Ah, edited for content? I DESPISE communists. Perhaps, if you actually went out in search of a job, you may actually find one, yes?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Thousands of Brits celebrated Margaret Thatcher death
- Thread starter steveox
- Start date
Ah, edited for content? I DESPISE communists. Perhaps, if you actually went out in search of a job, you may actually find one, yes?
Werbung:
The Soviets took down THEMSELVES. Communism failed, as expected and rightfully so. As for Hitler, Churchill did not take him down. The WORLD took him down. Get it right.
So I guess America has just been LUCKY, all our enemies just defeat themselves...
Absolutely correct. The Soviet Union, whose sole reason for existence was world communism, spent itself right into the poorhouse, ending in utter bankruptcy. It is for this reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Not because of the Americans.
WWI and WWII, the Americans got lucky because its enemies had the misfortune of picking fights with too many other countries, thus ending up with too many fronts to be concerned. In WWII, the USA entered ONLY LONG AFTER THE NAZIS INVADED THE SOVIET UNION. Never forget it.
Who made them spend themselves into the poor house?
Their own government. Remember, the Soviets were working towards communist world revolution. They were spending money in every country. You think those protesters in the West railed against nukes in their own country ON THEIR OWN? No, those were organised by the KGB. That costs money. The KGB was by far the largest spy network on the planet, not to mention the best. This costs money. Remember the Cubans? What was their army doing in Africa, other than fomenting communist revolution via arms? You think a tiny island nation like that whose sole export was sugar cane could afford overseas military adventures? Nope, all paid for the the USSR. South America? USSR. All those protests in Europe? USSR. You don't believe there actually was a Warsaw Pact, do you? No, it was all USSR. Who took care of the individual economies of those countries, whose economies had been destroyed during WWII? That's right, the USSR. This was simply too much to take on, but the Soviets knew it was world socialism, or die trying. Don't know much about the Soviet Union, do you? You do realise it was the Soviets who killed JFK, right? That is so blatantly obvious as to be ridiculous.
There was only one other super power.. The Great USA, now again, who made them spend themselves into the poor house?
George Kennan
American diplomat George F. Kennan proposed his famous containment theory in 1946-47, arguing that, if the Soviet Union were not allowed to expand, it would soon collapse. In the X Article he wrote:
Kennan later regretted the manner in which his theory was received and implemented, it became a core element of American strategy, which consisted of building a series of military alliances around the USSR.[16]
American diplomat George F. Kennan proposed his famous containment theory in 1946-47, arguing that, if the Soviet Union were not allowed to expand, it would soon collapse. In the X Article he wrote:
[T]he main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies... Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world
George F. Kennan
is something that can be constrained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy.[15]
The United States would have to undertake this containment alone and unilaterally, but if it could do so without undermining its own economic health and political stability, the Soviet party structure would undergo a period of immense strain eventually resulting in "either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power."[15]
George F. Kennan
is something that can be constrained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy.[15]
Kennan later regretted the manner in which his theory was received and implemented, it became a core element of American strategy, which consisted of building a series of military alliances around the USSR.[16]
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
United States President Ronald Reagan made conflicting predictions of Soviet power. Throughout his 1980 election campaign and first term in office his public view was that the Soviet Union had been growing in power relative to the United States. In 1981 he stated that "the Soviet Union has been engaged in the greatest military buildup in the history of man."[44] and the next year stated that "on balance the Soviet Union does have a definite margin of superiority" compared to the U.S. military.[45] The Reagan administration used the perceived strength of the Soviet Union to justify a significant expansion of military spending. David Arbel and Ran Edelist in their study Western Intelligence and the dissolution of the Soviet Union argue it was this position by the Reagan administration that prevented the American intelligence agencies from predicting the demise of the USSR. CIA analysts were encouraged to present any information exaggerating the Soviet threat and justifying the military build up, while contrary evidence of Soviet weakness was ignored and those presenting it sidelined.[46]
At the same time Reagan expressed a long range view that the Soviet Union could eventually be defeated. On March 3, 1983, President Reagan told the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written."[47]
In his June 1982 address to the British Parliament he stated:
It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then. The dimensions of this failure are astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine.... Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resource into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones. ...In the Communist world as well, man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule – 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland. And we know that there are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the confines of the Soviet Union itself. ...What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term – the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our Zero-Option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads."[48]
Analyst Jeffrey W. Knopf has argued that Reagan went beyond everyone else:
"Reagan stands out in part because he believed the Soviet Union could be defeated. For most of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had assumed the Soviet Union would prove durable for the foreseeable future. The bipartisan policy of containment aimed to keep the Soviet Union in check while trying to avoid nuclear war; it did not seek to force the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Ronald Reagan, in contrast, believed that the Soviet economy was so weak that increased pressure could bring the Soviet Union to the brink of failure. He therefore periodically expressed confidence that the forces of democracy 'will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history'."[3]
Ronald Reagan
United States President Ronald Reagan made conflicting predictions of Soviet power. Throughout his 1980 election campaign and first term in office his public view was that the Soviet Union had been growing in power relative to the United States. In 1981 he stated that "the Soviet Union has been engaged in the greatest military buildup in the history of man."[44] and the next year stated that "on balance the Soviet Union does have a definite margin of superiority" compared to the U.S. military.[45] The Reagan administration used the perceived strength of the Soviet Union to justify a significant expansion of military spending. David Arbel and Ran Edelist in their study Western Intelligence and the dissolution of the Soviet Union argue it was this position by the Reagan administration that prevented the American intelligence agencies from predicting the demise of the USSR. CIA analysts were encouraged to present any information exaggerating the Soviet threat and justifying the military build up, while contrary evidence of Soviet weakness was ignored and those presenting it sidelined.[46]
At the same time Reagan expressed a long range view that the Soviet Union could eventually be defeated. On March 3, 1983, President Reagan told the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written."[47]
In his June 1982 address to the British Parliament he stated:
It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then. The dimensions of this failure are astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine.... Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resource into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones. ...In the Communist world as well, man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule – 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland. And we know that there are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the confines of the Soviet Union itself. ...What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term – the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our Zero-Option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads."[48]
Analyst Jeffrey W. Knopf has argued that Reagan went beyond everyone else:
"Reagan stands out in part because he believed the Soviet Union could be defeated. For most of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations alike had assumed the Soviet Union would prove durable for the foreseeable future. The bipartisan policy of containment aimed to keep the Soviet Union in check while trying to avoid nuclear war; it did not seek to force the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Ronald Reagan, in contrast, believed that the Soviet economy was so weak that increased pressure could bring the Soviet Union to the brink of failure. He therefore periodically expressed confidence that the forces of democracy 'will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history'."[3]
ooo ooo I know !
perhaps had their disaster of a political system had not made for an anemic economy the trip to the poorhouse might have been longer.
That's a fact and facts do motter...
And the fact is ... we played a major role in their demise...
while it is true that the KGB was extensive in its operation, what was impressive was its ability to do things cheap. Kent State was a one man job. the great thing about all the anti war stuff was it relied on volunteer effort, no weapons, just some drugs (pilfered), some paint tables and a bullhorn or two. genius.
of course they had no choice but to find ways to work cheap. they could not produce enough to feed themselves and had to drop a lot of hard currency to buy food. communism laid low a great country. too bad.
partnered with communism, it really was child's play
Werbung:
steveox
Well-Known Member
Question,,,, Whats all this has to do with Brits celebrating Margaret Thatcher death? 
