5 ms·

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? M

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...
    - 9y ago
- ptr 9y ago
  Sweden is seen as a democratic-socialist country, but the guns were definitely aimed east. This was probably the case for most countries in Europe. Why would anyone want to be part of the Soviet union? Not even the Soviet members did. I think the "foreign power meddling in our business" needs to be nuanced -- I'm personally happy the US decided to spend taxpayer's money to keep us safe.
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  > Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. [...] Many wished exactly [Soviet Europe] at the time While there was support for socialism in Western Europe, after 1956 it was not necessarily support for Soviet-style socialism, since the invasion of Hungary appalled many Communists and led them to denounce the USSR. Then, the uproar of 1968, the USSR was mocked by many as a spent force politically and no friend or guide to future actions, so the Situationists or Maoists proposed instead their respective takes on Communism. So, plenty of Western European socialists appreciated the USSR staying far, far away.
- Feniks 9y ago
  The US didn't meddle, NATO was co founded by European governments. My own country literally begged the US to house nuclear weapons in order to keep the Soviets out.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Depending on which country you speak of, it was usually just the pro-establishment, pro-rich part of the political elites, as opposed to the whole country "begging the US".

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...
  - 9y ago
ptr 9y ago
Sweden is seen as a democratic-socialist country, but the guns were definitely aimed east. This was probably the case for most countries in Europe. Why would anyone want to be part of the Soviet union? Not even the Soviet members did. I think the "foreign power meddling in our business" needs to be nuanced -- I'm personally happy the US decided to spend taxpayer's money to keep us safe.
Mediterraneo10 9y ago
> Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. [...] Many wished exactly [Soviet Europe] at the time While there was support for socialism in Western Europe, after 1956 it was not necessarily support for Soviet-style socialism, since the invasion of Hungary appalled many Communists and led them to denounce the USSR. Then, the uproar of 1968, the USSR was mocked by many as a spent force politically and no friend or guide to future actions, so the Situationists or Maoists proposed instead their respective takes on Communism. So, plenty of Western European socialists appreciated the USSR staying far, far away.
Feniks 9y ago
The US didn't meddle, NATO was co founded by European governments. My own country literally begged the US to house nuclear weapons in order to keep the Soviets out.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Depending on which country you speak of, it was usually just the pro-establishment, pro-rich part of the political elites, as opposed to the whole country "begging the US".