6 ms·

Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Comm

by evgen 9y ago

Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war. France had a large Communist party that was a key part of the resistance during the war and maintained a good reputation after, and large proletariat revolutions had a historical precedent in France that probably scared US government officials to death. No matter how much he was hated, you backed de Gaulle over the alternative so that you only had to worry about Eastern Europe and not have a grenade explode in the middle of the continent. Not a good choice, but even in hindsight it seems like there were not a lot of good options available to the US.

coldtea 9y ago
>Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war. And what exactly business was of them to contain anything in foreign countries?
- ptaipale 9y ago
  Whether it was their business or not, I'm thankful Americans did it, because it meant that I have been able to live my first 50 years in freedom and peace. Without American support after World War II, also Western Europe would have been ruled by stalinist USSR.
- Clubber 9y ago
  The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years? My uncle was drafted in Vietnam, except he didn't go to Vietnam, he went to West Germany. He spent his time waiting for the Soviets to roll their tanks over the border.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Again, that's not their business. Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. >Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years? Many wished exactly that at the time. Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      I don't think many people in Western Europe wished for a Soviet Europe, but quite a lot of people wanted something far more democratic-socialist than the US was willing to allow. It's definitely a factor in the creation of the EU. The dichotomy of "everything must be US-style dystopia capitalism or full communism" has poisoned politics for over half a century.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      >Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. There's a big, big difference between wanting to be socialist and living under a Soviet regime. It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. It's also a hell of a lot harder fighting with your back to the ocean. I mean we are talking the exact same scenario that happened in 1914 and 1939, except instead of Germany, it would have been the USSR. The Eastern Bloc countries revolted for a reason. Not only that, the victors of WWII wanted the US military there for that very reason. >Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle. It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc? >It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941. You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it. In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US. In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By 1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to victory in Europe (...) https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year... Scholar addresses question, ‘Who won World War II in Europe?’ There’s no easy answer, said Norman Davies, an Oxford- educated British historian and Poland specialist who has written widely on the 1939-1945 conflict. (...) Among the Davies so-called myths: That D-Day was big and decisive. (About 80 percent of German forces were lost on the Eastern Front, he said, where the biggest battles raged.) That the West triumphed over the Third Reich. (Germany was all but defeated by the Soviets well before the Allies landed troops on the continent, he contended.) In fact, asserted Davies, it was the Red Army that played the decisive role in defeating Germany, “and they were in the service of an evil tyranny.” Sheer numbers alone help dispel myths about the war, he said. In 1939, the United States had half as many trained soldiers as Poland — and it took until 1944 to muster 100 American divisions. The Germans fielded 230 divisions, and the Soviets as many as 400. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addresses-question-who-won-world-war-ii-in-europe/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addres... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-helped-save-the-world-from-hitler-a7020926.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-hel...
- evgen 9y ago
  It was no more the business of the US to contain the USSR in Western Europe than it was the business of the USSR to violently repress any possibility of democracy in Eastern Europe and install puppet governments in same. Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide.
  - pm90 9y ago
    Very well put. I would say that containment went too far (even Keenan thought so later in life) but violent class struggle and Communist takeover was exactly what was being pursued by the Soviet Union. Although initially the hope seems to be an international coalition of workers under Communism (i.e. there would be no need for an invasion, workers from all nations would unite under its banner) the Bolsheviks quickly crushed that idea by turning the first truly communist state into a virtual dictatorship, and crushing any opposition using violence.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide. Well, the worst hypocrites when it comes to forgetting that "realpolitik" being a bitch are the US though.

by evgen 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war. And what exactly business was of them to contain anything in foreign countries?

ptaipale 9y ago
Whether it was their business or not, I'm thankful Americans did it, because it meant that I have been able to live my first 50 years in freedom and peace. Without American support after World War II, also Western Europe would have been ruled by stalinist USSR.
Clubber 9y ago
The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years? My uncle was drafted in Vietnam, except he didn't go to Vietnam, he went to West Germany. He spent his time waiting for the Soviets to roll their tanks over the border.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Again, that's not their business. Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. >Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years? Many wished exactly that at the time. Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I don't think many people in Western Europe wished for a Soviet Europe, but quite a lot of people wanted something far more democratic-socialist than the US was willing to allow. It's definitely a factor in the creation of the EU. The dichotomy of "everything must be US-style dystopia capitalism or full communism" has poisoned politics for over half a century.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. There's a big, big difference between wanting to be socialist and living under a Soviet regime. It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. It's also a hell of a lot harder fighting with your back to the ocean. I mean we are talking the exact same scenario that happened in 1914 and 1939, except instead of Germany, it would have been the USSR. The Eastern Bloc countries revolted for a reason. Not only that, the victors of WWII wanted the US military there for that very reason. >Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle. It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc? >It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941. You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it. In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US. In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By 1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to victory in Europe (...) https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year... Scholar addresses question, ‘Who won World War II in Europe?’ There’s no easy answer, said Norman Davies, an Oxford- educated British historian and Poland specialist who has written widely on the 1939-1945 conflict. (...) Among the Davies so-called myths: That D-Day was big and decisive. (About 80 percent of German forces were lost on the Eastern Front, he said, where the biggest battles raged.) That the West triumphed over the Third Reich. (Germany was all but defeated by the Soviets well before the Allies landed troops on the continent, he contended.) In fact, asserted Davies, it was the Red Army that played the decisive role in defeating Germany, “and they were in the service of an evil tyranny.” Sheer numbers alone help dispel myths about the war, he said. In 1939, the United States had half as many trained soldiers as Poland — and it took until 1944 to muster 100 American divisions. The Germans fielded 230 divisions, and the Soviets as many as 400. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addresses-question-who-won-world-war-ii-in-europe/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addres... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-helped-save-the-world-from-hitler-a7020926.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-hel...
evgen 9y ago
It was no more the business of the US to contain the USSR in Western Europe than it was the business of the USSR to violently repress any possibility of democracy in Eastern Europe and install puppet governments in same. Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide.
- pm90 9y ago
  Very well put. I would say that containment went too far (even Keenan thought so later in life) but violent class struggle and Communist takeover was exactly what was being pursued by the Soviet Union. Although initially the hope seems to be an international coalition of workers under Communism (i.e. there would be no need for an invasion, workers from all nations would unite under its banner) the Bolsheviks quickly crushed that idea by turning the first truly communist state into a virtual dictatorship, and crushing any opposition using violence.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide. Well, the worst hypocrites when it comes to forgetting that "realpolitik" being a bitch are the US though.