Re: ENT: A Choice of Futures by C. L. Bennett Review Thread (Spoilers!
And I find your statement naive:
Anyone who read Marx, listened to Stalin, Lenin, Hrusciov, etc public and private statements knew communism's goal of expanding - a goal supported by the soviet leadership until the '80 (revolutionaries and all), when it became clear it's unattainable (beyond a few third world countries which were converted to communism). This goal was no misunderstanding on anyone's part.
The West (itself no angel) used the more enlightened Marshall plan to contain this expansion.
There was some sabre-rattling about nuclear weapons use, the latest one in the '80. Both superpowers based their strategy on MAD: if you attack with nuclear weapons, we're both dead. No misunderstanding here (both sides knew their position, their opponent's position and the goals that motivated them).
When both power blocks wanted to put aside their differences (communism being on the losing side of the ideological struggle) we had disarmament. No misunderstanding here, either.
Between allies such misunderstandings - if they exist - are always about trivialities.
Name one war that was caused by 'misunderstandings' and I'll name you 10 wars (off the top of my head) that contained no misunderstandings whatsoever about the enemy and his goals.
Wow. Speaking as a student of history, I find that one of the most naive statements I've ever read. The entire Cold War was an enormous mutual misunderstanding. Both sides assumed the other side planned to invade them, and built up nuclear stockpiles in self-defense, which the other side interpreted as a buildup to invasion, so they built more weapons in self-defense, etc.
And I find your statement naive:
Anyone who read Marx, listened to Stalin, Lenin, Hrusciov, etc public and private statements knew communism's goal of expanding - a goal supported by the soviet leadership until the '80 (revolutionaries and all), when it became clear it's unattainable (beyond a few third world countries which were converted to communism). This goal was no misunderstanding on anyone's part.
The West (itself no angel) used the more enlightened Marshall plan to contain this expansion.
There was some sabre-rattling about nuclear weapons use, the latest one in the '80. Both superpowers based their strategy on MAD: if you attack with nuclear weapons, we're both dead. No misunderstanding here (both sides knew their position, their opponent's position and the goals that motivated them).
When both power blocks wanted to put aside their differences (communism being on the losing side of the ideological struggle) we had disarmament. No misunderstanding here, either.
The misunderstandings between cultures are VERY seldom about essential aspects (on the rare occasions when they are about essentials, you can only find them in oligarchic/theocratic societies, ruled by irrational meme-sets).
Between allies such misunderstandings - if they exist - are always about trivialities.
Name one war that was caused by 'misunderstandings' and I'll name you 10 wars (off the top of my head) that contained no misunderstandings whatsoever about the enemy and his goals.
Last edited:
