Did NATO ever have a chance to win a conventional conflict in Europe without the use of tactical nuclear weapons (and the potential escalation that comes with them)? From what I've read it seems that the Soviets and their allies had an overwhelming superiority in everything but airpower and naval power and operation REFORGER wouldn't give enough results in time to change the tide of the conflict.
7 days to river Rhine seems a bit optimistic but I don't see how NATO could have possibly won before the very late 80's.
>>1074746
Do you think the Soviets could afford to maintain troops in Western Europe let alone pay for them to fight to get there
>>1074864
>maintain
Is there really a need though? NATO's fighting power would be crushed, all prepared defenses, airbases etc in the most important area (West Germany) would be lost and it would be only a short sprint to the Atlantic to cut off the low countries from each other. Britain is obviously unassailable and I doubt they'd dare to touch France if they didn't have to but NATO's prestige would be gone and the alliance would be finished.
A crushed and humiliated NATO and a capitulated West Germany would be enough to massively erode American influence in Europe. Might as well grab Finland while you're at it, who is going to stop you?
I think the more interesting question would be if the Soviets would allow Germany to reunite or if the west would be kept as a neutral buffer.
>>1074896
>all prepared defense crushed
>I don't think they'd touch France
What? Their gonna draw new battle lines in the middle of Europe, the countries they occupied would need their defense rebuilt to do that, France is the perfect place to stage a counter attack against them, not to mention in a drawn out war NATO has the financial advantage
>>1074922
Because of very strongly adhered French nuclear policy and independence from NATO command.
>>1074746
NATO had the economy to crush the USSR in any long term conflict.
>>1074926
>without the use of tactical nuclear weapons
>>1074929
Would America care to lend it's economy to retaking a radioactive continental Europe? What if Britain was a nuked to oblivion?
>>1074949
>Would America care to lend it's economy to retaking a radioactive continental Europe?
Marshall Plan 2.0: Nuclear Boogaloo? Doesn't sound unthinkable. We're talking about a situation without nuclear weapons, though, so why the fuck do you people keep talking about them?
>What if Britain was a nuked to oblivion?
It would probably get divided up along new borders by the end of the war. Maybe the Soviets would take Scotland?
>>1074949
Do you think America is gonna stand by while Millions of dollars are wasted and an integral part of NATO obliterated?
>>1074960
I'd say cut your losses, let NATO die, and secure the Americas and maybe South East Asia and Japan.
>>1074975
>hurr
>>1074975
>secure the Americas
How would you go about doing that, Anon? Especially when Communists want to secure them just as badly as you do.
And what happens when China invades Japan? Is it still secure then? Or would you cut your losses in Japan, too? Maybe the US should give up all of its defensive commitments and break every treaty its ever signed, pull back to the continental US, and let Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii fall, because why not? It would take effort to defend those places.
>>1074958
>We're talking about a situation without nuclear weapons, though, so why the fuck do you people keep talking about them?
It's silly to exclude nukes. They were an integral part of the whole situation. At very least tactical nukes would be used for defense. Once the seal is broken the USSR wouldn't shy away from using them either. If Britain didn't sue for peace as soon as France fell then you can bet their ass there would be a nuclear exchange before an amphibious invasion.
>>1074746
There were more American troops in Europe than in Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam War. On top of this, Eastern Europe was already on the verge of internal fracture by the mid 60's which echoed into the very public revolts of 1968. The Soviets steamrolling Europe was understood by the Soviets as a fleeting dream as early as 1951. The West didn't get the memo until 1989.
>>1074986
>It's silly to exclude nukes.
I agree, but did you even read the OP?
>>1074975
Literally the dumbest shit in the world
>Cut your losses and secure SEA
SEA was a shit hole before the 90's the EU combined has a GDP larger then the USA right now imagine NATOs state without that, not to mention the mindset at the time was kill the commie's and we had just spent MILLIONS rebuilding Europe
>>1074985
>China invades Japan
This isn't possible even now, it was never possible during the Cold War.
>>1074985
>How would you go about doing that, Anon? Especially when Communists want to secure them just as badly as you do.
Not him, but the Americas were under firm US control during the Cold War with a whole two exceptions: Cuba (because we brushed it off forever) and Nicaragua (because Carter was a fucking pussy). There wasn't any country outside of Cuba that got away with turning away from the US during the Cold War. Even MINOR HINTS at social reform were met with quick covert retribution.
>And what happens when China invades Japan?
China doesn't even have the navy to invade Japan now. How the fuck are they going to do it 50 years ago?
>>1074985
>How would you go about doing that, Anon?
By selling guns to Latin American countries that play ball and by militarily or covertly destabilizing countries that don't play ball. There is no point in fighting over a radioactive shit hole. If parts of Russia were successfully nuked then all America has to do is sign a ceasefire and wait to become the uncontested global hegemony. Until then all America has to do is keep as many countries as possible from being nuked so they have someone to sell their American made shit to.
>>1074985
Oh, and let's just let Korea fall, because fuck Asians. It seems reasonable that we've already given up on the idea that finance can be a positive asset during war, not when the Soviets steamroll Europe anyway! And who cares about Africa at all? It's not like various proxy wars were fought across the continent, it's not like everyone needs its resources to build literally everything they use to fight wars.
What the fuck, Anon? Why do you post in threads like this?
>>1074995
>This isn't possible even now
Are you 100% sure?
>>1074997
That isn't secured, military control during a war. Those are strongmen. There's a significant difference.
>How the fuck are they going to do it 50 years ago?
I wasn't sure what the timeline was for all this.
>>1075002
>By selling guns to Latin American countries that play ball and by militarily or covertly destabilizing countries that don't play ball.
But that isn't secure at all.
> There is no point in fighting over a radioactive shit hole
1) This is about a situation without nukes
2) Why do you assume this is true?
>>1074993
Securing an irradiated France and Germany from a thermonuclear USSR wouldn't be worth the effort and probably wouldn't even be possible. What do you think Germany would have done to defend fortress Europe if they had nukes? Sicily and Normandy would have been nuked as soon as the invasions gained footholds, not to mention England would have been nuked long before that.
America would support France in every way possible to defend against the Ruskies, but if France falls then America would have a lot of reason to cut its losses.
>>1074864
In case of war everybody can afford everything.
Why do you think people still care about Russia? As in - internationally, why are Euros using "you're helping putn by being X" as an argument for internal conflicts? Why are they even invited to G8 and other summits like that?
