Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh well, no one is going to attack Palau, and there's an ocean full of fish right out my back door. So I guess I'm well positioned to take advantage of the looming "end times."
When I was younger there were all kinds of experts guaranteeing that the USA and the USSR would have a big nuclear war and everybody would die. What happened?.....
what really happened was that those two superpowers were actually dividing the world into just two blocks keeping each other in check.
the fear - i also had it - came from a feeling that no one could really control the accumulation of weaponry.
I noticed that the host had a strong accent and may be a Russian correspondent or someone outside of mainstream western media. I know that there are some really wild speculations taking place in Russia involving the US which even include the scenario of Russia getting Alaska back again. I've been watching a variety of economists on the internet and news reports and many of them feel that the economic situation is improving as opposed to collapsing. I also have to wonder, what does this have to do with religion and philosophy? I have the feeling that the OP may be inspired by one of these End Times scenarios in which we're seeing the beginnings of all of the events that will occur before the antichrist appears on the scene and that sort of thing. Maybe SouperStar34 (I just noticed, same number as Campbell34) could enlighten us as to why this particular thread belongs in this forum as opposed to politics.
what really happened was that those two superpowers were actually dividing the world into just two blocks keeping each other in check.
the fear - i also had it - came from a feeling that no one could really control the accumulation of weaponry.
what happened since?
I think that is an unfair characterization of the cold war, for a few different reasons.
First, I'm not sure if you are from the former east or west Germany, but your area was either part of the Warsaw pact or the Nato pact. If you were part of Nato, you were every bit as much invested in the outcome of the Cold war as the United States.
The Soviet Union was an authoritarian style dictatorship that was expansionist. People really didn't want to buy any of what they were selling. (Although there was some support for Stalinist in western Germany and france.) The wall in Germany was only meant to keep people from going west, for example. I don't remember a lot of people trying to go east.
The U.S. supported liberal democracies, even if sometimes they had to get in bed with those who didn't to achieve their ends. Europe was heavily invested in this as well.
A lot of Europeans have tried to rewrite the history of the cold war to pretend it was just about two superpowers - the U.S. and the USSR. They don't want to admit that a lot of what the U.S. was doing was helping protect western Europe from Soviet expansionism - even if that also helped the U.S.
So it's not like free Europe didn't pick sides just like everyone else. You were as invested in the outcome as anyone, and most didn't want to be taken over by Soviet Expansionist.
Admittedly, Un-free Europe had their side in the cold war picked for them, mostly.
I think that is an unfair characterization of the cold war, for a few different reasons.
sorry, i did not intend it to be unfair.
First, I'm not sure if you are from the former east or west Germany, but your area was either part of the Warsaw pact or the Nato pact. If you were part of Nato, you were every bit as much invested in the outcome of the Cold war as the United States.
i was west german, and what you are saying is absolutely correct. what being invested did mean to a generation of young people coming to terms with history and a perspective of the future under permanent duress, is on one hand well-documented, on the other has become obsolete almost beyond recognition (imho).
The Soviet Union was an authoritarian style dictatorship that was expansionist. People really didn't want to buy any of what they were selling. (Although there was some support for Stalinist in western Germany and france.) The wall in Germany was only meant to keep people from going west, for example. I don't remember a lot of people trying to go east.
correct. many of us did however see a much more covert expansionism of the u.s.a.
as well. i41 certainly never supported stalinism, but very much sought to explore and research the possibilities of socialism. not as a dictatorship, however.
i am quite aware now, how this can be twisted and misconstrued in hindsight.
The U.S. supported liberal democracies, even if sometimes they had to get in bed with those who didn't to achieve their ends. Europe was heavily invested in this as well.
correct again. and we, re-educated and scared by the prospects of history just repeating itself (sounds funny today) had little choice other than what the official "propaganda" on either side would offer, freedom or socialism, e.g. as if not both were possible at the same time.
A lot of Europeans have tried to rewrite the history of the cold war to pretend it was just about two superpowers - the U.S. and the USSR. They don't want to admit that a lot of what the U.S. was doing was helping protect western Europe from Soviet expansionism - even if that also helped the U.S.
i certainly have no intention to rewrite said history. yet to me it seems as if after the fall of the iron curtain the real complex structures of national and international relations, histories, geo-strategic and economic interests, as well as political machinations did suddenly become very transparent, as simultaneously they were breaking down and have remained very chaotic to this day.
So it's not like free Europe didn't pick sides just like everyone else. You were as invested in the outcome as anyone, and most didn't want to be taken over by Soviet Expansionist.
correct. the political establishment in the entire "west" chose to express it this way, yet reality was more like many of us simply were uncomfortable with this system.
to the shame of many "leftists" in western europe, it must be noted that germany's reunification caught them off-guard, and in a surprising opposition to it suddenly.
Admittedly, Un-free Europe had their side in the cold war picked for them, mostly.
yes, very much so.
very much appreciating your view.
Last edited by effie g-tad; 05-25-2009 at 06:43 PM..
God's empire never dies. His empire is forever. Didn't God say he would destroy the web of nations; that being the banking system
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
