Senate The legacy of Fidel Castro (1926-2016), and the future of Cuba

So were we more or less friendly with Tito because he was actually a more moderate Communist, or because he simply chose not to join up with the Eastern bloc?

 

Both. Withdrawal from Warsaw Pact and following own course away from Soviet communism at least helped ease tensions.

 

The latter.

For all the masturbatory reverence for "democracy", it was simply about spheres of influence and the competing hegemonies having larger willies than each other. Tito told Stalin to bugger off, and that was useful to the US.

EDIT: Please ignore Shane. It wasn't both. The US supplied aid to Yugoslavia before they opened up their borders and engaged in more open diplomacy. And given there'd been a few acts, including shooting down USAF cargo planes, that strained relations it's telling that the aid flowed AFTER Tito split with Stalin.

In short, working with Tito probably made him more moderate. It wasn't a condition for working with him.

 

That was also a reason why we decided to thaw relations with China.

 

So if our Cold War policy was more about being anti-Soviet Union rather than anti-Communist, wouldn't that mean that Castro and Ho Chi Minh and some others could have done whatever they liked in their own countries and we wouldn't have bothered them as long as they didn't join up with the Soviets? Couldn't we have avoided a lot of grief if we had just told them "hey, don't join up with the Soviets and we won't bother you"?

 

Dude, shut the hell up. Going your own way and staying out of the WP were the same thing. You're just, once again, being a contrarian jackass for no reason except it's your nature.

So either accept other adults are in the room with opinions or get out.

 

No, Shane. They're not.

Tito had already put the US offside by not allowing US Army officers to testify in the war crimes trial of Draža Mihailović. They then promptly shot down around 4 or 5 C47s in 1947 before rejecting the Marshall Plan at Stalin's urging.

In 1948, Tito tells Stalin to bugger off and goes to the US for foreign aid.

In 1967 - 20 years later - Yugoslavia engaged in trade and relations with the West/US, including air services, commerce, and open borders for tourism.

So, I guess if you want to say that in 1948, the US agreed to aid and thawing of relations because Tito was a moderate Communist relative to Moscow, you could only if you believe the US had a scrying device which foreshadowed the events of the late 1960s. Possibly they housed this device at Area 51.

 

Yeah and the aid in 67 was preceded by a cooling off of relations. Removed personal attack

 

Jesus.... this thread.

 

I think you mean the aid in 1948, which preceded by troubled diplomatic relations thanks to the events I described above. Since after the late 60s, when trade and travel were normalised, Yugoslavia started exporting some of its manufacturing to the US.

But absolutely, I know next to nothing on this, you're quite right.

 

Can I please get your view on Castro's regime, with specific regard to the disinformation campaign spread by Miami exiles?

 

No.

 

What does that have to do with staying out of the WP and steering away from Stalinism, which is what I said?

You've obviously not lived out your dreams hence the negative undertone to nearly all of your posts. I can tell it eats at you. Sad really. Do yourself a favor and find a career that will serve this knowledge better and make you happier.

edit:

And go off with your Miami exiles disinformation BS. These were real people who lost real relatives and families and real businesses.

Show some respect.

 

Shane, it's simple. Alpha asked if the US engaged with Tito because he was moderate, or because he wasn't in the SovBloc sphere of influence. The correct answer is the latter, and it was because of the US engagement due to the non-WP participation et al that Tito became moderate. You said it was both; but in 1948, when the US began to engage with Tito after the events of '46 and '47, he hadn't done nearly enough to qualify as reliable moderate.

What did I just say?

 

You know, I really don't know what sort of tone you read my posts in, but it's 100% inaccurate. I'm depressed as hell lately, and I come here, because this is where my friends are. I'm reading a thread, because that's what people do on message boards, and commenting on the discussion, because again, that's what people do on message boards. I don't need to have a personal stake in a topic in order to read about it and comment. If this is a private discussion, I suppose it should be had in private.

 

Ender, you are describing the chronological chain of events. All he asked was if there were friendly relations because of:

A) and B). He didn't ask which came first and what "friendly" means. And your qualifications of what constitutes "reliably moderate" is entirely subjective and you know it. Stop acting like it's definitive.
The relative easing of relations doesn't have to equal open trade. We didn't do that with China for years post-entete. You don't have to go all the way to qualify. You are just describing the chronological chain of events and attributing the full opening of trade and aid as the cooling off and leaning towards moderation.

Remember that Tito's falling away from the Pact was a very big deal. That alone marked him in stark relief from the other Eastern Europeans and posed him as a potential, if not full ally, but at least one we could have some relations with. In that European Cold War context, that was moderation of the status quo position, which was to fall into the WP. Tito went his own way and that stood out as potential for the U.S.

 

Why only a device? Why not a haruspex or other holy man posessed of prophetic power?

Sure, it would be a bit early for Jim Bowen but Leslie Crowther's career started in the '40s. He could easily have been some kind of part-time pontifex peering into the future. I mean, look at those specs. I bet even a non-gameshow-host could see stuff men aren't meant to wot of with those bins. For Crowther, a couple of decades would've been a cinch.




Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Sorry harpua and others in this thread for all of that nonsense. My bad.

 

I'm not intending to further an argument or cause chaos with this, and I'm sorry that you're suffering from depression, but your first two posts in this discussion were personal attacks at people.

Can you see why people are asking if you have something more substantial to contribute?

 

AlphaRed: It would have been nice if the U.S. government respected neutralist/moderate stances taken by Third World leaders, but communism was not the true bane, but rather anti-colonialist sentiments that flourished following WWII. For example, Arbenz of Guatemala and Mosaddegh of Iran were not, in any sense, communists--in fact, in their brief terms, both sought overtures and proved (tragically) trusting of America--but they committed the unpardonable sin of initiating reforms that would wrest profits from United Fruit and British Petroleum, respectively, and thus were cut down by Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers. You'll see similar threads weaved in Vietnam, Cuba, Chile and countless other struggling countries.

By and large, we weren't saving nations from communist totalitarianism, but from self-determination and economic justice. Just another damn empire, picking up where the British and French left off.

As an American, I find it next-to-unbearable to read histories of the Cold War. We emerged from WWII as the heroes of the world, espousing freedom and democracy via the Atlantic Charter and quashing fascism, yet, in the following years and decades, proceeded to betray the hopes and dreams of the destitute and exploited.

 

Lord Vivec,
But it's not really up to us non-mods to make that determination. If you don't like what people have to say, then don't say anything. That's one problem here is everybody thinks they can just borderline bully people around.

Not funny. Not cool.

 

I'm not telling people to leave the thread, but I have every right to ask people to post something substantive. It's not bullying.

 

I didn't mean you specifically. And yeah the PPOR is pretty much the same thing as asking for just that. My only point is:

Let it go.

Let it go.

I can't remember the rest of it. Thankfully.

 

Didn't we press Britain and France to decolonize after WWII? Also, I have a hard time believing that U.S. foreign policy could be that cynical...or stupid. I mean, missing out on some profits from Mosaddegh nationalizing Iran's oil is a really small price to pay to avoid alienating a country's population.