Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladstone
And that the primary political objectives* of the Capitalist and Red ideologies, with their respective individualistic and collectivistic slants** regarding those same objectives, were and are identical. What else could explain that when the bastion of Capitalism, the United States, had in its grasps the power to conquer Communism in the immediate post WWII world, and some apparently believing their government's 'Cold War' rhetoric attempted to act on this, were blocked at every turn? Patton for instance winds up dead in a freak auto accident, MacArthur is cashiered, McCarthy is politically destroyed. Similarly what could explain when the Soviet Union at the seeming heighth of its power in the 1980's, when it appeared to be on the verge of having the world under its power, dismantles itself from the top down. This is said to have been brought about by US economic pressure, which might well be so, but if it was so easy to bring down Communism, why wasn't this done 60 years before? After all, the US dominated the world economically then just as today. However, once a person gets past the rhetoric, you will find that in general the US/UK was quite active in being economically supportive of the reds.
|
Ah, the good old phony Cold War. Maybe one day when the circumstances in the world and the whole structure of power change, some new documents will be unearthed from dusty archives, that will demask completely this gigantic fraud of the so-called ideological confrontation between East and West.
The funny thing is that the very ideology against which the liberal capitalistic world supposedly fought, namely, Marxism, is of prominently Western origin. Communism is nothing else than the application, to their furthest limits, of the original premises of the ideology of the French (and American) Revolution, the most radicalized version of the Enlightenment philosophy.
It is also noteworthy a fact that during this farcical and surealistic confrontation between East and West, Marxism thrived in the Western intellectual circles and in the Academia. Not only in Academia, but also many prominent Marxists were employed as state officials in very important positions. A very illustrious example of that phenomenon is one of the greatest Marxist philosophers of the 20th century Alexandre Kojeve, an emigrant from Russia (possibly a Jew), who came to work for the French government in the 60ies and became one of the ideological founders of the present-day EU! And all that happened in the glorious West which was, allegedly, engaged in a life-death struggle with the "Empire of Evil", with nuclear missiles pointed at each other's major capitals.
In 1945, when the war ended, the UK-USA were the only true winners of the war, while everyone else in fact lost it, including the nominal winners like USSR and China, because the war had caused such an extensive damage to them, that it can in some way be considered as Pyrrhus' victory, which is tantamount to defeat. A Chinese theoretician (maybe Sun Tzu) on warfare once said: "Once you have achieved complete victory, you are defeated." USA were aware that they have acquired such a boundless military power (not just nuclear weapons, but unrivalled aircraft power, both in numbers and in effectiveness), as to be able to conquer the entire world. Such big amount of power is harmful, especially for the one who holds it. If you achieve a total victory over everything and everyone else, what next? Such an empire founded on confrontation with enemies, once deprived from any threat or enemy, must necessarily start to decay, to disintegrate. Hence maybe came the invention of the fake Communist enemy, of the farcical Cold War (a contradiction in terms).
Yes, they would have been able to overrun the USSR immediately after 1945, but that would bring the empire to an end quite quickly. Or they just thought so?