Russia is economical nothing but they have huge armament industry and raw resources to fuel it. It's not running at even 10th of its capacity but it can run given that you'll push them into war. They'll pay in warbonds and hope they'll rob enough to cover for it, kinda like Germany did back in the times.Otherwise the country isn't worth shit and there wouldn't be a single reason to care about Putin's whims.
As for OP.
NATO had completely missed strategy of stopping soviets in 2 logical strategic points(Fulda gap and I don't remember what else) where they've concentrated their forces. Lucky for them, the war didn't start because Warsaw Pact went for overall coverage, so the troops weren't really focused on those two points.
Warsaw Pact's strategy in case of NATO's attack was to perform tactical withdrawal on Oder or Vistula line, launch amphibious assault in Pommerania, encircle NATO troops and then continue the march to the west.
Whole the time NATO was convinced that they can only delay the conquest of continental Europe while WP was convinced they can conquer it which kinda shows you that it was a result of some simulations and wargames rather than some prophetic visions.
In next post I'll cover what would happen on the sea.
>>1074987
>Eastern Europe was already on the verge of internal fracture by the mid 60's which echoed into the very public revolts of 1968.
You don't seem to understand the way things worked back in the times. I'll just give you example - in 1970 protesters in Polish shipyards had banners saying "yes to socialism, no to abuse". 1980's protests were different.
>>1074987
True there were more Americans than in Vietnam, but that would still be maybe a million Americans vs a much bigger Russian force. At the end of World War 2 they had well over 3 times that. The Russians also put down the revolts quickly and efficiently, so if they started the conflict and moved into Germany, NATO would start out on the backfoot. They could get pretty far into Western Europe before reinforcements came, or until the nukes started flying.
>>1075012
>Are you 100% sure?
How are they going to do it? They'll be fighting the JMSDF, USN and ROKN
>>1075012
>well sure, it's secured, but not if I define secured like this
Stop.
>>1075027
>They'll be fighting the JMSDF, USN and ROKN
That's my point, that poster is being an idiot because he's advocating abandoning any country the US has a defensive commitment to. The Chinese wouldn't need to do much to invade Japan if the USN had no presence in or near its waters.
>>1075012
>That isn't secured, military control during a war
Let me spell it out for you so you can understand:
>Latin American militaries control Latin American countries
>US controls Latin American militaries
>Therefore, the US has military control over Latin America
Fin.
>I wasn't sure what the timeline was for all this.
We're talking about the Cold fucking War. Even then, it doesn't fucking matter in the slightest when it's happening. The Chinese can't do it today and they couldn't do it at any point during the Cold War.
>>1075018
>You don't seem to understand the way things worked back in the times
Allow me to retort: In 1968, the Russians had to call tanks into Prague to stop armed revolt. In 1953, Russians had to call in the Red Army to stop an armed uprising all over East Germany.
>>1075023
It's NATO vs. Combloc and half of the Combloc doesn't even want to be part of the Combloc not the US vs Russia.
>>1075018
>NATO had completely missed strategy of stopping soviets in 2 logical strategic points(Fulda gap and I don't remember what else)
North German plain?
>>1074941
Strategic
>>1075029
I don't understand the situation you think you're dealing with. Do you think nobody in South America will invade anybody else? Do you not think it'll be desirable to have well-trained American soldiers in some of those countries to push back those invasions?
>>1075033
>We're talking about the Cold fucking War
Some of which was 20 years ago.
>>Therefore, the US has military control over Latin America
Sure, but we're talking about a potential invasion by a non-LA military power. I thought that was obvious.
>>1075036
>tactical nuclear weapons (and the potential escalation that comes with them)?
>>1075043
err 25-30 years*
>>1075037
I don't think you know anything about Latin America during the Cold War. Latin American countries rarely if ever invade one another and America has always dominated the political climate there.
>>1075033
You're right, it is Nato vs The Warsaw Pact. But if a war broke out, the eastern europeans would still be contained, and the western europeans and the US soldiers there could only hold out so long against the tide of soldiers they were facing before the US and other Euro countries fully deployed.
>>1075043
>Sure, but we're talking about a potential invasion by a non-LA military power. I thought that was obvious.
No non-LA country is going to throw their full military might into Latin America. Even the French weren't that stupid in the 1860's. Even if they did, LA militaries are fully armed, trained and funded by the US during this period. The US gave so much money to the Guatemalan military during the Cold War they started their own bank and bought Manhattan Real Estate which they used to fund themselves during the Carter funding drought.
>>1075068
Carter didn't do anything right either.
>>1075071
He tried to wake up America from our dream. We should have listened.
>>1075080
>He tried to wake up America from our dream. We should have listened.
He single-handedly fucked American diplomacy with our staunchest allies too. For every "A" Carter gets, he gets another big fat "F".
>>1075018
Strategy on sea was even more reliant on nuclear weapons but you conventionally you've had:
>Baltic being treated as internal Soviet sea after Sweden was put on its knees
>marines being trained in DDR, Poland and USSR and using massive fleet of fast assault boats for amphibious operations(mostly related to disabling Swedish defences and later launching previously mentioned assault on Pomeranian coast)
>large "carrier task force killers" being developed, initially it were rocket-armed destroyers then the concept turned into what became Kirov class rocket cruisers
for USN it went through stages:
>bikini atol trials absolutely proved that a nuke annihilates surface fleet so better screw it completely(obviously it didn't prove shit other than that there was need for collective NBC systems in warships)
>korean war happens, holy crap it would be nice to have our old aircraft carriers and battleships
>korean war ends, everybody still convinced that surface fleet is obsolete
>navy saves their funding by creating "nuclear bomber aircraft carriers" that obviously were just very big ordinary carriers(something they wanted anyway) that could've been theoretically equipped with airplane armed with nuclear bombs [cont in next post]
>>1075033
>Allow me to retort: In 1968, the Russians had to call tanks into Prague to stop armed revolt. In 1953, Russians had to call in the Red Army to stop an armed uprising all over East Germany.
As a result by 1970's 20% of Eastern German civilian population were stasi informers. I'm not kidding, it was the most infiltrated society in the eastern bloc. In Czechoslovakia the "armed revolt" was started by Czechoslovakian government, not by civilians(although they've had popular support) and said government was replaced by Moscow's puppets, which dealt with policing rather well seeing as protests of any kind were rare ever since.
I wouldn't count on eastern bloc being destroyed by revolutions. CIA didn't count on it until 1980's.
