Truman Doctrine

[I LOVE HO CHI MINH]

For me yes. What do the community think?

[Ernest Everhard]

prior to WW2 the US kept its diplomatic and military muscle confined to the western hemisphere and the south pacific. Yet the Truman doctrine was devised in response to Stalin's support of Greek and Turkish communists at the end of WW2. So the truman doctrine was a reactive measure meant to temper soviet aggression with posturing.
What I mean to say is that it didn't establish a US empire, whatever that means? But rather was instituted to prevent a world wide Soviet empire.

[guerrillaradio]

The Truman Doctrine was American paranoia and imperialism in a desperate attempt to stop the world going communist. They seemed to oscillate between two extremes: before WW2 they wouldn't even join the League of Nations but by 1950 they were prepared to send their troops to Korea.

[Ernest Everhard]

desperate attempt? Last I checked, the world wasnt communist.

[I LOVE HO CHI MINH]

Dont you think Ernest that US wanted to indoctinate countries with their own capitalist system?
For example Nixon wanted to leave Thieu in power an also to have pro-americans governments in Laos and Cambodia. Think about it

[Ernest Everhard]

sure the US wants to leave people that are friendly to US interests in charge of other countries because if they didn't, then the Soviets would place their own tarts in.

[I LOVE HO CHI MINH]

Why don´t the US leave the goddam countries alone!!!

[Ernest Everhard]

why didn't the soviets leave those "goddamn" countries alone.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 3:35 am on May 1, 2002
why didn't the soviets leave those "goddamn" countries alone.

You're answering a question with a question. Sure the EX-USSR was imperialist, I admit that and I condemn it. Now justify American imperialism...

[Ernest Everhard]

as a natural response by a rival hegemonical power, US actions were in reality reactions to the kremlins aggressions. They are justified by the actions undertaken by the USSR.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 4:41 pm on May 1, 2002
They are justified by the actions undertaken by the USSR.

Even in Vietnam and Korea?? The USSR had nothing to do with actions there??

[Ernest Everhard]

guerillaradio, you're actually really wrong. The invasion of south korea was undertaken and ultimately conditional on the approval of josef stalin.

As for vietnam, the major reason that the US was prohibited from actually entering NV territory was that US politicians were afraid that American soldiers would actually encounter the plethora of soviet advisors in combat.

[guerrillaradio]

Ok fine, that was a minor point of which I was not really interested.

The question that bothers me is, was the American policy of containment really ethically correct?? Does a world superpower really have the authority to dictate which system of government another state chooses??

I would have to say a defiant negative to both of those questions. I will do a huge post on this subject sometime soon, but at the moment, time is limited, and thanks to this lovely material system we are in, time is indeed money.

In short, America had no right to intervene in Vietnam or Korea. The situation there was no threat to "American security" at all, and it was merely anti-communist rhetoric being applied on an international scale. Quite apart from anything else, I find it shocking how President Johnson could sleep at night while sending millions of young Americans, of a country he's suppposed to love, to their deaths for his own personal gain...

[Ernest Everhard]

You're point is valide if you look at the last fifty years of history and ignore the existance of the soviet Union. Does a super power have the right to dicate what sort of government another nation will have, no they don't. That applies to both hegemonical super powers in existance, not just the US. Fortunately for everyone, American interventions, which were always reactions, did always fail.

[ArgueEverything]

the truth, ernest everhard, is that NSC68 was specifically designed to prolong a conflict between the US and the USSR, and provided the legal and moral justification for suppressing leftists at home.

if the US wanted peace, they would have accepted the many soviet initiatives offered, e.g. khrushchev's disarmament campaign, which the US didn't reciprocate.

also worthy of mention is the fact that the CIA continuously lied about the supposed strength of the soviet union, no doubt so they could go about their campaign of terrorising the rest of the world and restricting freedom at home.

i suppose you also think the US was justified in spreading false and libellous claims about lefitst american citizens which result in their suicide, because the soviet union was threatening the free world?

[Ernest Everhard]

i was hoping it would come to this to nsc68, when me and reagan first got to this forum we spent countless post on this topic, so i quite enjoy discussing it.

first of all note that the document in question was written in 1950 by this point Soviet aggression was already rampant.

