Did the Suez crisis in 1956 postpone the fall of the Soviet block for over 30 years?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by jkp1187
Well, BeBro, counterfactual history is always problematic, but I'm afraid you sipped from that particular glass of Flavor Aid by starting this thread.

Yeah, I usually tell people that I hate what-if threads, but that doesn't stop me from starting one

re the original point, I think there was a point at which the Soviet leadership felt it had no other option as to bring down the Hungarian uprise by force, and that was when Hungary wanted to get out of the Warsaw pact and declared neutrality.

So I don't think military action there was a direct consequence of the developing crisis in Suez. I just think throwing something like this into the first post to get a debate can't be too wrong.....

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by BeBro
I just think throwing something like this into the first post to get a debate can't be too wrong.....

True that, true that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jkp1187


@Molly: I believe that it was a standard leftist propaganda point to equate the US to evil capitalism/imperialism/etc. long before 1953.

And ?

The C.I.A. sponsored coups in Guatemala and Iran against democratically elected nationalist governments- one for the benefit of United Fruit who were operating a colonial fiefdom there, and the other ultimately for the benefit of American oil companies.

If you called either venture capitalist and/or imperialist you'd simply be offering an accurate description.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by molly bloom


And ?

The C.I.A. sponsored coups in Guatemala and Iran against democratically elected nationalist governments- one for the benefit of United Fruit who were operating a colonial fiefdom there, and the other ultimately for the benefit of American oil companies.

If you called either venture capitalist and/or imperialist you'd simply be offering an accurate description.

My point was that: if the U.S. is going to be accused of being an imperialist anyway, why shouldn't it occasionally act as such if doing so will further its own interests?

After all, to paraphrase: we found those rules existing before us and leave them to exist forever after us, knowing that you and anyone else, having the power that we have, would do the same as we do.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jkp1187



My point was that: if the U.S. is going to be accused of being an imperialist anyway, why shouldn't it occasionally act as such if doing so will further its own interests?

So if you get wrongly accused of murder you may as well go kill someone? WTF?

[jkp1187]

If you like. Do you have an answer?

[Dr Strangelove]

The year before the Suez Crisis at a conference in Bandung India's Nehru had proclaimed the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of third world nations which rejected the political polarization of the world into capitalist and communist camps. The effect of the movement was for both camps to renew their efforts to woo neutrals into their orbits. It was probably for the sake of impressing this group of non-aligned nations that Eisenhower came out against the invasion of Egypt.

The Non-Aligned Movement played a significant role in world politics through the 1960's, but after the end of the Vietnam War it became increasingly apparent that many of its most prominent members were in fact allied with the Warsaw Pact. The Oil Crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the gueriila wars in Ethiopia, Angola, Madagascar, and Mozambique all contributed to the decline in influence of this movement, though it continues to exist and has 119 members as of 2007.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jkp1187



My point was that: if the U.S. is going to be accused of being an imperialist anyway, why shouldn't it occasionally act as such if doing so will further its own interests?

I like that 'occasionally'; in literary criticism that's what's known as litotes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jkp1187


My point was that: if the U.S. is going to be accused of being an imperialist anyway, why shouldn't it occasionally act as such if doing so will further its own interests?

I like that 'occasionally'; in literary criticism that's what's known as litotes.

The Spanish-American War, the brutal suppression of the Filipino independence movement, the interventions in Nicaragua and Mexico, the foray into China...

...and of course all those broken treaties with the Native Americans.

If we were to make an exhaustive list I'm sure we'd find that 'occasionally' is perhaps not quite the 'mot juste'....

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I like that 'occasionally'; in literary criticism that's what's known as litotes.

The Spanish-American War, the brutal suppression of the Filipino independence movement, the interventions in Nicaragua and Mexico, the foray into China...

...and of course all those broken treaties with the Native Americans.

If we were to make an exhaustive list I'm sure we'd find that 'occasionally' is perhaps not quite the 'mot juste'....

If you like. Tell you what, I'll grant you all of that for the purposes of this discussion.

So:

Why is it in the United States' interests to change its behavior?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jkp1187
If you like. Do you have an answer?

An answer to what exactly?

Generally people don't go and commit murder soley on the grounds that such an allegation is raised against them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jkp1187
Why is it in the United States' interests to change its behavior?

You appear to subscribe to "might is right". The counter-argument would stem from the fallacy contained within.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jkp1187
If you like. Tell you what, I'll grant you all of that for the purposes of this discussion.

So:

Why is it in the United States' interests to change its behavior?

Who claimed it was? Then again, with whom is the United States identified. It certainly was not to the interest of the young men and women sent to Vietnam for the United States to engage in imperialist behavior. The toll the war took on the economy wasn't to the benefit of the average American worker. In any event, the question isn't, why shouldn't the U.S. act as an imperialist, but whether, from the imperialists' standpoint, this particular adventure is in their interests or not.

In the 1950s, the U.S. very much was trying to win the hearts and minds of the 3rd world. While some countries sided with the Soviets, it's also true that some very nationalist countries sided with the U.S. If the U.S. had supported the European invasion of Egypt, would Indonesia have fallen into the American orbit, or would Sukharno have retained the loyalty of his generals? Would Latin American generals have as easily sided with the U.S.? Maybe Saudi Arabia falls to communist rebels? Maybe the Shah falls again, this time to a far more left-wing movement.

[TheStinger]

Didn't Eisenhower subsequently regret
pulling the rug under the UK