>>1075095
>which dealt with policing rather well seeing as protests of any kind were rare ever since
>1970's protests in Poland which culminated into Moscow forced military coup
>1970's protests in Czechoslovakia
Outside of Germany and Hungary, no one wanted to be part of the Combloc. The former out of fear, the latter out of being the happiest little barrack.
>>1075056
Maybe it isn't clear, but I'm assuming that the Soviets will have interests in LA and will send support to their own insurgents there? It's not like there were never socialists in Latin America, the most successful dictators were put in place to shut down socialist movements.
>>1075060
>No non-LA country is going to throw their full military might into Latin America.
I'm not talking about full military might, I'm talking about maybe the Soviets trying to take part of the Strait of Magellan. The Falklands War happened.
>>1075116
>The Falklands War happened
The UK didn't put their full military might into it and they also had the support of the US.
>>1075095
>cont. obviously the whole thing was just a ploy to convince the dumb-asses at DoD to fund new aircraft carriers
>battleships couldn't be saved but Iowa class remained in service
>lighter vessels were limited to corvets, frigates and destroyers(that got light-cruiser big anyway)
>the fleet was focused on what worked during WW2 except with fancier AA weapons and anti-ship missiles being new threat.
>Kirov class unveils, the west is shocked, to counter their threat Reagan reactivates and modernises Iowa class battleships
The overall strategy is little hard to describe because it was heavily nuke-dependant and the conventional use of their fleets would be ground support, commerce defence and some bombing(if possible), there were very few wide-drawn plans like Soviets' did(no wonder the balance at seas was in NATO's favour, no need to try to reinvent the wheel when you have hegemony).
>>1075104
>1970's protests in Poland which culminated into Moscow forced military coup
1970 protests ended up in new communist government with enormous popular support taking over the power in the country. 1976 were largely inconsequential. You're thinking 1980 anon that resulted in short period of liberalisation(but without stopping the cooperation with the rest of Warsaw pact) that ended in a coup that wasn't even Soviet-backed as you've said. They've did it because they didn't want to repeat Czechoslovakia even though Moscow ensured them that they don't plan any interventions. So it was either hunger for power or paranoia.
>>1075119
I never used the phrase "full military might," you illiterate contrarian. I'm leaving this thread anyway, nobody here can even agree on the terms of discussion.
>>1075130
>no more large scale protests
>except these that you pointed out but they don't count because I say
Fuck off.
>>1075141
Yeah, so 1968 students riots meant that western bloc was about to fall apart, right?
Of course not.
The situations like happened in Yugoslavia(where USSR didn't intervene), Hungary(where USSR entered alone) and Czechoslovakia(where they've did full scale WP intervention) were dangerous for the integrity of the block, the remaining ones literally don't count.
>>1075150
They did mean that French society was and still is an unstable mess
>>1075150
What about the martial law in Pooland?
>>1075150
>Yeah, so 1968 students riots meant that western bloc was about to fall apart, right?
The fucking American students weren't trying to get autonomy for their states away from the US. In fact, quite the opposite. Nor were the French riots trying to get autonomy for Paris in fucking France. Strawman as fuck.
>The situations like happened in Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia wasn't even in the fucking Combloc.
>>1075170
>Yugoslavia wasn't even in the fucking Combloc.
At first they were. Then Tito broke out.
>>1075116
America dominated Latin America during the Cold War. That would be even more the case if America forgot about Europe and put all it's resources into securing Latin America.
>>1075083
Which allies were that?
>>1075177
>securing Latin America
Against what? The Soviet interests that I've been explicitly referring to this entire fucking time? You people refuse to read or something, I swear.
>>1075179
Almost every non-European anti-communist country. Predominantly those in Latin America who were in the middle of anti-communist civil conflicts like Argentina, Guatemala and Nicaragua.
>>1074746
>NATO ever have a chance
It would have steamrolled the Soviets at any time based on durability only, the USSR just did not have the economy (nor internal unity and peace in the occupied territories) to sustain a war.
The short answer is no
>>1075173
>Combloc forms in 1955
>Tito split occurs in '48
You're continuing to show your genius.
>>1075198
So why didn't other communist countries split up or accept financial aid from Marshall plan if there wasn't comblock before 1955? Some pacts are not written, I know, shocker.
>>1075183
>Sovietland wasn't interested in Latin America during the Cold War
wat?
>>1075208
>So why didn't other communist countries split up or accept financial aid from Marshall plan if there wasn't comblock before 1955?
Besides the fact of Soviet military domination in their countries?
>Some pacts are not written
I can say emphatically and objectively that there was no Combloc before 1955.
>>1075208
Probably because Russian troops were occupying them and Stalinism exerted more revolutionary influence there? Central and Eastern Europe were basically being de-Nazified at that point.
>>1075220
I never even fucking said that. What are you talking about?
>>1075188
>Carter broke ties with the corrupt shit holes that should have collapsed decades ago if not for the hypocrisy of American interests abroad.
And nothing of value was lost.
>>1075228
>Ending relationships with valuable allies because people who don't have a grasp on foreign policy or economics think they're hypocritical in a way that actually goes so far as to impede the distribution of justice in both countries, somehow
l a d
Do you have a better argument than that?
>>1075220
That's actually correct. They Soviets didn't fund revolutions in the Americas like the US did due to them holding to the ideas of spheres of influence. When Cuba revolted and turned to the Soviets, the Soviets jumped with joy, but they refused to fund the Cuban revolution until after it had succeeded. The Sandinistas also approached the Soviets who turned them down. Almost all communist insurgencies in Latin America were self-funded or funded by the Cubans after 1961.
>>1075228
>implying Taiwan should fall to the PRC just because of some Georgian peanut farmer and a shit for brains on a singaporean woodcarving website
>>1075240
>insurgencies
That's the big issue here, I'm not talking about an insurgency, I'm talking about the Soviets trying to take Panama or Tierra del Fuego to fuck with NATO supply lines.
>>1075237
Supporting dictators instead of allowing popular opinion to run its course is against American ideals and is therefore hypocritical.
inb4
>sometimes you have to act like an asshole in geopolitics therefore you are naive to think we shouldn't abandon every single one of our principles at the drop of a hat
>>1075252
And even then you're still wrong for reasons I've stated throughout this thread but you keep coming back to it. It's as unrealistic of a premise as Red Dawn was.
>>1075270
>Nations aren't individuals, they can't act as hypocrites. Stop pretending everybody is an American citizen.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counter argument unless you are indeed arguing what I inb4ed in the greentext, that nations should never stand by the principles largely inherent to their history and culture.
