NationStates Jolt Archive

Putin has been sending cold war era bombers to test the defenses of the US and Europe just like the Soviet's did during the cold war. Russia has come out with the "mother of all bombs" and even threatened to start building new nuclear weapons. And now we have the opposition to him being arrested for protesting.

AP NEWS STORY CARRIED BY FOX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312751,00.html

Will we see the return of the Soviet era in Russia? Will Putin step down quietly at the end of his term or will he pull a Hugo Chavez?

More like return of the Tzarist era. Putin's goals are even less altruistic than those of the government of the USSR, rather, they are solely constructed around maintaining and growing his own personal power.

Putin wants the Russian Federation to have the power and prestige of the old USSR. But the simple fact is, the RF lacks much of the important infrastructure that made the USSR a superpower, and no way will NATO allow Russia to start annexing it's neighbours again.

Hell, even China is closer to the USA than to Russia these days.

I wouldn't mind a return to the Cold War.

More like return of the Tzarist era. Putin's goals are even less altruistic than those of the government of the USSR, rather, they are solely constructed around maintaining and growing his own personal power.

How were the goals of The USSR altruistic? Your statement of the goal of Putin was what their goal was.

How were the goals of The USSR altruistic? Your statement of the goal of Putin was what their goal was.

His point was that at least the USSR was founded on the idea of altruism. Granted, it definitely took a turn for the worse in the 30's-40's era.

I wouldn't mind a return to the Cold War.

Yes, the looming threat of nuclear war is quite exciting.




No, wait...

I, for one, do not care overmuch.

It's basically propaganda for us and the Russkies. They send over some Backfires, we send out some Tornadoes, both nations' general public says "woohoo for our air force", we get to wave at their bomber crews like in the olden days.

His point was that at least the USSR was founded on the idea of altruism. Granted, it definitely took a turn for the worse in the 30's-40's era.

It took a turn for worse when it was founded, Lenin was no saint with only the best interest of the people in mind, to realize this all you have to do is look at his methodology in gaining control of the Bolsheviks

I wouldn't mind a return to the Cold War.

Right, cause I for one love the prospect of mustually assured destruction.

If by "Soviet" we mean rival to the United States, then yes. However, his other policies are definitely separate from those of the Soviet era; the only difference is that Russia is not capable of even remotely keeping up with the US in an arms race, especially now that they've been long since marginalized economically and have little to compete with other than supplies natural resources. Those are great for financing a war machine, but they don't provide the means to ensure said machine is modern or competitive.

How were the goals of The USSR altruistic? Your statement of the goal of Putin was what their goal was.

The USSR was founded on an idealist platform, albeit one that collapsed into imperialism, nationalism and despotism by the 1921, but it was founded with something of an idealists view.

Putin, on the other hand, is nothing more than a common nationalist, equipped with strong personal ambition, and a willingness to allow subordinates all over the country to be as corrupt as possible, so long as they inhibit domestic challenges to his own personal power.

It worked, didn't it?
Yus, we totally impoverished a nation of 300 million. FUCK YEAH!

Yes, the looming threat of nuclear war is quite interesting.

with that change it makes it true...
of course interesting≠good necessarily

Right, cause I for one love the prospect of mustually assured destruction.

There wasn't a big war, it seems to have worked.

It took a turn for worse when it was founded, Lenin was no saint with only the best interest of the people in mind, to realize this all you have to do is look at his methodology in gaining control of the Bolsheviks

True, but despite Lenin's rather unpleasent methods, at least helping people was a goal somewhere on his priority list.

Yus, we totally impoverished a nation of 300 million. FUCK YEAH!

I'd argue that they did that to themselves.

Right, cause I for one love the prospect of mustually assured destruction.

It worked, didn't it?

I'd argue that they did that to themselves.
I wouldn't. Driving people into an arms race, starving a whole nation, to win political points back home with the more retarded end of the populace who actually bought that Communism is the worst thing evar crap is completely shameful.

It worked, didn't it?

I'd like to believe it was detente rather than MAD or Reagan that ended the Cold War. In fact, I think that we're lucky to have all survived Reagan's presidency.

True, but despite Lenin's rather unpleasent methods, at least helping people was a goal somewhere on his priority list.

Quite possibly, my personal impression from reading about Lenin is that he really just wanted to replace the tsar with himself, but then I certainly can't know for sure

Yus, we totally impoverished a nation of 300 million. FUCK YEAH!

...and there wasn't a war. I consider that a success in my book.

Yus, we totally impoverished a nation of 300 million. FUCK YEAH!

How did "we" impoverish them? Nothing (other than paranoia) forced them to try to match America's weapons production

...and there wasn't a war. I consider that a success in my book.
There would never have been a war on the beginnings of the horizon were Truman less of a complete tool.

The UK was actually quite generous to the USSR in the first few post-war years, giving them our jet engine designs and all of that, as well as re-opening trade talks.

The US basically just antagonised the shit out of them by driving tanks all over Germany and generally being extremely provocative for no decent reason other than because people like MacArthur and Patton were respected for their role in the US' victory in World War 2 and hence could go around annoying the Russians. Nice one there.

There would never have been a war on the beginnings of the horizon were Truman less of a complete tool.

The UK was actually quite generous to the USSR in the first few post-war years, giving them our jet engine designs and all of that, as well as re-opening trade talks.

The US basically just antagonised the shit out of them by driving tanks all over Germany and generally being extremely provocative for no decent reason other than because people like MacArthur and Patton were respected for their role in the US' victory in World War 2 and hence could go around annoying the Russians. Nice one there.

The end of WWII just started a whole chain of events in which the U.S. decided to make a global ass of itself in the name of "protecting the world from communism". I honestly believe there was nothing to protect us from. Cummunism is an inherently flawed system, and never really posed any threat to us anyway.

How did "we" impoverish them? Nothing (other than paranoia) forced them to try to match America's weapons production
Erm, not so much paranoia as MAD. If your opponent for the last 40-odd years starts massively reinvesting in arms, as Raegan did, then it's reasonably sensible to do so too.

I wouldn't exactly call that paranoia, would you?

The end of WWII just started a whole chain of events in which the U.S. decided to make a global ass of itself in the name of "protecting the world from communism". I honestly believe there was nothing to protect us from. Cummunism is an inherently flawed system, and never really posed any threat to us anyway.
Yes, that's exactly my point.

There would never have been a war on the beginnings of the horizon were Truman less of a complete tool.

The UK was actually quite generous to the USSR in the first few post-war years, giving them our jet engine designs and all of that, as well as re-opening trade talks.

The US basically just antagonised the shit out of them by driving tanks all over Germany and generally being extremely provocative for no decent reason other than because people like MacArthur and Patton were respected for their role in the US' victory in World War 2 and hence could go around annoying the Russians. Nice one there.
Patton can't have had much time to really anatgonise the Russians before he was killed in a car accident, on the orders of the top brass as one conspiracy theory would have it, because of his ideas to rearm the Wermacht and carry on to Moscow.

Erm, not so much paranoia as MAD. If your opponent for the last 40-odd years starts massively reinvesting in arms, as Raegan did, then it's reasonably sensible to do so too.

I wouldn't exactly call that paranoia, would you?

