June 13, 20241 yr 13 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Gotcha. I minored in international relations in college, and basically all my classes were focused on WW2 and post war US History. I'm utterly fascinated by both WW2 and the Cold War. Hope the new job let's you specialize more and focus on that. Nice! I did a lot of undergrad research on WWI and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Balkan policy leading to WWI (didn't really look at the Ottomans, sry @Dave Moss). Cold-War intervention was what I really honed in on for grad school. My master's thesis was on the Kennedy Administration's Vientam policy and involvement in the 1963 Saigon Coup that led to the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam's President. It really is a fascinating period.
June 13, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Nice! I did a lot of undergrad research on WWI and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Balkan policy leading to WWI (didn't really look at the Ottomans, sry @Dave Moss). Cold-War intervention was what I really honed in on for grad school. My master's thesis was on the Kennedy Administration's Vientam policy and involvement in the 1963 Saigon Coup that led to the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam's President. It really is a fascinating period. you ever read guns of august? "it will be some damn fool thing in the Balkans that sets it off" -Otto von Bismarck some 30 years before WWI
June 13, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: you ever read guns of august? "it will be some damn fool thing in the Balkans that sets it off" -Otto von Bismarck some 30 years before WWI You know, I've been meaning to. I have a copy because we read selection of in grad school, but I've been meaning to read the whole thing and was thinking about doing so over the summer.
June 13, 20241 yr 14 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Nice! I did a lot of undergrad research on WWI and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Balkan policy leading to WWI (didn't really look at the Ottomans, sry @Dave Moss)Cold-War intervention was what I really honed in on for grad school. My master's thesis was on the Kennedy Administration's Vientam policy and involvement in the 1963 Saigon Coup that led to the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam's President. It really is a fascinating period. Probably my favorite class in college was titled "American Foreign Policy 1933 to Present," but it was really 1933 - 1963. Our professor had a theory that the singing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty basically ended the most contentious part of the Cold War. Studying the origins of WW2 is fascinating to me if you avoid simply defaulting to the accepted theory that the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles gave rise to Hitler. Tons of study goes into the origins of WW1, but WW2 is basically just Hitler was evil (which he was). Our professor proposed much of the blame falls squarely on France and Britain for allowing Hitler to take Austria, the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia (violating the Munich Agreement), but then all of a sudden standing up for Poland (mainly because the Polish government published the security guarantees). My term paper for that class was comparing the written histories of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the actual declassified transcripts of the ExComm meetings -- the massive spin put on things by Sorenson and Schlesinger to make JFK/RFK look good while slamming military leadership is fascinating. Do me a favor -- when teaching kids about the post war world, make sure they understand why things like Bretton Woods and the dominance of the US Dollar in exchange for US provided global security has been the greatest net positive this country has ever seen. We don't need another group of morons wondering why we lead NATO. EDIT: this is the professor - didn't know he was at UCLA now. I got lucky as the discussion group I was assigned to was lead by him -- all his TAs came to that one to see how to lead the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Trachtenberg
June 13, 20241 yr 19 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Probably my favorite class in college was titled "American Foreign Policy 1933 to Present," but it was really 1933 - 1963. Our professor had a theory that the singing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty basically ended the most contentious part of the Cold War. Studying the origins of WW2 is fascinating to me if you avoid simply defaulting to the accepted theory that the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles gave rise to Hitler. Tons of study goes into the origins of WW1, but WW2 is basically just Hitler was evil (which he was). That's a good point. I think the reason I was aways so fascinated by WWI was because the causes were so complex, especially when viewed against WWII and that near universal assumption that it was just caused by NSDAPs being evil. Suffice it to say, appeasement itself played just as important of a role. 19 minutes ago, vikas83 said: My term paper for that class was comparing the written histories of the Cuban Missile Crisis to the actual declassified transcripts of the ExComm meetings -- the massive spin put on things by Sorenson and Schlesinger to make JFK/RFK look good while slamming military leadership is fascinating. They definitely did their best to spin things and absolve the Kennedies of for the failures of Cold War strategy in the early 60s, which went a long way to using Kennedy's martyrdom to insulate him from criticism for an entire generation. While the military leadership was misguided in its approach, basically applying the same tactics and metrics from the world wars for a completely different kind of warfare against insurencies in developing nations, JFK failed to effectively staff the JCS and manage the competing voices within his own cabinet, while the State Department completely bunked the diplomatic side of things. Camelot turned out to be a lot of guys with experience in the wrong fields for the high-level offices they oversaw. 19 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Do me a favor -- when teaching kids about the post war world, make sure they understand why things like Bretton Woods and the dominance of the US Dollar in exchange for US provided global security has been the greatest net positive this country has ever seen. We don't need another group of morons wondering why we lead NATO. It's a good point and a matter that I should understand better myself. Bretton Woods is often just mentioned in passing in a lot of texts, but was hugely significant change in monetary policy both for winning WWII and becoming the world's leading superpower (thanks FDR). I seem to recall that a follow-up to Bretton Woods was something Nixon did in the early 70s that was really the final nail in the coffin for the gold standard in the U.S. I wish I had a better understanding of macroeconomics and economic history.
