It was in 1954 and I remember it well, as I was a junior in high school and it was the subject of lengthy discussion as a current event.

The ploy by Molotov was clearly a PR move, there was little hope that the powers would be receptive to invite the fox to guard the hen house. And shortly thereafter the USSR proved it's intent by squashing any attempts to buck the Communist Party in the Eastern Bloc. The Iron Curtain was there for only one reason, to keep the Western influence out of the East European countries and to keep the dissidents from gaining voice.

There was no way that the USSR was going to join the West due to their vast ideological differences. Molotov was known as the Cold Warrior, because of his strong stance against the US presence in Europe, he would have been the last person who would have actually embraced detente.

 

Well golly gee, why don't we let the people who are the very reason for forming our little club come and be a part of it?

Maybe because their original proposalto join relegated the US and China to "observer status".

Molotov's collective security proposal was rejected by western representatives on two grounds. Firstly, because the United States was excluded from the proposed treaty and relegated, together with Communist China, to observer status.​

You're asking us to join our club but you're telling us the conditions on which you'll join? Isn't that convenient.

Secondly, because the Soviet proposal aimed, it was said, to disrupt NATO as well as halt the formation of the EDC.
​

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Then tear 'em apart from within.

 

It just goes to show you how deep some people's hatred of the US runs, that they're willing to defend the actions of the Soviet Union at the time and blame us for the world's ills. What the hell do they teach in those schools in Italy?

 

During the War in Vietnam I learned not to give the United States the benefit of the doubt in foreign affairs.

Those of us who protested against that war were often told, "America. Love it or leave it."

I remember a New Yorker cartoon I saw at the time. A young man with a back pack is hitch hiking. He has a sign that says, "I can't honestly say I love it. Would you please help me leave it?"

 

The Ukraine is a traditional part of Russia. I do not want to fight a war with Russia over the Ukraine.

 

The Russians built an atomic bomb because we built one first, and used it. They built a hydrogen bomb again because we built one first. We initiated the nuclear arms race, and kept escalating it.

The Soviets said they would not be the first to use atomic bombs in a war with the West. We said we would use atomic bombs if we were losing a conventional war.

You are being vulgar in an adolescent sort of way.

 

Unfortunately you have a point there Randy.*not_secure_link*dailysignal.com/20...rPUfGjI4JScVlI+SLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU=

 

This is just one of many many cases I've read about various government agencies seizing businesses bank accounts falsely. Everyone should read the entire article. It's eye opening. This is exactly what I mean when I say you have to fear any government that attempts to take your freedoms away. Our government seems to be doing it one law at a time.

 

And so much for "Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

 

Because they'd already seen the USA drop two of them in Japan, for no other reason than to show Stalin what they would do to him if he didn't play nice.

 

Your history knowledge is apalling. The Ukraine was an independent country for centuries, until Russian expansionist wars conquered it in the C19. They were blocked from conquering the Crimea because the French and British didn't want their route to India being threatened, but nobody cared about the Ukrainians.

Germany cut them loose in 1917 in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but they fell back into the USSR once that treaty was negated by the Allies.

 

Pardon me but you are forgetting about little thing called the second world war having more to do with that decision then making a statement to Stalin. Or were all the dead US and allied soldiers not reason enough to end the war as quickly as they could.

 

The Kievan Rus' was founded by the Rus' people, who settled around Ladoga andNovgorod, then gradually moved southward eventually reaching Kiev about 880. Kievan Rus' included the western part of modern Ukraine, and Belarus. The larger part was on the territory of the modern Russian Federation. According to the Primary Chronicle the Rus' elite initially consisted ofVarangians from Scandinavia.

During the 10th and 11th centuries, it became the largest and most powerful state in Europe.[32] It laid the foundation for the national identity of Ukrainians and Russians.[33] Kiev, the capital of modern Ukraine, became the most important city of the Rus'.
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

 

United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report
(Pacific War)
Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946

even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
*not_secure_link*www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html

 

Really a report made with facts only available after the war ended. Gee it's nice to know decision makers have a crystal ball that lets them see into the future so they can know that kind of stuff when they make important decisions. And here I was thinking they had make.their decisions only on the facts they had at the time they made the decision. Like the increasing ferociously the Japanese showed in their defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

But if they had information from the future then you must be right about it.

 

You really are fucked up in the head. No two ways about it.

 

But you miss the point, why did they build them?? Was it because they feared attack by the US? Or was it to maintain a position of strength?

Vulgar? Maybe your skin is a tad too thin. (or is it that your argument is that weak?)

 

I have suggested how the United States could have done that. First, the United States could have conquered half of North Korea, and not have tried to conquer all of North Korea. Second, the United States could have let Mohammad Mosaddegh retain the post to which he had been democratically elected. Third, the United States could have signed and honored the Geneva Agreement of 1954. Fourth, the U.S. government could have given members of the American Communist Party the rights they were entitled to under the First Amendment.

First, strategically mad hat MacArthur really didn't think he had a choice; but regardless, once the Chinese stepped in, Truman tossed MacArthur under the bus by restricting his rules of engagement. The same thing that Johnson did in Vietnam, with the same unsatisfactory result.

Second, and we been over this before, the US did not toss Mohammad Mosaddegh out of his democratically elected post. The British were upset that Mosaddegh had nationalized their oil business after they had spent all that time and money developing the oil fields, and they were demanding compensation; it was the British, not the Americans, who decided Mosaddegh had to go. The US went along because Britain was their ally and of course, cause they were thinking they might get some of the oil action.

Third, the US did not believe the 1954 Geneva agreement was in anyone's best interest. But you already know that. The South Vietnamese only wanted to run their own show while the North Vietnamese thought of the South as little more than a rebellious child. The amazing thing about you is that while you rant endlessly about the poor abused North Vietnamese and how we should have supported their aggression, you have a twisted view of Iran and exactly how Mosaddegh found himself out of a job.

Fourth, it should be no surprise to you that the US denied rights to the American Communist party, which had a bit of a PR problem considering what Stalin was up to. I mean, thousands of our own patriotic citizens who fought in WWII with distinction were welcomed back home with firm instructions to get their black asses in the back of the bus, stay away from our women, and don't even THINK about moving across the tracks.

 

I think it more likely that these developments will lead to more opportunities for exploitation by Wall Street/organized crime.

 

We keep going over this. Why do you keep cherry picking your facts? This very survey also concluded that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved an estimated 1 Million US lives and at least that many Japanese lives, even taking into account the Japanese casualties from using the bombs. In other words, Dog, if we had invaded Japan we would have lost about a Million Americans. If we had sat back and waited, we would have lost at minimum several thousand more American lives. Dropping the bombs claimed around 200,000 Japanese lives.

How many American lives were lost dropping the bombs? Zero. Nada. Zip.

So, given all this, and the fact that for the better part of a decade Japan ran amuck all over China and the South Pacific slaughtering millions of innocent non combatants in the most disgusting and horrible ways, it is clear that dropping the bombs ended the war sooner, saved lives in the long run, and made clear to the world that attacking the US was a guaranteed way to get one's ass soundly kicked.

When we first argued over this point I asked you the question; What do you value more; American or Japanese lives?

You never answered, which is an answer in itself. That you would bring this slanted, cherry picked illogical point of view up again shows just how closed minded you really are.
But then, I already knew that.