[evgen]

Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war. France had a large Communist party that was a key part of the resistance during the war and maintained a good reputation after, and large proletariat revolutions had a historical precedent in France that probably scared US government officials to death. No matter how much he was hated, you backed de Gaulle over the alternative so that you only had to worry about Eastern Europe and not have a grenade explode in the middle of the continent. Not a good choice, but even in hindsight it seems like there were not a lot of good options available to the US.

[coldtea]

>Should have? Yes. Could have? Probably not. No one in the US gave two shits about French Indochina, it was all about Western Europe and containing the USSR/Communists during the scramble to pick up the pieces after the war.

And what exactly business was of them to contain anything in foreign countries?

[evgen]

It was no more the business of the US to contain the USSR in Western Europe than it was the business of the USSR to violently repress any possibility of democracy in Eastern Europe and install puppet governments in same. Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide.

[pm90]

Very well put. I would say that containment went too far (even Keenan thought so later in life) but violent class struggle and Communist takeover was exactly what was being pursued by the Soviet Union. Although initially the hope seems to be an international coalition of workers under Communism (i.e. there would be no need for an invasion, workers from all nations would unite under its banner) the Bolsheviks quickly crushed that idea by turning the first truly communist state into a virtual dictatorship, and crushing any opposition using violence.

[coldtea]

>Realpolitik is a bitch, but better to understand the real world than pretend that some fantasy of how things "should" work is a useful guide.

Well, the worst hypocrites when it comes to forgetting that "realpolitik" being a bitch are the US though.

[ptaipale]

Whether it was their business or not, I'm thankful Americans did it, because it meant that I have been able to live my first 50 years in freedom and peace.

Without American support after World War II, also Western Europe would have been ruled by stalinist USSR.

[Clubber]

The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next? Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years?

My uncle was drafted in Vietnam, except he didn't go to Vietnam, he went to West Germany. He spent his time waiting for the Soviets to roll their tanks over the border.

[coldtea]

>The US? Because if Europe gets overrun by Soviets, like they got overrun by Germany, guess who's next?

Again, that's not their business. Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe.

>Could you imagine Soviet Europe for the last 60 years?

Many wished exactly that at the time. Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle.

[Clubber]

>Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe.

There's a big, big difference between wanting to be socialist and living under a Soviet regime.

It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe. It's also a hell of a lot harder fighting with your back to the ocean. I mean we are talking the exact same scenario that happened in 1914 and 1939, except instead of Germany, it would have been the USSR. The Eastern Bloc countries revolted for a reason.

Not only that, the victors of WWII wanted the US military there for that very reason.

>Again, not the business of a foreign power to meddle.

It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941.

[coldtea]

>It is US business because if Europe was overrun by Soviets, the US would have to get involved, if not for their own interests, certainly the interests of the now subjugated Europe.

So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc?

>It sure was welcomed in 1917 and 1941.

You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it.

In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US.

  In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union 
  deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World 
  War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role 
  in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By 
  1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, 
  and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to 
  victory in Europe (...)

https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year...

  Scholar addresses question, ‘Who won World War II in 
  Europe?’

  There’s no easy answer, said Norman Davies, an Oxford-
  educated British historian and Poland specialist who has 
  written widely on the 1939-1945 conflict.

  (...)

  Among the Davies so-called myths:

  That D-Day was big and decisive. (About 80 percent of 
  German forces were lost on the Eastern Front, he said, 
  where the biggest battles raged.)

  That the West triumphed over the Third Reich. (Germany was 
  all but defeated by the Soviets well before the Allies 
  landed troops on the continent, he contended.)

  In fact, asserted Davies, it was the Red Army that played 
  the decisive role in defeating Germany, “and they were in 
  the service of an evil tyranny.”

  Sheer numbers alone help dispel myths about the war, he 
  said. In 1939, the United States had half as many trained 
  soldiers as Poland — and it took until 1944 to muster 100 
  American divisions. The Germans fielded 230 divisions, and 
  the Soviets as many as 400.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addres...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-soviet-union-hel...

[Clubber]

>So, it would have been equally OK for other nations to invade the US in the interests of the black slaves, the native Americans, the other peoples all over the world it harmed, etc?

Depends on how you look at it, the North certainly invaded an independent CSA (the South) over slavery as most of the war was fought in the South. Obviously the North thought it was ok and the South didn't. Also, the UK nearly join the war on the side of the South. "OK" is such a simple term, I think we are having completely different levels of discussion.

>You'd be surprised. That's how Americans tell it themselves, and also how, via Hollywood, they taught modern historically illiterate people to see it. In surveys and polls the decades just after WWII, when the thing was still fresh in memory, most Europeans placed the biggest role in defeating Nazi Germany with USSR, not the US.

So my statement was Europe wanted the US to enter the war (which they most certainly did.) You are arguing that the USSR was the most responsible for defeating Nazi Germany. Do you see how those are two different things? I know you want to win the argument, but at least counter argue what I'm arguing.

FWIW, I agree that the USSR was the single most important factor in defeating Nazi Germany. Russia was also was one of the factors of the rise since they signed the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, then both Germany and Russia invaded Eastern Europe. Oops.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-21/pact-between-hitler-a...

[pjc50]

I don't think many people in Western Europe wished for a Soviet Europe, but quite a lot of people wanted something far more democratic-socialist than the US was willing to allow. It's definitely a factor in the creation of the EU.

The dichotomy of "everything must be US-style dystopia capitalism or full communism" has poisoned politics for over half a century.

[ptr]

Sweden is seen as a democratic-socialist country, but the guns were definitely aimed east. This was probably the case for most countries in Europe. Why would anyone want to be part of the Soviet union? Not even the Soviet members did.

I think the "foreign power meddling in our business" needs to be nuanced -- I'm personally happy the US decided to spend taxpayer's money to keep us safe.

[Mediterraneo10]

> Besides half of Europe wanted to be socialist -- and I'm speaking of the support for such parties in Western Europe. [...] Many wished exactly [Soviet Europe] at the time

While there was support for socialism in Western Europe, after 1956 it was not necessarily support for Soviet-style socialism, since the invasion of Hungary appalled many Communists and led them to denounce the USSR. Then, the uproar of 1968, the USSR was mocked by many as a spent force politically and no friend or guide to future actions, so the Situationists or Maoists proposed instead their respective takes on Communism. So, plenty of Western European socialists appreciated the USSR staying far, far away.

[Feniks]

The US didn't meddle, NATO was co founded by European governments. My own country literally begged the US to house nuclear weapons in order to keep the Soviets out.

[coldtea]

Depending on which country you speak of, it was usually just the pro-establishment, pro-rich part of the political elites, as opposed to the whole country "begging the US".