Yeah, which is odd because of how far reaching and topical the consequences are. That and the fact that the US gov seriously considered nuking China at one point.
Could be explained by the fact that it wasn't really our finest hour militarily, there was very few territorial changes and despite a ton of deaths (especially for China and both Koreas) there was little movement in the latter part of the war, giving people the impression that it was a "boring trench war like WWI".
The battles weren't even the worst of it. There were the traps, the random sniper attacks, the heat (hot enough for "crotch-pot cookin"), the rain, the constant tension of being in an country where everyone and everything seems to hate your guts and above all else, the endless boredom and drudgery.
It's telling that heroin caused far more causalities than the enemy.
Hahahaha, awesome story!
Yeah, my teachers were completely honest with me about The Vietnam War and how my country were the bad guys.
The horrible photos released to the public are only a fraction of the terrors those battles held.
I know...the war cost the US 37k...and no one really knows how many Chinese and North and South Koreans died....and not to forget the 20 other UN countries. It was a low period...but at the same time...I feel it was a moment when the US decided that unilateral Nuclear strikes were not the way to do things. If we had of Nuked China...we would have not stopped until Russia was taken out as well....and the US had the means to do it with Superior Fighters protecting the bombers. I think it was a win for humanity and the soul of a nation.
Yeah, which is odd because of how far reaching and topical the consequences are. That and the fact that the US gov seriously considered nuk… moreing China at one point.
Could be explained by the fact that it wasn't really our finest hour militarily, there was very few territorial changes and despite a ton of deaths (especially for China and both Koreas) there was little movement in the latter part of the war, giving people the impression that it was a "boring trench war like WWI".
I liked studying World War II, but since its been brought up I'll go to the next war that really interested me:
GOOOOOOOOOD MORNING V… moreIETNAAAAAAM!
Absolutely terrible war, but I always got a little excited when we got to this in class because it was just so intriguing to me. Vietnam music is one of my favorite subgenres of music, and I like hearing the stories and such too. Who else feels the same?
Name a country that is strong that has never backed monsters...it is the way things work...you work with whomever will cut a deal...usually a bastard son of a bitch....but he becomes our son of a bitch.
Thought better of this and deleted it. Don't want this thread to get locked because of political arguments. Feel free to respond to the original post via PM, if ya like.
Name a country that is strong that has never backed monsters...it is the way things work...you work with whomever will cut a deal...usually a bastard son of a bitch....but he becomes our son of a bitch.
A lot of people accept our government's responsibility. The point of disagreement is between those who think it was necessary/desirable and those who don't. I don't.
A lot of people accept our government's responsibility. The point of disagreement is between those who think it was necessary/desirable and those who don't. I don't.
I dunno really. There's some common arguments used to justify it, though.
Argument 1 is that "the commies would've killed more." This is plausible but unlikely. Most of the socialists we toppled or kept out of power were Democratic Socialists or Catholics involved with liberation theology. (Except for FARC, who were pretty committed to Stalinism and revolutionary terror). For the most part, they wanted pretty modest reforms like redstribution of land and nationalization of some industries. Later on, the Bolivarian Revolution swept South America and there was relatively little violence.
Argument 2 is that the US couldn't allow the Soviets to gain more of a foothold near our homefront. This is also dubious IMO. By the time socialists really started to gain a foothold in Latin America, we were in Detente with the Soviets, who were already starting to buckle and fail economically and militarily. They weren't really in any shape to carve up an empire in Latin America, even if they wanted to. Soviet support to groups like the Sandinistas was never enough to really help them fight the US-backed forces. Even if they had gotten their commie foothold in Latin America, what could they do with it? I don't think it would've posed any serious threat to our sovereignty or security. I think the government was mostly worried by the threat the Latin American left might pose to our big companies who had plantations and factories in those countries.
Yes and no. Modern history already takes into account every available source, no matter the country of origin or the validity of it, and then a conclusion is made based on the most likely seeming possiblity. Which leads to the no part: we simply don't have enough reliable sources to form a 100% accurate depiction of the past. There's always guesswork involved to some degree or another.
I'm totally following this thread.
Question: In different countries, history is taught differently. Is it possible to make a true image of world history taking into account all the different versions?
