Sunday, July 31, 2011

Rollback, containment, or accommodation?

Podhoretz makes an interesting Cold War analogy.
Posted by at
Labels:

3 comments:

Mr roT said...

He's wrong if you ask boat people and those that died in Mao's reeducation regimen:

But those who advocated containment were right strategically and right morally. And their descendants are right to support the debt-ceiling deal.

7/31/2011 3:48 PM
Tecumseh said...

Just a bit wrong--but not the way you suggest. The place to have tried to hold the line in 1944-1945 was somewhere in Eastern Europe. There was no logical justification for FDR to hand out all those countries on a silver platter to Uncle Joe at Yalta. Then again, the US did not have the stomach to put up a full front defense of EE in 1945; Patton was one of the few who thought of doing that, and then he mysteriously got run over by a truck. But the US could have tried to save one or two at the periphery, while still implementing the strategy of containment.

But, pace Rot, there was basically no chance to stop the Commies from taking over China. Look, we barely could stop the North Koreans (helped by the ChiComs and the Soviets, of course) from overtaking South Korea in 1950. It took lots of blood and treasure to stop them. How would you have stopped Mao from taking over China, short of nuking the place?

So, like most everything in life, the choice was not black and white. I wonder how any of us would have reacted at the time, without knowing all the variables, and what would happen in the end. I surely would have preferred quick rollback to a twilight struggle, but then again, would I surely would have recoiled at the idea of Armageddon.

Only in Rottea everything is neat and simple.

7/31/2011 4:25 PM
Mr roT said...

But those who advocated containment were right strategically and right morally.

Neat and simple.

8/01/2011 6:43 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)