The USSR had:

-solidified its grip on the 'eastern block' and prohibited democratic elections

-instigated a communist coup in czechoslovakia

-declined western assistance in the form of the marshall plan, and forced their satellites to refuse this assistance

-tried to starve west berlin and capture it by blockading it

-supported armed insurrection in greece and turkey

so nsc68 was designed in response to unprovoked soviet aggression. Have you ever read the document, it outlines very clearly why the US must resist the USSR and what it can do to resist it.

[ArgueEverything]

"first of all note that the document in question was written in 1950 by this point Soviet aggression was already rampant.

The USSR had:

-solidified its grip on the 'eastern block' and prohibited democratic elections"

of course, you conveniently fail to take into account the fact that this was 5 years after ww2 ended, and that this land was taken in a war against an enemy the soviets had in common with the US.

the crap about democratic elections is easily refuted. if the prohibition of democratic elections is a justification for the US to take an aggressive stance towards a country, why has the US been friendly with so many undemocratic nations during the years?

"-instigated a communist coup in czechoslovakia"

no, not quite. the communists won the 1946 elections and klement gottwalt of CPCs became prime minister. hardly a "coup", and hardly "soviet-instigated". im afraid you can't just blame an unfavourable election result on the soviets.

"-declined western assistance in the form of the marshall plan, and forced their satellites to refuse this assistance"

hardly a justification for the belligerent nature of nsc68. lol, of course the soviets refused the marshall plan, would the US have accepted stalin's 5 year plans?

"-tried to starve west berlin and capture it by blockading it"

the fact that the blockade was lifted and that none of the planes airlifting supplies were shot at indicated that the ussr wasn't interested in war.

"-supported armed insurrection in greece and turkey"

if there was any aggressive interference in greece, it was from the americans. after all, it was the US, not the ussr, that actually sent in TROOPS to greece.

"so nsc68 was designed in response to unprovoked soviet aggression. Have you ever read the document, it outlines very clearly why the US must resist the USSR and what it can do to resist it"

i have read it. and i know exactly what it says the us must do to resist the USSR. for example it must: eliminate "the excesses of a permanently open mind", "the excess of tolerance". we must learn to "distinguish between the necessity for tolerance and the necessity for just suppression". its not surprising, given the despotic tone of the document, that the lives of so many thousands of innocent radicals and quasi-radicals, both in the US and abroad, were totally destroyed by this 20th century inquisition which you seek to justify.

a few points i would like to make:

-in 1952, the kremlin put forth a proposal for reunification and neutralization of germany, with no conditions on economic policies, and guarantees for the basic freedoms, and the free activity of democratic parties and organizations. in reply, the US said that the west did not recognise the oder-neisse frontier between germany and poland, and insisted that the reunified germany must be free to join NATO. this was a few yrs after ww2, remember, after germany had nearly obliterated the ussr.

-in 1960, khruschev dannounced a reduction of one-third of the soviets armed forces. US verified huge cuts a few mnths later, but rather than reciprocating, the US increased military spending.



(Edited by ArgueEverything at 4:34 pm on May 4, 2002)

[Guest]

"NSC68 was specifically designed to prolong a conflict between the US and the USSR"

If you had ever actually read NSC68, you'd know that it is a foreign policy tract based on the fundamental fact that the USSR believed that they had a distinct advantage. It's not important for the scope of the paper whether or not that was true...the only important thing was that the Soviets would not be willing to "make important concessions" in negotiations. Therefore it sets the basis for a strategy to make the Soviets reconsider their position through American military buildup and the mobilization of the free world. It proposes a plan whose only end is peaceful and successful negotiations with the Soviets to end their expansionist agressions. Americans fully believed in their advantage in longevity, since the internal oppression of freedom on the part of the Soviet Union would eventually cause its collapse. The goal, the only goal, of American strategy was to delay armed conflict until that time. This required that the Soviets never believe themselves to have clearly superior force or initiative. NSC68 is at heart an ANTI-IMPERIALIST work. It was aimed at a nation who had been consistently behaving in an agressive imperialist manner.

"of course, you conveniently fail to take into account the fact that this was 5 years after ww2 ended, and that this land was taken in a war against an enemy the soviets had in common with the US."
So what?