Of course it was! Suck it Brits! 1777 was best year!
Would things be THAT different if we decided not to revolt against the British crown?
Westward expansion wouldn't have been so soon and rapid, slavery would've been abolished much sooner, and the lack of an independent America until the 1860's (when Canada became Independent) would most likely completly alter our government, not to mention all of the stuff that went into fruition because of the Revolution and American independence as a whole. The French Revolution, and by extension, the Napoleonic Wars were caused in great deal because of the American Revolution. The abolition of slavery happening back in 1833 (unless it triggered it) would stop the Civil War from happening. The Mexican-American War might not have happened, and if it did happen, it would've played out differently. American expeditions may or may not have happened. The War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. We most likely would've fought in the Boer Wars, and would've entered the World Wars soon after Britain.
On top of that, losing the United States played a large roll in Britain investing so much into further colonial ventures. I mean, they still would have done it, but possibly not with the tenacity they showed when the did. Besides, the war killed 50,000 - 98,000 people. One of them could've been the next great inventor or possibly a tyrant we had yet to see. Butterfly effect and all that.
Perhaps french revolution would not be a thing if American revolution did not happen as you say.
Economical context is one of the reason of the revolution and France would not be in debt for fees of wars if she didn't help you.
But it would still happen: Louis XVI was weak as shit, people would keep speculating on foods and since two centuries the parliaments were strongly against royalty. It's them who were against all changes, leading to the revolution.
As for Napoléon he would still be a thing: he was in his childhood motivated in the Corsican revolution made by Paoli, never by the American one.
Now would have he been that high? Maybe not. His campaign of Italy was created thanks to the trust of Augustin Robespierre and some people years later as Barras (this campaign was seen as his "dot" for marrying Joséphine)
Was the Revolutionary War worth it?
Of course it was! Suck it Brits! 1777 was best year!
Would things be THAT different if we … moredecided not to revolt against the British crown?
Westward expansion wouldn't have been so soon and rapid, slavery would've been abolished much sooner, and the lack of an independent America until the 1860's (when Canada became Independent) would most likely completly alter our government, not to mention all of the stuff that went into fruition because of the Revolution and American independence as a whole. The French Revolution, and by extension, the Napoleonic Wars were caused in great deal because of the American Revolution. The abolition of slavery happening back in 1833 (unless it triggered it) would stop the Civil War from happening. The Mexican-American War might not have happened, and if it did happen, it would've played out differently. American expeditions may or may not have happened. Th… [view original content]
Cuba sorta went a ways to help the US determine that it needed to be more proactive in central and south America. Not saying it was right or even just...but it is a real consideration.
I dunno really. There's some common arguments used to justify it, though.
Argument 1 is that "the commies would've killed more." This i… mores plausible but unlikely. Most of the socialists we toppled or kept out of power were Democratic Socialists or Catholics involved with liberation theology. (Except for FARC, who were pretty committed to Stalinism and revolutionary terror). For the most part, they wanted pretty modest reforms like redstribution of land and nationalization of some industries. Later on, the Bolivarian Revolution swept South America and there was relatively little violence.
Argument 2 is that the US couldn't allow the Soviets to gain more of a foothold near our homefront. This is also dubious IMO. By the time socialists really started to gain a foothold in Latin America, we were in Detente with the Soviets, who were already starting to buckle and fail economically and militarily. They weren't really in any shape to … [view original content]
I dunno really. There's some common arguments used to justify it, though.
Argument 1 is that "the commies would've killed more." This i… mores plausible but unlikely. Most of the socialists we toppled or kept out of power were Democratic Socialists or Catholics involved with liberation theology. (Except for FARC, who were pretty committed to Stalinism and revolutionary terror). For the most part, they wanted pretty modest reforms like redstribution of land and nationalization of some industries. Later on, the Bolivarian Revolution swept South America and there was relatively little violence.
Argument 2 is that the US couldn't allow the Soviets to gain more of a foothold near our homefront. This is also dubious IMO. By the time socialists really started to gain a foothold in Latin America, we were in Detente with the Soviets, who were already starting to buckle and fail economically and militarily. They weren't really in any shape to … [view original content]
USA wouldn't exist. The world would be a better place.
