|
Rich Hailey is unintentionally misleading in this brief article on walls in history. He offers as examples of failed walls:
The Great Wall of China was not, and was never intended to be, an absolute barrier to the barbarians. Rather, like the Roman limes (an example which he does not offer), it was intended to be a semi-permeable membrane, allowing the Chinese to control the comings and goings of the barbarians on Han territory, whilst allowing them to be Sinicized by trade and contact. (Of course, it also had other purposes, not related to barbarian control: Shih Huang Ti made it, quite deliberately, the longest cemetary in the world.) The Great Wall worked well, too, as long as it was in the hands of a stable, Chinese dynasty. Its usefulness is illustrated by the one extent of time that it was not in Chinese hands: from its seizure by the (non-Chinese) Liao in 907CE until the Yuan (Mongols) were driven out in 1368CE. (The Wall did not fall to the Manchus in 1644; they were deliberately admitted by Wu San-kuei as part of his feud with the bandit who had seized Beijing, Li "Dashing King" Tzu-ch'eng. This, incidentally, suggests a problem with fortifications: make certain that the commander that you put in charge of them is reliable. This will not be a problem for the Israelis in the foreseeable future.) The Maginot Line was planned and built as a fortification of the northeastern frontier of France against Germany -- and served its purpose admirably. What was not anticipated in France was that Leopold III would order the poorly-organized and -supplied Belgian army to surrender after only eighteen days of combat (which led directly to the necessity for Dunkirk). Had the Maginot Line been extended along the Belgian frontier (which, granted, would probably not have been politically acceptable either France nor among European chancellaries) its reputation in history might have been very different. The Berlin Wall, unfortunately, directly contradicts his position. From our vantage point in time forty years later, with the XSSR and the DDR safely consigned to the dustbin of history, we forget the mass flights of refugees through West Berlin, the one bastion of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. From January to August 1961 alone, more than 160,000 refugees escaped the claw of Red fascism via Berlin; more than 2.7 million since the foundation of the DDR in 1949. The number of escapees dropped dramatically -- only about 5,000 in the period 1961-1989. The official East German figures state that 289 people were killed trying to cross the Wall, whilst about 5,500 were captured (although these government figures may be a gross underestimate). I diffidently suggest that, were I to build a set of fortifications on the "Green Line" that would reduce the number of incursions by more than 99.9%, I would be elected king of the Jews by acclamation in Israel -- even thought I am not Halakhically eligible for the position. As for the U.S.-Mexican border -- after we stop laughing at the suggestion that it represents fortification, we may treat the suggestion with deserved comtempt (although, as I alluded to in my previous article, if a "Green Wall" proves at all effective, how long before nativists and isolationists in the U.S. call for a "Rio Grande Wall" to be built along the same principles?) A wall (and again, it should be noted that the conceptual "wall" being discussed here cannot be limited to, or even necessarily incorporate, a continuous physical barrier) will not -- cannot -- be 100% effective, nor will it do anything without being manned and watched (I believe that there is a "New Testament" verse to this effect). But such could well be preferable -- anything would be -- to the current atrocities. John "Akatsukami" Braue Friday, April 12, 2002 |
|