What dud the US do to stem the spread of Communism?
- Thread starter flagreen
- Start date
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
The Western World was directly responsible for the rise of USSR-style communism. By sending in our troops to invade the USSR in 1919, we made quite certain that the zenophobia and paranoia of the Russians - a not inconsiderable thing in the first place - would grow and grow and grow. By sending British and American and Australian and French and Japanese troops to fight against the Russian people in 1919, we spoke to them in the most unequivical way possible: we told them "we are your enemies: you are no threat at all to us and yet we will use our military power to crush you if we can". By prolonging and intensifing the Civil War and giving a great deal of aid to the minority forces of reaction - and let us not forget that the White Russians were as brutal a manifestation of the horrors of Tsarist Russia as one can imagine - we made the survival of the USSR contingent on its ability to fight long and hard and dirty, to be as brutal and uncaring as it had to be to somehow triumph over its enemies. We bear a great deal of the responsibility for the rise of men like Stalin: we made it impossible for the infant USSR to survive without lowering itself to the same ultimate depths of hate and brutality that its enemies were steeped in.
No-one will ever know if, left to its own devices, the USSR would have evolved into a worthwhile society, one which cherished at least some of the freedoms that were so dear to the hearts of its founders. Perhaps it would have, perhaps not.
But by our clumsy and genocidal intervention, we made absolutely certain that the resultant society would be one dominated by the same fear, paranoia, brutality, and hatred that we gave to it in 1919 and beyond.
And if we had helped them, tried to understand them and looked for things that we could do of mutual benefit, who knows what might have happened? The only thing we can be sure of is that the world would have been a better place today.
We reaped exactly what we sowed. Hatred begets hatred. And we started it.
No-one will ever know if, left to its own devices, the USSR would have evolved into a worthwhile society, one which cherished at least some of the freedoms that were so dear to the hearts of its founders. Perhaps it would have, perhaps not.
But by our clumsy and genocidal intervention, we made absolutely certain that the resultant society would be one dominated by the same fear, paranoia, brutality, and hatred that we gave to it in 1919 and beyond.
And if we had helped them, tried to understand them and looked for things that we could do of mutual benefit, who knows what might have happened? The only thing we can be sure of is that the world would have been a better place today.
We reaped exactly what we sowed. Hatred begets hatred. And we started it.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil
is done Do evil in return.
W. H. Auden
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil
is done Do evil in return.
W. H. Auden
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
I answered the 4th. But there was no answer option for "the US had a LOT of responsibility in communism's containment..."
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
I suppose, then, that this is not the most tactful moment at which to point out that Option 4, "no need to try and contain it at all", should have read "no need to try to contain it at all"?
(A little fetish of mine, that one. )
(A little fetish of mine, that one. )
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
That hasn't happened yet?flagreen said:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I didn't live through much of the cold war, of course. In my analysis, the US seems to have won only by exponential escalation of threat to the USSR. Kilotons begat megatons begat star wars. They just couldn't compete economically.
In head-to-head contests, well, here, it seems they bested us at most every turn. They beat us to space. Their average citizen is better educated (as I understand things - I certainly met a number of whip-smart eastern-bloc types in my days at Purdue!). Their engineering wasn't so great, but their technicians and rates of equipment failure were miles better (look at a comparison between an M161A and an AK-47!). Their willingness to fight dirty probably should've carried the day. It didn't. The US ultimately seems to have won more by being able to do everything the Soviets did (won't argue about who did what first) while still maintaining an extremely high standard of living, and thus increasing the contentment and productivity of those responsible for the appealing products of American service and industry. The Ruskies might've had low crime and immaculate subways (they are, I've seen pictures), but when an average citizen may or may not be able to get beef for dinner, that's going to cause a little breakdown in the system.
At least, that's my analysis.
Did we do good in Korea? Maybe. There are fewer Koreans under communist control there than there could be, but if they were ALL under communist control, maybe the government would've fallen years ago.
Did we do good in VietNam (or the rest of southeast asia)? Certainly not. Kissinger and Nixon were evil, evil men, and I think history will judge them accordingly.
For the rest, who knows? Political assassinations. Right-wing, drug-cartel supported south American dictatorships... those are things that I have a hard time seeing as better than another soviet-dependent communist nation. Hell, had we allowed a few more, maybe the cold war would've been shorter.