But, the Revolutions in Latin America were inspired by the French Revolution (after Napoleon fucked Spain up we wanted our own goverment, that's when revolution starts), and the Northern American Revolution DID have its impact in the French Revolution... maybe Latin America would still be a spanish colony, serving a monarchy, the natives beig murdered or treated like animals, the natural resources exploitated and being fucked over and over again... kinda like right now, actually.
One thing that hasn't be touched on is how it would've affected manifest destiny. One cause of the Revolutionary War was that Britain was blocking further expansion into the Ohio River Valley. This was bad news for the founders, many of whom were involved with or invested in land speculation. After American independence, that area was colonized and the Native Americans living there were mostly wiped out or forced to retreat further west. If America lost, who knows when, or if the westward expansion would've happened? Good news for the Natives, I guess. It would've bought them some time, at least.
It also would've had big economic effects. Onr unique thing about America is that the cost of labor was very high for most of our history. In Europe, most of the peasantry and small landowners had been stripped of their land and forced into wage labor, by the late 1700's. But in America, there was so much rich, empty land that people who didn't want to be part of the labor force could be pioneers or homesteaders in the west. As I said, this drive up the price of labor, which is what attracted the immigrants and made urban American workers better off than most in the 1800's.
Without the frontier, Americans would have been proletarianized much sooner than we were (about 1880-1920), even more so if slavery was abolished (as it probably would've been). I think ad-hoc, illegal settlement of the frontier would still happen, but it might not have been such a mass movement of people. American workers would've likely suffered similar abject poverty to those in Europe, which would've prevented the waves of immigration later on.
I think it more showed the folly of turning nations into Americam puppets and propping up wildly unpopular dictators. I think our pseudo-colonial policies pushed Cuba right into the arms of Marxism and our attacks on its soveriegnty afterward pushed them into the arms of the Soviet Union.
Cuba sorta went a ways to help the US determine that it needed to be more proactive in central and south America. Not saying it was right or even just...but it is a real consideration.
USA: The solution is kill millions of innocent people that had nothing to do with anything, like, at all.
This is where your argument turns into a strawman. The government did callously wrote off deaths from the white terror as "unfortunate but necessary". However, the killing was never an end in itself.
What I'm trying to get across is that those interventions in Latin America were sold to the American public as humanitarian efforts to "stop the murderous reds".
USA: Commies will kill more people we have nothing to do with, like, at all.
USA: (Even if only Stanlin's ideology is the bad one, and th… moree rest is capitalist propaganda made by us)
USA: The solution is kill millions of innocent people that had nothing to do with anything, like, at all.
USA: We're the best country ever
Eh, it would explain why the bullshit, Trump's dick-sucking president we have now in Argentina is trying to take away the severity of the genocide. Fuck these guys.
USA: The solution is kill millions of innocent people that had nothing to do with anything, like, at all.
This is where your argumen… moret turns into a strawman. The government did callously wrote off deaths from the white terror as "unfortunate but necessary". However, the killing was never an end in itself.
What I'm trying to get across is that those interventions in Latin America were sold to the American public as humanitarian efforts to "stop the murderous reds".
I think it's stupid... didn't these guys try to get away from British idealism and systems? Like why are they bff? America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man and with freedom is like total freedom, moral freedom. And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine? like, what? And this obsession with being "Great" ugh i don't get it
I'm not that good at history to understand why we became friends BUT if I'm right which I most likely am not it had something to do with one of the world wars.
I think it's stupid... didn't these guys try to get away from British idealism and systems? Like why are they bff? America is so contradicto… morery, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man and with freedom is like total freedom, moral freedom. And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine? like, what? And this obsession with being "Great" ugh i don't get it
I'm not that good at history to understand why we became friends BUT if I'm right which I most likely am not it had something to do with one of the world wars.
The short version is that both countries are strong, and it's nice to have strong allies, especially if said ally shares your language and has cultural similarities.
America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight
Do you mean right after independence? Because if so, then you'd be right, but thats a bit much to say that is how it is right now. Last I checked, Women and non-whites have the same rights, and progress is being made with the LGBT community. The Civil Rights Movement was 50 years ago.
And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine?
Eh, we really just didn't like that Britain could tax us without us having any say in it. Taxation without representation and all that.