I would call it sensible paranoia...if that even exists.

Erm, not so much paranoia as MAD. If your opponent for the last 40-odd years starts massively reinvesting in arms, as Raegan did, then it's reasonably sensible to do so too.

I wouldn't exactly call that paranoia, would you?

The arms race started well before Reagan, and it was Stalin's posturing that made made the Soviet Union an enemy (at least from America's pov) at what point the Soviet Union started considering the U.S.A. an enemy is a little unclear, some Stalin era documents indicate that for him it was well before the end of WW II

Patton can't have had much time to really anatgonise the Russians before he was killed in a car accident, on the orders of the top brass as one conspiracy theory would have it, because of his ideas to rearm the Wermacht and carry on to Moscow.

I think we can all agree on one thing...Patton was batshit insane.

I wouldn't. Driving people into an arms race, starving a whole nation, to win political points back home with the more retarded end of the populace who actually bought that Communism is the worst thing evar crap is completely shameful.

Which of course begs questions regarding to whose actions instigated the Cold War, and the blame for that largely falls on Stalin's shoulders. After all, images such as this were profligate through the duration of World War Two. (http://image.mplib.org/wp/thumbs/MPW00288.jpg) Rather, when the Soviet Union reneged on promises for democracy in their occupied territories, and the Soviet aggression in Korea to the Cold War and the arms race were calcified. Combined with the discovery of the deep penetration of the American atomic weapons program and intelligence community by Soviet spies, it was primarily the actions of the USSR that initiated the Cold War.

Furthermore, the primary reason for the development of a large American nuclear force was directly related to the presence of massive Soviet offensive armies in East Germany and Eastern Europe for the duration of the cold war.

I think we can all agree on one thing...Patton was batshit insane.

Probably the only reason he was successful. If people understood what he was thinking then he would have lost from the very beginning. Of course that doesn't mean they should have listened to him politically.

Edit: Yay, first timeworp!!!

I wouldn't mind, it would give the US an actual threat that would shut the liberals up about America being "Imperialistic"

Having the single most powerful military deployed virtually worldwide, with the ability to strike anywhere, anytime, barring political considerations, and a culture so pervasive it has spread and eroded many traditional cultural stuctures globally (i.e. Japan) doesn't count as imperialism?

I wouldn't mind, it would give the US an actual threat that would shut the liberals up about America being "Imperialistic"

Which of course begs questions regarding to whose actions instigated the Cold War, and the blame for that largely falls on Stalin's shoulders. After all, images such as this were profligate through the duration of World War Two. (http://image.mplib.org/wp/thumbs/MPW00288.jpg) Rather, when the Soviet Union reneged on promises for democracy in their occupied territories, and the Soviet aggression in Korea to the Cold War and the arms race were calcified. Combined with the discovery of the deep penetration of the American atomic weapons program and intelligence community by Soviet spies, it was primarily the actions of the USSR that initiated the Cold War.

Furthermore, the primary reason for the development of a large American nuclear force was directly related to the presence of massive Soviet offensive armies in East Germany and Eastern Europe for the duration of the cold war.

What I don't get is that after Stalin's death, why nobody on either side, Maybe with the exception of Nixon, was willing to do anything at all to try and rectify the tense situation. you'd think they'd have realized how foolish and dangerous they're actions were in the grand scheme of things.

The arms race started well before Reagan
Détente pretty much stopped the cock-swinging as far as the 1970s was concerned, then Raegan restarted it all. No real reason to do so, other than for the sake of his own ego.
and it was Stalin's posturing that made made the Soviet Union an enemy (at least from America's pov)
Nothing to do with the US boasting about its nuclear arsenal, Patton's wishes to keep on going after destroying the German army into the USSR, MacArthur's mindless anti-Communist vitriol and the Red Scare which started in Hoover's time and didn't end until, ooh, 1991ish, then?
at what point the Soviet Union started considering the U.S.A. an enemy is a little unclear, some Stalin era documents indicate that for him it was well before the end of WW II
Unsurprising, seeing as the USSR intercepted communiqués from Patton and his lesser commanders asking to be allowed to move against Soviet forces when they met up, amongst many other pretty serious threats from the US.

There would never have been a war on the beginnings of the horizon were Truman less of a complete tool.

More properly, had Stalin been less of a militarist despot bent on absolute regional domination.

The UK was actually quite generous to the USSR in the first few post-war years, giving them our jet engine designs and all of that, as well as re-opening trade talks.

As was the US, with the offer of substantial Marshall Fund aid to the USSR and occupied countries. Molotov, though, refused to accept the money.

When the governments of Soviet occupied countries considered the reception of Marshall Fund aid they routinely had their government officials called into Moscow, and berated by Stalin himself for even thinking about collaborating with the Americans.

The US basically just antagonised the shit out of them by driving tanks all over Germany and generally being extremely provocative for no decent reason other than because people like MacArthur and Patton were respected for their role in the US' victory in World War 2 and hence could go around annoying the Russians. Nice one there.

Given that the Russians had massive offensive armies based in East Germany, it would not seem entirely irrational to have a force that could repel their assault. The US army had actually begun to draw down the offensive forces stationed in Germany, before they began to build forces back up in response to the Soviet threat.

Having the single most powerful military deployed virtually worldwide, with the ability to strike anywhere, anytime, barring political considerations, and a culture so pervasive it has spread and eroded many traditional cultural stuctures globally (i.e. Japan) doesn't count as imperialism?



Lets see... its called Manifest Destiny.

Lets see... its called Manifest Destiny.

Oh, right. Because the United States automatically is the only country with the right or the sense to be able to decide what's best for the world. Because we definitely haven't screwed over Iraq and a dozen other countries we tried to "help".

Unsurprising, seeing as the USSR intercepted communiqués from Patton and his lesser commanders asking to be allowed to move against Soviet forces when they met up, amongst many other pretty serious threats from the US.

And several of the documents indicate that Stalin considered America an enemy previous to America joining the war.

The point I've been trying to make, and which you've been missing is both America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War.
Both sides consider the political ideology of the other to be so wrong and offensive that it should be abolished, forcefully if necesarry

This is totalitarianism, not Sovietism.

What I don't get is that after Stalin's death, why nobody on either side, Maybe with the exception of Nixon, was willing to do anything at all to try and rectify the tense situation. you'd think they'd have realized how foolish and dangerous they're actions were in the grand scheme of things.

Well, after the power struggle following Stalin's death, it was important to Khrushchev to be able to project an image of strength to both the military and the civilian population, all the while undergoing a process of de-Stalinization. The reality of this need for Khrushchev to keep the strong-man image up is highlighted in the form of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the perception of his weakness in confronting the United States proved crucial to his eventual loss of power.

... and a culture so pervasive it has spread and eroded many traditional cultural stuctures globally (i.e. Japan) doesn't count as imperialism?

I don't see how one can blame 'culture'. It isn't exactly a malicious force with a will of its own and is easily ignored if you want to.

Well, after the power struggle following Stalin's death, it was important to Khrushchev to be able to project an image of strength to both the military and the civilian population, all the while undergoing a process of de-Stalinization. The reality of this need for Khrushchev to keep the strong-man image up is highlighted in the form of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the perception of his weakness in confronting the United States proved crucial to his eventual loss of power.

