Rumsfeld and flying

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe. I think there is
little doubt that without NATO, several european countries would
have been invaded on various pretenses. Easily Berlin would have
"fallen". Waiting until it actually happened would have been
disaster for the US. They would have been left with the choice
of going into a major superpower war over say Germany. NATO
made all of the european countries "one country" militarily
speaking and we tended to be VERY preemptive in our strategy.

They were a vastly lesser threat in the "home country" than
we made out. Of course, that is also a far distance from saying
they were "no threat" here at home. They were a huge intelligence
threat. But they had no real interest in invading or starting a
war with us directly. Truth is, in hindsight, we were more
threatening to them than they were to us.

The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk. In my mind the real question is
in the african and south american arenas. You can make a case
that our most effective opposition was in those areas. Alternately
though, you can make the case that the Soviets never had a prayer.
Much like their inability to spread their influence through
southeast asia, it isn't clear it would spread through Africa
nor South America. Heck, in reality it didn't take hold in
Eastern Europe much less anywhere in Asia.

If there is a legacy to the cold war it is that we didn't have
the "courage of our convictions". Communism didn't take hold
for all the reasons that democracy has. We always claim to be
the "beacon of freedom". But in too many cases we've been the
supporter of despots to keep them out of the arms of communists.
We probably didn't need to, communists couldn't hold them.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe.

I'm sorry! I was trying to be funny. (Or anyhow ironical.)
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(me) wrote in message . com...
The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk.


Perhaps true, but North Vietnamese officials did make public remarks
which instead claimed that Hanoi was part of a global Communist
effort. In 1966, Hoang Anh (Minister of Agriculture and member of the
Central Committee) rationalized the acceptance of military aid from
China and the Soviets with this explanation:

" While setting high the spirit of relying on are own strength as our
main concern, our people highly value and strive to win the sympathy
and support from the fraternal socialist countries and from the
progressive people of the world. We constantly think that our people's
fight against America for national salvation is an inseparable part of
the world revolution. With the victory of the Vietnamese people and
the defeat of the U.S. imperialists, the socialist camp, the world
revolution, and world peace will win. We are exerting all our strength
to fulfill this international duty "

'North Vietnam's Strategy For Survival', Jon M. Van Dyke, 1972.