|
https://mobile.twitter.com/SilingWu/status/1484863852902813703
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Never fails that somebody has to trot out the "Che was racist" canard whenever he's so much as mentioned. Gusanos abound
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Well I mean, he was a white man born before 1990's. How could he not be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 09:57
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:Well I mean, he was a white man born before 1990's. How could he not be? that troll meme from a decade ago with increasingly swarthy nationalists declaring their white bloodlines
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:reading on henry lane wilson's wiki page and i came across this quirk: Any book recommendations for the mexican revolution?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
large oblate cat posted:Any book recommendations for the mexican revolution? Frank McLynn's Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
i was going over mayor la guardia's wiki when i came across the time he handed a $100,000 check to fascist italy to support the invasion of ethiopia. the citations led to a couple absolutely fascinating articles https://web.archive.org/web/20210612110554/https://lucid.substack.com/p/when-harlem-and-little-italy-clashed https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/08/03/when-fascist-aggression-ethiopia-sparked-movement-black-solidarity/
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 08:42
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/NostalgicVG/status/1485318161524264961
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
gross
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
I'm almost done this book and it's pretty good. A little bit too fun. I have already read Neptune's Inferno. Also Tales of the South Pacific by Michener. You got any other Solomons Campaign book recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:I'm almost done this book and it's pretty good. A little bit too fun. I have already read Neptune's Inferno. Also Tales of the South Pacific by Michener. You got any other Solomons Campaign book recommendations? John B Lundstrom's "The First South Pacific Campaign" his "The First Team" is also reportedly very good, though not specific to the Solomons
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
the OP says this thread is for 1815 onwards but I figure my question about the 1770’s probably fits in better here than the pre-modern thread I’d heard somewhere that the real reason why the American revolution happened was that the colonies kept wanting to break treaties with the natives and keep invading them, and the Brits said no don’t do that we have treaties with them, and the colonists decided to break with the Brits over this, and that everything we read in textbooks about the revolution is a fairytale Does anyone have some reading or sources on this
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
I haven't read it but Native Americans in the American Revolution: How the War Divided, Devastated, and Transformed the Early American Indian World by Ethan A. Schmidt looks like it's a good one volume treatment. if you're willing to wait a week i've been assigned American Leviathan: Empire, Nation, and Revolutionary Frontier by Patrick Griffin for Wednesday's class so I can report back on that when I've given a skim through. British Indian policy was a factor in the outbreak of the revolution but it wasn't the factor. New England by this time had already largely either eradicated, placed on early forms of reservations, or driven Native tribes in the region to Ohio so even if they went beyond the 1763 Proclamation line there wasn't anyone there to care about it. The mid-Atlantic and Southern colonies were more upset about it because it limited expansion into regions they had already been exterminating Natives and settling into. However the Proclamation Line was never meant to be a permanent boundary but rather a way to regulate Native land sales through British colonial government and limit conflicts between whites and natives by slowing and organizing sales rather than the free for all it had been for white settlers. The British basically realized land hungry Americans were instigating the various Indian rebellions and sought to stop getting their trading forts wrecked rather than out of a sympathy for native peoples. 2 years before the revolution for example, the British governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore launched a campaign to burn and destroy the Shawnee and Mingo tribes that had attacked Virginian settlers moving into Kentucky. Of course this would greatly hinder Dunmore's attempts to recruit Natives as allies when the revolution did break out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
awesome, thanks for the lesson
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
so it just occurred to me that despite what if kennedy hadnt been shot being the big sixties hypothetical what if nixon won seems like the more relevant one the 1960 election is a pretty easy one to flip and it also contained almost no discussion of what would turn out to be the big issues of the decade like we just assume it would be bad because nixon is bad but nixon was an opportunist above all else and in the wake of eisenhowers dont trust the defense industry and integration good i cant really visualize him going whole hog war and racism rule when it was that far off from his existing popular brand