"the crap about democratic elections is easily refuted. if the prohibition of democratic elections is a justification for the US to take an aggressive stance towards a country, why has the US been friendly with so many undemocratic nations during the years?"
Another statement that makes me question whether or not you've read NSC68. The US became "friendly" with "undemocratic nations" in an effort to gain bargaining leverage on the USSR, so that they could stop the Soviets from ACTIVELY suppressing democracy and freedom.

"no, not quite. the communists won the 1946 elections and klement gottwalt of CPCs became prime minister. hardly a "coup", and hardly "soviet-instigated". im afraid you can't just blame an unfavourable election result on the soviets."
That's a beautiful story, but I think Ernest was talking about 1948.

"hardly a justification for the belligerent nature of nsc68. lol, of course the soviets refused the marshall plan, would the US have accepted stalin's 5 year plans?"
If you call the pursuit of peaceful and successful negotiations to halt expansionist agression "belligerent." And what the fuck does the Marshall Plan have in common with Stalin's 5 Year Plans, except the word "plan?" One is a foreign policy plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged continent, the other is a internal program to create a dictatorial empire. "lol."

"the fact that the blockade was lifted and that none of the planes airlifting supplies were shot at indicated that the ussr wasn't interested in war."
The fact that they didn't shoot down planes airlifting food to starving people proves their benevolence. Typical revisionist crap.

"if there was any aggressive interference in greece, it was from the americans. after all, it was the US, not the ussr, that actually sent in TROOPS to greece."
And it was the Soviets (through their Balkan fronts) that were sponsoring the EAM/ELAS in the first place.

"its not surprising, given the despotic tone of the document, that the lives of so many thousands of innocent radicals and quasi-radicals, both in the US and abroad, were totally destroyed by this 20th century inquisition which you seek to justify."
How many thousands of lives were destroyed by the policies that this document sought to reverse??

"in 1952, the kremlin put forth a proposal for reunification and neutralization of germany" blah blah blah.
In 1952 the Kremlin was scared out of their minds at the implications of the Paris Agreement. Faced with the rearmament of West Germany, they sought to cut their losses by establishing a neutral Germany. Naturally, the West didn't agree to this, it wouldn't have made sense.

[Guest]

Oh, by the way, this is reagan lives.

And another note about that 1952 proposal bullshit, which I feel I might have short-changed...many Soviets, including Molotov himself, believed that this move by Stalin was only intended as a stall tactic to help block the Paris Agreement. This is backed up by the fact that later in that year, after the Paris Agreement was implemented, the USSR embarked on their most agressive Sovietization campaign ever in East Germany.

[reagan lives]

I agree wholeheartedly with myself.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I think there are a few points we are missing here. I think most of us can agree than
neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists. The present systems that
contemporary empires are based on lie on a spectrum between the two theoretical
ideologies. Also, we could argue all day about the acadmic principles of each system,
but real world data proves that Capitalism is the much better system. The
free-marketcapitalist system that America represents has produced the strongest
economy that has ever existed, and the best standard of living ever. Even America's
poor live relatively well. This is a measurable fact. Notions of exploitation of thirld world
countries for the most part amount to nothing more than making excuses for nations that
have not been as industrious and ingeneous (and to some extent lucky) as the US has
been. I mean, please, exploitation? What do you call standing in line 4 hours for a loaf of
bread? Killing 50 million people (Stalin)? What more needs to be said??? Another
consideration is that capitalism encourages individual innovation and acheivement. This
principle is proven in reality in thatthe vast majority of technological innovation that has
benefitted humanity in the last 150 years has come out of the United States. This
includes both the computer you are looking at and the internet you are communicationg
through. Also, we discuss exploitation of smaller countries by the U.S, but fail to address
the fact that the US is by far the most humane and alturistic country on earth, both in
terms of dollars spent (debt relief and direct monetary aid) and in people and
organizations contrributing service and aid abroad. When there is a major naturalk
disaster, what is the only country to contribute money and resources to assist in aid? The
USA. I cant remember a time when the Soviets, Cuba, or China contributed to foreign
relief of any kind. Finally, immigration. The USA has quite a challenge accomodating the
thousands of immigrants (worker-class, mind you) that enter its borders daily. Many of
these people are risking both their and their family's life just for an opportunity to get in.
Why? Because capitalist "workers" still live much better than communist or socialist
"workers". Needless to say, China, Cuba, and the then Soviet union (failed
system,remember?) had no immigration problem. Their border control budgets were
allocated to keep people in!!! Its a self explanatory phenomenon!!! So, we could argue
academic and philisophical principals all day, but real world data and behavior makes it
self evident that the American form of Capitalism is by far the best system going today.
Also, I have been pretty much discussing economic aspects of capitalism, to say
nothing of the personal freedoms and the opportunity given to Amercian citizens to
pursue success and what makes them happy. These fundamental principles are, to say
the least, severely hindered by centrist governments. Look at real world activity, and
you see the best real world system.

[BOZG]

Capitalist Imperialist,

Is that the only fucking post you can make? Do you plan to say that everytime you post something?

[reagan lives]

To be honest, he's no more repetitive than most of the people on this board.

[Capitalist Imperial]

BORN OF WEAK AS REBELLION GUNS...

Do you have a logical response or are you just mad because you can't apply some pretentious academic arguement against real-world observation. Face it, The USA is the greatest empire that has ever existed. The stronges economy, the greatest immigration numbers (which indicates human desire to participate in our system, especially from socialist, communist and ex-communist coiuntries), we saved free Europe 2x in the same century, defeated the Soviets, and have a pretty good level of humaneness and alturism. NO OTHER COUNTRY CAN CLAIM THIS!!! Put down the Rage against the Machine CD and go buy a Big Mac!!!

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 11:04 pm on May 4, 2002
Face it, The USA is the greatest empire that has ever existed.

Wow...I'm convinced...

"God bless America!"

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 7:09 pm on May 2, 2002
Fortunately for everyone, American interventions, which were always reactions, did always fail.


I like that...I agree.

[ArgueEverything]

"NSC68 was specifically designed to prolong a conflict between the US and the USSR

If you had ever actually read NSC68, you'd know that it is a foreign policy tract based on the fundamental fact that the USSR believed that they had a distinct advantage. It's not important for the scope of the paper whether or not that was true...the only important thing was that the Soviets would not be willing to "make important concessions" in negotiations. Therefore it sets the basis for a strategy to make the Soviets reconsider their position through American military buildup and the mobilization of the free world. It proposes a plan whose only end is peaceful and successful negotiations with the Soviets to end their expansionist agressions. Americans fully believed in their advantage in longevity, since the internal oppression of freedom on the part of the Soviet Union would eventually cause its collapse. The goal, the only goal, of American strategy was to delay armed conflict until that time. This required that the Soviets never believe themselves to have clearly superior force or initiative. NSC68 is at heart an ANTI-IMPERIALIST work. It was aimed at a nation who had been consistently behaving in an agressive imperialist manner."

its interesting, you claim the soviets would be unwilling to make important concessions but do nothing to back this statement up, besides some dribble about the soviets believing they had a "distinct advantage". as you state, whether this is true or not is totally irrelevant, since the truth only gets in the way. the fact that the soviets tried many times after 1950 to calm things down, the US would never agree. after all, the nsc did state that "the idea that germany or japan or other important areas can exist as islands of neutrality is unreal". the truth is that nsc 68 was a dogma which restricted the US' capacity to reciprocate soviet concessions.

the claim that the authour's of nsc 68 believed that the soviet suppression of free thought within the ussr would lead to its collapse is also amusing, considering the fact that they too were arguing for the suppression of free thought at home.

your write that "...this required that the Soviets never believe themselves to have clearly superior force or initiative." even if the soviets believed themselves superior to the US at the time of nsc 68, such a line of thinking should have rendered completely obsoletely by 1961 when it was clear the soviets were drastically reducing their armed forces. hardly something an "imperialist" empire that is hell-bent on destroying the
"free world" would do. the US, the real imperialist power, continued to increase military spending, however.


"So what?"

the point i was trying to make was that the US (through roosevelt) basically accepted soviet hegemony over eastern europe at the potsdam conference. its hardly fair that the US turn its back later and have a whinge about it, and use it as justification for an aggressive militaristic stance towards the soviet union.

