Personality vs Materialism

 

Historian’s emphasis on leadership and the decisions leaders make ignores the ordinary material facts surrounding those decisions. These histories of leadership over circumstance are favored by those in power and their subordinates. Material conditions are ignored in favor of personalities. This personification obscures the obvious. But there are moments in history where individuals made the difference. Here are some possibilities:

Another obscured area is who the decision makers are. The Hamilton musical based on Ron Chernow’s biography attempts to redress this by giving glory to a functionary. But ignores that Alexander Hamilton was working for Robert Morris. Hamilton was on Washington’s staff, representing Morris. Thank heavens he was there to summon Morris when Washington, scared of heading south, was about to attack New York rather than Yorktown. Morris paid to transport Washingtons army to Yorktown. Imagine how the French would have felt if we hadn’t supported them at Yorktown. Washington was the Virginia general in the north. Benjamin Lincoln was the Massachusetts general in the south and Lincoln got his butt handed to him by the English General Henry Clinton.

Washington had a penchant for losing battles. The Patriots victories were usually under other commands or despite Washington. Washington was the last American General who understood attrition. Having worked for the English, Washington was properly terrified that they would send over the thug who would arm slaves in the south and burn granaries in the north. Washington wanted to keep the English generals he had. The English learned from this colonial rebellion and were far more ruthless in later conflicts. If you doubt the English could have won the American Rebellion, I give you South Africa, India, China, Ireland, and the Napoleonic Wars.

There are financial reasons for the American Rebellion and eventual victory. But the reason the British were soaking their colonies was to pay for the Seven Years War that Washington started. The British feared that colonial greed would lead to slave insurrection, indigenous uprising, and further international conflicts.

Another example of leadership making the difference is the succession of Roosevelt by Truman. Wars are decided after the battles. The loss of Roosevelt changed history. Truman took responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Truman was a reluctant warrior compared to Roosevelt.  Why drop atomic bombs to just turn around and accept the surrender that Japan had been offering for months?

Japan wanted to keep its emperor and Parliament:

-screw our nation, emperor comes first.

Roosevelt wasn’t interested. Roosevelt wanted unconditional surrender. When Truman got disgusted and took the deal, he proclaimed it as unconditional, it wasn’t. Roosevelt would have dropped the third bomb that was on its way, used the nerve gas we had stockpiled, invited in the Russians, and then invaded. Roosevelt may have even provided the Russians with transport.

Just as in partitioned Europe, when the waves got going of Japanese choosing who they were surrendering to, our casualties would have been a lot smaller than currently estimated. Imagine the emperor deciding which way he was running.

A partitioned Japan may have distracted Russia from Korea. Or Roosevelt may have also turned over Korea. It is said that dropping the bombs was a warning to Russia. Americans were far more disgusted with England. Britain dragged us into two world wars and obviously couldn’t manage Europe. That was our fault as well, but it couldn’t be US, must be the British. Demonstrating the fate of an indomitable island fortress in modern warfare might convince England to pack that empire up.

Roosvelt would not have allowed the French back in Indochina. Using our offshore carriers and bases in China, USA had just bombed Vietnam into starvation in support of communist Ho Chi Minh. Ho wanted Vietnam to be the Yugoslavia of Indochina, an ally of Russia and the US, a bulwark against China. The influential Nationalists running Taiwan were not impressed.  Ho Chi Minh was another in a long line of American stooges who turned against us.

Eisenhower can be seen as a return to Roosevelt’s policies ending European empire. Eisenhower stopped Israel, France and England from seizing the Suez. Israel wouldn’t exist without Truman. Roosevelt would have seen Israel as a British puppet.  

Historians fail to understand how large financial value is, as against revenue, when considering material conditions. It is difficult to appreciate how vulnerable individuals are to influence. Usually, by the time of decision the choice is obvious. Yet there are moments when we surprise ourselves. 

We don’t seem to appreciate how serious a boob president is. We have had worse presidents. Many of them had intellectual or personality faults. But no president has such an overwhelming ignorance of propriety. It is difficult to find a particular affront that is outside our history.  But they are affronts, one after another.

US empire, as all empires before us, survives on sufferance. A sort of show me better. If you are a leader or an investor at some point you will be insulted and decisions will be made. I hate the neo-neos: neocons, neolibs defending our empire, but it would be nice to dismantle things politely, instead of bringing it crashing down.