But what about leaders after him? My knowledge is sketchy, but there should have been like, two or three between Kruschev and Gorbachev.

This is totalitarianism, not Sovietism.

And The Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime

Which of course begs questions regarding to whose actions instigated the Cold War, and the blame for that largely falls on Stalin's shoulders. After all, images such as this were profligate through the duration of World War Two. (http://image.mplib.org/wp/thumbs/MPW00288.jpg)
Just because squaddies were being given posters saying THE SOVIETS ARE OK PEOPLE doesn't mean that they were getting the same message from their COs. Same goes for the posters saying THE BRITISH ARE FINE, lots of Yank commanders were being extremely distainful about British forces.
Rather, when the Soviet Union reneged on promises for democracy in their occupied territories
No reason to start a war off, let's be honest.
and the Soviet aggression in Korea to the Cold War
Nothing to do with American actions in helping the French fight communist guerrillas in Indochina, right?
arms race were calcified.
The nuclear weapons race was started off by Truman, not Stalin.
Combined with the discovery of the deep penetration of the American atomic weapons program
Utterly unsurprising, since that's the only way that they'd have got to keep any of the research. See what happened to Great Britain.

"Can we have those documents so we can make our own, we helped you out with the whole program after all"
"Nope, and we think we'll cadge your research on jet engines, too"
and intelligence community by Soviet spies
Aye, because the OSS never acted in the USSR, right?
it was primarily the actions of the USSR that initiated the Cold War.
Erm, no.
Furthermore, the primary reason for the development of a large American nuclear force was directly related to the presence of massive Soviet offensive armies in East Germany and Eastern Europe for the duration of the cold war.
Aye, because NATO forces had no involvement in West Germany, right?

Oh, right. Because the United States automatically is the only country with the right or the sense to be able to decide what's best for the world. Because we definitely haven't screwed over Iraq and a dozen other countries we tried to "help".

HEAD WEST! (In case you haven't noticed, most of the world is west of the US, depending on your viewpoint)

I don't see how one can blame 'culture'. It isn't exactly a malicious force with a will of its own and is easily ignored if you want to.

Actually, there is a very well documented history of culture being forced on other people by those in a position of power (Russification). Now, I'm not saying that that's anything like what we did here, but you've got to admit it's a little arrogant of us to assume that our society not only knows what's best, but is best. We've got plenty our own problems, and considering that we had Japan in our vice-like grip after WWII, they were pretty much obliged to adopt some of our mannerisms. It's a classic example of the conquered becoming like the conquerers. It's happened since the days of Rome and Geece.

The nuclear weapons race was started off by Truman, not Stalin.

Actually, depending on how you look at it, it was started by FDR

Actually, depending on how you look at it, it was started by FDR

That goddamn cripple!

And several of the documents indicate that Stalin considered America an enemy previous to America joining the war.
Unsurprising, the American government helped out the White Armies in the Russian civil war, and then basically persecuted American socialists during the Hoover years.
The point I've been trying to make, and which you've been missing is both America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War.
Both sides consider the political ideology of the other to be so wrong and offensive that it should be abolished, forcefully if necesarry
I wouldn't say that the Soviet Union was by any means innocent in all of this, but it seems to me that a large part of the blame rests on the US' shoulders, seeing as they tried to play the moral high ground card post-war.

But what about leaders after him? My knowledge is sketchy, but there should have been like, two or three between Kruschev and Gorbachev.

Brezhnev, in comparison to Khrushchev, was far more hard-line. Going along with that was a willingness to be more belligerent towards the United States. He was closely linked to the Soviet Military-Industrial Complex as the center of his power base, and was unwilling to usually stray too far from their dictates. All the same, the period of Detente, and the Sino-Soviet split, that lasted under Nixon and Ford gave Brezhnev the opportunity and the requirement to cool the rhetoric slightly. Towards of the end of his rule he was essentially drugged out of his mind because of his illnesses, and incapable of effecting major change. Andropov and Chernenko were both in office for such short periods of time that Reagan actually never got a chance to meet with either of them.

Actually, depending on how you look at it, it was started by FDR
FDR was more quiet about it, Truman shoved it in the USSR's face with glee.

I wouldn't say that the Soviet Union was by any means innocent in all of this, but it seems to me that a large part of the blame rests on the US' shoulders, seeing as they tried to play the moral high ground card post-war.

As did the Soviets

Neither side is/was blameless, both felt that the other was going to attack them next.

FDR was more quiet about it, Truman shoved it in the USSR's face with glee.

I've never liked Truman. I can't abide by a man who doesn't apologize for authorizing the killing of thousands of civilians.

FDR was more quiet about it, Truman shoved it in the USSR's face with glee.

The Nuclear arms race actually started in WW II, America, Germany, and the Soviet Union were all trying to develop the atomic bomb, America just got there first.

As did the Soviets

Neither side is/was blameless, both felt that the other was going to attack them next.

Both governments were pretty damn corrupt over this time period. Take the oppression and lack of personal freedom on the soviet end, and the lack of personal morals (Nixon) and empathy and compassion for the soviet people on our end (Reagan a.k.a. Mr. Evil Empire).

I've never liked Truman. I can't abide by a man who doesn't apologize for authorizing the killing of thousands of civilians.
Quite.
The Nuclear arms race actually started in WW II
Oh, thanks, I completely didn't know that.
America, Germany, and the Soviet Union were all trying to develop the atomic bomb, America just got there first.
America got there first - and then chucked it in everyone's face. The reason that Germany didn't and America did is down to the British, who were then not given anything for their work on the Manhattan project, which is pretty ingrateful, to be honest.

The race to make bigger and better was kicked off by Truman's blatent posturing.

... The race to make bigger and better was kicked off by Truman's blatent posturing.

Completely ignoring Stalin's blatant posturing.


I'll restate it, America didn't force the Soviet Union to consider them an enemy, there are strong indications that Stalin considered America to be as big (if not as immediate) a threat to the Soviet Union as Hitler's Germany.

Both sides share equal blame and responsibility for the Cold War and the policy of MAD

The reason that Germany didn't and America did is down to the British, who were then not given anything for their work on the Manhattan project, which is pretty ingrateful, to be honest.

Not trying to be a smart ass here, but what did the British do for the Manhatten Project? I am honestly unaware of any active participation on their part.

Just because squaddies were being given posters saying THE SOVIETS ARE OK PEOPLE doesn't mean that they were getting the same message from their COs. Same goes for the posters saying THE BRITISH ARE FINE, lots of Yank commanders were being extremely distainful about British forces.

Of course, this requires that we mention the disdainful attitude British officers had for American troops who were "Oversexed, overfed and over here." Sounds like a mutual animosity.

No reason to start a war off, let's be honest.
Of course not, and as you might note, no war was started.

But it is a significant violation of both treaty and trust, and closely linked to the start of the Cold War

Nothing to do with American actions in helping the French fight communist guerrillas in Indochina, right?

If the Indochina guerrillas can even be called Communist. More like local nationalist uprisings that had nothing to do with the USSR.

The nuclear weapons race was started off by Truman, not Stalin.

