US military budget: How would you change it?

[David Floyd]

OK, then let me be more clear. Without a massive Point of Divergence, even NATO would have no chance of stopping the USSR if the US wasn't around. And NATO was by far, even absent the US, the world's most powerful political and military alliance outside of the Warsaw Pact.

Can you magic up a combination of nations, not involving the US, that could effectively check the USSR at the height of it's power? Maybe, but only by somehow creating global cooperation between Western Europe, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, and India. Never mind the fact that India was closely aligned with the USSR, and China was definitely not friendly with the West, and much more likely to sit out any conflict and emerge as the dominant power, AND you would need a massive change in history to get Japan to use it's economic muscle to create a military and a foreign policy in line with facing down the USSR.

No, without massive changes to the world, the United States was CRUCIAL in checking Soviet influence and expansion. No two ways about it.

[David Floyd]

The reason people hate you is because of things like that. You didn't use nukes, but that didn't stop you from propping up dictatorships around the world, slaughtering countless people in Vietnam, ****ing up Afghanistan, etc.

And why did we do all of that? To either directly combat Soviet influence/expansionism, or to combat communism in general. Take the Soviet Union out of the equation and we are likely not in those scenarios at all.

If you used nukes against other countries, you'd probably alienate yourself from the few reliable allies you actually have. Suddenly the USA becomes the obvious evil aggressor, nuking the poor Soviets

The poor Soviets who were attempting to use military advantage to dominate Eastern Europe, and we can prove it? It's not like I am proposing we just start throwing A-bombs around - I'm simply saying that Truman should have taken a hard line and basically let Stalin know "Look, buddy, you REALLY don't want to do this. Trust me." and been willing to back it up. Make the entire thing public, and let the world know what we are doing.

Of course, to do that, we'd have to build popular support in the US, which would mean making changes to FDR's pro-Stalin propaganda blitz. I'm not creating a detailed timeline here, though, I'm just proposing a foreign policy that would lead to large reductions in the current US military budget.

[Asher]

OK, then let me be more clear. Without a massive Point of Divergence, even NATO would have no chance of stopping the USSR if the US wasn't around. And NATO was by far, even absent the US, the world's most powerful political and military alliance outside of the Warsaw Pact.

Can you magic up a combination of nations, not involving the US, that could effectively check the USSR at the height of it's power? Maybe, but only by somehow creating global cooperation between Western Europe, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, and India. Never mind the fact that India was closely aligned with the USSR, and China was definitely not friendly with the West, and much more likely to sit out any conflict and emerge as the dominant power, AND you would need a massive change in history to get Japan to use it's economic muscle to create a military and a foreign policy in line with facing down the USSR.

No, without massive changes to the world, the United States was CRUCIAL in checking Soviet influence and expansion. No two ways about it.

You continually and obviously keep skirting the issue that there are limits to how much control the Soviets could have. Even if they wanted to (which I'm sure they did), Moscow could not control the Commonwealth in addition to the **** they were already barely controlling closer to home...

[David Floyd]

You continually and obviously keep skirting the issue that there are limits to how much control the Soviets could have. Even if they wanted to (which I'm sure they did), Moscow could not control the Commonwealth in addition to the **** they were already barely controlling closer to home...

Yes. The point I am making is that how much more could Moscow have dominated, absent a Superpower opponent? Some number greater than 0, and admittedly less than the entire British Commonwealth, right?

[David Floyd]

Additionally, how likely is it that the USSR would have fallen as soon as it did, absent the US?

[giblets]

1/3rd of the world's population lived under Communism.



How the **** do you think that happened?

Without the US, how much more would communism have spread?

Notice how the Communists split. Taking over the world isn't easy if you can't even cooperate.

Hell, America pretty much has an ideology of spreading democracy everywhere, but still props up dictators. Go figure.

[Al B. Sure!]

You continually and obviously keep skirting the issue that there are limits to how much control the Soviets could have. Even if they wanted to (which I'm sure they did), Moscow could not control the Commonwealth in addition to the **** they were already barely controlling closer to home...