"Another statement that makes me question whether or not you've read NSC68. The US became "friendly" with "undemocratic nations" in an effort to gain bargaining leverage on the USSR, so that they could stop the Soviets from ACTIVELY suppressing democracy and freedom."

yes, like augusto pinochet or suharto or saddam hussein provided the US with bargaining leverage on the USSR. and what are you trying to say by stressing the word 'active'? that the US never supported countries that actively suppressed democracy?

"That's a beautiful story, but I think Ernest was talking about 1948."

1948 was not a soviet "coup" as ernest tried to argue. the non-socialist ministers resigned from parliament (im afraid the soviets didn't cause that), and the democratically elected communist prime minister gottwald became president.


"If you call the pursuit of peaceful and successful negotiations to halt expansionist agression "belligerent." And what the fuck does the Marshall Plan have in common with Stalin's 5 Year Plans, except the word "plan?" One is a foreign policy plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged continent, the other is a internal program to create a dictatorial empire. "lol.""

you totally missed my point. how exactly does the soviet rejection of the marshall plan constitute an act of aggression that justified the belligerent tone of nsc 68? the soviets reconstructed eastern europe with their own money afterwards, they didnt need american help.


"The fact that they didn't shoot down planes airlifting food to starving people proves their benevolence. Typical revisionist crap."

well, if the soviets did believe that they were superior and had an advantage over the US, as you and the authours of nsc 68 believe, why DIDNT they shoot down the american planes?


"And it was the Soviets (through their Balkan fronts) that were sponsoring the EAM/ELAS in the first place."

the soviets sponsored EAM in their war against the nazis, something the US and every sane person would have supported given the circumstances.


"How many thousands of lives were destroyed by the policies that this document sought to reverse??"

by your own admission, nsc 68 wasn't trying to reverse anything. it wasnt even trying to speed up the fall of the soviet union. it merely wanted to avoid confrontation (thats your argument, not mine). and in the process of trying to avoid confrontation, the US supported regimes just as dictatorial and oppressive, if not more so, than the USSR.

"In 1952 the Kremlin was scared out of their minds at the implications of the Paris Agreement. Faced with the rearmament of West Germany, they sought to cut their losses by establishing a neutral Germany. Naturally, the West didn't agree to this, it wouldn't have made sense. "

and why not? because the west didn't want peace, they wanted a militarised western europe. had the proposal been accepted, it would have eliminated any soviet threat to western europe. there would have been no soviet tanks in east berlin in 1953, no berlin wall - and no justification for US intervention and subversion worldwide.

"And another note about that 1952 proposal bullshit, which I feel I might have short-changed...many Soviets, including Molotov himself, believed that this move by Stalin was only intended as a stall tactic to help block the Paris Agreement. This is backed up by the fact that later in that year, after the Paris Agreement was implemented, the USSR embarked on their most agressive Sovietization campaign ever in East Germany. "

the sovietization campaign in e. germany merely shows the soviet's reaction to the paris agreement + the rejection of the neutralization offer. it wouldn't have happened if germany was neutral, because there would be no soviets there.

i would suggest that neutralization was rejected because the west new there was a good chance of a democratically elected communist government coming to power in germany. the KPD, under thalmann, was the 2nd biggest party prior to ww2, after the nazis. with the nazis gone, it would logically follow that the KPD would be more successful.

[Ernest Everhard]

Its almost sad that you actually post such a blatant distortion of history. Well I suppose it should be tackled in the same manner that it was presented, point by point.

you write:
its interesting, you claim the soviets would be unwilling to make important concessions but do nothing to back this statement up, besides some dribble about the soviets believing they had a "distinct advantage". as you state, whether this is true or not is totally irrelevant, since the truth only gets in the way. the fact that the soviets tried many times after 1950 to calm things down, the US would never agree. after all, the nsc did state that "the idea that germany or japan or other important areas can exist as islands of neutrality is unreal". the truth is that nsc 68 was a dogma which restricted the US' capacity to reciprocate soviet concessions.

