4 ms·

This is because there's a lot of uncertainly about who the 'good guys' were in the Cold War, or even if there were any. Ends don't justify the means and there

by narag 4y ago

This is because there's a lot of uncertainly about who the 'good guys' were in the Cold War, or even if there were any. Ends don't justify the means and there were very bad means in both sides. Probably I shouldn't be using past tense either. When there is an existencial threat to a whole country's way of living, I don't think you will find many nice guys in the game, more like those giant wheels. But I have no uncertainty over who are the very bad guys now and then. At all.

tptacek 4y ago
This misses the point of the books. The question isn't whether the Soviets are morally equivalent to the west; it's whether foreign intelligence services were anything more than state-sponsored organized crime syndicates.
- narag 4y ago
  I wasn't talking about any book, that I haven't read anyway, just making a distinction, nitpicking if you prefer it that way, about a specific paragraph. In it, photochemsyn states that you don't know who the good guys were, citing different episodes of the cold war, comparing it to WW2, somehow suggesting that there's a difference because Hitler was clearly bad. But that's not how I see it. The "good guys" side of WW2 involved the URSS (and only because they were attacked, after breaking Mólotov-Ribbentrop) and at a least morally ambiguous measures like bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. So neither in the goals nor in the means I see so big of a difference.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Because you haven't read the books, you've also missed the point of the comment you replied to, which is about the books.
    - narag 4y ago
      No, I haven't. The point of the comment is that Fleming provided a nicer narrative than Le Carré so it was prefered for political reasons. Fleming, in the article, pretty much says that he doesn't care much about politics, that he wrote for his own pleasure and the readers'. Saying that spy agencies promoted Fleming's work is unsubstantiated. I've seem weirder, like the CIA supporting abstract expresionists, but anyway it seems more likely that Fleming was successful just because it was entertaining. Le Carré was also very successful, so no need to create a war there.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        This point is unrelated to the one I made. But the preceding commenter didn't make up the fact that le Carré drew flak from the British IC; that's one of the most often-told stories about him. For instance (first thing off the SERP, didn't dig deeper): https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/26/what-spies-really-think-about-john-le-carre/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/26/what-spies-really-think... If you're totally unfamiliar with le Carré's work, it's OK not to have an opinion about him! He's not, like, part of the Canon.
        narag 4y ago
        Not totally unfamilliar, I've probably seen some movie based on his books... I remember hearing about his troubles, maybe when he passed away. BTW, I wouldn't need to read Tarantino's book. I watched the original sources at that time, and we had Bond in the same bag as Wang Yu, Trinidad or Bruce Lee, even if we were teens. So I totally believe that Le Carré had a bad time, but Fleming wasn't really in the same genre to function as an antidote.
        tptacek 4y ago
        Oh, I agree that they aren't antidotes to each other. But: the moral dilemma in le Carré's work is nowhere nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and it's interesting to hear Tarantino say which movies he stole things from, and why he paid so much attention to them, and which 9 movies those movies drew from. It's a fun read.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> But I have no uncertainty over who are the very bad guys now and then. At all. Then you don't like questionning your own side or have never talked to an actual person who lived in East Germany or in USSR. Most of the Americans I have talked to have a very flat and somewhat caricatural view of the eastern block and few are as knowledgeable as they should regarding what the CIA did abroad. As usual, there are nuances. To be honest, as an European with a fairly unsympathetic view of the USA, the Cold War is very much a conflict between terrible and terrible.
- narag 4y ago
  You're wrong, I'm not American. I dated an actual person that lived in the USSR. She was somehow conflicted, but talked in no uncertain terms about the soviet boot. Also you're wrong. I question everything. Of course, you don't need to like my answers. But it doesn't help that you take for granted things that you have no idea about me.
- nottorp 4y ago
  > Then you don't like questionning your own side or have never talked to an actual person who lived in East Germany or in USSR. I lived beyond the iron curtain my first 14 years. I remember someone coming from "the west" and bringing me ... a small bag of candy, chewing gum and crap like that. I rationed myself to one a day and made it last 2 months because it was stuff I had never seen before and it was all much better than whatever locally passed as candy for a 10 year old. I could also tell you about my parents discretely asking me if i told any jokes about the current regime at school etc. So please cut that crap.