>>1075240
>Soviets didn't fund revolutions in the Americas
Not a revolution, but Allende was theirs.
>>1075278
You're begging the question by acting as if it's rational to base foreign policy decisions on eliminating "hypocrisy," as you've vaguely defined it (oh, wait, it's yet undefined ITT) and altruism is the foundation of international relationships.
>>1075280
Common myth. Having relations isn't the same as being in bed with. He consistently turned down Soviet advice and even balked at their ideas of military policing. Even then, it was after he was elected which is in no way contrary to my original statement.
>>1075299
Nobody said he was in bed with them.
>>1075313
You said he was theirs. He wasn't. He just had warm relations with them like Mexico and Costa Rica. I'm guessing you're not American since you didn't get the colloquialism.
>>1075286
You are implying the opposite extreme, that nations should NEVER stand by their principles. National mythologies/narratives are what hold countries together, they are what define nations. Stating that democracy is the best form of government and then squelching democracy abroad is not a good long term plan because it undermines the very principles that hold your country together. American domestic policy will regress away from democratic principles if no one actually believes it is the best form of government.
>>1075192
You're seriously underestimating the intensity of a hypothetical WW3 that OP is describing. Industrial capacity only plays a minor role, when you lose 3000 tanks per day.
>>1074746
>in everything but air-power and naval power
For a nuclear war, air and naval matter a fuck-load more than infantry. I'm pretty sure that the Soviet's plan for a real war was to try and capture as many European capitals as soon as possible and basically hold them hostage to sue for peace.
>>1075339
Why not just nuke the airbases as soon as NATO begins setting off tactical nukes to slow the Soviet land invasion?
>>1075322
No I'm not. You're question-begging and have been all along. You don't understand America's principles, anyway, obviously.
>>1074746
Quality Equipment vs QUALITY Equipment
Soviet Union would have lost the war eventually, but not without fucking up poor Europe and the US gets to jack off to the complete economic domination of post-war Europe
>>1075391
>democracy isn't an American principle
>>1075417
This.
In a long conventional conflict the soviets would lose, and europe would be ruined by said conflict which means the US would be even more predominant then it was already.
>>1075443
Not that anon, but I'm sick of this argument going on. Democracy as an American principle has always been one of the City on a Hill. We are not to install democracy abroad, but instead we are supposed to show the uplift of democracy using ourselves as an example while holding steadfastly to realpolitik. This has been upheld with a whopping 3 exceptions: Wilson, FDR, and Carter, who were all VERY controversial presidents. Now shut the fuck up and read your founding fathers actual writings instead of arguing about horseshit on a fucking Mongolian dressage board.
>>1075443
Anon was right though.
Republicanism is a US Principle not Democracy
>>1074746
No they didn't have a chance. Everyone realized that in those times. That is why Soviet union nuclear doctrine was no first use, since they had conventional superiority. Russia's nuclear doctrine now allows for first use precisely because they do not have conventional superiority anymore.
It is mainly due to the fact that USA is behind an ocean, and it would take them too long to mobilize and get in europe in large numbers.
>>1075507
And dictators aren't republican. What are you even on about?
>>1075566
So America has a moral obligation to create republican governments around the world? Or to only associate with republics that don't abuse the human rights of their citizens? What the fuck is your point?
>>1075473
>We are not to install democracy abroad, but instead we are supposed to show the uplift of democracy using ourselves as an example while holding steadfastly to realpolitik.
No one said anything about installing democracies. The discussion is about toppling democracies and keeping unpopular dictators in charge.
>>1075576
>The discussion is about toppling democracies and keeping unpopular dictators in charge
Neither realpolitik nor the idea of City on a Hill have anything against either of these.
>>1075599
Don't make me repeat myself, cunt.
>>1075592
So we are aback at
>sometimes you have to act like an asshole in geopolitics therefore you are naive to think we shouldn't abandon every single one of our principles at the drop of a hat
The principles of a nation come into play in geopolitics.
>>1075607
Why don't you make a better argument instead of calling me names when you fail to convince anybody that you have the slightest idea what you're on about?
>>1075630
>The principles of a nation come into play in geopolitics.
[citation or argument needed]
Your emotions and intuitions do not constitute an argument, nor do Hollywood movies.
>>1075631
Just FYI, that is just a random anon you are talking to.
>>1075634
The values of the citizenry to some extent drive policy in representative governments. Even the most utterly pragmatic politician can't just go against popular opinion whenever he wants.
>>1075630
>every single one of our principles at the drop of a hat
Except the City on a Hill WAS the fucking principle. It is entirely in line with American principles because it WAS the American principle.
>>1075631
Why don't you educate yourself on American history and international principles? Maybe then I won't call you a cunt for being a completely ignorant fuckwad.
>>1075668
>Except the City on a Hill WAS the fucking principle. It is entirely in line with American principles because it WAS the American principle.
You must be misunderstanding me.
America is supposed to be an example but keeping dictators in power to keep nations from following our example defeats the purpose and is detrimental to everyone in the long run.
>>1075655
Woops, didn't screencap the post below like I should of. Oh well.
>>1075684
>but keeping dictators in power to keep nations from following our example defeats the purpose and is detrimental to everyone in the long run
Democratically elected dictators
>>1074746
50s 60s and 70s NATO would get fucking creamed. 80s NATO stood a damn good chance if not being the presumptive winners of a potential straight up conventional fight.
>>1075666
The values of our citizens/contemporary electorate and the values of our Founding Fathers are not the same thing, anon. You're talking about the former.
>>1075699
What part of "realpolitik" are you incapable of comprehending?
>>1075699
The discussion is about dictators that the USA has kept in power that otherwise would have been forced out of office. Virtually any other form of government would have been more similar to the US example than some of the types of governments the US has supported abroad.
>>1075714
I'm talking about the whole. As I've stated, it defeats the purpose of being an example if we coerce nations to not follow the example.
>>1075729
>the whole
No you aren't, you're talking about your knee-jerk assumptions about how people feel. You're spooked as hell, anon.
>>1075737
>spooked
>cuz memes are stupid
I'm going to ignore that for both our sake.
I've already made it very clear how keeping dictators in power at the expense of the expression of popular opinion is in no way following the the principles of America, be it the principles of the founding fathers or the American mythology/narrative that has evolved since then.
But please, explain to me how America is supposed to be an example if we topple governments and support dictators that in no way resemble the American experiment.
>>1075775
>I've already made it very clear
Where?