Hardly that simple, buddyboo. The arms race had everything to do with the US response to the perception of Soviet expansionism and imperialism.

Utterly unsurprising, since that's the only way that they'd have got to keep any of the research. See what happened to Great Britain.

"Can we have those documents so we can make our own, we helped you out with the whole program after all"
"Nope, and we think we'll cadge your research on jet engines, too"

Except Soviet involvement in the Manhattan project was non-existent. They played no role in the development of the atomic bomb.

Aye, because the OSS never acted in the USSR, right?


During the war, though, OSS resources were extremely limited, and were focused on the immediate threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When the war was ended, the OSS was liquidated, with most of its resources split between the Department of State and Department of Defense. The US was demobilizing, quite unlike the NKVD of the USSR.

After the war, when the OSS was reconstituted in response to the growing Soviet threat, they tried, but because of the actions of people such as Kim Philby virtually every single attempt by the US and UK to insert agents into the USSR throughout the late forties was a total failure.


Erm, no.

Gaddis has proved, quite thoroughly and repeatedly that while responsibility is to be shared, a preponderance of the responsibility must be placed on the shoulders of Stalin.

Aye, because NATO forces had no involvement in West Germany, right?

Once again, the formation of NATO had everything to do with the perception of Soviet expansionism and imperialism. The presence of massive offensive formations in East Germany (comparable to no forces that the United States had in Europe)

Actually, there is a very well documented history of culture being forced on other people by those in a position of power (Russification).

These days it doesn't work as much through force of arms but through corporations and hard cold cash. Local businesses can't compete that well with massive American corporations which come in, throw assloads of money to make up the infrastructure, advertise like madmen, begin massive price wars and so forth. Either the local business withers and dies, or adapts (by mergers and things like that). Americanization to some degree is pretty much guaranteed, and there's no way you can stop it.

But you know, what I've picked up of the way of thinking of the American leadership... They're really pro-free trade and everything, as long as companies from other countries don't show up on American soil to compete with American companies.

Cultural imperialism? Hell yes it is.

Completely ignoring Stalin's blatant posturing.


I'll restate it, America didn't force the Soviet Union to consider them an enemy, there are strong indications that Stalin considered America to be as big (if not as immediate) a threat to the Soviet Union as Hitler's Germany.

Both sides share equal blame and responsibility for the Cold War and the policy of MAD

Not to mention responsibility for inspiring the Red Alert series of games! :p

Not to mention responsibility for inspiring the Red Alert series of games! :p

:D Nothing wrong with that :D

Will we see the return of the Soviet era in Russia?
No, Hillary Clinton is in the US...

:rolleyes::p

Will Putin step down quietly at the end of his term or will he pull a Hugo Chavez?
Yes, he will. He doesn't need to not step down to remain in power, you see. He's gonna be elected Prime Minister, and in the next election he may run for president again - and if he chooses to do so, he'll get that position.

At least, if the current trends keep up.

I find it strange that he's almost secured an election as PM already - yet him and his regime won't allow unrestricted access to election observers...

If the Indochina guerrillas can even be called Communist. More like local nationalist uprisings that had nothing to do with the USSR.

As point of fact, the Viet Minh/ Viet Cong were supplied with weapons by the Soviet Union

I find it strange that he's almost secured an election as PM already - yet him and his regime won't allow unrestricted access to election observers...

I don't find that strange at all...
unpleasant yes, strange no

As point of fact, the Viet Minh/ Viet Cong were supplied with weapons by the Soviet Union

Interestingly enough, before going to the communists, Ho Chi Minh and his pals tried to seek U.S. help in overthrowing the corrupt Colonial French government. Naturally, we refused.

As point of fact, the Viet Minh/ Viet Cong were supplied with weapons by the Soviet Union

The VC were certainly USSR supported, but the Viet Minh actually rather expected for US support for their movement, especially in light of their actions against the Japanese. Further, it was more akin to a coalition movement that included not only communists, but rightist factions as well.

At the same time, Viet Minh weapons were primarily provided through the PRC, rather than the USSR.

The VC were certainly USSR supported, but the Viet Minh actually rather expected for US support for their movement, especially in light of their actions against the Japanese. Further, it was more akin to a coalition movement that included not only communists, but rightist factions as well.

At the same time, Viet Minh weapons were primarily provided through the PRC, rather than the USSR.

Meh, my statements was still accurate

Hell, even China is closer to the USA than to Russia these days.

Don't count on that one.

The USSR was founded on an idealist platform, albeit one that collapsed into imperialism, nationalism and despotism by the 1921, but it was founded with something of an idealists view.

Putin, on the other hand, is nothing more than a common nationalist, equipped with strong personal ambition, and a willingness to allow subordinates all over the country to be as corrupt as possible, so long as they inhibit domestic challenges to his own personal power.

Quite. He's using the tactic of boosting people's nationalistic pride so as to stifle dissent, kindling memories of Soviet greatness and suggesting that it can be regained, but no way is he going to embark on Soviet-style socio-economics.

Quite. He's using the tactic of boosting people's nationalistic pride so as to stifle dissent, kindling memories of Soviet greatness and suggesting that it can be regained, but no way is he going to embark on Soviet-style socio-economics.

Very Dolchstosslegende-ish, if you ask me.

Don't count on that one.

Unless the economics change, or some idiot pulls the trigger on Taiwan, the US and China have an economic reliance on one another. Either can wreck the other's economy...but only at the expense of his own.

I don't find that strange at all...
unpleasant yes, strange no

Why would he need to do it, then?

Why would he need to do it, then?

I think we've kinda covered Putin being a mite power-mad

Just think about how awesome another Cold War would be.
Is anyone with me on this?

I think we've kinda covered Putin being a mite power-mad

When did he become stupid and illogical too?

When did he become stupid and illogical too?

:confused:

Of course, this requires that we mention the disdainful attitude British officers had for American troops who were "Oversexed, overfed and over here." Sounds like a mutual animosity.
Pretty much.
Of course not, and as you might note, no war was started.

But it is a significant violation of both treaty and trust, and closely linked to the start of the Cold War
The fact that Truman went back on a whole bunch of FDR's pledges at Yalta, in terms of letting the USSR have an eastern sphere of influence, and then complained about it when it happened regardless is pretty telling.
If the Indochina guerrillas can even be called Communist. More like local nationalist uprisings that had nothing to do with the USSR.
The largest group, the Viet Minh, certainly were a communist group.
Hardly that simple, buddyboo. The arms race had everything to do with the US response to the perception of Soviet expansionism and imperialism.
And a perception was all.
Except Soviet involvement in the Manhattan project was non-existent. They played no role in the development of the atomic bomb.
Aye, because they were excluded by Churchill. Not really their fault.
During the war, though, OSS resources were extremely limited, and were focused on the immediate threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When the war was ended, the OSS was liquidated, with most of its resources split between the Department of State and Department of Defense.
IIRC they took Finnish ciphers of Russian code, and were active in forming anti-communist partisan units in Russia.

Might be recalling that wrong, mind.
The US was demobilizing, quite unlike the NKVD of the USSR.
The US went, ooh, about 8 months without an intelligence agency. Big whoop.
Gaddis has proved, quite thoroughly and repeatedly that while responsibility is to be shared, a preponderance of the responsibility must be placed on the shoulders of Stalin.
Some of it, s'true.
Once again, the formation of NATO had everything to do with the perception of Soviet expansionism and imperialism.
Aye, on the other hand, the Soviet Bloc's version wasn't formed for another five years, and only then due to the re-armament of West Germany.
The presence of massive offensive formations in East Germany
Same kind of levels as were in the Bizone, to be honest.
(comparable to no forces that the United States had in Europe)
Oh really?

http://www.western-allies-berlin.com/units/us-army/us-army

That gives a listing of all US Army units stationed in West Berlin 1945-1994. Quite a long list. There is also a section for the USAF there. See also Ramstein base, amongst dozens of others in Europe.

You might want to retract that statement of yours ;)
As point of fact, the Viet Minh/ Viet Cong were supplied with weapons by the Soviet Union
The Viet Minh weren't.

The VC were. Different groups in different times. Which makes your statement inaccurate, not 'still accurate'.

As to your "What did the Brits do" - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=701610456 enjoy.
Los Alamos also provided the location for British and U.S. scientists to confer. At a conference in Québec, Canada, in August 1943 between Britain and the United States, Churchill had persuaded Roosevelt to collaborate on building the bomb. Following the Québec Agreement, a team of about 20 top-level British scientists—including Chadwick, Peierls, Frisch, Bohr (who had become a consultant to the British effort), and Klaus Fuchs, along with Canadian scientist J. Carson Mark—moved to Los Alamos. The task at Los Alamos was to create a combat-ready atomic bomb using the fissionable material supplied by Oak Ridge and Hanford.
Just think about how awesome another Cold War would be.
Is anyone with me on this?
I don't think so, no.

It's a possibility.

Of course, this requires that we mention the disdainful attitude British officers had for American troops who were "Oversexed, overfed and over here." Sounds like a mutual animosity.

Now there was a disdainful attitude from some British officers, but the Oversexed, overpaid and over here thing is slightly different.That was just a reaction, more by soldiers than officers, to the fact that the GI's were paid a lot more than the Tommies, they were shagging their wives and sweethearts and were all over the place. nothing to do with disdain really, just irritation of the inequity of the situation.

The disdain british officers showed was for the fact that they had been in the war for longer than the Americans allowing them to feel smug when a kasserine or a Second Happy Time happened. The problem was that they let that attitude go on for too long even when the American doctrine had surpassed the British in some areas.

On the other side of the coin a lot of American officers carried often quite strong Anglophobia, eg. Admiral king who allowed the Second Happy Time to occur rather than listen to the British.

Although there is some nostalgia for the Soviet Union among Russians I don't believe it will return to that. Even though the Communists are the 2nd most popular party in Russia, they are only about 15% of the vote compared to United Russia which has about 45-60% support. UR is of course the party supported by Putin. Though Putin has taken certain steps in controlling television media and increased his own personal power, I don't think he wants a return to Soviet hostilities with the west or a Soviet system within Russia. I think he is actually quite smart and if he makes the right moves he can make Russia a much better place.

Putin's apparent militarism is probably more of a ploy for the domestic audience than for anything else.

He is very popular in Russia, which doesn't exactly reflect well on Russians, and it is likely that he will operate within some shaky legal framework to retain power for a long time.

I don't think so, no.

I hope everyone knew I was joking when I said that..
*sighs and starts filling bomb shelter with dirt*

Lets see... its called Manifest Destiny.

Sort of like Mein Kampf, American style.

Sort of like Mein Kampf, American style.

Which makes it more kickass. Plus, we had Polk....and his spirit lives on. *glances towards Mexico's land with envy*

Which makes it more kickass. Plus, we had Polk....and his spirit lives on. *glances towards Mexico's land with envy*

Bah, we should have conquered Mexico when we had the chance.

Sort of like Mein Kampf, American style.
But not really like that at all.....

http://www.historyonthenet.com/American_West/images/manifestdestinylarge.jpg

That gives a listing of all US Army units stationed in West Berlin 1945-1994. Quite a long list. There is also a section for the USAF there. See also Ramstein base, amongst dozens of others in Europe.

Yes, but those bases didn't exist to impose the US party line on the regimes; if a Western country decided to work with the USSR to improve relations, we didn't use those bases to overthrow that government and impose a more faithful one. Those Soviet troops were explicitly stationed there to ensure that the satellite states didn't move away from the USSR on key policy issues; that's why it was Soviet troops that intervened in East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.

American troops were there in a much, much more passive role than the Soviet forces. In fact, without the Soviet Union's pseudo-occupation of Eastern Europe, the Communist bloc would have collapsed far earlier than it did.

But not really like that at all.....


The espousing of nationalistic sentiment, advocation of exploitation and subjugation of "lesser" people, and expansion of territorial control using vague ideas of superiority that are ideologically, but not factually, based.

What's the difference?

Where have you been?
Some Un-American hellhole?

Yes I have. It's called Washington DC.

The espousing of nationalistic sentiment, advocation of exploitation and subjugation of "lesser" people, and expansion of territorial control using vague ideas of superiority that are ideologically, but not factually, based.

What's the difference?

It's America. America is separate from all of your moral tiddlywinks. America makes the morals. In fact, America is the morals, so America cannot, under any circumstances, do wrong.

Where have you been?
Some Un-American hellhole?

Yes I have. It's called Washington DC.

:p
Bravo. *claps*

Oh, right. Because the United States automatically is the only country with the right or the sense to be able to decide what's best for the world. Because we definitely haven't screwed over Iraq and a dozen other countries we tried to "help".

We get it already, you want the U.S conquered by iran and russia and china and our people killed and raped. You don't need to say it more than once

The espousing of nationalistic sentiment, advocation of exploitation and subjugation of "lesser" people, and expansion of territorial control using vague ideas of superiority that are ideologically, but not factually, based.

What's the difference?
That the American ideas were superior but the Nazi's were not.

The Natives had their chance with the land. Next in line was us. Our civilization won it and put it to better use, creating this great nation. This has been the history of humanity, I fail to see why it is bad when Americans did it to the natives but not when every single other people in the history of the world did it to everyone throughout the history of the world. Conquest was a huge part of man that we are only starting to grow out of.

That the American ideas were superior but the Nazi's were not.

Pfft, the Nazis just had less resources and less competent heads of state. Ideologically, it's exactly the same. And if you're going to spout that "superior" crap at me, you'd better start outlining why.


The Natives had their chance with the land. Next in line was us. Our civilization won it and put it to better use, creating this great nation. This has been the history of humanity, I fail to see why it is bad when Americans did it to the natives but not when every single other people in the history of the world did it to everyone throughout the history of the world. Conquest was a huge part of man that we are only starting to grow out of.

So on an individual level, if I have superior weaponry and skill, gunning you down and claiming your assets are fine? Someone else has done it before after all.

So on an individual level, if I have superior weaponry and skill, gunning you down and claiming your assets are fine? Someone else has done it before after all.

There is only one suitable response a man can make to such a statement:

Bring
it
on.

Having the single most powerful military deployed virtually worldwide, with the ability to strike anywhere, anytime, barring political considerations, and a culture so pervasive it has spread and eroded many traditional cultural stuctures globally (i.e. Japan) doesn't count as imperialism?