If Nazi Germany overran France so easily, why the hell do you think the Soviet Union couldn't have overran a France that was far far weaker in 1945 than it was in 1939? Italy would have been a piece of cake as well. So would Spain and Portugal. So would have the Middle East.

Then you funnel weapons and support for revolutions in Latin America and Africa... bam. World communism.

[Asher]

Additionally, how likely is it that the USSR would have fallen as soon as it did, absent the US?

There is a case to be made that the opposition to the USA galvanized support for the centralized USSR leadership and perhaps prolonged its life. The USA was portrayed, accurately, as a grave threat that no one nation could face alone.

[Asher]

If Nazi Germany overran France so easily, why the hell do you think the Soviet Union couldn't have overran a France that was far far weaker in 1945 than it was in 1939? Italy would have been a piece of cake as well. So would Spain and Portugal. So would have the Middle East.

I'm not a fan of France or Italy or Spain or Portugal, they do not concern me.

BTW, how many American soldiers were stationed on the border in France in 1945 after WW2?

[Asher]

Notice how the Communists split. Taking over the world isn't easy if you can't even cooperate.

Hell, America pretty much has an ideology of spreading democracy everywhere, but still props up dictators. Go figure.

Both countries just use ideology as a token reason to project its own power elsewhere for its own gains.

[Al B. Sure!]

Notice how the Communists split. Taking over the world isn't easy if you can't even cooperate.

Hell, America pretty much has an ideology of spreading democracy everywhere, but still props up dictators. Go figure.

That's irrelevant. All that would have meant was that more of the world would have been communist but split between Soviet and Maoist camps. Doesn't change the fact that the US was the defender of democracy.

[David Floyd]

There is a case to be made that the opposition to the USA galvanized support for the centralized USSR leadership and perhaps prolonged its life. The USA was portrayed, accurately, as a grave threat that no one nation could face alone.

Yet it wasn't the US that forced the Soviet Union to dominate Eastern Europe for decades. How much longer would that domination have continued with no force to stop it? How many more invasions of Hungary would we have seen? Sure, eventually the Soviets would have relented, but nothing suggests it would have been earlier. Do you see Brezhnev, for example, letting the Poles out of the Warsaw Pact and conduct free elections? Hmm, no.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm not a fan of France or Italy or Spain or Portugal, they do not concern me.

BTW, how many American soldiers were stationed on the border in France in 1945 after WW2?

Really? See this is the ******* Asher. Like we're ****ing talking about how the US was the defender of the free world (I know Spain/Portugal were more fascistic at this time than free but whatever) and trying to explain how the US prevented Soviet domination of the rest of the free world (chiefly Europe), and you say you don't give a ****?

Huh? THAT'S WHAT THIS ****ING DISCUSSION IS ABOUT!

Dave and I are expressing that the US was necessary to contain Soviet aggression. So you admit that the Soviets could have easily conquered continental Europe if not for the US? Then good! You agree with us!

And no, our troops were stationed primarily in West Germany, I believe. And I don't know how many. Why?

[David Floyd]

Doesn't change the fact that the US was the defender of democracy.

Not particularly. We were actually defenders of our own best interests. It's just that US interests were far better for most of the world than Soviet interests.

[Asher]

Really? See this is the ******* Asher. Like we're ****ing talking about how the US was the defender of the free world (I know Spain/Portugal were more fascistic at this time than free but whatever)

Yeah! Minor issue that they were fascist regimes and the US, defender of the free world, was propping up dictators all over the world under the banner of defending the free world.

and trying to explain how the US prevented Soviet domination of the rest of the free world (chiefly Europe), and you say you don't give a ****?

I'm smart enough to recognize that the USSR could not control France, Spain, Italy, Portgual, etc in addition to the small, insignificant countries they did have under their umbrella. I'm afraid you're a victim of the propaganda of the ultimate USSR boggeymen. In 1945, the USSR wasn't powerful enough to take and control Western Europe in addition to Eastern.

And no, our troops were stationed primarily in West Germany, I believe. And I don't know how many. Why?

If you have to ask, it's not worth explaining to you.