4 ms·
The Cold War was a struggle for the future of mankind. The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall
by marcoperaza 10y ago
The Cold War was a struggle for the future of mankind. The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect.
The Iranian government was cozying up to the Soviets and bringing in communist forces into their government. There is good reason to believe that the Soviets were pulling off the kind of suriptitious legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. Just like our support of Pinochet in Chile, it was a choice between two evils. We did what we though had to be done. In the years preceding the installation of the Shah, the iron curtain had fallen around Eastern Europe, China had fallen to Mao, the Soviets had tested their nukes and built an arsenal, Korea had been split, etc. This was an all out struggle.
- guard-of-terra 10y agoIt's now obvious that the spread of communism was a straw man. It didn't turn out viable after all. Torturing or killing people in the name of straw man containment doesn't sound as a valid excuse anymore. > legitimate-looking takeover that they had so successfully executed in Eastern Europe before everyone realized what was happening. This is plain false. Takeover of Eastern Europe was a result of USSR winning the war that Germany lost. It was arranged so that USSR gets Eastern Europe that it has already took. Everybody realized what was happening. Don't see how it could happen in Iran, much less how post-communist Iran would be worse these days than jihadist nuclear Iran you now have.
- marcoperaza 10y agoYou're mistaken about the nature of Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe. He maintained plausible deniability until the very last minute. He made it look like a democratic process while his cronies were throwing opponents out of windows. Some people did see through it, people like Churchill and Patton. But Roosevelt and Truman were completely fooled by Stalin, and thought they could trust him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transformation_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transfo... As for communism proving non-viable, how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s? And we have every reason to believe that communism would have spread further and lasted longer if not for the extraordinary Western efforts to prevent and undermine them. They would certainly have taken all of Asia and South America, for instance.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago> how can you possibly judge actions in the 50s by what surprised everyone in the 80s The thing is, your ends don't justify your means. It was Stalin's dogma and boy was he wrong. You can't justify crimes with "or what would have happened". The fall of communism just makes that apparent.
- marcoperaza 10y agoThat's a worthless platitude. Your values mean nothing if you lose. Our ideals of democracy and human rights wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on if the Nazis or Communists achieved world domination.
- guard-of-terra 10y agoBut they didn't and they couldn't. However, what do your ideals of democracy worth when you overthrew democratic regimes?
- tome 10y agoOne ties oneself in knots if one promotes "democracy" above all. What's valuable is freedom. Democracy is just one means of encouraging that, and it doesn't always work.
- marcoperaza 10y ago>But they didn't and they couldn't. They most certainly could have.
- guard-of-terra 10y agoI don't think so. With their half-life they'll never be able to overrun much of the world. And thing is, we'll never know now. It's your opinion vs my opinion.
- tome 10y agoWorld Communism was looking pretty damn viable in the 50s.
- nixos 10y ago> Don't see how it could happen in Iran, much less how post-communist Iran would be worse these days than jihadist nuclear Iran you now have. Not necessarily. The Soviet Union sponsored plenty "nationalist" movements which are only superficially different from religious.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> The spread of communism was a very real threat and would have been catastrophic, much worse than the fall of Rome; a new Dark Ages with mankind under a boot for a thousand years was a real prospect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
- marcoperaza 10y agoWhat an unhelpful comment. If you're arguing that the spread of communism wasn't a real prospect, then you're laughably ignorant of history given that they almost took control of all of Asia and South America, and did take control of Vietnam and Cambodia and China and others. If you're taking issue with my description of life under communism, then own your stance. Say what you really think about communism.
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoDefine communism, please?
- blackoil 10y agoBetween countries like Vietnam(where US lost) and Afghanistan(USSR lost), I would take Vietnam any day. Even latest victory of Iraq isn't any better.
- nixos 10y agoWhat about between North Korea (US lost) and South Korea (USSR lost)? You can't compare different cultures like that
- cybertronic 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
- ceejayoz 10y agoDemanding someone support their bald assertions isn't the same as fallaciously dismissing the underlying claim.