DBWI: No Sino-Soviet War

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Another issue is the fate of Southern Africa in this world. Without USSR or Chinese or Cuban support, the communist rebels in the Rhodesias were destroyed with ease, and Britain didn't have as much concern about having a fascist in their pockets rise to replace Ian Smith. Likewise, Apartheid likely doesn't end for another two decades at least. Without the Communist concern regarding its neighbors, the US and UK decided there was no longer the need to support the Apartheid regime.

 

[colonel]

And the Jamaica factor wasn't helped because Jamaica still had strong ties to the British Commonwealth despite its 1962 independence. Hell, I hear stories about how the Aussies were already planning to send their ships through the Panama Canal to Kingston.

Of course the Americans having such a large naval presence on Guantanamo Bay, meant that in many instances the Cubans were interdicted from their own soil.

 

[colonel]

Another issue is the fate of Southern Africa in this world. Without USSR or Chinese or Cuban support, the communist rebels in the Rhodesias were destroyed with ease, and Britain didn't have as much concern about having a fascist in their pockets rise to replace Ian Smith. Likewise, Apartheid likely doesn't end for another two decades at least. Without the Communist concern regarding its neighbors, the US and UK decided there was no longer the need to support the Apartheid regime.

I respectfully disagree, as stated previously, many believe Apartheid would have ended earlier were it not for fears of South Africa unleashing its own nuclear bombs, and despite the entire world paying lip service to ending apartheid in the end it took another (communist free) indigenous uprising. Commonwealth troops then using the excuse of safeguarding the nuclear weapons to go in and turn them over to the IAEA is what finally spelled the death knell for the old regime and Apartheid.

 

[Bookmark1995]

The most likely outcome for Vietnam without the Sino-Soviet War was what happened to the Korean Peninsula. I doubt the South could have taken the North without the collapse of the North’s communist allies, and there is no way the US would have let the North prevail over the South.

As for Cuba, the Sino-Soviet War may have slightly accelerated Castro’s demise. While without Soviet sponsorship Castro had to create the Jamaica is a threat myth to justify seizing ships heading to and from his island neighbor, even without the war the communists last until 1975 at the latest.

I don't know. I remembering reading how incredibly unpopular South Vietnam was, and how by the 60s, opposition to the war in America was reaching a boiling point.

If the war had continued, could Americans have withdrawn on their own?

 

[colonel]

I don't know. I remembering reading how incredibly unpopular South Vietnam was, and how by the 60s, opposition to the war in America was reaching a boiling point.

If the war had continued, could Americans have withdrawn on their own?

No way was Richard M. Nixon going to let South Vietnam fall on his watch. Given that the conflict first saw significant American involvement under Democratic administrations, there would be bipartisan support to prop up the South no matter what.

 

[Bookmark1995]

No way was Richard M. Nixon going to let South Vietnam fall on his watch. Given that the conflict first saw significant American involvement under Democratic administrations, there would be bipartisan support to prop up the South no matter what.

Remember, in 1968, even mainstream figures like Walter Cronkite and Arkansas Senator Fulbright were seeing the war as a waste, and Cronkite's editorial may have been the deciding factor in Lyndon Johnson quitting the race.

But then, if you just look at June 1940, you might be inclined the say the Nazis were destined to win World War II, when in reality, the Nazis were really biting off more than they could chew.

North Vietnamese soldiers were fierce, but they were still poor farmers up against American military might, so...yeah.

 

[colonel]

Remember, in 1968, even mainstream figures like Walter Cronkite and Arkansas Senator Fulbright were seeing the war as a waste, and Cronkite's editorial may have been the deciding factor in Lyndon Johnson quitting the race.

lol of the But then, if you just look at June 1940, you might be inclined the say the Nazis were destined to win World War II, when in reality, the Nazis were really biting off more than they could chew.

North Vietnamese soldiers were fierce, but they were still poor farmers up against American military might, so...yeah.

You’re absolutely correct, while Cronkite and the rest of the media were saying the war was “unwinnable” (and even after the fall of the North attributed it only to the collapse of its Communist sponsors) records recovered in Hanoi years later definitively show Giap and the rest of the leadership saw Tet as a total disaster for the North. Had it gone on much longer the American people almost certainly would have come to a similar conclusion. That said, a negotiated settlement before the end of Nixon’s first term was likely to have been concluded using Korea and Germany as models.

