"We're chauvinists, too" was an article I picked up from the National Post by Katherine Jeffrey.
A local sports radio station (of all places) exemplify perfectly this argument. It's amazing how much liberties we take at criticizing the U.S. while offering very little introspection for ourselves.
It's not seen as chauvinism because we're convinced we're right and that we have the "superior" country.
Is the position that the nations of the West who went the welfare state route were able to do so because of the money saved from cutting the military? A luxury the United States could not afford to give into during the Cold War. Does anyone really doubt had there not been an American presence on the European continent (and Canada) it would have been over run by the Soviet Union?
Something to think about.
"Does anyone really doubt had there not been an American presence on the European continent (and Canada) it would have been over run by the Soviet Union?"
ReplyDeleteMe. I doubt it. Isn't it was a matter of public knowledge that the military capacity of the Warsaw Pact countries was vastly overestimated.
After all, no big bad enemy, no need to exponentially increase military spending.
Welcome back Pags.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm aware that there are new historical revelations about the period but this is a case of hindsight is 20/20. The U.S. protected Western civilization between 1942-1991 as far as I'm concerned. We can scoff this off all we want.
At the time, the U.S. as a whole including its government didn't know a whole lot about the the Soviet Empire. But that doesn't mean they should have just shrugged their shoulders. The Soviets DID have global expansionary designs. The proxy wars were a way of measuring each other on this front to see how far each would go.
The Americans decided to go with caution.
Without a strong military presence in Europe would have quite possibly encouraged the Soviets to start pushing westwards. It's hard to know or quantify what American military might meant.
It's too easy to look back and say "well, you see the Soviets were more fluff than puff" ergo the Americans exaggerated as an excuse to pump money into the military.
Moreover, there was already a strong presence of communist parties in major countries like France and Italy; though some have contended they were not as extreme in their doctrines.
The rise of the military industrial complex is an unfortunate result of America's role in the Cold War.
"The Soviets DID have global expansionary designs"
ReplyDeleteI must argue this point. The USSR was crippled by WW2 (20 million dead, entire regions laid to waste) and they were in no position to actively expand globally.
I believe that they were being merely opportunistic.
This was the time of decolonisation, and the US's (and UK's) disinclination to allow 'natives' not directly beholden to them to achieve power gave the USSR and PRC the opening.
Cuba is a good example. The US (or its biz interests, the same thing really, be the admin Dem or Rep) owned Bastista's regime.
Castro approached the US, but was rejected. Only then did the rebels turn to the soviets.
It seems to me that the same thing happened during the Spanish Civil War-- the legitimate government of Spain, the Republic, was denied arms sales by the UK and France, and so were in danger of being overpowered by Franco, with his German and Italian 'volunteers'.
The Republic had no where else to turn except the USSR.
In no time, the USSR was calling the shots.
Regrettable, but certainly not a planned Soviet "global expansionary design", IMHO.
Yes. But I think this ties more into the "over estimating" side of the coin. It doesn't mean they didn't plan to expand the empire.
ReplyDeleteEvery ideologically driven society wants to expand its "enlightened" ideas, no?
Did they not over run Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania to name a few. Not exactly small states) and all its smaller satellites (Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania etc.)?
At one point, communism ruled 75% of the world if I'm not mistaken.
Good enough for me on the GED.
I think the biggest problem in dealing with Russia is dealing with its paranoid/inferiority complex it seems to exhibit. They always talk of demanding respect from the West - notable the USA.
It makes it hard to judge how to measure them.
Again, I must disagree.
ReplyDelete"Did they not over run Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania to name a few. Not exactly small states) and all its smaller satellites (Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania etc.)?"
What is "run over"? The states you list were either conquered by the Nazis and joyful to be liberated by the USSR (Czechoslavakia, Poland), or happily allied themselves to the Nazis for the chance to suppress minorities like jews, roma and the like (Romania, Hungary, the 3 Baltic states) who IMHO deserved what they got.
There was vengence, certainly.
As to the 75% claim, I don't know what you are smoking but I want some!
Even if the India of Nehru is counted as communist (doubtful) along with China, one would never arrive at a figure approaching 75%.
Please acknowledge your sources for these things!
I know I often don't, but medical marijuana is my excuse. What is yours?
Afterthought (while proofing): Krustchev was a Ukranian, and a famous defender at Stalingrad. The Ukraine is very complex, akin to Moldava or Kosovo.
I forgot one thing!
ReplyDeleteThe expansion of communism was the idee fixe of Trotsky. Stalin purged Trotsky and his followers in the 20s.
Stalin purged Trotsky because he thought the Revolution would be safer by consolidating, rather than using resources to encourage revolution.
So back to decolonsation, again.
I don't smoke. I choke too easily. I prefer the pill format.
ReplyDeleteThe source I used is a university professor specializing in communism.
Forget his name, sorry, but that stat stayed with me.
Yes, I think you used the perfect word: complex.