sad thoughts on poly posters

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
GT. Here it is simply. It was the West or the East. No compromise

Hah. They were an Evil Empire, etc.

Therefore, if country X elects a government that's less than 100% on our side we're fully justified in stomping down on them to protect them from the Soviets and themselves.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Frogger


I don't know if you could have done it. It would certainly have cost you a lot more lives than WWII in its entirety to that point had.

The Red army was very large at that point. Most likely (I don't remember) much larger than the US armies. However, it is important to note that they had been fighting a brutal and incredibly costly war since summer of 1941, wheras the US had fought an almost entirely offensive campaign in Italy since 1943 and France in 1944. Furthermore, the US forces had been allowed to rest in the closing months of the war, whereas the Russians, already near the breaking point, had been pushed very hard to capture Berlin before the Western Allies did (Although they had no intention of doing so.) The Red Army did have better Tanks than anything the americans did, but the Americans enjoyed overwhelming airpower. And as shown in WWII, control of the skies translated directly into control of the sea and land. Finally, the Soviet resistance to American invaders almost certainly would not have come close to what the Germans experienced, because of the way the western allies treated their foes. (Consider German resistance to the Russians verus their reception of the allies. Candy Bars beats the hell out of gas chambers any day.)

So in conclusion, it would be very costly, but very short, and without the atomic complication.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dan Severn


We should've kept going east the spring of 45 and crushed the Soviet Empire while we had the chance. Then we would never have seen our ideals corupted by fear. Dictatorships would never have been sponsored. The world would have come out a helluva lot better, and it is doubtful Nuclear weapons would ever have been made in nearly such numbers as they were. The US would have been able to pull out of world affairs again after an occupation period similar to the historical one, and I doubt there would be such strife as there is today. The only flashpoint I can think of that was not directly related to the cold war would be Israel. Granted, science would not be nearly what it is today, but I think it would have been a much better trade.

I doubt the American people would have welcomed turning on an 'ally'.

Patton had a point, but he didn't understand a thing about really running a war. You have to have the nation behind you, or you are toast.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I doubt the American people would have welcomed turning on an 'ally'.

Patton had a point, but he didn't understand a thing about really running a war. You have to have the nation behind you, or you are toast.

I just said what should have happened.

And he was no politician. That's obne thing I like about him.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
The USSR funding China to fund NK to invade SK, which was funded by the US+UK etc. is a long way from the USSR invading the US. And how does it justify propping up a corrupt dictatorship in SK? It can jsutify helping to defend SK, not stomping down on freedoms in SK.

The US forced others to make sacrifices it wouldn't ask of its own citizens. Repugnant.

The US never made sacrifices? Pish.

There was no conflict? Tosh.

The fact that the NK invaded SK and the NVA invaded SV is proof of the conflict.

Not to mention missiles in Cuba, and various 'communist' uprisings in countries around the globe.

You may deny all you wish. You will be a revisionist. You will be white washing the record of the Soviet Union and the PRC.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


Hah. They were an Evil Empire, etc.

Therefore, if country X elects a government that's less than 100% on our side we're fully justified in stomping down on them to protect them from the Soviets and themselves.

That was the Cold War. It would have been a lot less pleasant for everyone if it had gone hot.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dan Severn


The Red army was very large at that point. Most likely (I don't remember) much larger than the US armies. However, it is important to note that they had been fighting a brutal and incredibly costly war since summer of 1941, wheras the US had fought an almost entirely offensive campaign in Italy since 1943 and France in 1944. Furthermore, the US forces had been allowed to rest in the closing months of the war, whereas the Russians, already near the breaking point, had been pushed very hard to capture Berlin before the Western Allies did (Although they had no intention of doing so.) The Red Army did have better Tanks than anything the americans did, but the Americans enjoyed overwhelming airpower. And as shown in WWII, control of the skies translated directly into control of the sea and land. Finally, the Soviet resistance to American invaders almost certainly would not have come close to what the Germans experienced, because of the way the western allies treated their foes. (Consider German resistance to the Russians verus their reception of the allies. Candy Bars beats the hell out of gas chambers any day.)

So in conclusion, it would be very costly, but very short, and without the atomic complication.

Not really. You're discounting several things. The soviet war machine in 1945 was up and running. In 1941 it had not been. The American supply lines were 1 ocean and half a continent further from Moscow than Germany's had been. Russian nationalism had been intensely stirred by the war. Russia in 1941 initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalin. I don't think Russia in 1945 would have welcomed the Americans as liberators, despite the fact that their intentions would have been much better than the Germans'. The Americans had to occupy every nation in Western Europe for at least a year or two to help abate the starvation of their populations. The Americans looked on the Russians as allies in 1945. They had no heart to fight someone who had borne the brunt of Nazi Germany's attacks.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been accomplished, but it would have taken 2 or 3 years at the least, and cost millions of lives on both sides. Remember that estimates for the invasion of Japan were running into the hundreds of thousands of American casualties (I don't subscribe to the higher estimates) and the USSR had innumerable times more industrial capacity and resources of all kinds than Japan did in 1945.

[GeneralTacticus]

1. I say Stalinist so as not to piss off communists who might have good intentions and honest beliefs.

I misunderstood you then.

