>>>"The simple answer to that is that we do not want a war with the
>>>Chinese and the Soviets," Johnson shot back.
>>>
Reminds me of the details in the memoir of Zdenek Mlynar, "Nightfrost in
Prague."
http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b2a4.htm
Mlynar was on the CC of the
I wrote:
>>I've always thought that the South was more likely to attack the North
>>(with full military force) than vice-versa, since the South had a more
>>supportive ally (the US). But of course the US wanted to make sure that
>>its client didn't pull this one.
Brad writes:
>
>
>There's
Jim Devine>and then emphasized "Juce" (sp?) or self-reliance...
Juche http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1461/kimilsungism.htm
Michael Pugliese
>Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of the nuclear threats
>that the United States made. I sure hope that this doesn't degenerate
>into one of those threads about how bad the Communists are.
If those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, what
can be said of tho
OK, let's focus on the substantive issues. Which in this case are? Actually,
it isn't clear, beyond Brad's substext that everything in US nuclear and
foreign policy during the cold war was wise and just and necessary to
contain communism--and my subtext that this is false, and that the US is a
Obviously, after watching it go on amongst multiple participants for a couple of
years, "we" can't; hey, we're just like everyone else :-) who can't debate all
that well. "Proof" the economy is much too important to be left to economists.
Ian
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECT
Brad, you have to stop arguing by insult!!! The whole thread is
peripheral to this list.
I wish that you would contribute more about the economy and less about
your anticommunism.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:36:18PM -0800, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a
Brad, there is an important discussion here, but I shan't participate in it
if you can't keep it clean and depersonalized. I owe you an apology for not
doing likewise myself, and it is offered here. Now, let's get down to
business.
I should like to see evidence that the CIA, etc. expected tow
Well, according to David Ignatius in the Wash Post
about a week ago, one area where there may be some
interesting fireworks coming up involves international
finance. This is, of course, officially the purview of the
Treasury Dept., and O'Neill is widely viewed as having
no experience in thi
I think back to 1982, when the ideologues in the Reagan administration were
willing to sit on their hands as Mexico threatened default. As it happened,
Paul Volcker was willing and able to seize the reins, and the world financial
system was pulled back from the brink of collapse. (The longer-ter
At 02:34 PM 01/28/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Good illustration of the E.P. Thompson view that the Cold War was a
>mechanism used by each systems political ruling class to maintain domination
>over their respective populations.
but both sides meddled in the periphery of the other, as when the US
sup
>Reminds me of the details in the memoir of Zdenek Mlynar, "Nightfrost in
>Prague."
>http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b2a4.htm
>Mlynar was on the CC of the Czech Communist Party in '68 (and a former
>roomate of Gorbachev's in the 50's) and went to Moscow with Dubcek and othe
At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's
>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of
>twentieth-century history, after all...
so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which m
Just as I feared! Here we are back in trying to debate the same old stuff with
the same old tone. In an earlier note, Brad wrote something like, think
before you post. We don't need to sort of dialogue here.
Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of the nuclea
> Indeed, I don't think that in the 60s there was thinking about
>"winning" the cold war in the dramatic sense that it was won in the
>1990s. "Containment" was more the idea...
My grandfather Earl DeLong was one of Helms's spearcarriers in the
1950s. He says--and Helms says--that containment
I see an equivalence here up until the 1980s. Khrushchev and his
people were absolutely certain that they were the wave of the future,
and the road to utopia. For the first half of the Brezhnev era I
think that the same was true, at least as far as Soviet foreign
policy was concerned. The Soviet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7776] Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>I think back to 1982, when the ideologues in the Reagan administration were
>willing to sit on their hands as Mexico threatened defaul
CTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:48 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7416] Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>At 02:34 PM 01/28/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>Good illustration of the E.P. Thompson view that the Cold War was a
>>mechanism used by each systems political ruling class to maintain
dominatio
2001 6:04 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7422] Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>>Reminds me of the details in the memoir of Zdenek Mlynar, "Nightfrost in
>>Prague."