>But please, explain to me how America is supposed to be an example if we topple governments and support dictators that in no way resemble the American experiment.
You're the one insisting that America is supposed to be the kind of example you're talking about. Nobody here agrees with you on that point. Yes, America is to be a kind of example, but that doesn't mean that its government has to ignore its obligations to its citizens, which include protecting their property rights and the infrastructure needed for the maintenance of this security.
>>1075810
>no one here agrees with you
Even if that were true, ad populum. You shouldn't have even brought it up.
Protecting the interests of the citizenry at the expense of other nations doesn't have to be absolute. I am and have always been arguing that there is value in sticking to principles rather that UTTERLY ignoring principles for the sake of selfish national interests.
>>1075849
>You shouldn't have even brought it up.
Boo hoo.
>Protecting the interests of the citizenry at the expense of other nations doesn't have to be absolute.
At whose expense should they be protected, then?
> I am and have always been arguing that there is value in sticking to principles rather that UTTERLY ignoring principles for the sake of selfish national interests.
Have you ever heard the phrase "bourgeois revolution?" The American revolution had almost nothing to do with the democracy you keep talking about, it produced a republican government that maintained the rights of the rising mercantile class at the expense of those of the Anglo aristocracy and American labor.
America was not an outward-looking country for a very long part of its history. I find it odd that you assume this kind of Wilsonianism was a founding principle of American foreign policy, really.
>>1075877
Willful use of fallacies are used by people who care more about winning an argument than being right. I pointed it out for your sake.
> I am and have always been arguing that there is value in sticking to principles rather that UTTERLY ignoring principles for the sake of selfish national interests.
I don't think you disagree with this so I don't completely know what you are even arguing. I think you may have butted in to the discussion without knowledge of the context or are simply too mixed up to realize there is a middle ground. I think we both agree that principles come into play in geopolitics to at least some degree and that disregarding the principles that define a nation can be destabilizing to at least some degree (for example claiming your country is great because it has X form of government and then not allowing X form of government to succeed abroad).
If we agree on that then it simply becomes a matter discussing foreign policy on a case by case basis. Was the US foreign policy in question during the Cold War justified? Was Carter justified in withdrawing support for very un-American puppet governments?
> The American revolution had almost nothing to do with the democracy you keep talking about, it produced a republican government that maintained the rights of the rising mercantile class at the expense of those of the Anglo aristocracy and American labor.
And for the record, I like that lens for the American revolution.
>>1075972
Not everything is a fallacy. I was merely pointing out that people think you're wrong.
>I don't think you disagree with this so I don't completely know what you are even arguing
I'm correcting your misconceptions about the founding values of our county.
>Was the US foreign policy in question during the Cold War justified? Was Carter justified in withdrawing support for very un-American puppet governments?
I think American policy in the ME and LA did more to exacerbate anti-American sentiments than it did to forward American interests, overall. The CIA got duped into sponsoring the Guatemalan coup for the sake of United Fruit's profits, not for the American public. Central America is fucked now because of bogus policies focusing on destabilization rather than security. I think Carter's was as good a decision as any, as long as we're presupposing that the US is in the position it's always been in, in relation to other LA countries.
>>1076062
>Not everything is a fallacy. I was merely pointing out that people think you're wrong.
Yes, and it is falacious. It has nothing to do with logically proving one side or the other. You can be wrong even if you find one person that disagrees with you. Just FYI.
>I'm correcting your misconceptions about the founding values of our county.
Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
I don't disagree with anything you said about American LA policy.
>>1076096
>You can be wrong even if you find one person that disagrees with you. Just FYI.
I honestly don't care that much.
>Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
It seemed like you were under the impression that our founding principles were based on an anti-colonial utopian universal democratic program, rather than on principles of government noninterference in economic matters, protection of property rights within the bounds of that noninterference, and republican government. You probably understand this, but the argument you were making did not give that impression.
>>1076208
>rather than on principles of government noninterference in economic matters, protection of property rights within the bounds of that noninterference, and republican government.
Those are other American principles. However none of them support the militarily or covertly toppling somewhat American governments or supporting very un-American dictatorial regimes, thus I'm stick by my guns on such policies being a violation of American principles.
That said, I was perhaps being too singular with my characterization of American principles. Given that DEMOCRACY is quite the American meme word I can understand why you would want to point out that America is more complicated than that.
>>1076307
*sticking by my guns
>>1074746
The Soviet Union was a dungheap
the ONLY time they posed a legitimate threat was in the 60s during the Cuban missile crisis
the rest of the time was all smoke and mirrors
a war in Europe would be a clear NATO victory early on because the Soviets were so ill equipped, underfunded, and generally inept, that's why they relied so heavily on nukes and espionage
I like to play pretend sometimes too but the Soviets were seriously a huge joke that went on for far too long
America ALWAYS had the upper hand, at most Russia could have managed a blitz into Germany and to the French border then kept Europe hostage with its nuclear arsenal, but that's a BIG if since the USA was more than equipped to deal with a blitz tank attack.
>>1076328
>a war in Europe would be a clear European victory early on because the Soviets were so ill equipped, underfunded, and generally inept
t. Adolph Hitler
>>1076328
>the ONLY time they posed a legitimate threat was in the 60s during the Cuban missile crisis
When America held massive nuclear superiority?
>>1074864
Another retard who doesnt know shit
>>1076562
another retard who still eats up Cold War propaganda even though we know the truth now
>>1076307
>However none of them support the militarily or covertly toppling somewhat American governments or supporting very un-American dictatorial regimes,
There's your utopianism again. Look into the Founding Fathers' attitude toward Haiti and come back to me.
>>1075443
retard
>>1074746
No, it didn't have any chance whatsoever without nukes.
Hence why USA, Britain and France produced enough of them to discourage invasion. Duh.
After Cuban crisis and American withdrawal from Turkey, both blocks much preferred covert operation and subversive influence game.
Both blocks wanted Europe on their side, not an irradiated shithole populated by marauding survivors that was called France somewhen in the past.
When neither side can have the prize without the other side nuking it into oblivion, open conflict has no sense therefore is impossible.
>>1076625
>that's not really overwhelming superiority at all.
boats cant into land and airplanes are worthless when theres 10 tanks and 5 platoons of infantry at their airfield
>>1076626
Dude, it's not all or nothing. You don't have to completely be pragmatically self serving or completely utopian. I thought we were past this.
>>1076739
I did, too, until you displayed a blatant disregard for the actual principles on which the Founders acted and then started moralizing.