by narag 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

This misses the point of the books. The question isn't whether the Soviets are morally equivalent to the west; it's whether foreign intelligence services were anything more than state-sponsored organized crime syndicates.

narag 4y ago
I wasn't talking about any book, that I haven't read anyway, just making a distinction, nitpicking if you prefer it that way, about a specific paragraph. In it, photochemsyn states that you don't know who the good guys were, citing different episodes of the cold war, comparing it to WW2, somehow suggesting that there's a difference because Hitler was clearly bad. But that's not how I see it. The "good guys" side of WW2 involved the URSS (and only because they were attacked, after breaking Mólotov-Ribbentrop) and at a least morally ambiguous measures like bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. So neither in the goals nor in the means I see so big of a difference.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Because you haven't read the books, you've also missed the point of the comment you replied to, which is about the books.
  - narag 4y ago
    No, I haven't. The point of the comment is that Fleming provided a nicer narrative than Le Carré so it was prefered for political reasons. Fleming, in the article, pretty much says that he doesn't care much about politics, that he wrote for his own pleasure and the readers'. Saying that spy agencies promoted Fleming's work is unsubstantiated. I've seem weirder, like the CIA supporting abstract expresionists, but anyway it seems more likely that Fleming was successful just because it was entertaining. Le Carré was also very successful, so no need to create a war there.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      This point is unrelated to the one I made. But the preceding commenter didn't make up the fact that le Carré drew flak from the British IC; that's one of the most often-told stories about him. For instance (first thing off the SERP, didn't dig deeper): https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/26/what-spies-really-think-about-john-le-carre/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/26/what-spies-really-think... If you're totally unfamiliar with le Carré's work, it's OK not to have an opinion about him! He's not, like, part of the Canon.
      - narag 4y ago
        Not totally unfamilliar, I've probably seen some movie based on his books... I remember hearing about his troubles, maybe when he passed away. BTW, I wouldn't need to read Tarantino's book. I watched the original sources at that time, and we had Bond in the same bag as Wang Yu, Trinidad or Bruce Lee, even if we were teens. So I totally believe that Le Carré had a bad time, but Fleming wasn't really in the same genre to function as an antidote.
        tptacek 4y ago
        Oh, I agree that they aren't antidotes to each other. But: the moral dilemma in le Carré's work is nowhere nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and it's interesting to hear Tarantino say which movies he stole things from, and why he paid so much attention to them, and which 9 movies those movies drew from. It's a fun read.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> But I have no uncertainty over who are the very bad guys now and then. At all. Then you don't like questionning your own side or have never talked to an actual person who lived in East Germany or in USSR. Most of the Americans I have talked to have a very flat and somewhat caricatural view of the eastern block and few are as knowledgeable as they should regarding what the CIA did abroad. As usual, there are nuances. To be honest, as an European with a fairly unsympathetic view of the USA, the Cold War is very much a conflict between terrible and terrible.

narag 4y ago
You're wrong, I'm not American. I dated an actual person that lived in the USSR. She was somehow conflicted, but talked in no uncertain terms about the soviet boot. Also you're wrong. I question everything. Of course, you don't need to like my answers. But it doesn't help that you take for granted things that you have no idea about me.
nottorp 4y ago
> Then you don't like questionning your own side or have never talked to an actual person who lived in East Germany or in USSR. I lived beyond the iron curtain my first 14 years. I remember someone coming from "the west" and bringing me ... a small bag of candy, chewing gum and crap like that. I rationed myself to one a day and made it last 2 months because it was stuff I had never seen before and it was all much better than whatever locally passed as candy for a 10 year old. I could also tell you about my parents discretely asking me if i told any jokes about the current regime at school etc. So please cut that crap.