Cold War

Not at all... I merely wanted to point out what may have been a contributing factor to shaping my opinons. For an old wise geezer you really do assume far to much Grieg, you seem to take things far too defensively; it's as if everything people say is somehow an attempt to undermine your opinion

Insofar as those opinons of mine are concerned, I don't consider Vietnam a war of 'liberation' but rather a war in which the USA attempted to subjugate a country with their own political motives... Vietnam was under the respectful control of the French as a colony... I do not believe that the French were guilty of any crimes in Vietnam though I may be wrong, they were attacked and driven out by the Viet Minh... America didn't agree with the notion of another communist country so they attacked, for nothing else than pure political motives... They didn't care about liberating anyone, they just wanted to avoid having another potential cold war "enemy"

 

Which, might i add, is exactly what they got

 

I broadly agree with your first & last statements, but the grades/truth problem is just worrying.

We were always taught that it did not really matter what we wrote in our essays, provided we could back it up with an argument that would hold water*. Admittedly this is easier in Medieval history, but I also took courses in Early modern & modern history. What matters is not agreeing with the lecturer's view, but presenting a decent argument for whichever view you want to put forward.


*The favourite joke - which sadly nobody attempted - was 'proving' that William the Conqueror was a woman...

 

we in the west were afraid of the maoists and stalinists and with good reason THEY WERE AND ARE THE BIGGEST BUTCHERS IN HISTORY....we fought them in vietnam because thats where they were winning at that time..had the been winning in java or luzon we woulda fought them there...did we fight to liberate the people of vn or korea?..not really ,we were mostly trieing to put out fires...where ever communism appeared to pop up we rushed with buckets and shovels...sometimes we succeeded sometimes not...did we kill innocents? yup...war is like that ,i guess...but heres the acid test..if hundreds of thousand of people are willing risk horrible deaths (TORTURE,LANDMINES ,SHARKS)to flee the lands newly liberated by the khmere rouge and NVA,to reach ANYWHERE ELSE! doest that mean we were doing the right thing?i mean,does anyone happen to know how many people have died while trying to IN to north korea ,viet nam or pol pots cambodia?ill wager this to be a small number indeed...YOU YOUNG REVISIONISTS ARE PROLLY RIGHT THO...we shouldnt really label one side as bad and one side as good unless we can determine some kind of scale for measuring. evil....i got an idea,how bout we see which side murdered a gazillion men ,women and children and we will label them the bad guys...you guys goggle it up for me and give me the numbers and we will trie to solve this puzzle..and for gods sake roel and smeg ,dont let any old geezers from the gulags or killing fields in here ...they prolly got a hysterical and bias view about communism...put them on the buses going to the re-education camp..that will straighten the old buggers out...heh,heh

 

Well Stalinism promptly ended in 1952, when he died... And Khrushchev was quick to abolish Stalins butcherining institiutions and reform Stalin's "cult of personality"... He reformed the USSR entirely, releasing prisoners, concentrating on consumer good and not industry (meaning no more starving)... He hated Mao with a passion, and although far from perfect, US-USSR relations dramatically improved with Khrushchev in charge. Under Krushchev the USSR stopped being an evil murderous empire, and became just an empire... The only Commie land grab that came after 1952 was Brezhnev's foolish and bumbling intervention into Afghanistan. Despite the whole "we will bury you" misunderstanding and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was in 1952 the only man in Russia with enough guts to dismantle Stalins gulags, and the only leader who didn't want to bomb the crap out of America... A good man Khrushchev

 

The USSR imported grain from America throughout the Cold War. Is that the sign of 'no more starving'?
And you missed out 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia.

'the only leader who didn't want to bomb the crap out of America' is entirely at odds with him being the only leader who tried to install short-range nuclear missiles close to America...

Khruschev may have been a bit easier than Stalin, but the show trials, the repression, and the piss-poor management of industry and farming continued.

 

I never thought I'd actually say this on the forum, but... What the fuck.

Have you read anything I have written in this thread? Is there any distinction in your mind between people who refuse to see things your way and fanatical root-and-branch red-flag-waving Stalin-admiring Communists?

In my previous post here I wrote this in reply to Grieg:

Note how I said I would not, could not and cannot deny the fact that Communism in its historical form is evil. I know, just like you do, what happened in Mao's China and in Stalin's Russia, I know how many people died there for the sake of an "experiment" and in no way do I seek to deny the facts or restore Communism to its place among the accepted political ideals. I am not apologetic of bloodthirsty dictators and I am not revisionist!

