History questions not worth their own thread IV

[SS-18 ICBM]

I was told in my astronomy class that if the Tunguska meteor hit 5 hours later, it would have flattened St. Petersburg. What kind of effects on 20th century history would that have had?

 

[Tee Kay]

Russia might still be a monarchy.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Even until 2012?

 

[ace99]

So in other words no change.

 

[Lord Baal]

I was told in my astronomy class that if the Tunguska meteor hit 5 hours later, it would have flattened St. Petersburg. What kind of effects on 20th century history would that have had?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=288001&highlight=tunguska

 

[Dachs]

Hmm. I'm unhappy with my answer from four years ago. What a surprise.

 

[History_Buff]

Aren't we all though? Aren't we all...

 

[r16]

I never know what you're on about. China and Vietnam were always at loggerheads, and the Sino-Soviet rift ensured Vietnam's participation in any Sino-Soviet confrontation, whether they wanted it or not.

and their differences made it readily obvious that the Chinese Flak units around the border and ı believe even around Hanoi would be reported as a token gesture ; this wasn't 1954 afterall .( In the latter case the 64 Chinese guns almost shot down a French plane each . ) The Chinese was foremost in the mind of Pentagon : the escalation of the war in Viet Nam , making it a full scale effort , is a direct result of the '62 clash where the Chinese quickly dissuaded Indians from being a counterbalance to them . The Missile Crisis was a simulation of global anhilation that merely covered the combined Nuclear deployment of "White Peoples" in the face an apparently resurgent China . An invasion of a Communist country might have healed the rifts between Moscow and Peking , that's why it would never happen .

 

[Masada]

r16 is right on this btw.

 

[Agent327]

How is that even an argument against Ho being a Communist?

(...)

I have read biographies of him. All of them agree with me. Ho was a Communist and had been one from the 1920s.

Again, nobody argued that he wasn't.

Presumably if he were a moderate he would have to have had moderate policies? Also what kind of moderate was he?

Not being mentioned either.

Your words, not mine.

Quote missing.

... he wrote for L'Humanité from 1922 onwards. Contributing to the Party newspaper is surely the mark of an active member, no? And if that isn't good enough there's the aforementioned visit to the Soviet Union complete with attendance at the Fifth Comintern Congress? And if that isn't good enough he superintended the foundation of the Vietnamese Communist Party at the instigation of the Comintern in 1930. But I guess I'm supposed to believe that Ho had a huge hand in forming a Communist Party and at the askance of the Comintern because of reasons wholly unrelated to him being a Communist.

1922: so after he failed to get an audience with Wilson on support for an independent Vietnam. 1930: ditto. (What does 'superintended' even mean in this context?) All this doesn't counter the fact that in the aftermath of WW II Ho again sought support from the US.

Seems like the common sense interpretation here is that Ho Chi Minh was always an ideological Marxist and that the burden of proof is on JELEEN to demonstrate that this was not the case.

Ho's policies,I repeat, were always intended to create an independent Vietnam - both before and after he joined the Communist Party. That same Communist party showed as little interest in the affairs of Vietnam as the US did (until they detected 'a Communist threat' there; big surprise).

Instead, we'll get insinuations that Masada and PCH don't know what they're talking about and aren't up to date on the literature without actually mentioning any specific literature, and airy dismissals of facts as circumstantial or irrelevant without any compelling stated reason to do so.

Sounds pretty much like an insinuation to me, unsubstantiated at that.

 

[sophie]

Again, nobody argued that he wasn't [A hardline communist prior to the 1940s].

And that's all circumstantial. The reality is that he didn't pursue a hardline Communist course in Vietnam until after his hopes of American support for Vietnamese independence were consistently rebuffed. Already after WW I he wanted to appeal to Woodrow Wilson for support of a Vietnamese independence. You should check a recent biography on him on that. So my conclusion stands: the US created their own 'Communist threat' in Vietnam.

lolwut.

 

[Symphony D.]

1922: so after he failed to get an audience with Wilson on support for an independent Vietnam. 1930: ditto. (What does 'superintended' even mean in this context?) All this doesn't counter the fact that in the aftermath of WW II Ho again sought support from the US.

Ho's policies,I repeat, were always intended to create an independent Vietnam - both before and after he joined the Communist Party. That same Communist party showed as little interest in the affairs of Vietnam as the US did (until they detected 'a Communist threat' there; big surprise).

So your theory is that after being rebuffed by Wilson, Ho became a communist, and was disappointed in their lack of interest but stayed with them for 25 years while actively contributing to their efforts, before betraying his true colors in trying to appeal again to Truman, only to go back to them?

So he wasn't a hardline communist (1919), then he was (1922), then he wasn't again (1947), and then he was again (1950)? Sounds legit.

 

[Crezth]

Again, nobody argued that he wasn't.

Actually, it's how the discussion started:

*Fun fact: Ho Chi Minh actually wanted the US to support his independence movement, but got blown off; it was only after this that he turned Commy. So in the end the US produced their own Communist threat in Vietnam.