>>1076760
>I [thought we were passed that] too.
You thought we were passed what? You didn't address what I said in my post at all. It's not all or nothing. You don't have to completely be pragmatically self serving or completely utopian.
>>1076787
>Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
My point is not that you're wrong about the application of principles to practice. My point is that you don't know the principles on which this country was founded. I've explained to you several times what they are, and you've agreed with me every time. Now you're just acting as if the content of those principles isn't important, you're sticking to principle as a principle, not to particular principles and their respective content.
>>1076797
I addressed you with
>That said, I was perhaps being too singular with my characterization of American principles. Given that DEMOCRACY is quite the American meme word I can understand why you would want to point out that America is more complicated than that.
If you are actually trying to make an argument instead of pointing out that that America is complex then out with it. The only reason I can understand why you are pushing the point right now is if you are arguing that OTHER American principles, principles I haven't mentioned, SUPPORT toppling governments supporting very un-American dictatorships instead of simply being neutral in regard to such acts.
>>1076823
*and supporting very un-American dicatorships
>>1076823
>Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
I've made it several times.
>Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
Answered in >>1075877. It isn't just "hurr it's complicated XD," it's that you're oversimplifying things and won't accept what you're being told, even though you claim to agree with my analysis.
If you're going to talk about American principles, not universal ethical principles, then you should know the principles enshrined in the Constitution for what they are and for the context they came from. You're arguing from your own convictions, not from the historical record.
>>1076878
Do you realize you keep posting the same greentext?
> It isn't just "hurr it's complicated XD,"
I'm not trying to belittle what you are saying. But you pointing it out literally requires nothing other than acknowledgement. It doesn't go against my argument. You have yet to explain why it would.
>>1076922
>Sorry, but in short what misconception was that again?
My copy function is malfunctioning.
>But you pointing it out literally requires nothing other than acknowledgement
>It doesn't go against my argument
No, but it goes against your narrative, which is factually incorrect, as you now admit. I don't have to explain myself again, I'm not belittling you, I'm telling you were initially wrong as I would anybody on 4chan who confronted me like you did ITT.
>>1074746
No. I also have a report by the Budget Committee (I forget if it was for the House or the Senate) on the comparison of Soviet and American forces (circa 1972) and the history of those comparisons, and they looked pretty bleak for the Americans.
>>1075012
>Literally a giant heap of unexplained and under thought assertions.
>>1076947
Just explain to me what distinctly American principle supports toppling governments and supporting very un-American dictatorships instead of allowing what might be a much more American style of governance to take root? If you aren't arguing that then, as I said, your posts require nothing but an acknowledgement that American principles are complex.
> it goes against your narrative, which is factually incorrect, as you now admit.
What goes against what narrative? Are you saying your statement about the whole Revolutionary War being about the rights of the mercantile class uproots all contrasting narratives? Because it doesn't. That is but one lens to view history, a lens that a lot of people today and throughout American history haven't subscribed to, and the American zeitgeist, the amalgam of principles that we as a whole have, counts for a lot.
>>1076990
An interesting part is also how each side can supply and maintain their forces by logistics, got any information about that?
>in everything but airpower and naval power
>post WW1
>Expecting a conventional military to win a war when they can't maintain control over the skies or the sea
What are you smoking?
>>1074746
>a nu cheeki breeki iv damke
Also yes.
>>1077028
I've explained this multiple times already, I'm not going to do it again.
>That is but one lens
It's one you've accepted ITT, and you probably can't offer a better analysis.
>and the American zeitgeist...counts for a lot
But you're cherrypicking principles. You don't like the ones associated with the defense and maintenance of American economic interests abroad, so you can't wrap your mind around the fact that these are the ones that define our foreign policy. Liberalism isn't just "muh self-determination, muh pacifism, muh anti-imperial progressivism."
>>1077147
>But you're cherrypicking principles.
Which would ONLY be bad if you had principles that supported toppling governments and supporting dictatorships, which you don't.
>It's one you've accepted ITT, and you probably can't offer a better analysis.
It's not the only one. You have to diversify how you view history. It's all about understanding many different perspectives, not finding one and taking it to your grave.
>>1074746
>in everything but airpower and naval power
thats fine by us
>>1077106
I have a DoD report on Soviet military operations, but I don't know if that would include logistics off the top of my head
>>1077168
>if you had principles that supported toppling governments and supporting dictatorships, which you don't.
Holy fucking shit, reread my goddamn posts, it's not that hard to find the places where I point out PROPERTY RIGHTS and NATIONAL SECURITY in relation to MERCANTILE CAPITALISM. Holy fucking shit.
>It's all about understanding many different perspectives, not finding one and taking it to your grave.
It's about finding true narratives and improving our understanding of the world. Don't give me this wishy-washy bullshit. If you have no regard for the search for verisimilitude I think this entire discussion has been a waste.
>>1077519
I'd call the self serving acquisition of wealth at the expense of all other principles more a lack of principles, not a principle unto itself. Furthermore I haven't gone much into the benefits of other American like forms of government succeeding abroad for the stability of America itself. The American experiment would seem less successful if constitutional republics and democracies failed left and right across the world. However if the world is full of successful liberal democracies then the American people have more faith in their own system.
And the soldiers fighting the Revolutionary War on the side of the Americans sure as hell didn't see it as a war to keep merchant's pockets full, so your claim that it is the only lens that matters is wrong right there. Millions of people saw it differently and that has an impact on history. Just because narrative has merit doesn't mean all others are wrong. There are objective facts that fit into narratives, but multiple narratives can coexist. For example WW2 can be seen as a war for resources, or it can be seen as a purely ideological war, or it can be seen the last gasp of popular social darwinism, or hell, it can be seen as underdogs trying to upset the Anglo-American global economic hegemony.
>>1077380
Can you post/link?
>>1077577
>I'd call the self serving acquisition of wealth at the expense of all other principles more a lack of principles,
Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the word means. Thanks for wasting my time.
>>1077604
Open your worldview, man. You seem more occupied with "winning" internet arguments than gaining understanding.
>>1077634
>Open your worldview, man
I have a pretty open mind, I just happen to believe that some propositions can be true. You apparently disagree. Nothing you've said has added to my understanding.
>>1074746
No. NATO didn't have a chance. Soviet motorized armies would blitz deep into NATO territory and surround all NATO army.
Read Luttwak "Strategy: The logic of war and peace", he write about it.
>>1077106
>how each side can supply and maintain their forces by logistics
By trains and trucks?