I think it's stupid... didn't these guys try to get away from British idealism and systems? Like why are they bff? America is so contradicto… morery, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man and with freedom is like total freedom, moral freedom. And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine? like, what? And this obsession with being "Great" ugh i don't get it
Do you mean right after independence? Because if so, then you'd be right, but thats a bit much to say that is how it is right now. Last I checked, Women and non-whites have the same rights, and progress is being made with the LGBT community. The Civil Rights Movement was 50 years ago.
Tell that to the president. I know things are better than 50 years old, but the fight is not over, yet.
The short version is that both countries are strong, and it's nice to have strong allies, especially if said ally shares your language and h… moreas cultural similarities.
America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight
Do you mean right after independence? Because if so, then you'd be right, but thats a bit much to say that is how it is right now. Last I checked, Women and non-whites have the same rights, and progress is being made with the LGBT community. The Civil Rights Movement was 50 years ago.
And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine?
Eh, we really just didn't like that Britain could tax us without us having any say in it. Taxation without representation and all that.
I agree, more progress is to be made, but there's a difference in saying that more can be done and then saying: "America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man," which implies that Jim Crowe Laws are still a thing or some shit.
Phrasing is important, is what I'm getting at.
EDIT: I feel like I came off a bit hostile, but that wasn't the intention. Sorry about that.
Do you mean right after independence? Because if so, then you'd be right, but thats a bit much to say that is how it is right now. Last I ch… moreecked, Women and non-whites have the same rights, and progress is being made with the LGBT community. The Civil Rights Movement was 50 years ago.
Tell that to the president. I know things are better than 50 years old, but the fight is not over, yet.
Hey so I've got an analysis task for History and I was wondering if anyone had an English translation of any Russian or Soviet articles regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? Wanna try and get both sides. Thanks.
Hey so I've got an analysis task for History and I was wondering if anyone had an English translation of any Russian or Soviet articles regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? Wanna try and get both sides. Thanks.
You do know why first hand accounts are hard to come by? A purge of the USSR's Military Intelligence Bureau took place in the aftermath....anyone with firsthand knowledge of who ordered what and when and why were relocated to new positions in an unmarked mass grave in Siberia...not all of them of course...but it does seem there were scapegoats aplenty.
I think a Second Korean War, if triggered at all, will be because North Korea launches a nuke at another country, probably either South Korea, Japan, or (big IF on this one) the United States. If that's the trigger, then I'm pretty much certain the international community will gang bang North Korea. I'm pretty sure not even China would help them at that point, but I'm not so sure China would sit back and allow a unified Korea to be established under the South Korean government.
I, of course, could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Yeah...if they do that...sure....but there is major difference between having a missile and shrinking a nuke to fit on it.
If Trump attacks North Korea...it becomes even money that China will have to retaliate....North Korea while an insane mess does serve as a buffer between a Pro West South Korea and China. This buffer is very important.
I think a Second Korean War, if triggered at all, will be because North Korea launches a nuke at another country, probably either South Kore… morea, Japan, or (big IF on this one) the United States. If that's the trigger, then I'm pretty much certain the international community will gang bang North Korea. I'm pretty sure not even China would help them at that point, but I'm not so sure China would sit back and allow a unified Korea to be established under the South Korean government.
I, of course, could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
A purge of the USSR's Military Intelligence Bureau took place in the aftermath....anyone with firsthand knowledge of who ordered what and when and why were relocated to new positions in an unmarked mass grave in Siberia...
Source? Particularly about the mass graves part. Afaik, the last high-level official to be purged and shot was Laventiy Beria.
But yeah, I'm sure some poor motherfuckers lost their careers and spent quality time in Murmansk for that. I was more referring to press accounts, like Pravda or something. News was still pretty heavily censored, so they probably didn't cover it or heavily censored it.
You do know why first hand accounts are hard to come by? A purge of the USSR's Military Intelligence Bureau took place in the aftermath....… moreanyone with firsthand knowledge of who ordered what and when and why were relocated to new positions in an unmarked mass grave in Siberia...not all of them of course...but it does seem there were scapegoats aplenty.