And then there's this:

'Ho was most assuredly a Communist' only represents US opinion on him.

And of course the cream of the crop:

And that's all circumstantial. The reality is that he didn't pursue a hardline Communist course in Vietnam until after his hopes of American support for Vietnamese independence were consistently rebuffed. Already after WW I he wanted to appeal to Woodrow Wilson for support of a Vietnamese independence. You should check a recent biography on him on that. So my conclusion stands: the US created their own 'Communist threat' in Vietnam.

...which ought to be substantiated with something more than "chek otu this col docomentary guys!!!1"

Your original case was that Ho wasn't commie until after "his hopes of American support for Vietnamese independence were consistently rebuffed." Emphasis on "consistently." It's not reasonable to assume you mean after he petitioned Wilson because, indeed, there would have been no consistency to his petitioning at that point.

1922: so after he failed to get an audience with Wilson on support for an independent Vietnam. 1930: ditto. (What does 'superintended' even mean in this context?) All this doesn't counter the fact that in the aftermath of WW II Ho again sought support from the US.

So let me get this straight. Wilson turns Ho down and Ho immediately turns hardcore commie and starts writing in commie newspapers?

This represents a significant backtracking from your previous point. Even if it were true, this is by no means what you originally argued with actual, y'know, words.

Ho's policies,I repeat, were always intended to create an independent Vietnam - both before and after he joined the Communist Party. That same Communist party showed as little interest in the affairs of Vietnam as the US did (until they detected 'a Communist threat' there; big surprise).

Both before and after 1922, then?

Sounds pretty much like an insinuation to me, unsubstantiated at that.

what does this even mean

So he wasn't a hardline communist (1919), then he was (1922), then he wasn't again (1947), and then he was again (1950)? Sounds legit.

It's Marx's theory of dialectical wishy-washyism.

 

[Masada]

Hi Jeleen,

Please stop wasting my time.

Your first post made the claim that Ho was not a Communist until 'America blew him off'. I took that to mean the rebuffs of the late-1940s and early 1950s. I accordingly posted evidence that suggested Ho had become a Communist in the 1920s. You derided this evidence as 'circumstantial' before proceeding to attack my command of the literature. This confirmed the belief on my part that you were to referring to those later events. I was not, I might add, seemingly alone in this belief.

But I'm not an unreasonable person and have in light of your latest post taken the time and effort to re-read what you wrote. Unfortunately, I've seen no grounds for changing my view that you were indeed referring to the 1940s and 1950s. All the available evidence supports that conclusion. You make it clear that it was only after consistent rebuffs that he became a 'hardline Communist'. I can't see how his petition to Wilson constitutes a consistent rebuff. So far as I know, he only made the one and anonymously mailed it in. So there was hardly a dialogue or a chance to be consistently rebuffed in the 20s.

The reality is that he didn't pursue a hardline Communist course in Vietnam until after his hopes of American support for Vietnamese independence were consistently rebuffed.

I'm also not sure how this paragraph messes at all with the claim that he wasn't a Communist until after 'America blew him off' because you seem to be suggesting here that he was a Communist, albeit a not hard-line one, before he was blown off. And not to labor the point, lets also remember that in the same paragraph you called evidence that Ho had been a Communist in the 1920s 'circumstantial'. The conclusion then is inescapable, you were arguing that Ho only become a Communist after the Second World War.

Now I acknowledge that in your last post you changed position to almost the same one as my own. I guess I should be flattered at the patent imitation but I'm a little bit annoyed that you had to resort to insults before adopting my position. Now rather than labor the point anymore with someone whose grasp on the subject material is obviously shaky and who has now changed position to fundamentally the same one as I came into the argument with, I'm just going to quote an exchange that really to me is emblematic of the whole debate. Not least because your response proves the criticism you were responding too.

Instead, we'll get insinuations that Masada and PCH don't know what they're talking about and aren't up to date on the literature without actually mentioning any specific literature, and airy dismissals of facts as circumstantial or irrelevant without any compelling stated reason to do so.

Sounds pretty much like an insinuation to me, unsubstantiated at that.

Kind regards,

Masada

 

[LightSpectra]

Ho's policies,I repeat, were always intended to create an independent Vietnam - both before and after he joined the Communist Party. That same Communist party showed as little interest in the affairs of Vietnam as the US did (until they detected 'a Communist threat' there; big surprise).

I didn't ask for repetition, I asked for demonstration; with good sources, please.

 

[Agent327]

As Masada should know (since he read all Ho's biographies), Ho Chi Minh was already trying to get an independent Vietnam on the agenda in the aftermath of WW I. That would be before he even joined the Communist party then. None of this isn't anything but public knowledge and you can look it up anywhere you want. Now if Ho would have been pursueing a hardline Communist policy in Vietnam from the start, there would have been little point in trying to get US support for it - either after WW I or WW II.

lolwut.

