4 ms·

>It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. Only if you ignore communist antagonism in E

>It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. Only if you ignore communist antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Up to and including their own allies when they gave their citizens a little too much freedom. I have several books in Czech on my shelf with a copyright date of 1968, a year in which far more books were published than years prior, I wonder why they share that year?

underlipton 2y ago
Do you have a more comprehensive timeline of communist antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, in relation to American policy?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Are you implying that all communist antagonism was in response to American policy? I believe there was plenty of aggression by all parties in the Cold War, but there are several instances where the communists were very clearly the aggressors. Just a couple of highlights: 1) The Soviet blockade of West Berlin. The Soviets did this in response to the horrifically aggressive acts of the US, Britain, and France to... manage their occupation zones in Germany differently than the Soviets wanted them to, and economic and currency reform in West Germany. 2) The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As far as I can tell, western involvement in Dubcek's reforms and the Prague Spring were about as non-existent as possible. This didn't stop the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact nations invading their own ally, and in explicit violation of the Warsaw Pact itself. 3) The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. The west's bizarre support of the Khmer Rouge after the successful Vietnamese invasion notwithstanding (for complex geopolitical reasons), prior to the invasion it treated both Cambodia and Vietnam as enemies and the war between the two nations was do to their own politics, not any US influence. And there are plenty more. And I'm sure there are instances you can bring up where the combloc countries were reacting to clear aggression by the west, but here's the thing: I'm not claiming that such aggression never happened. Meanwhile you seem to be arguing that the combloc countries would have been perfectly peaceful if they didn't need to react to aggressions by those damn western capitalists.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    How much of this happened after the Truman Doctrine was announced? Or, for that matter, after the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki?
    - HideousKojima 2y ago
      >Truman Doctrine Wait, why would the Soviet Union see a pledge to protect nations from authoritarian threats as aggression?
      - underlipton 2y ago
        Because that's an incredibly euphemistic read of what it stood for, akin to taking a police department press release at face value. Soviets reading between the lines - as American warhawks certainly intended it to be read - would have recognized it as a declaration of America's intent to isolate the USSR, cutting it off from potential global allies (i.e., threats to Western capitalist hegemony, e.g., any country that threatened to nationalize its resources in opposition to Western corporate interests). It turned what could have been a negotiation for power-sharing (through which soft power and widespread welfare might influence more robust observation of human rights) into a (second) confirmation that the two superpowers were entering a period of conflict (the nature of which actually encouraged means-to-an-end thinking that caused suffering in both the 1st and 2nd worlds). Later developments would also prove the doctrine's stated intentions to be a farce, as much of its execution involved toppling democracies in favor of US-backed autocrats.
        HideousKojima 2y ago
        So the Soviets took a public statement to mean something not explicitly stated, and that made it justified to and not an act of aggression to (checks notes) cut off all food and humanitarian aid to a city? Your view of things here is seriously twisted man. I don't think the west were perfect little angels during the cold war period, why is it so hard for you to not consider the same for the combloc countries? Especially when the Soviets already had a history of unjustified aggression and expansionism in Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and Romania in the lead up to/during WW2?

underlipton 2y ago

Do you have a more comprehensive timeline of communist antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, in relation to American policy?

HideousKojima 2y ago
Are you implying that all communist antagonism was in response to American policy? I believe there was plenty of aggression by all parties in the Cold War, but there are several instances where the communists were very clearly the aggressors. Just a couple of highlights: 1) The Soviet blockade of West Berlin. The Soviets did this in response to the horrifically aggressive acts of the US, Britain, and France to... manage their occupation zones in Germany differently than the Soviets wanted them to, and economic and currency reform in West Germany. 2) The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As far as I can tell, western involvement in Dubcek's reforms and the Prague Spring were about as non-existent as possible. This didn't stop the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact nations invading their own ally, and in explicit violation of the Warsaw Pact itself. 3) The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. The west's bizarre support of the Khmer Rouge after the successful Vietnamese invasion notwithstanding (for complex geopolitical reasons), prior to the invasion it treated both Cambodia and Vietnam as enemies and the war between the two nations was do to their own politics, not any US influence. And there are plenty more. And I'm sure there are instances you can bring up where the combloc countries were reacting to clear aggression by the west, but here's the thing: I'm not claiming that such aggression never happened. Meanwhile you seem to be arguing that the combloc countries would have been perfectly peaceful if they didn't need to react to aggressions by those damn western capitalists.
- underlipton 2y ago
  How much of this happened after the Truman Doctrine was announced? Or, for that matter, after the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki?
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    >Truman Doctrine Wait, why would the Soviet Union see a pledge to protect nations from authoritarian threats as aggression?
    - underlipton 2y ago
      Because that's an incredibly euphemistic read of what it stood for, akin to taking a police department press release at face value. Soviets reading between the lines - as American warhawks certainly intended it to be read - would have recognized it as a declaration of America's intent to isolate the USSR, cutting it off from potential global allies (i.e., threats to Western capitalist hegemony, e.g., any country that threatened to nationalize its resources in opposition to Western corporate interests). It turned what could have been a negotiation for power-sharing (through which soft power and widespread welfare might influence more robust observation of human rights) into a (second) confirmation that the two superpowers were entering a period of conflict (the nature of which actually encouraged means-to-an-end thinking that caused suffering in both the 1st and 2nd worlds). Later developments would also prove the doctrine's stated intentions to be a farce, as much of its execution involved toppling democracies in favor of US-backed autocrats.
      - HideousKojima 2y ago
        So the Soviets took a public statement to mean something not explicitly stated, and that made it justified to and not an act of aggression to (checks notes) cut off all food and humanitarian aid to a city? Your view of things here is seriously twisted man. I don't think the west were perfect little angels during the cold war period, why is it so hard for you to not consider the same for the combloc countries? Especially when the Soviets already had a history of unjustified aggression and expansionism in Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and Romania in the lead up to/during WW2?