Neutral Western Europe after WW2

And what do you think of that answer? To ME, It sounds horrible.

Use nukes for deterance as in OTL.

And blowing off the idea of suffering a war of conquest? How many would die?

And what of the cost of this supposed resistance? :eek:

If this is the socialist idea of patriotism, it sucks!






Umm, yeah, so you support the allies of your enemies because it is somehow better to be oppressed by communists instead of Westerners.:confused:

Trying to wrap my American brain around this "logic" is literally causing a small pain at the top of my head.

Are you a patriotic european socialist?

If so, FYI I am not trying to insult you, merely expressing my lack of understanding of your POV.

No I'm not a patriotic european socialist, instead im a patriotic Australian social democrat.

I actually agree that the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmanent is nuts. Even a neutral Europe in the Cold War should have nukes (in fact it would be more important because of no US support).

What I think is interesting though, even just in our exchanges over this topic is the way differing political views on domestic issues seem to seamlessly move over to foreign policy views.

I say this as I assume that you are right-wing conservative?

I think on both sides of the political spectrum there is a 'fellow traveller' syndrome. So left-wingers in the Cold War who were quite democratic themselves would tend to excuse atrocities commited by Castro, whereas democratic Western right-wingers would tend to excuse atrocities committed by Pinochet.

I think it's a sort of attitude that 'we have the same goal but different methods'.

I understand the twisted logic in this, but to some extent there would be examples where I would be guilty of this. If I had of been alive in the 1970's (which I wasn't) I would have been extremely anti-apartheid and against both the white regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. I probably would have gone on protests etc and I would certainly have supported much harsher sanctions. However, at the same time I would have taken a critical but more 'muted' stance towards Idi Amin's regime in Uganda. I understand the hypocrisy of this as Amin was massively more brutal than SA or Rhod, but this is I think how I would have felt.

I think also (and I don't want you to take as an insult) that most Americans are far more idealistic and black-and-white in terms of views of foreign policy. I say this from talking to quite a few Americans who live out here in Australia (and most are not conservatives, they're liberals). This compares to a more realpolitic, moral greyscale view of the world that Australians, Briton and even more so continental Europeans tend to take. This is particularly notable on say the issue of China and Taiwan, etc.
 
What if the USSR leadership is killed in WW2? Perhaps an accident or assassination towards the end, and the USSR goes into a civil war/serious internal turmoil as a result? Which lasts, perhaps a decade?

Troops recalled to participate in internal struggles, etc?

Anyway, I don't see the entirety of europe neutral. Norways experience with neutrality was that it didn't work, period. We'd have wanted an alliance with someone.
If the US isn't available, or the UK, maybe review pan-scandinaviaism.

Maybe you'd end up with allied regional blocs?
 
I suppose if you mellow out the soviets a little and have them see social democracies as just as valid as socialist dictatorships it coudl work out. Western Europe would be seen as a partially capitalist, partially socialist middle ground.
 
I suppose if you mellow out the soviets a little and have them see social democracies as just as valid as socialist dictatorships it coudl work out. Western Europe would be seen as a partially capitalist, partially socialist middle ground.

I agree with this. This also has butterflies for Easter Europe. Such a Soviet viewpoint would mean that they would be unlikely to crush the Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68 uprisings.
 
No I'm not a patriotic european socialist, instead im a patriotic Australian social democrat.

I actually agree that the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmanent is nuts. Even a neutral Europe in the Cold War should have nukes (in fact it would be more important because of no US support).

.Agreed

What I think is interesting though, even just in our exchanges over this topic is the way differing political views on domestic issues seem to seamlessly move over to foreign policy views.


If one's views are thought out and/or examined then there should be some consistancy between the two.

I say this as I assume that you are right-wing conservative?

M.ostly


I think on both sides of the political spectrum there is a 'fellow traveller' syndrome. So left-wingers in the Cold War who were quite democratic themselves would tend to excuse atrocities commited by Castro, whereas democratic Western right-wingers would tend to excuse atrocities committed by Pinochet.

Agreed.



I think it's a sort of attitude that 'we have the same goal but different methods'.


I would give more weight to 'who is actively out to get us' IMO.


