Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
You know you've got LTG on the run when either of these two things happen:
1. "You don't know what the hell you're talking about" makes an appearance multiple times.
2. When he screws up the quote function.
When both happen, you've won.
Are you sure?
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=81http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... -announcedWhat about the deflection regarding my credentials or my sources? At what point does that occur in your little hypothesis?
and the point you completely miss is that the Truman Doctrine was a reactionary move to the aggressive moves made by the Soviets in Poland and across Eastern Europe when they violated the agreements made at Yalta.
My argument was never that the Cold War was fought over Poland. My argument has been that the Soviets were the aggressors when they violated agreements made late in the War to allow free and fair elections in Poland. In doing so they were the aggressors of a Cold War which quickly spread to other regions. This literally made Poland the starting point of the Cold War as it was the first theater where the Soviets seized control via puppet government in violation of their agreements.
My initial argument (which you argued against was this):
"The Cold War was started when the Soviets withdrew a pledge to allow Democratic elections in Poland postwar and turned all of Eastern Europe into either satellite states or annexed them into the Soviet Union."
You tried arguing it stated in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine, yet my entire argument is the events of 1946, taken by the Soviets, are what led to the Truman Doctrine. Remember, Churchill's Iron Curtain speech also predates it by a year as well.
Tell me, if the Soviets don't turn Eastern Europe into a series of satellite states, is there even a Truman Doctrine?
I'd say yes because the U.S. was fearful that Communism might gain a foothold in Central and Western Europe. The Cold War was basically the terms by which the post WWII world would be fought.
The satellites were ceded to the Soviets and it was essentially understood that the Soviets were entitled to that part of the world. U.S. was never going to contest that. They tried to provide aid to a few countries in Eastern Europe and they yelled hell yeah when Tito stood up to Stalin but for the most part they didn't give a damn about Eastern Europe.
U.S. misread Stalin's intentions. Stalin was an asshole know doubt. Killed one his wives and allowed the Germans to kill his son when he probably could have saved him. I'm not advocating for him. I'm simply stating that he wasn't the aggressor during the Cold War.
His aggression was restricted to the Satellites. He ruled them with an iron fist. He didn't attempt to influence matters outside of his sphere of influence.
When you look at U.S. actions during the Cold War you realize that we attempted to influence matters on just about every continent. That's a fact. We also threw our Democratic principals out the window as we implemented policies emphasizing "realistic diplomacy" Silly ass domino theory necessitated that we fight woebegotten nations in far away lands i.e. Vietnam and Korea. Soviet Union had no interest in those countries.
It was essentially a useless War if you want to call it that. The reverberations from it are being felt today in fact.
_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.