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
It definitely changes the timetable for Civil Rights and thus the collapse of the Democratic coalition and associated migration of conservative Dems over to the GOP, possibly into the 70s. Those forces though we're gonna tear the party apart regardless at some point, so it's probably more a question of timing than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
I find it hard to reason about what Nixon would have done about Cuba, a crisis that I think would have come up during his hypothetical presidency. Nixon was even more of an anti-Communist than JFK, so he may not have flinched at sending American air support into the Bay of Pigs. Maybe Nixon would have just invaded openly with U.S. Marines instead of playing plausible deniability games with Cuban exiles. But it's also not hard to imagine that Nixon would have resisted the influence of the DoD, CIA types urging him to crush Castro and give all the land back to the inherited wealth east coast elite types that he resented so profoundly. But it's a counterfactual so you have to make some guesses -- I think Nixon's hatred of communists would prevail, and he could find a way to attack the Cuban Revolution such that he could believe that he had done it himself and he wasn't just dancing to Allen Dulles' tune. One way or another, I think a Cuban Missile Crisis (-style event, not necessarily in Cuba, which could be under American military occupation in this timeline) takes place if anything even sooner under Nixon, and now the question is whether he can ignore the war hawks (he wouldn't have had McNamara or RFK in his inner circle, but bloodthirsty loons like Curtis LeMay would still be in the mix), talk it out with Khrushchev and avoid Armageddon. Again, really hard to say. The drunk, paranoid Nixon of 1974 might have ended the world. But the calculating Nixon who triangulated Mao against the Soviets might have been able to do it. I also wonder whether Henry Kissinger would have been Nixon's NSA or secretary of state that early. Maybe Kissinger has written about what he would have advised in those situations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:so it just occurred to me that despite what if kennedy hadnt been shot being the big sixties hypothetical what if nixon won seems like the more relevant one the 1960 election is a pretty easy one to flip and it also contained almost no discussion of what would turn out to be the big issues of the decade In 1960 Nixon was a diehard cold warrior who had advocated nuking the Vietnamese in 1954 along with a cabal of French-supporting extremists in the Eisenhower administration: quote:As soon as he arrived in Washington, Radford invited him to his house for dinner. Among those there were John Foster Dulles, his brother CIA director Allen Dulles, and Vice-President Richard Nixon. These men would lobby to get the United States military involved in the war. Richard Nixon met with a group of editors from the American Newspaper Association and told them, in what amounted to a trial balloon for war, that "if this government cannot avoid it, the administration must face up to the situation and dispatch forces." In a National Security Council meeting he asked whether it might be wise to use atomic bombs to save Dien Bien Phu. He was told it would take three to wipe out the Viet Minh forces surrounding the French position, but President Eisenhower said he doubted they could actually win a war there after using them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
I don’t know that we get to a missile crisis with Nixon because my gut tells me we would have used the Bay of Pigs as cover for a large scale invasion and there would be open hostilities before the soviets could start moving the missiles in
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:By "existing popular brand" are you talking about Eisenhower's popular brand? Because Nixon really distanced himself from Eisenhower in the 1960 election. Kennedy ran on the idea that the Eisenhower administration was weak on defense, Nixon being part of that. this phrasing kind of makes nixon sound like the al gore of the fifties which is an amusing mental image
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I don’t know that we get to a missile crisis with Nixon because my gut tells me we would have used the Bay of Pigs as cover for a large scale invasion and there would be open hostilities before the soviets could start moving the missiles in I agree. My guess is that America succeeds in invading Cuba and defeating the conventional Cuban forces, but then the occupying US army would be mired for years in a counterinsurgency against Castro-led guerrillas (maybe for this reason America doesn’t get as heavily involved in Vietnam!). The Soviets might deploy missiles elsewhere in the world in order to pressure the Americans to end their occupation of Cuba and as a response to the American missile bases in Turkey (a provocation that the Soviets may have wanted to answer independently of defending Cuba). But maybe without a real existing communist Cuban state, the Soviets don’t feel justified in deploying nuclear weapons and so the crisis never escalates to the level it did historically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
What did NATO think the USSR's objective was if the balloon ever went up in Europe? "Unify" Germany? Occupy France? Drive all the way to Lisbon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
