces being ambushed and killed by Somali gangs.  Along with US forces about 24 other countries contributed 37,000 troops there.  In all, about 150 UN troops were killed.  In one battle, 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an ambush by rival Somali tribes.  What was the result?  Nothing:  500,000 Somalis were killed, and 1.5 Somalis were displaced.  US lost 18 killed and 84 wounded.  Today Somalia is a heaven for Islamic terrorists who continually commit atrocities against their own people.  Have you heard of the terrorist group called Al-Shabaab?  They’re in the news on a regular basis, and not for good.  To this day, no functioning government exists; it’s a lawless place.

 

Sudan.  Sudan, a former British colony, has been in turmoil since independence.  In the last few years, after a brutal civil war, it split into two countries:  Sudan and South Sudan.  There is no effective government in either country and starvation is rampant.  About half of both Sudan and South Sudan’s population is suffering from starvation.  Together there are about 31 million people in these two countries, half suffering terrible food shortages.

 

Mali. Mali has no stable government, and civil war is raging with different warring groups.  France and the United States have sent forces there with no result.  Both are now out.  Russian mercenary Wagner Group forces have been operating there in support of some warring factions.  This turmoil continues to this day.

 

India.  

The British ruled India for 90 years, until 1947.  What happened after independence?  India broke up into India, West and East Pakistan, later becoming Bangladesh.  India and Pakistan have been bitter enemies with atomic weapons ever since.  During the British era there was structure, government, and law and order; after the British left India, chaos ensued with tribes fighting each other, as did the Pakistanis and Indians. Of all the former colonies, India is perhaps the best in achieving a functioning government and a functioning infrastructure.  Pakistan, on the other hand is still plagued with intra-tribal chaos resulting in occasional violence.

 

Haiti.   Haiti has been a total disaster since independence from France in 1804.  To this day, Haiti is a lawless country with roaming gangs ruling the island.  In contrast with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, Haiti is in constant turmoil.  As of this writing, Haiti has no functioning government, and its people are one of the poorest in the world.  Haiti is currently aided by 400 Kenyan police officers, trying to maintain peace.  If history is any guide, this will eventually fail too.  Between 2010 and 2020 the UN has given Haiti $13 billion dollars, and the problems keep getting worse.  Peacekeepers have been deployed there to no effect.  Of all the former colonies, Haiti would be better off today as a colony.