I understand the twisted logic in this, but to some extent there would be examples where I would be guilty of this. If I had of been alive in the 1970's (which I wasn't) I would have been extremely anti-apartheid and against both the white regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. I probably would have gone on protests etc and I would certainly have supported much harsher sanctions. However, at the same time I would have taken a critical but more 'muted' stance towards Idi Amin's regime in Uganda. I understand the hypocrisy of this as Amin was massively more brutal than SA or Rhod, but this is I think how I would have felt.

Impressive that you can imagine your own failings.

I think also (and I don't want you to take as an insult) that most Americans are far more idealistic and black-and-white in terms of views of foreign policy. I say this from talking to quite a few Americans who live out here in Australia (and most are not conservatives, they're liberals). This compares to a more realpolitic, moral greyscale view of the world that Australians, Briton and even more so continental Europeans tend to take. This is particularly notable on say the issue of China and Taiwan, etc.


Not insulted at all. I agree and am glad of it.
 
I agree with this. This also has butterflies for Easter Europe. Such a Soviet viewpoint would mean that they would be unlikely to crush the Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68 uprisings.

A more independant Eastern Europe would certainly make a neutral WE more possible.

Could you have a mutual disbanding of NATO and the Warsaw pact with removal of both Superpower troops from Europe? Say early 70s?

THis leans heavily the idea of the Soviet Union as a defensive player.
 
A more independant Eastern Europe would certainly make a neutral WE more possible.

Could you have a mutual disbanding of NATO and the Warsaw pact with removal of both Superpower troops from Europe? Say early 70s?

THis leans heavily the idea of the Soviet Union as a defensive player.


Wasn't there at least in theory in the early post-war years a plan to re-unite Germany, but neither the West or the Soviets were willing to be the first to pull out their troops?

It is interesting what would happen with a more independent Eastern Europe. Any support among left-wing Europe for the Soviets evaporarted after 56 (the aforementioned Michael Foot as well as being anti-nuclear was also originally anti-NATO until Hungary 56).
 
.Agreed




If one's views are thought out and/or examined then there should be some consistancy between the two.



M.ostly




Agreed.






I would give more weight to 'who is actively out to get us' IMO.




Impressive that you can imagine your own failings.




Not insulted at all. I agree and am glad of it.



I know this is totally off-topic, but I would tend to view my own personal views on foreign policy as more realist rather than idealist (and I mean those as descriptive terms rather than as pejoratives). In some ways I am idealist but in a more liberal internationalist way, rather than neo-conservative way. I think it would be fair to say, despite his closeness to some neo-cons that Tony Blair would be described as a liberal internationalist.

But basically I would describe my views as what I think would be described as classical pragmatic conservative. This is more in the Nixonian detente sort of school of conservative thought, rather than a Reagan-esque 'Evil Empire' stance.

To use a contemporary (actually future) example, in Australia many prominent politicians including many conservatives have said that in the event of a war between the USA and China over the issue of Taiwan, Australia should stay neutral and I would have to agree with them. Australia tends to have a more measured attitude to China, which is due to our economy's far greater reliance on China, etc. It would be perceived that to actually go to war against China would jeopardise this too much. Also one former Aust PM, Malcolm Fraser, said that it would be easier for Aust to be neutral, as China would never expect us to go to war against America due to our cultural closeness, but if we were to side with the USA, we would be expected to provide significant support.

However, I would support Aust involvement if China were to invade the Spratly Islands, due to their greater strategic importance to Western interests.
 
Having the UK surrender to the Soviets and then do guerrilla-type stuff would be a bad idea.

The Soviets would have no problem rounding up the entire British population and deporting them to Kazakhstan and replacing them with Czechs or something.
 
Having the UK surrender to the Soviets and then do guerrilla-type stuff would be a bad idea.

The Soviets would have no problem rounding up the entire British population and deporting them to Kazakhstan and replacing them with Czechs or something.


Whilst I have no doubts about the brutality of the Soviet system, I don't think it would possible for over 50 million people to be deported en masse.

A well-trained and determined insurgency is a very powerful thing against even the most powerful nations (think Vietnam and 1980's Afghanistan).

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan but were forced back eventually. I think a wealthy nation like the UK would be much better equipped to deal with it.

No matter how barbarically savage you are it is hard to rule a nation where millions are willing to take part in a resistance and do things such as sniper attacks on troop patrols, bombing enemy military bases, supply lines etc.

BTW I'm not suggesting this would be a particularly nice UK, far better to have nukes and prevent this from happening. Nonetheless I do think the UK civilian population could make the occupation impossible.
 
Top