Why are the Crimes of Stalinism Overlooked?

[heydaralon]

Beginnings

The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defence treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom. It was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948.[13] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the military power of the USSR. In addition the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially considering American anxiety over Italy (and the Italian Communist Party).[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Beginnings

Not seeing much about NATO being against Germany there.
Seeing its origins as being an alliance against the Soviets though.


Where do you guys get your alternative history facts from?

Hmm. I wouldn't call Tony Judt Alternative history facts but from page 149 of PostWar he talks about this very thing. The Brussels Pact of 1948: "was a conventional 50 year treaty binding Britain France, and the Benelux countries to collaborate in measures of mutual assistance in the event of a renewal of German aggression."

More "alternative history" on page 150: "The French welcomed NATO as the guarantee against a revived Germany..."

I forget where it talks about Stalin's view of divided Germany. Either way, the Soviet Union was a big reason why NATO was formed. It wasn't the only reason. Here, put that history major to good use and check out the book!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postwar:_ ... Since_1945

[heydaralon]

In fact, that whole chapter talks about this.

[DBTrek]

Cool.

Didn't know that.

[Smitty-48]

Daralon knows his shit, the kid is steeped, Hanarchy's right too, there was an economic component, America had to protect its investments and wanted to standardize everybody on American weapons.

Even in the 1980's, we were still occupying the FRG in effect, yes, most of the Westies wanted us there, but not all of them, but even the ones who wanted us there, it's not like they really had any say in the matter.

We Canucks, and the Brits, we had no beef with SACEUR, we liked how the Americans ran things, we wanted SACEUR to be in charge, SACEUR was the proxy for Eisenhower to us, but of course, to the Germans, Eisenhower looks a little different.

From the German point of view, they were pretty much cannon fodder which was going to be sacrificed to save the rest, this is why the Americans had to push the concept of Forward Defense, which was basically "we're not going to sacrifice the FRG to buy time and space", even though that was totally unrealistic and of course that's what we were going to do, but poltically, the Americans had to fig leaf that shit, for the Germans.

Offcially, we would have gone nuclear to save Frankfurt or whatever, but in reality, it wouldn't have gone nuclear unless and until the Soviets reached the French border and Paris then forced everybody's hands. And this is why the French pulled out of NATO, they wanted their own deterent and they declined to report to SACEUR, they weren't going to be sacrificed again, they refused to be in the cannon fodder box with the Germans.

It's still like this now, even to this day, the NATO nuclear deterent, the Americans, the British, the B61's, that still all reports to SACEUR in Brussels, the only nukes in Europe which are not under the control of Washington, are Russian, and French.

The French have rejoined NATO now, but only because NATO has acquiesed to their demand to retain absolute control over their nuclear deterent, which during the Cold War NATO actually refused to do, causing them to bolt.

That was always the problem for Blue Force, we never knew when the French would say "enough is enough, that's too close for our comfort", and so Blue Force commander was always assumed to be weapons free, when things reached the proverbial French frontier.

If it wasn't for the French, Blue Force probably would have kept backing off, all the way to Lisbon, which is exactly why Paris said
"ah hells no, fuck that".

That's the bitterest pill of all, America basically fights the Vietnam War to keep the French in NATO, and right at the moment where Vietnam spirals into a total catastrophe, the French say "fuck NATO, we outtie" lol

[SuburbanFarmer]

French-US relations, probably the biggest love-hate relationship of all time.

[Speaker to Animals]

Pretty sure McDonald's fries are not halal, so it's not going to be an issue with them.

[Smitty-48]

Well, bear in mind, de Gaulle literally said, straight up, America has to, not just allow, but actually help France take Indochina back under colonial control, otherwise, and I quote "France may have to fall within the Soviet sphere of influence", so not even implicit threat, actual threat to flip on America, if America didn't do as France said, and not just a threat to pull out of the Western Alliance, but to actually side with the Soviets instead, so talk about wag the dog.

[heydaralon]

Daralon knows his shit, the kid is steeped, Hanarchy's right too, there was an economic component, America had to protect its investments and wanted to standardize everybody on American weapons.

Even in the 1980's, we were still occupying the FRG in effect, yes, most of the Westies wanted us there, but not all of them, but even the ones who wanted us there, it's not like they really had any say in the matter.

We Canucks, and the Brits, we had no beef with SACEUR, we liked how the Americans ran things, we wanted SACEUR to be in charge, SACEUR was the proxy for Eisenhower to us, but of course, to the Germans, Eisenhower looks a little different.

From the German point of view, they were pretty much cannon fodder which was going to be sacrificed to save the rest, this is why the Americans had to push the concept of Forward Defense, which was basically "we're not going to sacrifice the FRG to buy time and space", even though that was totally unrealistic and of course that's what we were going to do, but poltically, the Americans had to fig leaf that shit, for the Germans.

Offcially, we would have gone nuclear to save Frankfurt or whatever, but in reality, it wouldn't have gone nuclear unless and until the Soviets reached the French border and Paris then forced everybody's hands. And this is why the French pulled out of NATO, they wanted their own deterent and they declined to report to SACEUR, they weren't going to be sacrificed again, they refused to be in the cannon fodder box with the Germans.

It's still like this now, even to this day, the NATO nuclear deterent, the Americans, the British, the B61's, that still all reports to SACEUR in Brussels, the only nukes in Europe which are not under the control of Washington, are Russian, and French.

The French have rejoined NATO now, but only because NATO has acquiesed to their demand to retain absolute control over their nuclear deterent, which during the Cold War NATO actually refused to do, causing them to bolt.

That was always the problem for Blue Force, we never knew when the French would say "enough is enough, that's too close for our comfort", and so Blue Force commander was always assumed to be weapons free, when things reached the proverbial French frontier.

If it wasn't for the French, Blue Force probably would have kept backing off, all the way to Lisbon, which is exactly why Paris said
"ah hells no, fuck that".

That's the bitterest pill of all, America basically fights the Vietnam War to keep the French in NATO, and right at the moment where Vietnam spirals into a total catastrophe, the French say "fuck NATO, we outtie" lol

What do you mean by SACEUR? I know some of the acronyms for military and diplomacy, but not that one.

[heydaralon]

SACEUR: Strategic Air Command of Europe?

[Smitty-48]

SACEUR is Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the top of the NATO chain of command in Brussels, always an American, only an American can be SACEUR, that was part of the deal to get the Americans in.

Was USAF General Philip M. Breedlove, he has recently been replaced by USA General Curtis M. Scaparrotti.

It's a so called "double hatted" post now, because SACEUR also serves as the combatant commander for US EUCOM.

In the event of war, all of NATO reports to Washington, through the SACEUR, particularly with regards to the nuclear deterent.

SACEUR has final chop, which means CinC Trump calls the ball, for all forces reporting up the NATO chain of command.