the claim that the authour's of nsc 68 believed that the soviet suppression of free thought within the ussr would lead to its collapse is also amusing, considering the fact that they too were arguing for the suppression of free thought at home.

your write that "...this required that the Soviets never believe themselves to have clearly superior force or initiative." even if the soviets believed themselves superior to the US at the time of nsc 68, such a line of thinking should have rendered completely obsoletely by 1961 when it was clear the soviets were drastically reducing their armed forces. hardly something an "imperialist" empire that is hell-bent on destroying the
"free world" would do. the US, the real imperialist power, continued to increase military spending, however.

the response is:
The distinct advantage possed by the soviet union was manifested in soviet actions following ww2. A few of the most grieveous were listed below, and much to your credit you haven't even made excuses for them. Unfortunately to your clear disadvantage you've ignored them altogether.
Furthermore you disengeniously fault reagan for not providing evidence of the soviet "distinct advantage" despite the presence of this information having been evident since the begining of this argument, and then proceed to make the audacious and unsubstantiated claim that, "the soviets tried many times after 1950 to calm things down"
You support that specious statement by citing the decrease in soviet conventional forces in 1961, a full 15 years after the end of ww2 the peace loving soviets decide to demobilize i see. The reason that this information is irrelevant is that it was coupled by a dramatic increase in unconvential (read tactical and strategic nuclear forces)

you write:
the point i was trying to make was that the US (through roosevelt) basically accepted soviet hegemony over eastern europe at the potsdam conference. its hardly fair that the US turn its back later and have a whinge about it, and use it as justification for an aggressive militaristic stance towards the soviet union.


The response is:
wow, what a load of horseshit, seriously. First of all, let us introduce the notion that the cementing of soviet control over eastern europe, the creation of an eastern block was not the justification for an aggressive american stance against the soviet union. If you've read nsc 68, youd see that this was the manifestation of the 'distinct advantage' held by the soviets, this was the manifestation of soviet aggression and it, thankfully, begat a defensive american response.
But I still take contention with your belief that since the US, or its president, 'allowed' the soviets to have eastern europe, they have no business in desiring the liberation of the region. Finally, the conference you were thinking of was yalta, at potsdam truman took a much more righteous stance in trying to defend eastern europe from soviet domination, and actually received a promise from stalin to hold free and fair elections in regions occupied by the red army, of course stalin lied.


you write:
yes, like augusto pinochet or suharto or saddam hussein provided the US with bargaining leverage on the USSR. and what are you trying to say by stressing the word 'active'? that the US never supported countries that actively suppressed democracy?

The response is:
yes, a marvelous case in point is saddam hussein. A horrible dictator that turned his nation into a soviet client state, that is until a better deal came along from the US, thus giving the US greater leverage over the soviet union in the middle east. It's not an ideal situation, and one that has ramifications in our present day, but its still a lot better than having allowed soviet domination of the middle east.


you write:
1948 was not a soviet "coup" as ernest tried to argue. the non-socialist ministers resigned from parliament (im afraid the soviets didn't cause that), and the democratically elected communist prime minister gottwald became president


The response is:
the extent of your lies should really be interpreted as an insult to all the proper leftists on this board, you really expect them to buy this shit. Following stalins direct orders through the cominform the Communist party of czechoslovakia canceled the early elections that were set to take place due to the resignation of the non-communist ministers of government. They proceeded to seize power and used the police to arrest opponents, they then took their nation on a 10 year walk with stalinism.

you write:
you totally missed my point. how exactly does the soviet rejection of the marshall plan constitute an act of aggression that justified the belligerent tone of nsc 68? the soviets reconstructed eastern europe with their own money afterwards, they didnt need american help.

The response is:
That the soviet union would refuse to sign on to the marshall plan for its own benefit is not at issue, what is at issue as an example of soviet aggression is that the soviet union coerced the governments of polan, hungary, romania, bulgaria, albania and tirana from participating. As czech foreing minister jan masaryk noted upon his return from moscow and a discussion with stalin regarding eastern european participation in the marshall plan, "I went to moscow as the foreign minister of an independent sovereign state; I returned a soviet slave" (Neal Ascherson, the struggle for poland)


You write:
"The fact that they didn't shoot down planes airlifting food to starving people proves their benevolence. Typical revisionist crap."-reagan lives

well, if the soviets did believe that they were superior and had an advantage over the US, as you and the authours of nsc 68 believe, why DIDNT they shoot down the american planes?