3. You should pay some attention to the fact that the Cold War was not some passing squabble between like minded, but disinterested peoples. It was a struggle for global supremecy. I don't think the good people of Oz would be too happy with the result if it had gone the other way.

I'm not arguing that the war shouldn't have been fought at all, I'm arguing that it should have been fought differently.

4. The puppets in the the world outside of the West were intended to further winning. If they weren't, they should have been. Now those countries can go on in their own development with far less attention from both sides. Unless you have oil. If the 'other' side had won, I'm pretty sure they would have a whole lot less freedom to choose.

It doesn't seem to matter any more what system of government a nation uses. They still have to bow down to the IMF and Western multinationals.

South Korea. South Vietnam.

The Korean War occurred during Stalin's rule, when the threat from the USSR was very real and they definitely were the aggressor. South Vietnam as a nation had no right to exist, in much the same way as North Korea didn't and still doesn't.

Exactly what acts of aggression did the US make, ever? After 1848, that is?

Supporting a corrupt and illegitimate dictatorship in South Vietnam and overthrowing the government of Iran for claiming ownership of their own oil reserves, to name two.

GT. Here it is simply. It was the West or the East. No compromise.

When the Americans propped up dictators, they were the weapons of the conflict.

When the Russians or the Chinese did the same it was the same.

That is the sad bit. The rest of the world (for the most part) paid the price in blood. But make no mistake, if the West had taken the high road, we'd all be learning Russian and saluting the Politburo by now.

Why do you say that? What makes you think that the West would have gone communist if it had supported democracy in the Third World?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That was the Cold War. It would have been a lot less pleasant for everyone if it had gone hot.

Cold War is a euphemism. It was a state of tension, not actual war.

And what does this mean? The two biggest bullies on the playground are allowed to start fights between the smaller boys because if they got into an actual scrap themselves it would be more dangerous? Bah. The competition between the US and USSR resembles colonial wars of the 18th century. Neither side cared for anything more than wealth, power, or prestige (talking about leadership here; there were plenty of idealists on both sides).

[GeneralTacticus]

The US never made sacrifices? Pish.

Did the US ever sacrifice it's own freedom and tradition of democracy in the name of anticommunism? Would you want it to?

Not to mention missiles in Cuba, and various 'communist' uprisings in countries around the globe.

Uprisings which were met by repression that was probably worse than anything the sommunists themselves would have done.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


Cold War is a euphemism. It was a state of tension, not actual war.

Bull sh!t. It was a war. It was a struggle for global supremecy without blowing up the world. It was the only war left to super powers.

And what does this mean? The two biggest bullies on the playground are allowed to start fights between the smaller boys because if they got into an actual scrap themselves it would be more dangerous? Bah. The competition between the US and USSR resembles colonial wars of the 18th century. Neither side cared for anything more than wealth, power, or prestige (talking about leadership here; there were plenty of idealists on both sides).

Plenty of idealists on both sides, yes. But only one side on the side of our way of life. BTW most others favour our way. You know, democracy, freedom. Little things like that.

Despise it if you will. I don't.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Frogger


Cold War is a euphemism. It was a state of tension, not actual war.

And what does this mean? The two biggest bullies on the playground are allowed to start fights between the smaller boys because if they got into an actual scrap themselves it would be more dangerous? Bah. The competition between the US and USSR resembles colonial wars of the 18th century. Neither side cared for anything more than wealth, power, or prestige (talking about leadership here; there were plenty of idealists on both sides).

I believe frogger has touched on the cause of all wars in the 20th and 19 th centuries: D!ckhead politicians who should be killed and fed to starving kids in africa.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The US never made sacrifices? Pish.

There was no conflict? Tosh.

The fact that the NK invaded SK and the NVA invaded SV is proof of the conflict.

Not to mention missiles in Cuba, and various 'communist' uprisings in countries around the globe.

You may deny all you wish. You will be a revisionist. You will be white washing the record of the Soviet Union and the PRC.

?

You're being a little muddle-headed. I said that the US forced others to make sacrifices it would never have asked of its own citizens, like putting up with government death squads roaming the street squashing dissent, not that the US never made any sacrifices.

I said that both sides engaged in merely proxy conflict against each other, not that there was no conflict.

Deny what? I do not deny that the USSR was, generally, worse than the US internally (I would rather have the US governing me as a US citizen than the USSR governing me as a Soviet citizen) or that both were similarly distasteful in their dealings with other nations. In fact, the only one engaged in whitewashing here is you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Did the US ever sacrifice it's own freedom and tradition of democracy in the name of anticommunism? Would you want it to?

You want American sacrifice? Korea. Vietnam. The Americans (and others) bled a hell of a lot more than the Russians ever did, until Afghanistan.

Uprisings which were met by repression that was probably worse than anything the sommunists themselves would have done.

Pfff. Vietnam, Cambodia, the KGB. Give me a break!

[KrazyHorse]

More civilians were killed by the Americans in Vietnam and associated conflicts (Laos, Cambodia prior to 1972, etc.) than were killed by the NV and Viet Cong put together. Even more were killed by the SV government.

The Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and kicked out of power by the Vietnamese. Did you know that, NYE?

Death squads in Guatemala: 150 000 dead
Disappeared in Chile: 100 000+
etc.