June 13, 20241 yr 20 minutes ago, vikas83 said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Trachtenberg sorry vikas, awesome post, but I had to... you all know i have problems
June 13, 20241 yr 50 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: sorry vikas, awesome post, but I had to... you all know i have problems beat me to it
June 14, 20241 yr Hamas admits it doesn’t know how many hostages are still alive Limited release of captives is crucial part of ceasefire plan international brokers are trying to help negotiate between Hamas and Israel https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/14/hamas-admits-they-dont-know-how-many-hostages-still-alive/
June 14, 20241 yr 19 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: That's a good point. I think the reason I was aways so fascinated by WWI was because the causes were so complex, especially when viewed against WWII and that near universal assumption that it was just caused by NSDAPs being evil. Suffice it to say, appeasement itself played just as important of a role. They definitely did their best to spin things and absolve the Kennedies of for the failures of Cold War strategy in the early 60s, which went a long way to using Kennedy's martyrdom to insulate him from criticism for an entire generation. While the military leadership was misguided in its approach, basically applying the same tactics and metrics from the world wars for a completely different kind of warfare against insurencies in developing nations, JFK failed to effectively staff the JCS and manage the competing voices within his own cabinet, while the State Department completely bunked the diplomatic side of things. Camelot turned out to be a lot of guys with experience in the wrong fields for the high-level offices they oversaw. It's a good point and a matter that I should understand better myself. Bretton Woods is often just mentioned in passing in a lot of texts, but was hugely significant change in monetary policy both for winning WWII and becoming the world's leading superpower (thanks FDR). I seem to recall that a follow-up to Bretton Woods was something Nixon did in the early 70s that was really the final nail in the coffin for the gold standard in the U.S. I wish I had a better understanding of macroeconomics and economic history. On the CMC -- the 2 narratives spun by the Kennedy's hand picked historians (Sorenson and Schlesinger) are (i) JFK held back the military hawks and proposed the blockade, and was the clear leader of the discussions, and (ii) RFK was the moral voice of the group. Neither of those things are remotely true. JFK was pretty clueless in the meetings he attended, at one point ranting that Khrushchev putting missiles in Cuba would be like the US having missiles in Turkey; then the military has to remind JFK that we had missiles in Turkey. And the moral leader RFK...proposed "sinking the Maine" again; purposely sink an American vessel off the coast of Cuba, blame the Soviets and use that to justify an invasion. The real hero of the story was McNamara -- he came up with the blockade and worked to get the military guys on board while the Kennedys were clueless. In simple terms -- at Bretton Woods, the rest of the free world stopped pegging their currencies to gold and allowed them to float against the dollar. The US Dollar at that time remained on the gold standard (for foreign holders); that was ended by Nixon in the early 1970s due to the increased spending on the Great Society and Vietnam. But digging deeper -- what Bretton Woods meant was that the US Dollar was riskless and the reserve currency of the world, effectively replacing gold as the backbone of all monetary systems. The real trick is in the financial sector -- banks are measured based on a ratio of equity to risk weighted assets. So the more risk weighted assets you have, the more reserves the bank needs. Loans, cash, investments all have risk weights that reflect their riskiness, but the risk weight of US Treasuries is 0%. So...banks can hold as many US Treasury bonds as they want and hold nothing against them. Even cash has a risk weight. It created an unrelenting, never ending demand for US Treasuries, which provides enormous and incalculable financial benefits to US citizens (lower borrowing costs, cheaper imports, etc.). For that, we became the backbone of defending western values and democracy. In today's world when idiots talk about backing away from that...they are risking the post war equilibrium.
June 14, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: On the CMC -- the 2 narratives spun by the Kennedy's hand picked historians (Sorenson and Schlesinger) are (i) JFK held back the military hawks and proposed the blockade, and was the clear leader of the discussions, and (ii) RFK was the moral voice of the group. Neither of those things are remotely true. JFK was pretty clueless in the meetings he attended, at one point ranting that Khrushchev putting missiles in Cuba would be like the US having missiles in Turkey; then the military has to remind JFK that we had missiles in Turkey. And the moral leader RFK...proposed "sinking the Maine" again; purposely sink an American vessel off the coast of Cuba, blame the Soviets and use that to justify an invasion. The real hero of the story was McNamara -- he came up with the blockade and worked to get the military guys on board while the Kennedys were clueless. In simple terms -- at Bretton Woods, the rest of the free world stopped pegging their currencies to gold and allowed them to float against the dollar. The US Dollar at that time remained on the gold standard (for foreign holders); that was ended by Nixon in the early 1970s due to the increased spending on the Great Society and Vietnam. But digging deeper -- what Bretton Woods meant was that the US Dollar was riskless and the reserve currency of the world, effectively replacing gold as the backbone of all monetary systems. The real trick is in the financial sector -- banks are measured based on a ratio of equity to risk weighted assets. So the more risk weighted assets you have, the more reserves the bank needs. Loans, cash, investments all have risk weights that reflect their riskiness, but the risk weight of US Treasuries is 0%. So...banks can hold as many US Treasury bonds as they want and hold nothing against them. Even cash has a risk weight. It created an unrelenting, never ending demand for US Treasuries, which provides enormous and incalculable financial benefits to US citizens (lower borrowing costs, cheaper imports, etc.). For that, we became the backbone of defending western values and democracy. In today's world when idiots talk about backing away from that...they are risking the post war equilibrium. McNamara??? You’re on drugs. you do realize the blockade was an act of war right?
