RE: the Cold War
Euan wrote: >I understand the problem. Context doesn't travel or easily survive in >these written forums. >By posturing I was refering to the military deployments in Europe as an >existential threat (meaning the liklihood of them being used in an >invasion of Western, or Eastern, Europe). Ah, quite different from what I read. I'm glad we can agree upon the source of the misunderstanding. I think we may still have some reasonable differences on the Cold War which would be worth exploring, but it will probably be spread out as I have limited time at the moment for a well thought out discussion. I really do appreciate the courtesy of your assignment of our miscommunication to a neutral factor. I definitely used the wrong context. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
> You wrote in response to Charlie mentioning > an existential threat to Western Europe by the USSR: > > > Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when > Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. > All that followed after that showdown was just postering. > > > If all that followed that showdown was just posturing, then nothing that > followed that showdown had any real meaning. I understand the problem. Context doesn't travel or easily survive in these written forums. By posturing I was refering to the military deployments in Europe as an existential threat (meaning the liklihood of them being used in an invasion of Western, or Eastern, Europe). ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Euan Ritchie Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:10 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: the Cold War > So, if the US didn't fight the cold war, let it's military expenditures fall > to the present level of Europe, didn't develop the B52 or ICBMs, stand aside > where it fought in Korea, let missiles remain in Cuba and be expanded, > didn't fight to stop the multiple Marxist COIN operations throughout the > world that failed (e.g Greece), nothing much different would have > happened...the US's position in 1995 would be no worse than it was as > history actually unfolded. >You're taking some peoples comments about the past and extrapolating an >awful lot from the. >Extrapolation is a logical crime and ought never be used for anything >more serious than the occassional decision that might head off an ice >cream truck that's getting away on a hot day. OK, I didn't quote a second post of yours in my reply but I thought it gave insight into your earlier post. You wrote in response to Charlie mentioning an existential threat to Western Europe by the USSR: Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. All that followed after that showdown was just postering. If all that followed that showdown was just posturing, then nothing that followed that showdown had any real meaning. Just posturing by another person, by another country is not in the least bit threatening. It's an empty gesturepretty well by definition. It's only if the posturing is part of a pattern that may lead to aggression do we find a threat. In all fairness, I probably should have weaved a post that combined both posts to precisely point out the idea I was responding to. But, I had a five minute window open, and I took it. When I read a post, all I have is the words on the page, emotocons, and perhaps a history with another poster to indicate "I'm being a bit ironic here." If that's the case with your posts, then I didn't interpret them correctly. But, I clearly got the impression that you wrote that the Berlin Airlift was _the_ showdown of the Cold War, and anything following had little or no meaning. I would very much appreciate it if you would be kind enough to explain to me why this quote doesn't mean that what happened after the Berlin airlift was not a serious confrontation which had the potential to end badly. Finally, I always thought that totalitarian governments that had killed tens of millions of its own people and weapons that could reduce the population of the US by more than 80% as an existential threat. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
>The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always >exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or >China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to >the U.S. So, if the US didn't fight the cold war, let it's military expenditures fall to the present level of Europe, didn't develop the B52 or ICBMs, stand aside where it fought in Korea, let missiles remain in Cuba and be expanded, didn't fight to stop the multiple Marxist COIN operations throughout the world that failed (e.g Greece), nothing much different would have happened...the US's position in 1995 would be no worse than it was as history actually unfolded. All the folks in IR studies are just full of it. Folks like Hoffman and Huntington are just right wing shrills? Containment was a waste of effort, we just had to wait because communists wouldn't bother to take advantage of a power vacuum. Am I getting you right, or did I misunderstand your statement? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
> I don't think there was too many anti-USA feeling in Russia and > China during the 1950s and 1960s. Your good Marxist would never be anti-U.S, just anti-capitalist exploiter. Ideology not nationalism. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: Of course, Russia and China didn't like each other any better than we liked either one of them, or they, us. Still, Kipling's Great Game went on along all three borders for quite some time. Which took the US a long time to figure out, incidentally. It also took us a long time to figure out that North Vietnam wasn't ever going to be a Chinese proxy the way North Korea had been, because China had been VIetnam's mortal enemy and part-time occupying power for the last thousand years or so, and that the "domino theory" justification for the Vietnam War was based almost entirely on completely invalid assumptions about how things worked in that part of the world, colored in large part by the very recent experience of the Korean War. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
But I didn't say everybody hated America: just that Russia looked upon the US and China as its adversaries; China looked upon the US and Russia as its adversaries, and the US looked upon Russia and China as its adversaries. Perfect triangulation,which probably kept the peace for decades. As for Latin America - I think public opinion there was very closely related to whatever our deeds were in each specific country and period, so you'd get a lot of variation there. Same with other nations outside of Europe; Europe, in that period, was our friend. Does that clarify matters? http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > From: albm...@centroin.com.br > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: RE: the Cold War > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:34:35 -0200 > > Pat Mathews wrote: > > > > Of course, Russia and China didn't like each other any better > > than we liked either one of them, or they, us. Still, > > Kipling's Great Game went on along all three borders for > > quite some time. > > > Are you sure about that everybody-hated-America meme? > > I don't think there was too many anti-USA feeling in Russia and > China during the 1950s and 1960s. > > The USA might be seen as a good ally in the Soviet Union, for > its participation and support during WW2, and China certainly > saw the USA as a liberator from the japanese atrocities - even > if the USA supported the corrupt dictator after the War. > > Here in Latin America, anti-USA feelings only became proeminent > when the USA sided with murderous dictatorships during the > 1960s and 1970s, in such a way that we all thought that > Communism was nice and pretty. > > We've had 21 years of full democracy in Brazil, and even then > presidential candidates still want to identify themselves > with the "left": in the last election (2010), the top-three > were former Commies (Dilma was arrested and tortured in the > 1970s for affiliation with communist guerilla, Serra was exiled, > and Marina Silva claimed to be the extreme left). > > Alberto Monteiro > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