Yeah...that is strange that Pravda and Red Star did not have anything...especially Red Star....however it could be that because there was no graceful way out of the situation it was ignored.
A purge of the USSR's Military Intelligence Bureau took place in the aftermath....anyone with firsthand knowledge of who ordered what and wh… moreen and why were relocated to new positions in an unmarked mass grave in Siberia...
Source? Particularly about the mass graves part. Afaik, the last high-level official to be purged and shot was Laventiy Beria.
But yeah, I'm sure some poor motherfuckers lost their careers and spent quality time in Murmansk for that. I was more referring to press accounts, like Pravda or something. News was still pretty heavily censored, so they probably didn't cover it or heavily censored it.
Without a doubt. Unless North Korea is the agressor via Nuke, China will most likely come to North Korea's aid. I doubt the U.S. will be the agressor if war is to happen with North Korea. If a Second Korean War is to happen, it's going to be a bloody one, and everybody knows that. I know Trump isn't exactly regarded as a genius, but I have faith that even he knows that being the agressor is a bad idea. Even if he doesn't, plenty of people do, and I can't see them letting him do that.
Yeah...if they do that...sure....but there is major difference between having a missile and shrinking a nuke to fit on it.
If Trump attac… moreks North Korea...it becomes even money that China will have to retaliate....North Korea while an insane mess does serve as a buffer between a Pro West South Korea and China. This buffer is very important.
Comments
Seems Topical...how about The Korean War...everyone seems to ignore it in America for some reason.
Yeah, which is odd because of how far reaching and topical the consequences are. That and the fact that the US gov seriously considered nuking China at one point.
Could be explained by the fact that it wasn't really our finest hour militarily, there was very few territorial changes and despite a ton of deaths (especially for China and both Koreas) there was little movement in the latter part of the war, giving people the impression that it was a "boring trench war like WWI".
The battles weren't even the worst of it. There were the traps, the random sniper attacks, the heat (hot enough for "crotch-pot cookin"), the rain, the constant tension of being in an country where everyone and everything seems to hate your guts and above all else, the endless boredom and drudgery.
It's telling that heroin caused far more causalities than the enemy.
I know...the war cost the US 37k...and no one really knows how many Chinese and North and South Koreans died....and not to forget the 20 other UN countries. It was a low period...but at the same time...I feel it was a moment when the US decided that unilateral Nuclear strikes were not the way to do things. If we had of Nuked China...we would have not stopped until Russia was taken out as well....and the US had the means to do it with Superior Fighters protecting the bombers. I think it was a win for humanity and the soul of a nation.
Isn't that WWI?
Do people in the outside world recognise that it was the United States the ones that encouraged the dictatorship of the 70' in Latin America?
Name a country that is strong that has never backed monsters...it is the way things work...you work with whomever will cut a deal...usually a bastard son of a bitch....but he becomes our son of a bitch.
Nah, the soldiers are holding M16's, it's Vietnam.
Thought better of this and deleted it. Don't want this thread to get locked because of political arguments. Feel free to respond to the original post via PM, if ya like.
A lot of people accept our government's responsibility. The point of disagreement is between those who think it was necessary/desirable and those who don't. I don't.
Who could ever think that it was "nessesary"? Millions of people were murdered!
I dunno really. There's some common arguments used to justify it, though.
Argument 1 is that "the commies would've killed more." This is plausible but unlikely. Most of the socialists we toppled or kept out of power were Democratic Socialists or Catholics involved with liberation theology. (Except for FARC, who were pretty committed to Stalinism and revolutionary terror). For the most part, they wanted pretty modest reforms like redstribution of land and nationalization of some industries. Later on, the Bolivarian Revolution swept South America and there was relatively little violence.
Argument 2 is that the US couldn't allow the Soviets to gain more of a foothold near our homefront. This is also dubious IMO. By the time socialists really started to gain a foothold in Latin America, we were in Detente with the Soviets, who were already starting to buckle and fail economically and militarily. They weren't really in any shape to carve up an empire in Latin America, even if they wanted to. Soviet support to groups like the Sandinistas was never enough to really help them fight the US-backed forces. Even if they had gotten their commie foothold in Latin America, what could they do with it? I don't think it would've posed any serious threat to our sovereignty or security. I think the government was mostly worried by the threat the Latin American left might pose to our big companies who had plantations and factories in those countries.