No, it's called being successful

There is only one suitable response a man can make to such a statement:

Bring
it
on.

Are you actually siding with Atlantian on this? As for bringing it on.

Well certainly not now. I could strike you tomorrow, or the day after. The time to strike is entirely mine to choose. I could be your neighbor, patiently biding my time for that lawnmower you never returned. I could be your postman, having dealt with that gummy postbox of yours you never clean one time too many.

I could be that kid down the street you knocked over the other day.

I could be anyone.

And as anyone, I can get you at my convenience. Anywhere. Anytime.

Are you actually siding with Atlantian on this?
No. :p
As for bringing it on.

Well certainly not now. I could strike you tomorrow, or the day after. The time to strike is entirely mine to choose. I could be your neighbor, patiently biding my time for that lawnmower you never returned. I could be your postman, having dealt with that gummy postbox of yours you never clean one time too many.

I could be that kid down the street you knocked over the other day.

I could be anyone.

And as anyone, I can get you at my convenience. Anywhere. Anytime.
:eek:
*flees country*

Pfft, the Nazis just had less resources and less competent heads of state. Ideologically, it's exactly the same. And if you're going to spout that "superior" crap at me, you'd better start outlining why.
Because European soceity (and by relation at that time, American society) was/is the pinacle of human progress and devolpment in terms of science, culture and values/morals. The ideas of America, the enlightenment, freedom, prosperity, progress...ect, triumph the native non-civilized cultures. Not all cultures are equal.


So on an individual level, if I have superior weaponry and skill, gunning you down and claiming your assets are fine? Someone else has done it before after all.
No. The rules that apply to humans differ from the rules that apply to nation-states. It may not be just, but it is so.

Don't like it? Get in line behind this guy:
Voltaire
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

Because European soceity (and by relation at that time, American society) was/is the pinacle of human progress and devolpment in terms of science

At the time, or is that an all encompassing "forever and ever" statement?


culture


If you can call rampant consumerism a culture, you have no idea what culture even is.


and values/morals.


Morals? Values? America? Please. The only morals America seems to be interested in is the moral of "I'm always right" while oppressing whoever can't fight back.

You can't even treat your own citizens fairly and pass laws to oppress them on gender, skin color or whatever the flavor of bigotry is in vogue.


The ideas of America, the enlightenment,


Like dumbing down education.


freedom, prosperity,


Only for rich white males. Everyone else gets shafted.


progress


You mean progress by oppression of others? You've certainly made strides in that field.


triumph the native non-civilized cultures.


Pfft, by non-civilized, you mean "not us Westerners". Don't lie to me.

And you are totally sidestepping the question. Why is "Manifest Destiny" different from Mein Kampf in any meaningful way?

How does one set of ideas espousing of nationalistic sentiment, advocation of exploitation and subjugation of "lesser" people, and expansion of territorial control using vague ideas of superiority that are ideologically, but not factually, based differ from another just because they came from different geographies?



No. The rules that apply to humans differ from the rules that apply to nation-states. It may not be just, but it is so.

Nationstates are not separate entities from humans.

And how do you explain the Nuremberg trials then hmm? Oh wait, it's alright for one nation-state to determine what is and isn't just, while doing the same thing it accuses others of.

As long as that nation is America isn't it?


Don't like it? Get in line behind this guy:
Voltaire
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

*brings trumpet and list of NSG trolls, neocons and war junkies.*

Well I'm set then.

:confused:

When Putin is gonna win, and win with a huge margin, and his supporters and allies will be voted in as well, why does he need to destroy the credibility of the electoral process by shutting out the election observers?

The Viet Minh weren't.

The VC were. Different groups in different times. Which makes your statement inaccurate, not 'still accurate'.

Actually the Viet Minh were supllied weapons and advisors by the Soviet Union, the fact that most of the weapons came from the PRC doesn't change the fact that they did receive some aid

As to your "What did the Brits do" - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=701610456 enjoy.

That didn't answer my question at all


At a conference in Québec, Canada, in August 1943 between Britain and the United States, Churchill had persuaded Roosevelt to collaborate on building the bomb. Following the Québec Agreement, a team of about 20 top-level British scientists—including Chadwick, Peierls, Frisch, Bohr (who had become a consultant to the British effort), and Klaus Fuchs, along with Canadian scientist J. Carson Mark—moved to Los Alamos. The task at Los Alamos was to create a combat-ready atomic bomb using the fissionable material supplied by Oak Ridge and Hanford.

And if this is what you're referring to I fail to see where The U.S.A. owes thanks to the British.

When Putin is gonna win, and win with a huge margin, and his supporters and allies will be voted in as well, why does he need to destroy the credibility of the electoral process by shutting out the election observers?

Well, he doesn't need to obviously, but, my guess would be that he doesn't want to take any chances

And if this is what you're referring to I fail to see where The U.S.A. owes thanks to the British.
I appreciate that this is just a wikipedia article so feel free to disagree with it if you wish, but i found these sentences instructive:

The MAUD Reports finally made a big impression. Overnight the Americans changed their minds about the feasibility of an atomic bomb and suggested a cooperative effort with Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

I appreciate that this is just a wikipedia article so feel free to disagree with it if you wish, but i found these sentences instructive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys

Not so much that I disagree, it's just that I was ignorant of any involvement by the British in the Manhatten Project and the MSN Encarta entry didn't really say what the British did. I had been hoping to see something about what they actually did. Also the Encarta entry gave the impression that they were included because they begged to be (an exaggeration I know).

After reading through the Wiki article, if it is accurate it does sound like there should have been at least some aknowledgement of the help from the British, since it seems that the Manhatten Project would have at least been delayed, if not derailed without said assistance.

I wouldn't mind a return to the Cold War.

true, the benefits of the coLD WAR:
balance of power
lots of money to 3rd world countries
intresting choices in politics
unless you were communist or pro usa you could do whatever you want
so either china or russia become the new superpower, or the usa must crumble to maintain balance

Actually the Viet Minh were supllied weapons and advisors by the Soviet Union
No, no they weren't.
the fact that most of the weapons came from the PRC doesn't change the fact that they did receive some aid
China and the USSR are two very seperate entities
That didn't answer my question at all
Why, can't you read?
And if this is what you're referring to I fail to see where The U.S.A. owes thanks to the British.
"Following the Québec Agreement, a team of about 20 top-level British scientists—including Chadwick, Peierls, Frisch, Bohr (who had become a consultant to the British effort), and Klaus Fuchs, along with Canadian scientist J. Carson Mark—moved to Los Alamos."

We gave you about 20 top-level scientists, in return for absolutely nowt at the end. Could have really used them at home, but no.

China and the USSR are two very seperate entities
No shit, really?
Why, can't you read?

"Following the Québec Agreement, a team of about 20 top-level British scientists—including Chadwick, Peierls, Frisch, Bohr (who had become a consultant to the British effort), and Klaus Fuchs, along with Canadian scientist J. Carson Mark—moved to Los Alamos."

We gave you about 20 top-level scientists, in return for absolutely nowt at the end. Could have really used them at home, but no.