>>1077643
True? We are talking about narratives. They aren't simply true or false and nothing in between. The fact that some merchants made more money due to independence doesn't mean the war and the entirety of American national history since then has meant nothing else. You are being absurd.
>>1077657
I don't think a Soviet tank column would stand up well to a tactical nuke. Just saying.
>>1077699
>True?
Yes, true, you fucking idiot. You have the power to be wrong.
> The fact that some merchants made more money due to independence doesn't mean the war and the entirety of American national history since then has meant nothing else.
That has never been my point. My point is that you act as if it's invalid and contrary to morality for the country to act on these principles that you dislike because of a knee-jerk reaction to I don't even know what.
>You are being absurd.
You are denying the possibility that you might be incorrect. You have not yet proposed a better narrative than the one I have offered, and which I am telling you is accurate, and which you have agreed is accurate. You have not made an argument. You have emoted, while complaining that I don't "understand" various "perespectives," by which I think you mean your own botched understanding of American history, not any authoritative scholarly work.
Could you please make a proper argument?
>inbr BUT STEFAN IS AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST
I am not advpcating anarcho-capitalism.
>>1077877
>you fucking idiot
wew. I've been frustrated with people on the internet too, but when I stop enjoying a discussion at that point I simply say thanks and leave.
>inb4 "I saw someone else act like an asshole online so it's perfectly fine for me to do it too".
>My point is that you act as if it's invalid and contrary to morality for the country to act on these principles that you dislike because of a knee-jerk reaction to I don't even know what.
I guess I was right when I told you were too mixed up to realize there is a middle ground. I never claimed any such thing.
I've already stated that a LOT of people didn't see the Revolutionary War the way you argue is the ONLY way to see it. You are wrong right out of the gate. There are other narratives. Thomas Paine didn't say the issue was solely about merchants getting bled by the crown. You, are, being, absurd.
>inb4 "recognizing that there are multiple narratives throughout history is tantamount to stating that truth doesn't exist and that I can say anything about any time and it is just as valid"
>>1077972
I saw someone else act like an asshole online so it's perfectly fine for me to do it too
>I've already stated that a LOT of people didn't see the Revolutionary War the way you argue is the ONLY way to see it
It's not the only way, it's just the best description I've encountered in my study of history. As I say, you haven't provided an argument.
Recognizing that there are multiple narratives is one thing, getting butthurt when someone tells you that some are better than others is another.
Do you have a counternarrative to offer? Can you please make an argument?
>>1078017
You are the one claiming that because one narrative is okay that all others are completely false. I would think the absurdity of that goes without saying, but apparently not.
All of this is moot anyway because what the people today believe defines America has a real effect on the utility of foreign policy, as I have said before. If people believe that the the world should adopt liberal democracies and use it's relative universal effectiveness as justification for it's application within the USA then it is detrimental to the stability of the USA for the USA to prevent the spread of liberal democracies.
>>1078083
>You are the one claiming that because one narrative is okay that all others are completely false
Well, if X is true, then X is true. That's the nature of truth. Multiple narratives can be accurate. Some can be false. I'm asking you for a better argument than you've given.
>what the people today believe defines America has a real effect on the utility of foreign policy,
Can you explain why you think this?
> If people believe that the the world should adopt liberal democracies
The people don't believe that, this is neoconservative propaganda.
>>1075018
>In case of war everybody can afford everything.
....
>>1078108
>Can you explain why you think this?
America has a representative government and foreign policy makers aren't utterly insulated from public opinion and thus cannot do solely as they choose. How can you think that foreign policy isn't affected by public opinion? It's almost nothing but putting on airs for the public.
>>1078225
>America has a representative government and foreign policy makers aren't utterly insulated from public opinion and thus cannot do solely as they choose
No, they can't, but it's absurd to think that the public should be consulted on every clause of every treaty, or consulted every time the CIA is sent on a black ops mission. The point of republican government is that the people don't do everything themselves. I'm pretty sure most foreign relations-related activity is assigned to the executive branch, anyway.
>How can you think that foreign policy isn't affected by public opinion? It's almost nothing but putting on airs for the public.
[citation needed]
>>1078253
>it's absurd to think that the public should be consulted on every clause of every treaty
wat
>[citation needed]
Casus Belli for one.
>>1078276
>wat
Exactly what I said, anon. We live in a republic, not a democracy.
>Casus Belli for one.
Sure, there are situations where public opinion matters. I have never denied this. As I said earlier, you've been strawmanning.
>>1078296
>democracy definition. A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
You just fucking asked me for an example of how public opinion affects foreign policy, I gave you an example, and now you are acting like you knew it all along. Are you trolling me?
>>1078352
>and now you are acting like you knew it all along.
Of course I knew it all along. I never contradicted it. The public doesn't have the final say, though, and if you think it should, I want you to make an argument as to why.
>Are you trolling me?
Same question.
>>1078445
You implied that you didn't know by asking me for an exapmle of how the public can affect foreign policy to absolutely any degree and thus you have disingenuously been leading me on.
If you aren't going to take this seriously then I see no reason to continue.
>>1078462
>You implied that you didn't know
Top fucking kek, I've been asking you to make an argument for a very long time. You think asking for an example is tantamount to admitting a lack of knowledge? I don't understand why you think so, I'm just trying to get you to support your claims.
>If you aren't going to take this seriously then I see no reason to continue.
What makes you think I'm not taking this seriously? You're the one that's failed to offer a counternarrative to the one I've offered.
>>1078485
>counter narrative
As I've been saying, there is not such thing. They don't "counter" one another. They supplement one another. The American Revolutionary War was about the right of Americans to expand into the interior of America, about representation of citizens, about the common rights of man, about resisting tyranny...
Now you are going to say you knew this all along but asked for it anyway because reasons. I've already stated why it doesn't even matter due to the realities of how public opinion affects foreign policy. Furthermore, the principles of America have evolved since the Revolutionary War and existed prior to the Revolutionary War, so obsessing over the Revolutionary War is silly. I thought that went without saying too, which you will probably now claim that you understood all along and that doesn't constitute you leading me on because reasons.
>>1078509
>The American Revolutionary War was about the right of Americans to expand into the interior of America, about representation of citizens, about the common rights of man, about resisting tyranny...
You can say that, but what about the material realities of America's class structure and the changes that were happening in the global economy?