In head-to-head contests, well, here, it seems they bested us at most every turn. They beat us to space. Their average citizen is better educated (as I understand things - I certainly met a number of whip-smart eastern-bloc types in my days at Purdue!). Their engineering wasn't so great, but their technicians and rates of equipment failure were miles better (look at a comparison between an M161A and an AK-47!). Their willingness to fight dirty probably should've carried the day. It didn't. The US ultimately seems to have won more by being able to do everything the Soviets did (won't argue about who did what first) while still maintaining an extremely high standard of living, and thus increasing the contentment and productivity of those responsible for the appealing products of American service and industry. The Ruskies might've had low crime and immaculate subways (they are, I've seen pictures), but when an average citizen may or may not be able to get beef for dinner, that's going to cause a little breakdown in the system.
At least, that's my analysis.
Did we do good in Korea? Maybe. There are fewer Koreans under communist control there than there could be, but if they were ALL under communist control, maybe the government would've fallen years ago.
Did we do good in VietNam (or the rest of southeast asia)? Certainly not. Kissinger and Nixon were evil, evil men, and I think history will judge them accordingly.
For the rest, who knows? Political assassinations. Right-wing, drug-cartel supported south American dictatorships... those are things that I have a hard time seeing as better than another soviet-dependent communist nation. Hell, had we allowed a few more, maybe the cold war would've been shorter.
slo crostic
Learning Storage Performance
IMHO, the only one's to feel threatened by communism are the capitalists and bourgeoisie. Sure enough things in Russia were wrong, but what gives the US the right to step in and say it's wrong?
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
slo crostic said:
Like most other "christian" nations, they believe that God backs there efforts in dispensing what they feel is justice - how blasphemous!
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Communism shouldn't be compared against capitalism because communism is a political term and capitalism is an economical term. Socialism is what should be compared against capitalism (and IMO, socialism could be way superior in term of fairness than capitalism is - not at all).
The fight of the USA against the USSR is the fight of federalism against communism, or rather what was viewed as communism, because in truth, USSR was so corrupted that they've never been able to apply communism (or socialism) correctly. The old and gone USSR's regime was...corruptism, but certainly not communism. China is no more communist than USSR was, it is imperialist.
A proper implementation of communism and socialism would require a way superior level of ethic and education fom the average population. So superior that at that level, we would probably be just fine with anarchy. Human race still has a long way to go before either can be achievable. And all those among you who believe that we live in democratic societies : wake up! We aren't even close.
The fight of the USA against the USSR is the fight of federalism against communism, or rather what was viewed as communism, because in truth, USSR was so corrupted that they've never been able to apply communism (or socialism) correctly. The old and gone USSR's regime was...corruptism, but certainly not communism. China is no more communist than USSR was, it is imperialist.
A proper implementation of communism and socialism would require a way superior level of ethic and education fom the average population. So superior that at that level, we would probably be just fine with anarchy. Human race still has a long way to go before either can be achievable. And all those among you who believe that we live in democratic societies : wake up! We aren't even close.
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
Don't worry... I know I'm Prof...flagreen said:
Why don't you relaunch the thread/poll? What stops you?!
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
(Let's throw out a surprise or two, shall we Tea?)
(O.K. You are safe to post again now, are you? Or are you still too muddle-headed to be trusted with a keyboard?)
(I'll manage. I think.)
My first contribution to this thread was a pretty damning indictment of the US role in the transformation of the brave and tragic Soviet experiment into the brutal and paranoid regime that came about during the Civil War. Lenin was a hard man, hard as nails. So was Trotsky. But both were idealists through and through. Their methods were sometimes brutal, but as near as history can judge, their aims were not. Stalin, who rose to power on the back of his ruthless prosecution of the very bitter Civil War, who replaced Lenin when he died young (perhaps as a result of the massive stresses of his job) and displaced the other architect of the revolution and obvious sucessor , Trotsky, by being the hardest, most ruthless man in the entire Bolshevik movement ... Stalin was not. Stalin was, so far as anyone can tell, utterly pragmatic, completely dedicated to one cause and one cause only: safeguarding and expanding his personal empire. In less than ten years, Russia went from the ruthless, autocratic despotisiim of the Tsar, to the ruthless, autocratic despotism of Stalin. Is it possible to say which one was worse? Perhaps not with certainty, but on the balance of probabilities, you at least had a better chance of eating under Stalin, and his rule lasted for just a few decades, where the horrors of the Tsarist regime went on for centuries.