I missed that, and that would have been obvious if you read my response to Yossarian Lives that would have been obvious.
never mind I in seeing your response didn't realize that you were referring back to the part where after Churchhill requested/insisted (according to the article) that they be allowed to help that FDR said okay. The MSN Encarta article gave no indication as to what actual help they gave to the project.


And as far as weapons supplied to the Viet Minh, even if you are correct about the Soviet Union supplying absolutely no weapons whatsoever, there are Soviet Era records showing that they did indeed supply military advisors

I'd like to believe it was detente rather than MAD or Reagan that ended the Cold War. In fact, I think that we're lucky to have all survived Reagan's presidency.

You may think what you will but it was Reagan and his policies.

...and there wasn't a war. I consider that a success in my book.

There was no war between the US and the USSR, but there were many proxy wars between the two countries.

The end of WWII just started a whole chain of events in which the U.S. decided to make a global ass of itself in the name of "protecting the world from communism". I honestly believe there was nothing to protect us from. Cummunism is an inherently flawed system, and never really posed any threat to us anyway.

Don't know much about history do you? Cuba, Vietnam, Central America, and Africa, oh, and let's not forget Cambodia and Laos. :rolleyes:

Having the single most powerful military deployed virtually worldwide, with the ability to strike anywhere, anytime, barring political considerations, and a culture so pervasive it has spread and eroded many traditional cultural stuctures globally (i.e. Japan) doesn't count as imperialism?

Last we forget that Japan attacked the US? So no, that doesn't count as imperialism on the part of the US. :rolleyes:

Because European soceity (and by relation at that time, American society) was/is the pinacle of human progress and devolpment in terms of science, culture and values/morals. The ideas of America, the enlightenment, freedom, prosperity, progress...ect, triumph the native non-civilized cultures. Not all cultures are equal.

The pinnacle? Are you fucking serious? A culture that had just finally decided that slavery was evil, still treated blacks like chattel, considered women to be merely living property, killed homosexuals and dissident and treated impiety as a crime against the state was the pinnacle of human society?

No fucking thank you.

I'll roam on the plains and eat buffalo jerky in a teepee for the rest of my days sooner than I'd consider European barbarism the "pinnacle civilization" of the world, let alone live in it.

No. The rules that apply to humans differ from the rules that apply to nation-states. It may not be just, but it is so.

Don't like it? Get in line behind this guy:
Voltaire
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

Maybe you're forgetting, but the state is nothing but an institutional collection of men. It is men who give the order to send people to kill in large numbers to the sound of trumpets. It is the men in government who say "Thou shalt not kill" and then send hapless young lads overseas, give them a weapon and show them how.

At home, they'd hang you. On campaign they give you a fucking medal.

There was no war between the US and the USSR, but there were many proxy wars between the two countries.

I'd rather have a dozen Vietnams then a WWII times a hundred.

If the Indochina guerrillas can even be called Communist. More like local nationalist uprisings that had nothing to do with the USSR.

Well, we (the US) sank Russian ships in the harbor in Hanoi, the North flew Mig aircraft built in Russia, and the SAMs they fired at the B-52's were made in the USSR so...if it looks like...if it walks like...if it quacks like...it must be...:rolleyes:

I'd rather have a dozen Vietnams then a WWII times a hundred.

I'd rather we had neither but am not upset we had both.

No, no they weren't.

Yes, they were. If you honestly believe they weren't, you have a lot of reading to do.

Well, we (the US) sank Russian ships in the harbor in Hanoi, the North flew Mig aircraft built in Russia, and the SAMs they fired at the B-52's were made in the USSR so...if it looks like...if it walks like...if it quacks like...it must be...:rolleyes:

Actually, Ho Chi Minh asked the US for aid during this time. The whole communist ideology was simply a flag of convenience. We didn't want to toss France under the bus, so we said không. Then, he asked the USSR, and they said vâng.

Actually, Ho Chi Minh asked the US for aid during this time. The whole communist ideology was simply a flag of convenience. We didn't want to toss France under the bus, so we said không. Then, he asked the USSR, and they said vâng.

You do know that Ho Chi Minh had been a communist since at least 1920, right? He was one of the founders of the French Communist Party.

You do know that Ho Chi Minh had been a communist since at least 1920, right? He was one of the founders of the French Communist Party.

Again, flag of conveince. He was much more a nationalist then a Communist (although they seem antithetical to each other). He only reached out to the Soviet Union when he knew that the US wouldn't support him over the colonial French.

He only reached out to the Soviet Union when he knew that the US wouldn't support him over the colonial French.

He was a communist long before there even was a Soviet Union.

He was a communist long before there even was a Soviet Union.

Then why did he ask for the support of the US before the USSR or Communist China?

Then why did he ask for the support of the US before the USSR or Communist China?

A) That was after World War II.

B) Although politically he was always a communist, in foreign policy he was pragmatic, and he figured that, since we supported him against the Japanese during WWII, that he would support him against the French (obviously, he was wrong).

A) That was after World War II.

B) Although politically he was always a communist, in foreign policy he was pragmatic, and he figured that, since we supported him against the Japanese during WWII, that he would support him against the French (obviously, he was wrong).

If he were such a communist, why not go to the Soviet Union, a self proclaimed Workers State? Being not an idiot, surely he thought he would have gotten more support from them?

If he were such a communist, why not go to the Soviet Union, a self proclaimed Workers State? Being not an idiot, surely he thought he would have gotten more support from them?

Like I said, in his foreign policy, he was a pragmatist.

I'd rather we had neither but am not upset we had both.

I'd rather have a war worth fighting.

Ho Chi Minh was actually an admirer of the United States. Vietnam's Declaration of Independence was modeled off the US Declaration. There is some indication that he wanted to model Vietnam's political system off the American one.

He was a communist, but so what? Like so many well meaning communists, he was duped into believing Stalin's lies about the Soviet Union. To Ho, communism meant the type of popular power embodied in the Lenin of 1917: "All power to the Worker Councils", soviet democracy and the abolition of army, police and prisons.

Like I said, in his foreign policy, he was a pragmatist.

But why try to seek support of a power that is a sworn enemy of your ideology, who would not support you when you began to change the nation to fit your ideology?

Was Ho Chi Minh lying when he said a united Vietnam would be a "fertile field for American capital and enterprise”? That does not sound like communist rhetoric.

Was he also lying when he suggested that he might allow an American military base in Camranh Bay?

Oh, Communism, killing millions for the sake of equality and utopia!

No, Russia will not return to Soviet ways. If it does, I have a feeling it wouldn't last very long.

But why try to seek support of a power that is a sworn enemy of your ideology, who would not support you when you began to change the nation to fit your ideology?

Some people will accept help from any source. Examples: Jonas Savimbi accepted help from apartheid South Africa, even though he personally was very opposed to apartheid; Holden Roberto accepted help from the PRC, even though he was staunchly (and openly) anti-communist, pro-Western, and pro-free enterprise.

Was Ho Chi Minh lying when he said a united Vietnam would be a "fertile field for American capital and enterprise”? That does not sound like communist rhetoric.

Look beyond his rhetoric and look at his actions. He helped found the French Communist Party in 1920. He spent time in the U.S.S.R. and China in the 1920s. He helped found the Communist Party of Indochina in 1930.