The response is:
wilfully misunderstanding reaganlives will not allow you to hide from the truth, that the soviet union's attempt to seize west berlin, was in itself a manifestation of that "distinct advantage". We, or at least I, do not doubt that the soviets are 'rational actors', they wouldn't risk ww3 for berlin, yet. The distinct advantage is their ability to create a seige, not to shoot down the planes.

You write:
"The fact that they didn't shoot down planes airlifting food to starving people proves their benevolence. Typical revisionist crap."

well, if the soviets did believe that they were superior and had an advantage over the US, as you and the authours of nsc 68 believe, why DIDNT they shoot down the american planes?

The response is:
and could've stopped supporting them when the legitimate government of greece took over again...

You write:
by your own admission, nsc 68 wasn't trying to reverse anything. it wasnt even trying to speed up the fall of the soviet union. it merely wanted to avoid confrontation (thats your argument, not mine). and in the process of trying to avoid confrontation, the US supported regimes just as dictatorial and oppressive, if not more so, than the USSR.

The response is:
Here your sadly, tragically, right. Unfortunately NSC 68 did not call for a more proactive american approach in eastern europe, rather it called for, more or less, quarantining the USSR to its existing domain.

You write:
and why not? because the west didn't want peace, they wanted a militarised western europe. had the proposal been accepted, it would have eliminated any soviet threat to western europe. there would have been no soviet tanks in east berlin in 1953, no berlin wall - and no justification for US intervention and subversion worldwide


The response is:
The 'west' or more aptly put in this case, the americans, refused a unified neutral germany for better reasons. Following ww2 the soviets demanded massive reperations from Germany, the Americans, on the other hand did not want to repeat the scenerio after the first world war and so were persistent in their desire not to have reperations. THe soviet proposal would have imposed reperations on the whole of 'neutral' germany. The west, or again more aptly put the americans, cause the birts and french didn't really mind reperations, was staunchly against this. The soviets, in the end, did get reperations from East germany, far more than the 20 billion that the americans agreed to at yalta.


You write:
the sovietization campaign in e. germany merely shows the soviet's reaction to the paris agreement + the rejection of the neutralization offer. it wouldn't have happened if germany was neutral, because there would be no soviets there.

i would suggest that neutralization was rejected because the west new there was a good chance of a democratically elected communist government coming to power in germany. the KPD, under thalmann, was the 2nd biggest party prior to ww2, after the nazis. with the nazis gone, it would logically follow that the KPD would be more successful


The response is:
Actually not true, despite the similar 'threat' of communist takeover in austria, the US and soviets
agreed to preserve the 'neutrality' or non-alignment of that state. Furthermore a democratically elected commuinst government, that bucked the stalinist line, would've been more of a threat to the Soviets than the americans, as the experience of polan and hungary in 56 and of czechkoslovakia in 68 proved. Finally the experience of east germany itself, in 1952, during the massive WORKER demonstrations against the Ulbricht regime shows that this sector didn't even support that communists. So fervent was this display of worker power, that levrenti beria, one of 3 head soviets following stalins death, called for soviet troops in east germany to confront the striking workers, and "spare no bullets"










(Edited by Ernest Everhard at 4:11 pm on May 5, 2002)


(Edited by Ernest Everhard at 4:16 pm on May 5, 2002)

[Moskitto]

Face it, The USA is the greatest empire that has ever existed.

Can US citizens hold up their passports and avoid arrest, paramilitary deathsquads or individual murderers in other countrys? I don't think so.

Could British Citizens in the 19th century do that? Yes. example. Greece+British Citizen gets beaten up--->British Navy+Planks at bottom of sea.

Oh and I never heard anything about the US owning 1/4 of the planet.

[Ernest Everhard]

good point moskitto,see the US isn't that bad. We're a fountain of benevolence, the topic of this thread and the content of the discussion are the greatest proof. Beyond the raw numbers that america spends on foreign aid, its greatest contribution to humanity outside the realm of the US was its participation in the defeat of communism. Good day.