Nice misquote. I said: Nobody argued he wasn't a Communist [period].

So your theory is that after being rebuffed by Wilson, Ho became a communist, and was disappointed in their lack of interest but stayed with them for 25 years while actively contributing to their efforts, before betraying his true colors in trying to appeal again to Truman, only to go back to them?

So he wasn't a hardline communist (1919), then he was (1922), then he wasn't again (1947), and then he was again (1950)? Sounds legit.

Nice misinterpretation. No, that's not 'my theory', that's just your misreading of what I'm saying. (See above.)

(...)

So let me get this straight. Wilson turns Ho down and Ho immediately turns hardcore commie and starts writing in commie newspapers?

This represents a significant backtracking from your previous point. Even if it were true, this is by no means what you originally argued with actual, y'know, words.

Y'know. it would really help if people, y'know, could read a little better. As you quoted yourself: Ho didn't pursue a hardline Commmunist line in Vietnam until after it was clear to him that the US weren't going to support an independent Vietnam.

So what that means, y'know, that what he did when in Europe (by the way, nobody mentioned what he wrote in l'Humanité) is irrelevant to his stance in Vietnam. Which, I repeat, is exactly what I said.

I'll skip over Masada's post as he simply repeats what already has been answered.

 

[Symphony D.]

Now if Ho would have been pursueing a hardline Communist policy in Vietnam from the start, there would have been little point in trying to get US support for it - either after WW I or WW II.

Because communist countries (and thus communists) have never, ever viewed capitalist nations (like the US) as levers which they can manipulate and use to achieve their policy agendas, either foreign or domestic, right?

Because communists are just totally ideologically incapable of engaging in realpolitik with capitalists to achieve their aims, like the Stalinist USSR did with the Allies in WWII, or the Maoist PRC did with the US following the Sino-Soviet split, among many other examples.

Oops, wait, I ruined the joke.

 

[Masada]

As Masada should know (since he read all Ho's biographies)...

Nice troll. But let's end this, cite something. Wait wouldn't that require a coherent line of argumentation? I suppose so. Heh. Guess its hard having to find a citation that jumps along a timeline that dates Ho's adoption Communism all across history.

Nice misquote. I said: Nobody argued he wasn't a Communist [period].

You, ah, did. To be precise, you argued that it was only after American blew him off that he 'become a Commie'. The common sense reading of that claim was that his conversion to Communist occurred after the Second World War. I followed this up with evidence that Ho had been a Communist in the 1920s, which you dismissed as 'circumstantial'. This served to confirm the common sense reading of your claim. In that same post, you also restated the original claim that it was only after he was consistently rebuffed that he became a hardline Communist. This also supports the notion that you were referring to events that occurred after the Second World War. You've now backtracked and claimed that the 'consistent' rebuff was Ho's anonymous submission to Woodrow Wilson but the evidence to support my initial reading is still there and plain to see.

Y'know. it would really help if people, y'know, could read a little better. As you quoted yourself: Ho didn't pursue a hardline Commmunist line in Vietnam until after it was clear to him that the US weren't going to support an independent Vietnam.

Brilliant argument. Stalin wasn't a hardline Communist until 1948.

 

[Tee Kay]

Or to put it in basic terms, this is what Jeelen's been doing:

 

[Agent327]

Another irrelevant "joke"...

Because communist countries (and thus communists) have never, ever viewed capitalist nations (like the US) as levers which they can manipulate and use to achieve their policy agendas, either foreign or domestic, right?

Because communists are just totally ideologically incapable of engaging in realpolitik with capitalists to achieve their aims, like the Stalinist USSR did with the Allies in WWII, or the Maoist PRC did with the US following the Sino-Soviet split, among many other examples.

Oops, wait, I ruined the joke.

Indeed: by irrelevance. Let me repeat again: Ho's intentions were always focused on an independent Vietnam, before and after he joined the Communist party. What the rest of your rant has to do with anthing said is beyond me.

Nice troll. But let's end this, cite something. Wait wouldn't that require a coherent line of argumentation? I suppose so. Heh. Guess its hard having to find a citation that jumps along a timeline that dates Ho's adoption Communism all across history.

Source missing.

You, ah, did. To be precise, you argued that it was only after American blew him off that he 'become a Commie'. The common sense reading of that claim was that his conversion to Communist occurred after the Second World War. I followed this up with evidence that Ho had been a Communist in the 1920s, which you dismissed as 'circumstantial'. This served to confirm the common sense reading of your claim. In that same post, you also restated the original claim that it was only after he was consistently rebuffed that he became a hardline Communist. This also supports the notion that you were referring to events that occurred after the Second World War. You've now backtracked and claimed that the 'consistent' rebuff was Ho's anonymous submission to Woodrow Wilson but the evidence to support my initial reading is still there and plain to see.

Misquoted. Oh wait, there isn't even a quote in there... Alot of misparaphrasing though. And followed by a misconclusion. Does that mean you've given up argueing?

Brilliant argument.

Thanks.