Was he also lying when he suggested that he might allow an American military base in Camranh Bay?

When did he suggest that?

Did you know that in the late 1940s Ho Chi Minh had thousands of political rivals publicly executed? The method used was pretty gruesome: They were buried alive so that only their head was above ground, and then a harrow was moved across the field, chopping their heads apart. His "land reform" programs in the 1950s killed tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands. Christians were brutally persecuted. Between 1954 and 1956, nearly one million Vietnamese (mostly Catholics) fled South. Those who voiced even the mildest criticism of the regime were whisked off to gulags. Torture was rampant.

And yet leftists continue to idolize the mass murdering bastard. Go figure. The fact that Ngo Dinh Diem was also a mass murdering bastard (he murdered far fewer than Ho, but was arguably far more dictatorial, corrupt, and repressive) does not let Ho off the hook.

Some people will accept help from any source. Examples: Jonas Savimbi accepted help from apartheid South Africa, even though he personally was very opposed to apartheid; Holden Roberto accepted help from the PRC, even though he was staunchly (and openly) anti-communist, pro-Western, and pro-free enterprise.


Possible, but why go out of your way to seek the support of an avowed enemy of your ideology when you have two great powers right next door, more then willing to help?


Look beyond his rhetoric and look at his actions. He helped found the French Communist Party in 1920. He spent time in the U.S.S.R. and China in the 1920s. He helped found the Communist Party of Indochina in 1930.


Which were instrimental in recruiting people for the Nationalist struggle against the french. When revolutionizing, you can't just say you want to free a people from another nation. You have to have a plan. Communism provided that plan in the eyes of the people.


When did he suggest that?

When he was trying to get the US to back him in Indochina. Or at least stop backing the French.

Did you know that in the late 1940s Ho Chi Minh had thousands of political rivals publicly executed? The method used was pretty gruesome: They were buried alive so that only their head was above ground, and then a harrow was moved across the field, chopping their heads apart. His "land reform" programs in the 1950s killed tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands. Christians were brutally persecuted. Between 1954 and 1956, nearly one million Vietnamese (mostly Catholics) fled South. Those who voiced even the mildest criticism of the regime were whisked off to gulags. Torture was rampant.

And yet leftists continue to idolize the mass murdering bastard. Go figure. The fact that Ngo Dinh Diem was also a mass murdering bastard (he murdered far fewer than Ho, but was arguably far more dictatorial, corrupt, and repressive) does not let Ho off the hook.

Ho was a figurehead. The commissars in the Vietnamese Communist party were the ones mostly responsible for the crimes you mentioned, which at any rate pale in comparison to the millions killed by South Vietnamese government and the United States.

Possible, but why go out of your way to seek the support of an avowed enemy of your ideology when you have two great powers right next door, more then willing to help?

Because the U.S. had supported him before, and had more means with which to support him.

Which were instrimental in recruiting people for the Nationalist struggle against the french. When revolutionizing, you can't just say you want to free a people from another nation. You have to have a plan. Communism provided that plan in the eyes of the people.

I doubt most Vietnamese at the time knew much about communism, or even cared for it.

When he was trying to get the US to back him in Indochina. Or at least stop backing the French.

Hmm.

Ho was a figurehead.

No, he wasn't.

The commissars in the Vietnamese Communist party were the ones mostly responsible for the crimes you mentioned,

That's as preposterous as absolving Hitler of any responsbility for the Holocaust, and pinning the blame solely on Eichmann, Himmler, and the rest.

which at any rate pale in comparison to the millions killed by South Vietnamese government and the United States.

The war killed millions. Not the South Vietnamese government.

In terms of non-war related deaths, the South Vietnamese government killed approximately 684,000, whereas the communists killed in the neighborhood of 1,670,000.

Because the U.S. had supported him before, and had more means with which to support him.


The US only supported him because of his anti-japanese activities. He knew that such unquestioning support could not last without the war. The smart gamble would have been to seek support of your ideological comrades. And Ho was not a stupid man.


I doubt most Vietnamese at the time knew much about communism, or even cared for it.


Couldn't you say that about the workers in czarist Russia? The similarities are quite...similar (:confused:).

Last we forget that Japan attacked the US? So no, that doesn't count as imperialism on the part of the US. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you didn't learn it in history class, understandable since history is usually biased towards whichever nation it's taught in, but the US can be considered to have first attacked Japan. Commodore Perry's visit was nothing short of armed extortion.

Putting aside factual reality for a moment, how would you feel if Canada rolled out a superior armed force and demanded that America drop its industry protections, completely opened its borders, and allow the opening of Canadian enclaves on American territory or face destruction?

That's what America did to Japan well before WWII. And America to every other nation that had resources it wanted, but couldn't fight back. Manifest destiny and all that. Heck, you still have that neo-fascist idea floating around in your political circles. Remember PNAC?

Perhaps you didn't learn it in history class, understandable since history is usually biased towards whichever nation it's taught in, but the US can be considered to have first attacked Japan. Commodore Perry's visit was nothing short of armed extortion.

So, by that logic, it was absolutely okay for Hitler to invade France because of the weakening and dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire during the Hundred Years' War?

I mean, using an event which occurred almost century before hand, and which was ultimately responsible for giving the Japanese the technology and industrial base to conquer Korea and parts of China in the 19th and early 20th centuries to attack the US and UK during WWII in the first place, to justify that attack is one hell of a stretch. None of the people who experienced the opening of Japan to the West were even alive during the period of WWII, which makes it a pretty damn weak case for a preemptive war of aggression against the United States.

And, of course, there's that little fact that Japan was allied with us during WWI...

That's as preposterous as absolving Hitler of any responsbility for the Holocaust, and pinning the blame solely on Eichmann, Himmler, and the rest.

For such an ardent capitalist, you really do tend to underestimate how truly epic Marxist-Leninist bureaucracy is.

The war killed millions. Not the South Vietnamese government.

In terms of non-war related deaths, the South Vietnamese government killed approximately 684,000, whereas the communists killed in the neighborhood of 1,670,000.

There is no distinction between war and non-war related deaths. Both are crimes against humanity. The two million civilians killed by American aerial bombing are no less "worthy victims" than the bogus number you gave for deaths caused by the communists.

So, by that logic, it was absolutely okay for Hitler to invade France because of the weakening and dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire during the Hundred Years' War?

Who the hell said it was okay? Did I say anything of it was okay? Did I give approval to any of the actions of empire building Japan in WWII or America in its thinly veiled imperialism that could be somehow translate to approval for either of these? As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of it is a bunch of rubbish, and any sort of "Oh we're so innocent" spiels is just a bunch of hooey.

I am putting things in chronological accuracy, and here you go muddying up the waters.

No, because the Soviets were idealistic, whereas Putin is realistic. The Soviets tried to peddle an ideaology around the globe, saw themselves as the purest incarnation of the system, and acted as its protector. Nowadays, Russia doesn't need that pretext. However, Russia will never have the same power as the USSR. Most of its deterent force isn't even deployable, anymore.

Well, he doesn't need to obviously, but, my guess would be that he doesn't want to take any chances

Ah. No, there's that, and also, now he's got the possibility of blaming the US. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7112904.stm)