@meeper honestly I don't hold the likes of nixon or mcnamara entirely as culpable here, pretty much every bad thing which happened in us foreign policy over the second half of the 20th century was penned by kissinger and implemented by people in kissinger's thrall. there's a reason I was absolutely jubilant at his death and drank myself into a stupor that night.
@meeper@LoliHat we know very well what he would think of the 21st century because he wrote himself into a syphilitic nervous breakdown writing about what would become the prevailing conditions of the 21st century
@LoliHat@meeper just saw this, just gonna say that the ideology of pol pot's cambodia can only be considered communism if you're on lethal amounts of meth which impair your taste and judgement
@LoliHat@meeper no, not even close. that's how you get total war era hitler (a sore loser who destroyed the future of the west in his own right, but that's another discussion for another day)
@scathach@meeper I haven't been to either but I had a Hmong friend in elementary school and I could always tell there was something behind those eyes he wouldn't dare spilling to any of us
@newt@meeper Even without Pakistan and the China situation (both heavily supported by Kissinger) it most likely would have happened anyway because India was (on paper and to some extent in practice) a Soviet ally and we could Never, Ever have that (the same blind alley which led us to bitterly opposing Ho Chi Minh even when he was fully predisposed to being friendly to the US, but that's another matter)
@meeper it was Nixon (I almost typed Nixos lol). Basically, the Pakistani president at the time wanted to become more recognised internationally, so he made a deal with Nixon to help him befriend Mao Zedong (Nixon wanted some help against the Soviets). In exchange, Nixon et al. turned a blind eye on whatever the fuck was happening in the neighbourhood.
@newt@meeper in fact the way I found out it happened (go figure) was Yuri Bezmenov (remember him??) alluding to doing KGB disinfo campaigns during it and that being one of the reasons for his eventual defection to the west
@newt@meeper In much the same way Hitler was the worst thing that could have happened to the world. Can you imagine a world without ascendant Bolshevism and all the consequences thereby attending?
@allison@meeper ah yes, the USSR and India were trying to be friends at the time. The whole shitshow in the aftermath of Churchill effectively nuking the British Empire was insane.
Churchill was the worst thing that could've happened to Britain.
@newt@meeper I don't find the "if France and Britain did nothing the Third Reich would have collapsed into dust and ashes" argument convincing (at least that variant of it). Fall Grün *could* have done something to that effect, but that was entirely down to much of the general staff planning a military coup against Hitler if it happened. There was no real way of outside parties knowing the mood at the time, and the Munich Agreement dashed those plans in any case.
@allison@meeper I beg to differ. Hitler's short reign only really affected Europe. There's an opinion that I find interesting that if Britain and France hadn't declared war on Germany in 1939, the war would've ended right there. And then German NatSoc would've soon ran out of money and collapsed on its own.
Then again, without Bolshevism this stuff probably wouldn't have happened to begin with.
@newt@meeper Unfortunately for the economic determinist there are things outside of economics and especially in the case of the Third Reich those were what drove all policy considerations. France and Britain doing nothing would have just given Hitler a free hand in, at best, establishing economic hegemony over Europe by way of things like the Vienna Awards and at worst actually allowed for the full implementation of Generalplan Ost.
@allison@meeper I think the entire argument is based on the fact that socialist regimes tend to either just do that or convert to more liberal forms for purely economic reasons.
@allison@meeper no, there aren't things outside of economics. Economics is the study of managing limited resources, first and foremost, and socialism is among the worst ways to do that. One cannot implement any plan if he lacks the means to do it.
@newt@meeper Any Axis so-called "negotiations" were a stalling tactic and absolutely not carried out in good faith, as much as Von Ribbentrop hated it, Hitler saw the Russians as his #1 race-enemy and was always going to invent a war justification for them by sometime in 1941 or 1942.
@newt@meeper What I'm saying is that the timescales this works on are impractical for ensuring minimal damage. Hitler got all the way to 1945 with the entire world fighting against him by expropriating the productive capacity of all Europe and there's no reason to assume he couldn't have went further if he, for example, had a reliable and lasting source of oil like Maikop or Grozny (Romania was decent but it couldn't go nearly far enough for Hitler's ambitions)
@allison@meeper who exactly was trying to ensure minimal damage and minimal damage to what? I don't think this was anyone's goal to begin with.
On a related note, the entire world certainly wasn't fighting Germany. Germany's reach was limited to Europe and maybe parts of Middle East and Northern Africa.
The timeline also doesn't support your position, because in 1939 and 1940 Germany was happily trading with the USSR and had been procuring that oil just fine. The decision to attack the Soviets was only made in the late 1940, mostly due to the failed negotiations about how to partition the former British domain between the two (Stalin kinda wanted too much).
@newt@meeper When I say "good faith" here, I mean the outcomes not being predetermined in advance. Obviously every party is going to try claiming advantage over each other by every means practicable to them, the only question is whether that happens organically or (as I said) it's implemented as a stalling tactic in support of a predetermined outcome.
@allison@meeper >Any Axis so-called "negotiations" were a stalling tactic and absolutely not carried out in good faith
No political negotiations are ever carried out in good faith. Good faith and politics -- especially international politics -- are mutually incompatible. Do you know how to tell whether a politician is lying? That's easy, his lips move.
@newt@stereophonic.space@meeper@udongein.xyz I almost typed Nixos lol Muscle memory is truly scary shit TBH — sometimes I consciously note that: "You should type in a different word, not the one you use more often and are likely to type on autopilot" — and then, when I check the whole sentence that I just typed, I still see the wrong word 🤦
@newt Goimg back in time so and irraditating jinnah or whatever so he dies before and not immediately after utterly and permantly fucking over south asia