>>http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/b2a4.htm
>>Mlynar was on the CC of the Czech Communist Part
Brad wrote:
>No. Good illustration of the view that LBJ was not a nut eager to risk
>World War III...
query: does anyone have the list of the number of times the US threatened
to use the atomic or hydrogen bomb since Hiroshima/Nagasaki? I know
Eisenhower threatened to use it in Korea and at Di
Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US in a
nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had led to
Khrushchev being iced (by B himseld and some pals); he was basically asking
LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved in Vietnam, was willing
>Brad wrote:
>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's
>>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of
>>twentieth-century history, after all...
>
>so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, which may
>explain why the U
>Just as I feared! Here we are back in trying to debate the same old stuff with
>the same old tone. In an earlier note, Brad wrote something like, think
>before you post. We don't need to sort of dialogue here.
>
>Brad DeLong wrote:
>
>> >Some time ago, the Monthly Review published a list of th
>At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il
>>Sung's Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal
>>features of twentieth-century history, after all...
>
>so they should be nuked? that seems a Pol Pot-type solution, w
Brad, I was a sort of Sovietologist when there was such a thing, and my
speciality in that area was Soviet and US foreign policy, the Cold War.
Which doesn't make me right, but I have looked into this stuff, including
reading endless reams of CIA and DoD assessments, God help me.
Now you are q
mp; Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7564] Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>
>I see an equivalence here up until the 1980s. Khrushchev and his
>people were absolutely certain that they we
At 04:25 PM 01/28/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>How does the PRC helping that thug, Savimbi, fit into the grand
>picture?
I don't remember the details, but China's support for Savimbi (like its
relatively benevolent attitude toward Pinochet) was part of its "the enemy
of our enemy (the USSR) is our f
This is a complicated issue. When I was working on this a lot during the
1980s, I accumulated a list of 30 serious nuclear threats between 1946 and
1981:
1. March 46, a 48 hr ultimatum for the USSR to leave Iran
2. Nov. 46, when a US aircraft was shot down in Yugoslavia
3.Feb 47, duruing the U
riginal Message-
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 8:29 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7425] Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>Brad wrote:
>>No. Good illustration of the view that LBJ was not a nut eager to risk
>Wrong again, Brad. Brezhnev was not about to try to face down the US
>in a nuclear confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had
>led to Khrushchev being iced (by B himseld and some pals); he was
>basically asking LBJ's permission. Which LBJ, being happily involved
>in Vietnam, was w
At 10:26 AM 1/29/01 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 07:00 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>>That Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Kim Il Sung's
>>>Korea were far indeed from Utopia is one of the principal features of
>>>twentieth-century history, after all...
>>
>>so they should be
arkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7569] Re: Re: Re: Re: Korean news
>Brad, I was a sort of Sovietologist when there was such a thing, and my
Brad, I have thought more about this stuff than you ever will, and know more
about it that you can imagine. Tito was not "allowed" to develop by the US
in 1948; the Yugosolavs were supposed to be handed over to Stalin under the
terms of Yalta, but made clear that they would not go,a nd that Sta
2) Did not George Kennan in his original anonymous
>article on containment raise the possibility of an eventual
>evolution of the Soviet system as a response?
>Barkley Rosser
>-Original Message-
>From: Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
> 2) Did not George Kennan in his original anonymous
>article on containment raise the possibility of an eventual
>evolution of the Soviet system as a response?
IIRC, yes. And that was one reason that the policy was originally
supposed to be one of "containment" and not of "confrontation."
Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the most/best thinking.
Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the showing that
the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and so
it attempted to promote worker self-management in Yugoslav
The funny
thing is that the USSR did indeed surpass the US
in all of those, but
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7647] Re: Re: Re: R
>Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the
>most/best thinking.
>Cheryl Payer, in her book on the World Bank, does a good job of the
>showing that
>the U.S. thought that the success of Yugoslavia would undermine Stalin, and so
>it attempted to promote worker self-management in
Sure, or anyway, maybe, but thsi was after Tito had made it clear that he
was not going to go quietly into that good night, as originally agreed by
Staklin and Churchill. --jks
>
>Again, the same sorts of accusations about who has done the most/best
>thinking.
>Cheryl Payer, in her book on the
Brad, you need to learn to read. Apparently being a big shot at Berkeley
doesn't guarantee that you can can. I never said what you attribute to me. I
didn't comment on the wisdom or lack of of LBJ's decision. I did say that
that the evidence Brad himself cited shwos is that Brezhnev asked the U
40 matches
Mail list logo