Was the Revolutionary War worth it? Would things be THAT different if we decided not to revolt against the British crown?
Yes and no. Modern history already takes into account every available source, no matter the country of origin or the validity of it, and then a conclusion is made based on the most likely seeming possiblity. Which leads to the no part: we simply don't have enough reliable sources to form a 100% accurate depiction of the past. There's always guesswork involved to some degree or another.
Of course it was! Suck it Brits! 1777 was best year!
Westward expansion wouldn't have been so soon and rapid, slavery would've been abolished much sooner, and the lack of an independent America until the 1860's (when Canada became Independent) would most likely completly alter our government, not to mention all of the stuff that went into fruition because of the Revolution and American independence as a whole. The French Revolution, and by extension, the Napoleonic Wars were caused in great deal because of the American Revolution. The abolition of slavery happening back in 1833 (unless it triggered it) would stop the Civil War from happening. The Mexican-American War might not have happened, and if it did happen, it would've played out differently. American expeditions may or may not have happened. The War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. We most likely would've fought in the Boer Wars, and would've entered the World Wars soon after Britain.
On top of that, losing the United States played a large roll in Britain investing so much into further colonial ventures. I mean, they still would have done it, but possibly not with the tenacity they showed when the did. Besides, the war killed 50,000 - 98,000 people. One of them could've been the next great inventor or possibly a tyrant we had yet to see. Butterfly effect and all that.
Perhaps french revolution would not be a thing if American revolution did not happen as you say.
Economical context is one of the reason of the revolution and France would not be in debt for fees of wars if she didn't help you.
But it would still happen: Louis XVI was weak as shit, people would keep speculating on foods and since two centuries the parliaments were strongly against royalty. It's them who were against all changes, leading to the revolution.
As for Napoléon he would still be a thing: he was in his childhood motivated in the Corsican revolution made by Paoli, never by the American one.
Now would have he been that high? Maybe not. His campaign of Italy was created thanks to the trust of Augustin Robespierre and some people years later as Barras (this campaign was seen as his "dot" for marrying Joséphine)
Cuba sorta went a ways to help the US determine that it needed to be more proactive in central and south America. Not saying it was right or even just...but it is a real consideration.
USA: Commies will kill more people we have nothing to do with, like, at all.
USA: (Even if only Stanlin's ideology is the bad one, and the rest is capitalist propaganda made by us)
USA: The solution is kill millions of innocent people that had nothing to do with anything, like, at all.
USA: We're the best country ever
USA wouldn't exist. The world would be a better place.
But, the Revolutions in Latin America were inspired by the French Revolution (after Napoleon fucked Spain up we wanted our own goverment, that's when revolution starts), and the Northern American Revolution DID have its impact in the French Revolution... maybe Latin America would still be a spanish colony, serving a monarchy, the natives beig murdered or treated like animals, the natural resources exploitated and being fucked over and over again... kinda like right now, actually.
I love the way the US and UK were enemies but now we're bff's
Things would be very different.
One thing that hasn't be touched on is how it would've affected manifest destiny. One cause of the Revolutionary War was that Britain was blocking further expansion into the Ohio River Valley. This was bad news for the founders, many of whom were involved with or invested in land speculation. After American independence, that area was colonized and the Native Americans living there were mostly wiped out or forced to retreat further west. If America lost, who knows when, or if the westward expansion would've happened? Good news for the Natives, I guess. It would've bought them some time, at least.
It also would've had big economic effects. Onr unique thing about America is that the cost of labor was very high for most of our history. In Europe, most of the peasantry and small landowners had been stripped of their land and forced into wage labor, by the late 1700's. But in America, there was so much rich, empty land that people who didn't want to be part of the labor force could be pioneers or homesteaders in the west. As I said, this drive up the price of labor, which is what attracted the immigrants and made urban American workers better off than most in the 1800's.
Without the frontier, Americans would have been proletarianized much sooner than we were (about 1880-1920), even more so if slavery was abolished (as it probably would've been). I think ad-hoc, illegal settlement of the frontier would still happen, but it might not have been such a mass movement of people. American workers would've likely suffered similar abject poverty to those in Europe, which would've prevented the waves of immigration later on.
