PDA

View Full Version : "X" is gone



P.I.M.P.
18-03-2005, 18:04
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050318/ap_on_re_us/obit_kennan

Jet
18-03-2005, 18:12
Wanted to ask, what did this man meant to you as an American?

druna
18-03-2005, 22:03
interesting

koba65
18-03-2005, 23:53
Originally posted by Jet
Wanted to ask, what did this man meant to you as an American?

Most Americans don't know who he is/was. To me, he was the ultimate Soviet expert - predicted the collapse of a corrupt regime when nobody else could even imagine such a scenario.

tbill
19-03-2005, 00:17
Originally posted by koba65
Most Americans don't know who he is/was. To me, he was the ultimate Soviet expert - predicted the collapse of a corrupt regime when nobody else could even imagine such a scenario.

Koba,

Yes, most people will not remember him. I think it would be respectful to say that he wrote his missive when it was very difficult to conceive of the Soviet Union as an adversary. (Although it was apparent within a short period of time) Given our perspective it would be possible to think of the policy of containment as almost surrender. That would be wrong. X's article was prescient because containment was as far as America was prepared to go in the late 1940's. We were tired of Europe's wars. History will show him to be a visionary not only because he understood the true nature of the USSR but because he knew the limits of America's tolerance of perpetual war.

RIP George

Goose0009
19-03-2005, 01:32
Why didn't America follow his lead. Why did we get involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was a war. Korea was a war.

tbill
19-03-2005, 02:14
Originally posted by Goose0009
Why didn't America follow his lead. Why did we get involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was a war. Korea was a war.

Goose,

Preventing war requires the desire to show your enemy that the costs of war are too terrible to bear. Mac was right, the only response to the Chinese invasion was nuclear. It was the right time and the right place in history to show the communist world that the U.S. was willing to use the ultimate weapon to protect its allies.

Peace exists when one side is too strong to conceive of attacking the other. When America refused to dominate, the communists gained the resolve to continue to bring war at the cost of tens of thousands of the U.S.'s allies.

Ned Kelly
19-03-2005, 10:19
Originally posted by tbill
It was the right time and the right place in history to show the communist world that the U.S. was willing to use the ultimate weapon to protect its allies.

i think the us might have made its point at hiroshima. i think your comment in general is bombastic bullsh*t.

koba65
19-03-2005, 10:57
Originally posted by Goose0009
Why didn't America follow his lead. Why did we get involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was a war. Korea was a war.

Vietnam - remember there was a debate about containment in the US. Some believed military containment was a natural compliment to the political containment urged by Kennan. They believed that if we allowed Vietnam to fall to communism, then the rest of the Southeast Asian countries would follow (and if you look at SEA following the war, they could claim to have been right). Another aspect of Vietnam was the US thought they could do a better job than the French did - they were right in regards to the military, but our politicians mismanaged the war and did not allow for a military victory (one that would have ocurred had the military been allowed to wage the war they planned for). Not one battle was lost by US forces - after Tet the N. Vietnamese thought they were finished. They claim to have won the war with the help of US anti-war protestors who would exploit the casualty rates (deaths, etc) of US soldiers in order to force a withdrawal of the forces. The plan by the communists, after realizing military defeat, was to win on the streets of America - get the radical left to convince normal Americans that the war was too costly and then the politicians would sue for peace.

Korea? Stalin encouraged the N. Korean leadership (most of whom were actually Soviet Koreans who lived in the USSR) to invade the South - his thinking was that the rest of the world was too weary from WWII and not politically resolute enough to defend a country miles away from their shores. The Korean War was actually one of the first issues the newly formed UN took part in.

BTW - Soviet MiG-15 fighter pilots, anti-aircraft arty units, etc., fought in the war against the UN forces. In Vietnam, Soviet air defense units and officers also fought against American forces - manning the SAM sites that shot down American planes.

Ned Kelly
19-03-2005, 11:07
Originally posted by koba65
The Korean War was actually one of the first issues the newly formed UN took part in.

and one of the last - it was only fought under the un umbrella through soviet stupidity!

i don't pretend to be really knowledgeable on vietnam but it always seemed to me the north vietnamese had a good bit of nationalism going with their communism. that tends to change the equation in war and the us was never really going to win.

koba65
19-03-2005, 11:31
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
and one of the last - it was only fought under the un umbrella through soviet stupidity!

i don't pretend to be really knowledgeable on vietnam but it always seemed to me the north vietnamese had a good bit of nationalism going with their communism. that tends to change the equation in war and the us was never really going to win.

The sad thing about Vietnam is that Ho Chi Minh actually appealed to the US for help when the French were fighting - the bottom line is they wanted all foreign troops/influence out. Ho picked communism as an ideology to "rally" the troops - unfortunately the US didn't see the opportunity to have in Vietnam a leader along the lines of Tito, i.e., one willing to tell the Sovs (and in Vietnam's case - the Chicoms) to get bent. Archival documents in Russia show that the Vietnamese weren't that cozy with the Sovs - regardless of the amount of aid and military support that was being provided. The N. Vietnamese did a good job exploiting the problems between the Chinese and the Soviets. And, not too long after the DRV became the SRV the Vietnamese cleaned the clocks of the Chinese.

tbill
19-03-2005, 13:32
Yes Ned, bombastic but not BS. Given what we know about former communist countries turning against communism I can't say that Soviet domination was all bad. Maybe if more of Europe had fallen to the communists and they had to live in deprevation they wouldn't tolerate double digit unemplyment and oppressive regulation.

I do not think the US could have maintained the nuclear monopoly. Setting a precedent of not using nukes was probably the right thing to do.

Ned Kelly
19-03-2005, 16:37
agree koba, that really was a shame. the moral of the story is one should never pass up an opportunity to do the right thing (help end colonialism and assist fellow fighters against the japs). and one should never ever pass it up if it involves inflicting further wounds on french national pride after their disgraceful second world war collabroation!

t-bill, pending fatherhood is turning you into a pussycat! where's your fighting spirit?

tbill
19-03-2005, 19:41
Yeah Ned,

Damn this humanity seeping into my counsciousness!