What I am saying is perfectly accepted among historians for the simple reason that it is true: Communism appealed and still does appeal to those who see the theory and the ideal of it and believe that they can make it work. I do not believe this is possible, and never did I say anything of the sort. What I am doing here, in this thread and in many others, though, is providing the perspective that is supposed to make you right-wing fanatics who despise the very word "Communism" see why it exists in the first place. I am trying to broaden your view to make you understand other people's opinions and the actions they take because of those opinions - such as people seriously considering American intervention in Vietnam a hostile invasion instead of a noble mission of defence against Evil.

By replying the way you do, though, you show that you are fundamentally unable to percieve Communism as anything but a cause for millions of dead people. Indeed, historical truth supports your opinion. But there is another side to Communism - theory, not practice - that many many people find even better than Capitalism, and if you refuse to accept this fact then you will never understand the workings of 20th century politics. Quite simply because you can't but see the world through the eyes of an American who has known his entire life that his country was the Good bulwark against the Red Evil, and that everyone agreed on this point for reasons of sanity.

Indeed, both sides of the political spectrum are represented. It's a good environment for political discussion as there are always right-wing liberals and left-wing socialists to even each other out.

Oh wait, you meant "liberals" as in leftists! Sorry, that's wrong.

 

Hah, The starvation continued right up until 1952 because Stalin withheld the grain and sold it for export... I'm not sure thats what the American's intended it to be used for

Yes because the USA was busy installing ICBM's in Turkey... They were intended to be 'traded off' for them... not the smartest idea ever but eh...

 

Roel:
A very well-composed post.
Yes, when I refer to liberal, I equate that with "left-leaning" whereas "right-leaning would indicate a more conservative political stance.

I'm enjoying this thread and the resulting discussion. I think the perspectives of those that recall "the era in question" are both valid and potentially valuable to those that had not yet been born... just as the actual war-experiences of veterans provide valuable insights to those that did not experience war first-hand.
I would regret to see this discussion deteriorate to the point where it is percieved as "The Old Geezers" vs "The Young Pups." Certainly not my intent at all. As I said previously, I think most posters are informed, some very-well, and others are open-minded to new perspectives... as we all should be.

Ricky:
A lot of the bias at the college-level I have described is dependent on the disipline involved. Political Science and History--for example--would be much more speculative in interpretation... and potentially volatile than Accounting.

Tim

 

roel ...sry ,i didnt mean to offend you,i often see a general tone about the cold war which goes something like....sure we have the communists and the western capitalist democracys....no one side is morally better or worse ..either side is enconomicaly feasible ,marxist leninist doctrine would work just fine ,cept people keep doing it wrong(alas one must break a few eggs to make an omelete)russia had to fear nato as it might invade any minute...americas attenpt in viet nam was morally wrong and evil and self serving...the cold war seen as just two self intrested giants ,neither one right or wrong really...this roel ..is pretty much the stance in the universitys of america...and often the veiw of the man in the street in europe,,,like if the red army had pushed al the way to scotland things would be much asd they are now...meet the new boss,same as the old boss...if there were no mass murders roel, people would still flee to the west by the millions just to have a decent life...it rankles me a little, roel ,that your university profs seem to regard the cold war like watching 2 grizzly bears fighting on tv...which ever bear wins ,it will have little impact on the people of holland either way...for learned men they sure spout some truely foolish drivel ,eh roel,,its ok the same lesson plan is taught here also...marx and lenin were right..we aint been doing it right...its capitalism thats evil

 

It is not up to professors to pick which side is good or evil; if they fail to condemn Communism and praise Capitalism then certainly that is to preserve their neutrality. It is undeniably true that both sides were governed largely by opportunism and self-interest, as that is the way of international politics; what we should indeed be looking at is what the people themselves thought about their governments and economic systems.

In theory they should be happier in Communism since there is no poverty or unemployment or crime or inequality in Communism... Hence its appeal to idealists.

 

as a young teen i had to do a term paper on communism and karl marx....after all my hours of research,i was pretty much a convert ...it seemed so much fairer,everybody equal ...... add to the communal pot...take out only what you need ..no rich people ,no poor people,no gouging middlemen no robber barons...it all made perfect sense...even today ..it looks good on paper...go figure