I think it more showed the folly of turning nations into Americam puppets and propping up wildly unpopular dictators. I think our pseudo-colonial policies pushed Cuba right into the arms of Marxism and our attacks on its soveriegnty afterward pushed them into the arms of the Soviet Union.
But I kinda see where you're coming from.
This is where your argument turns into a strawman. The government did callously wrote off deaths from the white terror as "unfortunate but necessary". However, the killing was never an end in itself.
What I'm trying to get across is that those interventions in Latin America were sold to the American public as humanitarian efforts to "stop the murderous reds".
Sounds like bullshit.
Eh, it would explain why the bullshit, Trump's dick-sucking president we have now in Argentina is trying to take away the severity of the genocide. Fuck these guys.
I think it's stupid... didn't these guys try to get away from British idealism and systems? Like why are they bff? America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man and with freedom is like total freedom, moral freedom. And then they hate british ideals and now it's fine? like, what? And this obsession with being "Great" ugh i don't get it
I'm not that good at history to understand why we became friends BUT if I'm right which I most likely am not it had something to do with one of the world wars.
Uh, yeah. It probably had something to do with that.
The short version is that both countries are strong, and it's nice to have strong allies, especially if said ally shares your language and has cultural similarities.
Do you mean right after independence? Because if so, then you'd be right, but thats a bit much to say that is how it is right now. Last I checked, Women and non-whites have the same rights, and progress is being made with the LGBT community. The Civil Rights Movement was 50 years ago.
Eh, we really just didn't like that Britain could tax us without us having any say in it. Taxation without representation and all that.
Tell that to the president. I know things are better than 50 years old, but the fight is not over, yet.
I agree, more progress is to be made, but there's a difference in saying that more can be done and then saying: "America is so contradictory, they're like FREEDOM unless you're not white american cis straight man," which implies that Jim Crowe Laws are still a thing or some shit.
Phrasing is important, is what I'm getting at.
EDIT: I feel like I came off a bit hostile, but that wasn't the intention. Sorry about that.
Hey so I've got an analysis task for History and I was wondering if anyone had an English translation of any Russian or Soviet articles regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis? Wanna try and get both sides. Thanks.
Here's what Nikita Krushchev's son had to say about it.
I also found this. First hand accounts are hard to come by unfortunately.
You do know why first hand accounts are hard to come by? A purge of the USSR's Military Intelligence Bureau took place in the aftermath....anyone with firsthand knowledge of who ordered what and when and why were relocated to new positions in an unmarked mass grave in Siberia...not all of them of course...but it does seem there were scapegoats aplenty.
[removed]
I think a Second Korean War, if triggered at all, will be because North Korea launches a nuke at another country, probably either South Korea, Japan, or (big IF on this one) the United States. If that's the trigger, then I'm pretty much certain the international community will gang bang North Korea. I'm pretty sure not even China would help them at that point, but I'm not so sure China would sit back and allow a unified Korea to be established under the South Korean government.
I, of course, could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Yeah...if they do that...sure....but there is major difference between having a missile and shrinking a nuke to fit on it.
If Trump attacks North Korea...it becomes even money that China will have to retaliate....North Korea while an insane mess does serve as a buffer between a Pro West South Korea and China. This buffer is very important.
Source? Particularly about the mass graves part. Afaik, the last high-level official to be purged and shot was Laventiy Beria.
But yeah, I'm sure some poor motherfuckers lost their careers and spent quality time in Murmansk for that. I was more referring to press accounts, like Pravda or something. News was still pretty heavily censored, so they probably didn't cover it or heavily censored it.
Yeah...that is strange that Pravda and Red Star did not have anything...especially Red Star....however it could be that because there was no graceful way out of the situation it was ignored.
Without a doubt. Unless North Korea is the agressor via Nuke, China will most likely come to North Korea's aid. I doubt the U.S. will be the agressor if war is to happen with North Korea. If a Second Korean War is to happen, it's going to be a bloody one, and everybody knows that. I know Trump isn't exactly regarded as a genius, but I have faith that even he knows that being the agressor is a bad idea. Even if he doesn't, plenty of people do, and I can't see them letting him do that.