Good evening, Dave! Hmm... I went looking for the quote and found that it was actually Karl Marx (apparently stealing from Hegel and Engels)!! "History always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, and the second as farce." Like they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. For a little more about the origins, see this link and scroll down to the last comment on 12 Aug 2003.
http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1660/08/09/index.php You originally wrote: > >> History decrees that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history > and > >> liberty neither deserve nor will long keep their liberties. While that > >> vast statement is probably open to debate, and probably will be argued > >> until long after the end of my life, the fact remains that history > seems > >> to prove the statement's accuracy. However, to this statement I add > >> several things that its original author(s) forgot to add: I commented: > > I believe it was George Santanya who wrote that "History repeats itself, > > first as tragedy, then as farce." Santanya's original quote (approximately as you wrote, originally) "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." http://www.bartleby.com/66/29/48129.html Your reply to my comment was: > That is very truthful, isn't it? If we examine the horrid events of 9/11 > we first see the tragedy, and now, peering more closely, we see the farce. > It is quite logical and, for once, we are historically correct, no? I'm not sure that's quite what Santanya (or Marx) meant. I do think the parallels between WW II and WW IV quite appropriate. And the tragedy and farce do apply (although perhaps not has you are suggesting.) In both wars, America was attacked by one nation (or organization, if you wish to separate al Qaida from the Taliban) and made the main effort of its war against another which had little or nothing to do with the original attack. In both wars, the reason for going after the other country with more resources was that it had the potential to create an atomic bomb. In both wars, you had a country that had been defeated and had agreed to certain restrictions on its military as part of the cease-fire. In both wars, you had the previously defeated country flout the restrictions. The difference was that the second time around, someone had learned from history and behaved differently. (Hitler later admitted that if his remilitarization of the Ruhr had been opposed "by so much as a platoon," he would have been forced to withdraw). In both wars, the US fought against suicide tactics. In both wars, the French were on both sides. (OK, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying that they might sorta be on our side somewhere this time around. :-) In both wars, there were complaints that we had "won the war but are now losing the peace." In both wars, there was a strong "peace movement" which went quiet in the US after the surprise attack. For a historian's perspective of what is currently being repeated, see: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson022803.asp Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
