Sione

I’m familiar with Hoppe’s work and I’ll download the podcast. What is the relevance to Ike etc?

Please elaborate.

Sione

The deal carving up Europe was made well prior to the end of WW2 and BEFORE the USSR army occupied East Europe. Your hero Roosevelt gave East Europe away to the USSR even though there was no need to do so.

Note that the USSR military at one point was in occupation of Austria (or much of it). They departed. Think on why.

Some hints:

At the end of the war ALL of the allied powers were mobilised and on a war economy footing. Don’t try to pretend the Western ones were somehow not prepared or not as strong as the USSR.

In reality the USSR was in dire condition. Years of waging a ruthless scorched earth war, including genocidal massacres of civilians (by both sides), the difficulties of the long supply chain for the Soviet army (exactly the same proplem the Germans had encountered when their armies advanced deep into Russia), the problem of retaining control over an army (rapidly degenerating into random violence and crime) which the Soviet leadership could not afford to become too exposed to Europe (couldn’t afford for the troops to realise that communism resulted in far inferior conditions of life) and the disfunctional nature of the Soviet leadership meant the Soviet military was far from having the capability to face up to the Western Allies. Waging hostilities against the West was not possible. The Soviet leadership knew it. They needed to gain regional stability as quickly as they could and get the bulk of the army home.

Much of the industrial support of the Soviet war effort came from the USA and Gt Britain and the Commonwealth. That included weapons, ammunition, aircraft, ships (including warships), food, machine tools, production machinery, engines and transmissions, munitions and high explosives, know-how and designs, training and expertise and advice. Without this the Soviets would not have been able to achieve the military success they’d achieved against the Germans. Against the Western Allies in Europe they were near helpless (in fact, towards the end of hostilities the weakness of the Red Army hoarde was demonstrated when they suffered defeats in Hungary by a rump of Wermacht and Magyar regular forces). The Soviet leadership well knew the limitatations of their situation and the weaknesses of their supply lines and military. As a result they operated conservatively and carefully. They avoided confrontation, exctly as Rothbard indicates.

Despite knowing that it was US and British supplies that kept the USSR war machine operational, Roosevelt gave…

Your contention, ” The Soviets took Eastern Europe as their own as the Western Powers looked on in horror knowing that nothing could be done otherwise” is false- a nonsense. There was no reason for Soviet hegemony in the East (as you put it) save for one. That was that the US govt regime awarded it to them.

–

As far as changing the topic is concerned, you mentioned the Hungarian Revolution. Not only did you raise the subject but you also got the dates wrong (it was in 1956, not in 1953) and it would seem you also labour under the misapprehension that Truman was President when it occurred.

What I’ve done is demonstrate you were not in possession of facts and that you didn’t know what you were on about. It remains correct that Hungary was signed away to the USSR by your hero St Roosevelt. Further, the US govt regime cynically manipulated the situation in ’56 to encourage Magyars to rise up in the expectation that the US govt actually would be as good as its word and live up to promises to help. Meanwhile the US regime intended to do nothing whatsoever. Their plan was to exploit negative publicity that the Soviet crushing of the revolution would generate internationally. Keep the Cold War buring at the cost of a few thousands of ordinary lives…
—

In conclusion you remain as you were, pig-ignorant of the facts of history. Despite your insistence that you are right, you remain in error. Worse, you are in the position of possessing nowt but a blind faith in ignorance. It is to be recommended that you go away and undertake some sold research into what Rothbard wrote and WHY he wrote it (he provides the source citations to which you are going to need to refer). Much of the material you require is available on this site free of charge.

Sione

Since you can’t read anything but an immediately direct reply.

Furthermore, there was simply no sound option other than “happily” give in to the Soviet annexations in the east. Unless of course, you wanted war and I do not think any of us would have wanted that.

“As it happens Premier Krushchev vacillated about how to respond for some time (you can always read his biography and interview for the details).”
In life, responsibility flows up the chain of command. Krushchev, as the first secretary of the Soviet Union, must be take ultimate responsibility for Zhukov’s decision to send in the military. No amount of guilty writings after the fact can take away his guilt for what the Soviet Union did to Hungary in 1956.