Pat Mathews wrote: > > Of course, Russia and China didn't like each other any better > than we liked either one of them, or they, us. Still, > Kipling's Great Game went on along all three borders for > quite some time. > Are you sure about that everybody-hated-America meme? I don't think there was too many anti-USA feeling in Russia and China during the 1950s and 1960s. The USA might be seen as a good ally in the Soviet Union, for its participation and support during WW2, and China certainly saw the USA as a liberator from the japanese atrocities - even if the USA supported the corrupt dictator after the War. Here in Latin America, anti-USA feelings only became proeminent when the USA sided with murderous dictatorships during the 1960s and 1970s, in such a way that we all thought that Communism was nice and pretty. We've had 21 years of full democracy in Brazil, and even then presidential candidates still want to identify themselves with the "left": in the last election (2010), the top-three were former Commies (Dilma was arrested and tortured in the 1970s for affiliation with communist guerilla, Serra was exiled, and Marina Silva claimed to be the extreme left). Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
Uncle Joe wasn't going to fight with troops and tanks on the ground, no. They were in the same shape in 1945 as we'd have been if the Vietnam war had been to the death on our own soil 25 years after we'd just been through a nasty war to the death on our own soil - the Russian Revolution in their case. Yes, they were totally exhausted that way. But a war of spy -vs- spy, economic maneuverings, propaganda, and all the rest? Sure! And China, in somewhat better shape, was dabbling in proxy wars in Asia where it could. Of course, Russia and China didn't like each other any better than we liked either one of them, or they, us. Still, Kipling's Great Game went on along all three borders for quite some time. I don't think anyone thought that the fate of the nation - or the world - rested on the wars we chose to fight in Asia, but we sure didn't want the Dragon taking any bites out of Asia. In Europe? As in the Middle East up until quite recently: two aging regimes keeping the peace with each other by being armed to the teeth and looking fierce at the other side and slapping the hands of any that reached across the quite-well-established borders. It was, of course, an uneasy peace, but ce'st la vie. Pat, who was 6 when the entire thing started and 50 when it ended, so this is as close to an eyewitness report as you're going to get from a civilian non-expert. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:05:12 +1300 > From: e...@ritchie.net.nz > Subject: Re: the Cold War > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > > > >> The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always > >> exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or > >> China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to > >> the U.S. > > > No, but it did to most of Europe... and that's what the Cold War really > > was. It was Europe-backed-by-America *not* being invaded by a LOT of tanks. > > Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift > when Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. > > All that followed after that showdown was just postering. > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
>> The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always >> exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or >> China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to >> the U.S. > No, but it did to most of Europe... and that's what the Cold War really was. > It was Europe-backed-by-America *not* being invaded by a LOT of tanks. Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. All that followed after that showdown was just postering. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
On 11/11/2010, at 6:58 PM, Euan Ritchie wrote: > >>> ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. > >> There never was a "Cold" War > > Yeah there was, but it didn't begin with Korea. It began about 1943 when > Germany's defeat was clear and it's conquerors began to consider what > would be the fate of Europe afterwards. > > The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always > exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or > China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to > the U.S. No, but it did to most of Europe... and that's what the Cold War really was. It was Europe-backed-by-America *not* being invaded by a LOT of tanks. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
>> ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. > There never was a "Cold" War Yeah there was, but it didn't begin with Korea. It began about 1943 when Germany's defeat was clear and it's conquerors began to consider what would be the fate of Europe afterwards. The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to the U.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Jon Louis Mann wrote: ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. There never was a "Cold" War beginning with the Korean War WW III was a global conflict against Communism in Latin America, The Carribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. In fact the US has been in a state of war under other names for most of our history. WW IV is called the war on terror, and is also global in scope. Jon Mann No, the conflicts above mentioned justify the "War" term, the "Cold" is necessary because there was no actual USA x CCCP direct conflict, with americans and soviets killing each other in great numbers. Alberto Monteiro Depends on your definition of "great numbers". There was extensive Soviet involvement in the Vietnam War, including significant numbers of Soviet pilots flying MiG-21's out of North Vietnam. Sort of like USA flight crews operating VNAF aircraft in the early years of the war, before we dropped the pretense and started flying under USAF colors. Most of this wasn't much talked about until long after the fall of Saigon. (The US pilots, mostly Navy, had noticed a rather wide distribution of pilot skill levels among the MiG pilots they engaged -- most were relatively unskilled and were a threat mostly due to their large numbers, but a few were clearly highly skilled and very experienced in air combat maneuvers. There was a lot of speculation on this until it was revealed much later that these were in fact USA/USSR dogfights.) Heard from a flight instructor: "The only dumb question is the one you DID NOT ask, resulting in my going out and having to identify your bits and pieces in the midst of torn and twisted metal." ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >>...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. > > There never was a "Cold" War beginning with the Korean War WW III > was a global conflict against Communism in Latin America, The > Carribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. In fact > the US has been in a state of war under other names for most of our > history. WW IV is called the war on terror, and is also global in scope. > Jon Mann > No, the conflicts above mentioned justify the "War" term, the "Cold" is necessary because there was no actual USA x CCCP direct conflict, with americans and soviets killing each other in great numbers. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
the Cold War
>...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. There never was a "Cold" War beginning with the Korean War WW III was a global conflict against Communism in Latin America, The Carribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. In fact the US has been in a state of war under other names for most of our history. WW IV is called the war on terror, and is also global in scope. Jon Mann ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