June 14, 20241 yr Just now, Dave Moss said: McNamara??? You’re on drugs Read the transcripts. McNamara destroyed his reputation during the Johnson administration, but he was the smartest guy in the room during the CMC. Try actually knowing things for a change.
June 14, 20241 yr Just now, vikas83 said: Read the transcripts. McNamara destroyed his reputation during the Johnson administration, but he was the smartest guy in the room during the CMC. Try actually knowing things for a change. Ummmm. You’d be laughed at by anyone who has done actual research on the subject.
June 14, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, Dave Moss said: Ummmm. You’d be laughed at by anyone who has done actual research on the subject. So you haven't read the transcripts and have no clue what you are talking about. Figures. Why should this topic be any different?
June 14, 20241 yr Author 3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Ummmm. You’d be laughed at by anyone who has done actual research on the subject. Is it the Ottomans again?
June 14, 20241 yr McNamara was pretty bad during the early Vietnam era, too, but I'm willing to revisit his role in the CMC. The story about missiles in Turkey is accurate, and that image of JFK as sort of clueless and not in control during high-level cabinet meetings is basically how I came to view his role during the Diem crisis as well from '62-'63. In general, though, McNamara to me looks like a prime example of why "camelot" failed. Sure, he was a very smart man, but he was a business leader. I dont know why you'd think that setting military policy would be great fit for the President of Ford Motor Company. As Secretary of Defense, McNamara was largely out of his league, and the JCS was able to exploit that.
June 14, 20241 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: McNamara was pretty bad during the early Vietnam era, too, but I'm willing to revisit his role in the CMC. The story about missiles in Turkey is accurate, and that image of JFK as sort of clueless during higulh-level cabinet meetings is basically how I came to view his role during the Diem crisis as well from '62-'63. In general, though, McNamara to me looks like a prime example of why "camelot" failed. Sure, he was a very smart man, but he was a business leader. I dont know why you'd think that setting military policy would be great fit for the President of Ford Motor Company. As Secretary of Defense, McNamara was largely out of his league, and the JCS was able to exploit that. He was instrumental in getting consensus on the blockade and bridging the gap between Kennedy and the military. While the brass didn't like McNamara, they had zero respect for JFK.
June 14, 20241 yr 4 minutes ago, vikas83 said: He was instrumental in getting consensus on the blockade and bridging the gap between Kennedy and the military. While the brass didn't like McNamara, they had zero respect for JFK. You think the blockade that almost caused a nuclear war was a good idea?
June 14, 20241 yr This is what a lot of academics seem to think these days, that the "quarantine" was way too risky and sort of reckless. I was kind of surprised by this take when I heard it in grad school. Idk, though, it did work, and the installations in Cuba had not been armed yet. Like, what were they supposed to do? I think there would've been a greater risk of nuclear war and loss of face had they allowed the warheads to transfer and the missiles to become operable. It kinda seems like revisionism for revisionism's sake.
June 14, 20241 yr 7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: You think the blockade that almost caused a nuclear war was a good idea? Oh, I forgot. You're an idiot and were likely rooting for the Soviets.
June 14, 20241 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: This is what a lot of academics seem to think these days, that the "quarantine" was way too risky and sort of reckless. I was kind of surprised by this take when I heard it in grad school. Idk, though, it did work, and the installations in Cuba had not been armed yet. Like, what were they supposed to do? I think there would've been a greater risk of nuclear war and loss of face had they allowed the warheads to transfer and the missiles to become operable. It kinda seems like revisionism for revisionism's sake. The quarantine was an unmitigated success. Perfect middle ground and achieved the misson.
June 14, 20241 yr Just now, vikas83 said: The quarantine was an unmitigated success. Perfect middle ground and achieved the misson. Yeah, that seemed to be pretty widely accepted until recently, and I still lean to thinking that it's the correct take.
June 14, 20241 yr 32 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yeah, that seemed to be pretty widely accepted until recently, and I still lean to thinking that it's the correct take. I'm not really sure what people wanted. Obviously we ended up trading the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, but that was after the initial response and done quietly and not simultaneously. Had we simply traded the Jupiter missiles right at the start, we definitely would have encouraged further aggressive moves by the Soviets in order to continue weakening our NATO commitments. It would have been a catastrophe. Especially after the unmitigated disaster of the Bay of Pigs. The CMC led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, one of the first steps to reduce tensions. It also basically lead to Brezhnev taking over from Khrushchev, which was a net positive for US/Soviet relations.
Create an account or sign in to comment