“What one should not forget is the cynical manoeuverings of a US President, members of his executive and various functionaries and bureaucrats, which in no small way contributed to the situation that resulted in the uprising of ’56.”
I am not defending Truman, so don’t change the topic.

“‘So the blockade of Berlin was simply a creation of Truman?’

Not such a simple creation as you’d like to pretend. Certainly Truman played a part. The policies and provocations built up to the point that the blockade occurred. It wasn’t something that occurred in isolation purely due to the super-dooper-ultra-evil of them dirty sneaky satanic ol’ Ruskies”
Ah yes, more unnamed provocations. But again, you are changing the topic. The Berlin blockade is an example that proves the statement in the article this is a response to that the Cold War ideology was a creation of Truman and his cronies in Washington DC wrong.

“‘I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.’

I simply can’t understand how someone like you gets to be so intellectually dull. I mean, really, did you not realise how badly you’d expose your own imbecility and pig-ignorance by posting the purile bullshit that you recently did? You disgrace yourself.”
Nay, I am hitherto undisgraced and still right.

“I haven’t studied the details of the blockade of West Berlin, but I would guess that the typical received wisdom of the cold-warrior faction of the Western powers is probably missing a few key facts.”
Translation: Allied actions regarding the blockade of Berlin look too justified, there must be some hidden fact that shows they were not justified.

“As an analogy, consider the well-rehearsed story of JFK in the Missile Crisis. ‘He stood up to the Soviets’ is the hawkish explanation of the event. But that is total bullcrap. The USSR stationed missiles in Cuba, pointed right at the major cities of the USA, because the Americans had just placed missiles in Turkey aimed directly at Moscow. The USSR didn’t back down, the USA did – by removing its missiles from Turkey, in return for the Soviets getting its missiles out of Cuba.”
This very same paragraph ought to be praising Eisenhower for his own Cold War policies of avoiding confrontation and trusting the American source of power as not being missiles, but its economic capability and moral authority. Putting Eisenhower and JFK in the same Cold Warrior category, as it tacitly done here, is simply erroneous.

Then why not let the state do everything for us? This is dangerous territory, as the information on this site helps to debunk….”
That’s not the point. The point is is that the government has responsibility for the roads under the current structure of things so those governments that actually take that responsibility, rather than letting the infrastructure rot, should be have that count positively towards them.

But of course, this poster cannot even address the question of fact: was the Autobahn was a positive factor for Germany. To answer no would be to be ignorant of the role of infrastructure in society and to answer and to answer yes would be to go against the LvMI party line. Ah, the conundrum.

“The Soviets took Eastern Europe as their own as the Western Powers looked on in horror knowing that nothing could be done otherwise.”

That’s an example of what is known as a furphy- a.k.a. purile bullshit.

Fact is the US regime agreed to award Eastern Europe to the USSR. You need to research the discussions and agreements made and confirmed at Yalta. Roosevelt (the crippled one) happily gave to Stalin and his minions almost everything they requested. In subsequent correspondence and discussion amongst themselves, members of the USSR contingent expressed surprise bordering on horror at how much they’d walked away with. Some thought there was a trap or cunning plot behind it. They couldn’t fathom the banal malevolence leading to such an inconceivable (to them) incompetance as was revealed by the behaviour of St Roosevelt and his “advisors”. Prime Minister Churchill, himself no innocent, on realising what was afoot (after being instructed that he was to have no influence whatseoever, no ability to restrain Roosevelt from giving to Stalin East Europe and all the hapless peple within it) departed the “talks” and spent the rest of the conference getting drunk. At last he understood what his “ally” Roosevelt was, what he was doing and what that casual malevolence would mean.

“Was not Nikita Khrushchev one of the tyrants who put down the Hungarian revolution of 1953 with force?”

Get it right. The Hungarian Revolution occurred in 1956. That’s three years earlier than your guess. Yuri Andropov was the head of delegation in the USSR embassy in Budapest. He was the man on the spot. You ought to read his reviews.