But it is not altogether fair to blame the US for the foreign interventions that did so much to prolong the bloody civil war and turn Russia ever more firmly toward despotism and paranoia and brutality. (Paranoia? I should not use that term: looked at objectively, the fear and distrust the Soviets had for the West in the 1920s was entirely justified. They had the proof of their own eyes that the West was determined to destroy them, the proof of their children's blood.) The US, however, was a mere accessory: like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, the US was a rather reluctant ally, marching to the beat of England and, in particular, Churchill. (Japan was another matter: the Japanese invasion was wholly and entirely selfish conquest of more territory.)
(Ahem. You were going to give us a surprise, Tannin? What you have written so far is nothing more than an elagant re-hash of your first post.)
(Sorry. I'll get to the point now.)
However, once we accept that the die were well and truly cast by, say, 1945, the role of the US was rather different. Here, in the world of post-war history, I am at my weakest and most uncertain but I think it's safe to say that, on the whole, the major overt US anti-Soviet actions - the Berlin Airlift affair in the late '40s and the whole Korean business in the '50s - were of benefit to the world.
(Are you finished already?)
(Yes.)
(Then that, Tannin, is the longest introduction to the shortest post I think I have ever seen you make. Are you sure you are the full banana? Since you've had this 'flu, you've been posting nonsense half the time. I think I better handle things from now on. I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to let you go to work tommorow either.)
(O.K. You are safe to post again now, are you? Or are you still too muddle-headed to be trusted with a keyboard?)
(I'll manage. I think.)
My first contribution to this thread was a pretty damning indictment of the US role in the transformation of the brave and tragic Soviet experiment into the brutal and paranoid regime that came about during the Civil War. Lenin was a hard man, hard as nails. So was Trotsky. But both were idealists through and through. Their methods were sometimes brutal, but as near as history can judge, their aims were not. Stalin, who rose to power on the back of his ruthless prosecution of the very bitter Civil War, who replaced Lenin when he died young (perhaps as a result of the massive stresses of his job) and displaced the other architect of the revolution and obvious sucessor , Trotsky, by being the hardest, most ruthless man in the entire Bolshevik movement ... Stalin was not. Stalin was, so far as anyone can tell, utterly pragmatic, completely dedicated to one cause and one cause only: safeguarding and expanding his personal empire. In less than ten years, Russia went from the ruthless, autocratic despotisiim of the Tsar, to the ruthless, autocratic despotism of Stalin. Is it possible to say which one was worse? Perhaps not with certainty, but on the balance of probabilities, you at least had a better chance of eating under Stalin, and his rule lasted for just a few decades, where the horrors of the Tsarist regime went on for centuries.
But it is not altogether fair to blame the US for the foreign interventions that did so much to prolong the bloody civil war and turn Russia ever more firmly toward despotism and paranoia and brutality. (Paranoia? I should not use that term: looked at objectively, the fear and distrust the Soviets had for the West in the 1920s was entirely justified. They had the proof of their own eyes that the West was determined to destroy them, the proof of their children's blood.) The US, however, was a mere accessory: like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, the US was a rather reluctant ally, marching to the beat of England and, in particular, Churchill. (Japan was another matter: the Japanese invasion was wholly and entirely selfish conquest of more territory.)
(Ahem. You were going to give us a surprise, Tannin? What you have written so far is nothing more than an elagant re-hash of your first post.)
(Sorry. I'll get to the point now.)
However, once we accept that the die were well and truly cast by, say, 1945, the role of the US was rather different. Here, in the world of post-war history, I am at my weakest and most uncertain but I think it's safe to say that, on the whole, the major overt US anti-Soviet actions - the Berlin Airlift affair in the late '40s and the whole Korean business in the '50s - were of benefit to the world.
(Are you finished already?)
(Yes.)
(Then that, Tannin, is the longest introduction to the shortest post I think I have ever seen you make. Are you sure you are the full banana? Since you've had this 'flu, you've been posting nonsense half the time. I think I better handle things from now on. I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to let you go to work tommorow either.)