seven days to the river rhine is the major strategic plan that's turned up post-fall of the wall iirc
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
does a quagmire in cuba preclude a quagmire in vietnam its hard to imagine us doing them both at the same time
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:does a quagmire in cuba preclude a quagmire in vietnam its hard to imagine us doing them both at the same time Do you remember the 2000's?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
why did eisenhower do more to support the french and south vietnam than batista? or am i incorrect in that assumption?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Do you remember the 2000's? there wasnt anyone to try and stop us in the 2000s and just the one quagmire was enough to take a giant poo poo all over our reputation with all the domestic stuff that was going on
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:why did eisenhower do more to support the french and south vietnam than batista? or am i incorrect in that assumption? If I recall correctly (I might not, been a while since I’ve read about it) they just kind of slept on Cuba and put a lot of faith in Batista’s insistence he had it all under control and it was kind of a slow burning affair until nearly the end
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
another reason im left wondering about what hypothetical sixties president nixon would do is that we just take it for granted he was racist because of the southern strategy but that was like a strategy built around the assumption it was impossible to get black votes because the democrats passed the civil rights act that wasnt some preordained thing that was always going to happen the george wallace wing of the democrat party was considerably more racist than any republican and its a hell of an assumption that sixties president nixon would try to outracist wallace when the material conditions of the civil rights movement and the damage it was doing to the countrys international reputation still existed
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Keep in mind that being racist like the US was helping them lose the hearts and minds game during the Cold War. Even moderates in african newspapers were writing about the cruelty of US racism and pan africanism was a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:seven days to the river rhine is the major strategic plan that's turned up post-fall of the wall iirc interesting that this was leaked by Radek Sikorski i say swears online posted:why did eisenhower do more to support the french and south vietnam than batista? or am i incorrect in that assumption? they didn't think Castro was a communist until it was way too late. as far as they were concerned the fight against Batista was internecine, not ideological.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/OldTechAdverts/status/1487858391108227077?cxt=HHwWisC44dvU96UpAAAA
Some Guy TT has issued a correction as of 06:52 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:they didn't think Castro was a communist until it was way too late. as far as they were concerned the fight against Batista was internecine, not ideological. It's this. There were people in the State Dept. and the CIA who thought Fidel would be easier to work with. Some of Batista's/BRAC's crackdowns on July 26 in the cities were egregious enough that the US Ambassador laid a wreath at the spot where Frank Pais was killed. Basically the military, CIA, and State Dept. had some factions backing Batista, some backing Castro, and others trying to get one of the generals in Batista's army to take over. America really took the gloves off with the rest of Latin America afterwards through Operation Condor, Alliance for Progress, USAID, etc. so as not to have another Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I don’t know that we get to a missile crisis with Nixon because my gut tells me we would have used the Bay of Pigs as cover for a large scale invasion and there would be open hostilities before the soviets could start moving the missiles in
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 07:18
|
|
|
Alright, calm down Allen Dulles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 08:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What did NATO think the USSR's objective was if the balloon ever went up in Europe? "Unify" Germany? Occupy France? Drive all the way to Lisbon? "NATO" here is pretty broad and ranged from 'defend themselves and avoid war in Russia' to 'murder babies and destroy freedom for ever'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 11:15
|
|
|
why does this thread only have two bars where else can readers gain enthralling content like random minimum context calvin coolidge quotes
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:why does this thread only have two bars where else can readers gain enthralling content like random minimum context calvin coolidge quotes hrmmmmmm, and how did his tenure as president go
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:hrmmmmmm, and how did his tenure as president go the party split and all the conservatives began moving to the republicans e: or did you mean coolidge
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarcusRediker/status/1489209748947939335
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 23:14
|
|