As it happens Premier Krushchev vacillated about how to respond for some time (you can always read his biography and interview for the details). He was not convinced that launching a military response was the right thing to do, at least not at first. He was shocked that the proleteriat/workers would rise up against their “communist brothers”. He was also greatly concerned about the possiblity of a US led invasion of Hungary which could be the lead to a broader European theatre war- definitely not someing in the interests of the USSR (although it was understood to be in the interests of certain groups in the USA at the time). Why do you suppose he might have thought that was a real possibility (it wasn’t, but he thought it was)?

Remember this well; during the weeks prior to the Hungarian Revolution the US govt owned and operated Radio Free Europe broadcast that should the Hungarians rise against the USSR then they could count on the US sending overwhelming military aid to make certain a defeat the USSR and liberty for all the Hungarians. They broadcast this in Magyar language and there was no mistaking or misunderstanding what the message was. Hungarians heard it and they believed it, exactly as was intended. When the revolution did occur it was in part the provocation of this promise that led many forward with false expectation. Ultimately the US betrayed their trust and their bravery. To this day I hear Hungarians who remember this denigrate the treachary of the US govt.

Note that the USSR intelligence agencies listened to Radio Free Europe just as intently as did those poor Hungarians. They heard the promise…

What one should not forget is the cynical manoeuverings of a US President, members of his executive and various functionaries and bureaucrats, which in no small way contributed to the situation that resulted in the uprising of ’56. Was Kruschev a tyrant? Likely so. The question remains, what should one lable a man who encourages a people to fight for their freedom and then informs their oppressors that the way is clear to supress those same people?

As the President was advised at the time, “If they rise up and fight, Mr President, and we don’t act, we shall have the blood of a lot of brave and innocent men on our hands”.

“What liberalization was there to support? Again, de-Stalinization =/= liberalization.”

So you want to pretend that there was no differnce between the policies of Stalin and Krushchev? I’d ask ARE YOU SERIOUS, but that’d be a waste of time. I figure you’re just another example of US-standard igrint.

Krushchev attempted to liberalise. He realised (as did Gorbachev in later years) that the USSR could not continue sustainably along the course it was on. He even tried a raproachment with the US but was ultimately frustrated in this.

“So the blockade of Berlin was simply a creation of Truman?”

Not such a simple creation as you’d like to pretend. Certainly Truman played a part. The policies and provocations built up to the point that the blockade occurred. It wasn’t something that occurred in isolation purely due to the super-dooper-ultra-evil of them dirty sneaky satanic ol’ Ruskies. What you need to understand is that Europe (and all the persons residing there) became a military/political plaything to be used and discarded arbitrarily. You need to ask yourself why it was that the US was involved in Europe at all. I sure do recommend you read what President Washington said about foreign adventures…

“I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.”

I simply can’t understand how someone like you gets to be so intellectually dull. I mean, really, did you not realise how badly you’d expose your own imbecility and pig-ignorance by posting the purile bullshit that you recently did? You disgrace yourself.

Sione

I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.”

Let us consider the fact that when the Autobahn was built the vast majority of german’s could not afford to buy a car. No matter how nice the roads were they were an example of the government spending money to increase the quality of travel for the party members and the military.

I haven’t studied the details of the blockade of West Berlin, but I would guess that the typical received wisdom of the cold-warrior faction of the Western powers is probably missing a few key facts.

As an analogy, consider the well-rehearsed story of JFK in the Missile Crisis. “He stood up to the Soviets” is the hawkish explanation of the event. But that is total bullcrap. The USSR stationed missiles in Cuba, pointed right at the major cities of the USA, because the Americans had just placed missiles in Turkey aimed directly at Moscow. The USSR didn’t back down, the USA did – by removing its missiles from Turkey, in return for the Soviets getting its missiles out of Cuba.

Like I said, I don’t know the details of the Berlin blockade but I would be surprised if there hasn’t been a hella lot of mythmaking going on in the back rooms of the Pentagon and in the media outlets they obviously control.