 

[colonel]

We all know that since the Sino-Soviet War there have been joint sovereignty agreements negotiated to avoid or end hostilities in Northern Island, Jerusalem, Cyprus, the Falklands, and a half dozen other locations in South America and Africa. Might such an arrangement have avoided the war, or is the only reason they exist today because of seeing what happened in 1969? I guess the consistent refusal of the UK to consider Spain’s entreaties for such an agreement with regard to Gibraltar is the fact that there is no serious threat of violence.

 

[NOLAWildcat]

We all know that since the Sino-Soviet War there have been joint sovereignty agreements negotiated to avoid or end hostilities in Northern Island, Jerusalem, Cyprus, the Falklands, and a half dozen other locations in South America and Africa. Might such an arrangement have avoided the war, or is the only reason they exist today because of seeing what happened in 1969? I guess the consistent refusal of the UK to consider Spain’s entreaties for such an agreement with regard to Gibraltar is the fact that there is no serious threat of violence.

Well plus the fact that several non-binding referendums held in Gibraltar clearly indicated a preference for continued UK Overseas Territory status by the inhabitants over joint sovereignty.

Remember, while the joint sovereignty agreement with Argentina over the Falklands has held up, it’s not well regarded by a sizable percentage of the Islanders (and their allies in HMG) and is a bit of a political football in some corners of the UK despite the economic investment in the islands by Argentina. The Economist had an article last month detailing some of the frustrations longtime residents have had with Argentinian fishing interests’ methods in Falklands waters.

I’m not sure if the current British government is ready to repeat that experience even if joint sovereignty has been successful in Northern Ireland.

 

[Bookmark1995]

We all know that since the Sino-Soviet War there have been joint sovereignty agreements negotiated to avoid or end hostilities in Northern Island, Jerusalem, Cyprus, the Falklands, and a half dozen other locations in South America and Africa. Might such an arrangement have avoided the war, or is the only reason they exist today because of seeing what happened in 1969? I guess the consistent refusal of the UK to consider Spain’s entreaties for such an agreement with regard to Gibraltar is the fact that there is no serious threat of violence.

Uh...

Well let me put it this way: from the late 19th to the early 20th century, racism and racial discrimination were held up as normal attitudes. People wholeheartedly believed in such concepts like eugenics and the need for racial purity, including the Supreme Court. What did it take for all those notions to be discredited?

Nazism and the Holocaust.

Nazism was horrifying, not just because of its death toll, but because a modern industrial nation had used its know how and creativity for the purpose of causing as much death and suffering as possible to a population. And not because the population had done anything, but because of some vague notion of identity and racial makeup.

The Sino-Soviet War and its horrors are what caused a generation to release the evils of communism and how dangerous belligerence is in a time when weapons can end an entire civilization.

In life, things have to get bad before they can get good.

 

[colonel]

Uh...

Well let me put it this way: from the late 19th to the early 20th century, racism and racial discrimination were held up as normal attitudes. People wholeheartedly believed in such concepts like eugenics and the need for racial purity, including the Supreme Court. What did it take for all those notions to be discredited?

Nazism and the Holocaust.

Nazism was horrifying, not just because of its death toll, but because a modern industrial nation had used its know how and creativity for the purpose of causing as much death and suffering as possible to a population. And not because the population had done anything, but because of some vague notion of identity and racial makeup.

The Sino-Soviet War and its horrors are what caused a generation to release the evils of communism and how dangerous belligerence is in a time when weapons can end an entire civilization.

In life, things have to get bad before they can get good.

So, not to be flip, but it’s almost like for the world post these totalitarian horrors - Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?

 

[Bookmark1995]

So, not to be flip, but it’s almost like for the world post these totalitarian horrors - Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?

No. I don't believe that saying applies to acts of violence and mass death.

Human beings can evolve, but only when their cushy lives are badly disrupted. European nations were happy to use force to conquer the world, but as soon as they got blown up in two world wars, suddenly their guiding ideology was one of global peace.

While the Israelis and Palestinians laud the 1985 Copenhagen Accords all they want, the truth is this: the impetus for that was the Palestinians dreading a nuclear attack on Ramallah, and the Israelis dreading an attack on Tel Aviv.

 

[colonel]

Well plus the fact that several non-binding referendums held in Gibraltar clearly indicated a preference for continued UK Overseas Territory status by the inhabitants over joint sovereignty.

Remember, while the joint sovereignty agreement with Argentina over the Falklands has held up, it’s not well regarded by a sizable percentage of the Islanders (and their allies in HMG) and is a bit of a political football in some corners of the UK despite the economic investment in the islands by Argentina. The Economist had an article last month detailing some of the frustrations longtime residents have had with Argentinian fishing interests’ methods in Falklands waters.

