3 ms·
The basic messaging ("Nuclear power is good for me, but not for thee") is plainly and obviously inconsistent. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand why you wou
by aguaviva 2y ago
The basic messaging ("Nuclear power is good for me, but not for thee") is plainly and obviously inconsistent. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand why you would contest this.
The hypothesized messaging, that is. There's no evidence of such a propaganda campaign from Soviet side in those years (cover or overt), so this entire discussion is moot anyway.
- philwelch 2y agoIt would be inconsistent if the Soviet Union took that line in their own public messaging, but no one is alleging that.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aguaviva 2y agoThere's no need to "allege" that they did. There was tons of propaganda to that effect in 1950s/1960s (just as there was in the U.S. at the time, though this has been largely forgotten). For example: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/atom_for_peaceful_purposes_soviet_poster_1960/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/k4iggr/a... It's also why the Chornobyl facility was officially named the V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Plant, and so on. The only thing they didn't do was "promote anti-nuclear propaganda in the West".