You fail to explain why this is obviously a good thing.
I care to justify points that are challenged, not points that aren’t challenged. Are you challenging the point—by which I mean “are you prepared to argue the opposite”?
Well, I fail to see how more Western European intervention in Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere more generally would not have improved the lives of the residents of that sphere.
Ah, I think I just confused you with a badly phrased statement. I meant a reduction of the Soviet and American interference in their own formerly solidly-controlled spheres (will edit ancestor comment to make it more clear).
Well the USSR had sufficient control over it’s sphere that it didn’t need to “interfere” per se despite the norm against colonialism.
As for the US, it could reasonably be argued that Latin America would be better off with more US interference for the same reason Africa was better off under colonialism.
Well the USSR had sufficient control over it’s sphere that it didn’t need to “interfere” per se despite the norm against colonialism.
I seem to recollect conventional Soviet invasions of obstreperous Soviet puppet states followed by massacres by Soviet troops and soviet secret police.
One can argue that western Europe is largely puppet states of the US state department, but the State Department employs more decorous methods that do not leave behind so many bloodstains.
Well the USSR had sufficient control over it’s sphere that it didn’t need to “interfere” per se despite the norm against colonialism.
In the 1950s Kruschev used Anglo-French intervention in Egypt as an excuse/justification for not withdrawing from Hungary.
The Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan was opposed by the entire postcolonial world, including post-colonial states like India and Pakistan. The Soviet defeat at Afghanistan then may have led directly to the “Sinatra doctrine” which enabled the whole of Eastern Europe falling away.
As for the US, it could reasonably be argued that Latin America would be better off with more US interference for the same reason Africa was better off under colonialism.
I care to justify points that are challenged, not points that aren’t challenged. Are you challenging the point—by which I mean “are you prepared to argue the opposite”?
Well, I fail to see how more Western European intervention in Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere more generally would not have improved the lives of the residents of that sphere.
Ah, I think I just confused you with a badly phrased statement. I meant a reduction of the Soviet and American interference in their own formerly solidly-controlled spheres (will edit ancestor comment to make it more clear).
Well the USSR had sufficient control over it’s sphere that it didn’t need to “interfere” per se despite the norm against colonialism.
As for the US, it could reasonably be argued that Latin America would be better off with more US interference for the same reason Africa was better off under colonialism.
I seem to recollect conventional Soviet invasions of obstreperous Soviet puppet states followed by massacres by Soviet troops and soviet secret police.
One can argue that western Europe is largely puppet states of the US state department, but the State Department employs more decorous methods that do not leave behind so many bloodstains.
In the 1950s Kruschev used Anglo-French intervention in Egypt as an excuse/justification for not withdrawing from Hungary.
The Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan was opposed by the entire postcolonial world, including post-colonial states like India and Pakistan. The Soviet defeat at Afghanistan then may have led directly to the “Sinatra doctrine” which enabled the whole of Eastern Europe falling away.
An interactive graph
Africa has fallen behind the rest of the world in a way that Latin America hasn’t.