4 ms·

It would have further allowed the continued justification of western imperialism as a 'reaction' ..

• throwanem 10y ago
  ...which, if true, would have resulted either in Soviet domination of Europe, or, when Soviet and American ambitions bluntly collided, a hot war instead of a cold one. It may be possible to regard either of these outcomes as preferable to the one which actually occurred, but I have to confess myself unable to imagine how.
  • fit2rule 10y ago
    Actually, this is what happened. Western imperialism ran rampant, we have human rights violations and heinous, heinous conditions for significant parts of the world, all because the West wants its way. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The only reason you're arguing is because its your team that is doing all the damage.
    • throwanem 10y ago
      Don't mistake me for being particularly starry-eyed about American imperial ambitions, or America in general; I'm a nationalist by default, because I'd rather live in a strong country than a weak one, not because I'm especially in love with its frankly rather adolescent national mythos. That said, based on all the historical evidence I've seen, if I had to choose between living in an American satrapy or a Soviet one, I'd take the former without a qualm. US history isn't without its stains, but in all things there are degrees, and to claim there's nothing to choose between the two powers is arrantly ahistorical.