I’m not sure if the current British government is ready to repeat that experience even if joint sovereignty has been successful in Northern Ireland.

Come to think of it the great majority of the agreements involve areas where the old British Empire was involved with one or both parties. Cyprus, Kashmir and other old colonial holdings.
As you say the Northern Ireland agreement was successful beyond all expectations. Had that not been first we may not have seen the later agreements. Still the rest of the Commonwealth has some resentment that the special 5 (UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) have integrated so closely with each other and the US. Some call it racist, but given the benefits Commonwealth membership has for all of the nations no one is looking to bail. Indeed Mozambique and Angola used to be Portuguese but are now in the Commonwealth.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

While the Israelis and Palestinians laud the 1985 Copenhagen Accords all they want, the truth is this: the impetus for that was the Palestinians dreading a nuclear attack on Ramallah, and the Israelis dreading an attack on Tel Aviv.

As it is they were already dreading that after the precedent the Sino-Soviet War set.

 

[colonel]

As it is they were already dreading that after the precedent the Sino-Soviet War set.

The nuclear exchanges in 81 where the Iraqis dropped an old Soviet nuke on Teheran and the Shah responded by dropping what everyone believes was an Israeli bomb on Baghdad was also something that likely “”focused the minds” of the parties as Kissinger said.

 

[colonel]

. . . While the Israelis and Palestinians laud the 1985 Copenhagen Accords all they want, the truth is this: the impetus for that was the Palestinians dreading a nuclear attack on Ramallah, and the Israelis dreading an attack on Tel Aviv.

Doubtful the Copenhagen accords would have happened without the joint declaration by the US, UK and France in Quebec City in 1983 that any attack using any weapon of mass destruction anywhere would be considered an Act of War against each of them. Then again that agreement was largely dependent on the final exchanges in the Middle East in 1981, when it became clear non-nuclear powers were getting nukes from other sources (see the post above).

 

[colonel]

We’ve concentrated so much on what would have changed without the Sino- Soviet War, let’s know look at where we’re possibly going:

1. Best case is a unified federal state from the English Channel to the Urals including Iceland, Greenland and the old Soviet Republics. Similar reintegration of the four competing Chinas into a single entity working with the other Asian and Pacific nations. A continued march of the African, and Latin American states toward democracy and prosperity through self sufficiency and free trade. The US and Commonwealth nations continue supporting world-wide recovery efforts.

2. Worst case is that each nation and individual entity goes back to myopic self serving concerns. Fallout (no pun intended) is undermining confidence in, and therefore the effectives of, the UN, IAEA, the Radiological Recovery Administration, and refugee assistance and resettlement efforts. Lack of international cooperation leads to stagnation of the space program and other scientific research. Finally, someone is actually bright enough to build or rebuild or find a working nuke, and absolutely stupid enough to actually use it.

3. Most likely case ?????

 

[Bookmark1995]

We’ve concentrated so much on what would have changed without the Sino- Soviet War, let’s know look at where we’re possibly going:

1. Best case is a unified federal state from the English Channel to the Urals including Iceland, Greenland and the old Soviet Republics. Similar reintegration of the four competing Chinas into a single entity working with the other Asian and Pacific nations. A continued march of the African, and Latin American states toward democracy and prosperity through self sufficiency and free trade. The US and Commonwealth nations continue supporting world-wide recovery efforts.

2. Worst case is that each nation and individual entity goes back to myopic self serving concerns. Fallout (no pun intended) is undermining confidence in, and therefore the effectives of, the UN, IAEA, the Radiological Recovery Administration, and refugee assistance and resettlement efforts. Lack of international cooperation leads to stagnation of the space program and other scientific research. Finally, someone is actually bright enough to build or rebuild or find a working nuke, and absolutely stupid enough to actually use it.

3. Most likely case ?????

I think we would've arrived at our highly integrated world eventually: the odds of somebody using a nuke are a guarantee. Once that occurs, and modern media can show people the horrors of violence, then you have an incentive for the people of the world to get along.

 

[colonel]

I think we would've arrived at our highly integrated world eventually: the odds of somebody using a nuke are a guarantee. Once that occurs, and modern media can show people the horrors of violence, then you have an incentive for the people of the world to get along.

I don't follow - Are you saying we've arrived at our level of integration now because of the past nuclear exchanges, or that a future nuclear use is guaranteed, or both?

 

[Bookmark1995]

I don't follow - Are you saying we've arrived at our level of integration now because of the past nuclear exchanges, or that a future nuclear use is guaranteed, or both?

Both.