Thread: Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.
Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет, а Америка вообще была неуязвима, сейчас - тем более. Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.

Originally Posted by Marcus

В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.

Alright, so first, please cite me saying that "the people of Western Europe were crying to save it from the USSR". I said "Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR" and when we mention a country what we mean is the government in that country, i.e. very specific people. Some people liked the USSR, others liked the US. There is no way to issue a blanket statement saying anything about people in Western Europe in general. So, as a result of Yalta conference, the world was divided between the powers and obviously those politicians which allied with the designated power of their region got the support and others met the resistance. And those governments expressed and formed the "national opinion". And all those who serves in the military and sacrifice their lives 'for their countries' is actually serving the plans of the specific politicians with their limited understanding of what needs to be done. So, I'm not sure what you were laughing at.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет

That's interesting. The USSR had the mightiest ground army in the world and the best weapon in the world of the time and you're saying everybody knew the USSR will not start another war in 5-10 years? After it had successfully absorbed the entire Eastern Europe and crushed the entire Kwantung Army 'liberating' huge territories in a week? That statement is laughable.

Originally Posted by Marcus

а Америка вообще была неуязвима

Then why such small Japan attacked the US in 1942? Was the US less invincible then? Perhaps, Japan had more military strength in 1942 than the USSR in 1945?

Originally Posted by Marcus

сейчас - тем более.

That's entirely another topic. All I'm saying - put yourself in the shoes of a NATO general. That general could be born in Canada, Australia, etc.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.

Ha-ha-ha. All military plans of a country which possess nuclear weapon are aggressive. No exceptions. The nuclear weapon in military service ensures the defense from any military intervention. Instead of making the defensive plans any nuclear country has plans for mitigating the risks of the nuclear weapon being destroyed by an enemy. And one of the strategic solutions is to diversify the locations and the methods of delivery. There are strategic missiles in the nuclear silos and the whole tactics of attack and defense of the silos, there are mobile nuclear units, there are nuclear submarines, aircraft, etc. If the enemy is successful in neutralizing the nuclear silos, it would be attacked by the nuclear bombs deployed from the aircraft launched from three or four military bases nearby. And it's good to have more bases, if some of them are destroyed, there would be others which would be able to launch the nuclear assault. The diversification in that case is a key for the strategic planning. If you find that nonsense, I think you should at least say what are the alternatives.