>I've already stated why it doesn't even matter due to the realities of how public opinion affects foreign policy. Furthermore, the principles of America have evolved since the Revolutionary War and existed prior to the Revolutionary War, so obsessing over the Revolutionary War is silly. I thought that went without saying too, which you will probably now claim that you understood all along and that doesn't constitute you leading me on because reasons.
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm not the one obsessing over the revolutionary war, you are. I've mentioned events that happened long after it many times; I told you to look into the Founding Fathers' attitude toward Haiti when it gained independence from France, I've mentioned the United Fruit coup in Guatemala--and I've tried to drive home to you that all of this happens in accordance with some of the principles on which this country was founded, which are *not* the same as the ideological motivations of the minority of people who fought in the War of Independence, as you seem to think they are. I honestly don't understand why you're getting upset about this public opinion issue.
>>1078526
Bullshit. I bring up the fact that public opinion affects foreign policy and you ignore the post and go right back asking me questions about the Revolutionary War that you apparently already knew.
>You can say that, but what about the material realities of America's class structure and the changes that were happening in the global economy?
What about it? Are you serioiusly implying that is the only thing we should take into account? Are you going to ignore all the literature leading up to the American Revolution and the Englightenment? Are you going to ignore the perspectives of the people who lived through the revolution? Are you going to ignore the perspective of the revolution of the majority of people that lived after it? THIS IS WHY CONSIDERING MULTIPLE NARRATIVES IS IMPORTANT. There is rarely a "right answer" to such things and to think otherwise is stupidly simplistic. And before you even bring it up, read the previous sentence again. I am not saying that all narratives are equally telling of the period.
>I don't understand what you mean about public opinion.
You have repeatedly lost perspective of what this discussion was originally about, so that doesn't surprise me. The discussion started with the idea that Carter wasn't totally in the wrong for withdrawing support from un-American dictatorships abroad. An anon claimed that there was zero justification for this and that Carter was wrong for considering American principles at all instead of utterly seeking short term American interests, like securing business rights.
>>1074746
>Did NATO ever have a chance to win a conventional conflict in Europe
The only time NATO _didn’t_ have a chance of winning was the 1970s, when the West was in the midst of social upheaval (in large part sponsored by the Soviets) and it’s military was at it’s lowest ebb
>>1074746
Yes, conventional victory was almost a near certainty in the long run. In the immediate future, a potential push to the sea? It's a toss up.
People are very bullish on the raw power of the Red Army, but I don't like their training, readiness, or doctrines. Not that NATO was a shining beacon either, but depending on the era, I like their odds better than most people here.
>>1079938
NATO military is currently at its lowest ever as the biggest army in the alliance lacks basic things like combat engineering vehicles.
>>1074896
>Might as well grab Finland while you're at it, who is going to stop you?
Unless you nuke it, the Finns, with help from the Swedes and Nato spooks coming in from Norway.
>>1080077
Finland had a policy of appeasing USSR, they weren't going to war with them anytime soon. In case of war they'd declare neutrality and let WP military cross the country to enter Sweden.
They knew they can't win anyway.
>>1080058
And the Russians lack a real military.
>>1080086
this
finland is one of the few nations where their current doctrine and military is far more capable than their cold war one
back then political realities and the need to spread acquisitions to both sides really crippled them
>>1074746
>Did NATO ever have a chance to win a conventional conflict in Europe
May understanding of the matter is as follows...
Western nations v USSR 1945 to mid 1948: strongly in favor of Soviets
Western nations/NATO v USSR mid 1948 to 1955: strongly in favor of NATO
NATO v Warsaw Pact 1955 to 1964: moderately in favor of NATO
NATO v Warsaw Pact 1965 to 1967: could go either way
NATO v Warsaw Pact 1968 forwards: In favor of Warsaw Pact
From a USA war game in 1972 they believed that NATO would be kicked out of mainland Europe in 11 to 13 days after the war starts. Why so bleak by then?
>allies had an overwhelming superiority in everything but airpower and naval power
Do to the Soviet generosity with the MiG 21 and the MiG 23 the Warsaw Pact started to have a collectively better air force then NATO in the late 1960s and it only got worst. NATO air to air assets was mostly a mix of F-5A/B Freedom Fighter, F-100 Super Sabre, and F-104 Starfighter by that point. There was a number of efforts to improve that via the F-5E and opening up sales of the F-4 however more was needed. That ended up taking form as the F-16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM
In 1977 the US just said fuck and planned from the start to use tactical nuclear weapons including nuclear land mines in West Germany. It is important to note that even in the event of both sides using tactical nuclear weapons the Warsaw Pact would of still won.Then Ronald Reagan came in office. He did a lot of work on pulling NATO together and on improving the state of the US military. When the US held its yearly war game for 1982 of if the cold war got hot NATO came out as the likely winner in a mostly conventional war.
>>1078569
>Bullshit.
No, not really.
>What about it? Are you serioiusly implying that is the only thing we should take into account?
I'm not, I'm implying that you want to ignore it.
>Are you going to ignore all the literature leading up to the American Revolution and the Englightenment?
No, I've been referring to republican ideals all along. You just don't know what they are.
>Are you going to ignore the perspectives of the people who lived through the revolution? Are you going to ignore the perspective of the revolution of the majority of people that lived after it? THIS IS WHY CONSIDERING MULTIPLE NARRATIVES IS IMPORTANT. There is rarely a "right answer" to such things and to think otherwise is stupidly simplistic. And before you even bring it up, read the previous sentence again. I am not saying that all narratives are equally telling of the period.
I'm about to graduate with a history degree. I've never had a professor tell me anything like this with a straight face. You're trying to compensate for a lack of knowledge by talking about perspective
>The discussion started with the idea that Carter wasn't totally in the wrong for withdrawing support from un-American dictatorships abroad. An anon claimed that there was zero justification for this and that Carter was wrong for considering American principles at all instead of utterly seeking short term American interests, like securing business rights.
And it turned into a discussion about what those principles are. You don't think of "securing business rights" as a fundamental American principle, and I've been trying to explain to you for a long time why you're wrong to ignore it. I'm not denying that people had different experiences in the War of Independence. I'm saying that the principles upon which this country was founded are more complicated than you understand.
Carter was acting on one set of American principles. No American has ever acted on all American principles at once.
>>1074746
I wish nukes didn't exist this would have been the coolest fucking war, actually seeing all the neat hardware from either bloc clashing
>Europe gets fucked up again
Kek would have been great
>>1074985
>China invades Japan
I would have paid fucking money to see THAT absolute shitshow could you even imagine it? They tried to invade Taiwan after the civil war and it was a disaster
