Governaments of Roosevelt and Truman mismanaged USA foreign policy toward communism

Sep 2019
378
Slovenia
@Guevarist Mayan i think you are writting a lot about issues after 1991. However one can not compare things like gun control, police violence etc. with issues in totalitarian regimes where debate about them is not even possible and even doubts are punishable.

Another thing about poverty if you compare east and west Germany or Taiwan and red China or south Korea and North Korea than you can really see which economy is reducing poverty. Surelly not planned socialist economy, but capitalist economy with free market. It is true however that capitalist economy works even if regime is not democratic. On the other hand fascists and national socialists were both using planned economy. At the end of 70's communist party of China saw what a horrible disaster was the policy of Mao for economy, millions died of hunger etc. The same can be said about Chile under Pinochet and his economic reforms. In these cases however normal developement was to a degree hindered because no real worker's unions can operate in such regimes.

Third about Cuba of course totalitarian communist regime also there did terrible state sponsored crimes. The coalition which brought down Batista was soon destroyed by Castro himself, even if he was claiming before that he does not want in any way to size power. As he very soon destroyed also the free press and all other freedoms. Judges lost their autonomy already in 1960. From 1966-68, the Castro governament used widespread nationalization of remaining privately owned bussiness in Cuba, even small ones. All this was acompanied with state terror. Political police ( DCE, DEM ) was established. Political 'crimes' in Cuba include gathering in larger groups, organizing independent worker's unions, verbal delicts, even not going in to the job can be considered as sabotage. UMAP military unit was able to arrest people just on the suspicion that they are not loyal enough to the regime. They were known also by their large scale persecution of homosexuals. From 1959 more than 100.000 people were sent in to the concentration camps, where regime used forced labour as punishement and around 16.000 were killed. In concentration camps political prisoners were many times mixed with common criminals and of course that caused many deaths, rapes etc. Lack of medical help, lack of food, lack of sleep, torture etc. all this factors contributed to high mortality rates between political prisoners. Also relatives of political prisoners were punished by losing their jobs etc. After the fall of Batista regime around 600 supporters of dictator Batista were killed without a proper trial. Later hundreds of captured rebels from Escambray rebellion against totalitarian regime were killed in prison La Coma de los Coches. Even more were executed in Escambray mountains after they already surrendered.

For Cuba, Black book of communism, published in Ljubljana in 1999, pages 805-825.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Apollon
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
@Guevarist Mayan i think you are writting a lot about issues after 1991. However one can not compare things like gun control, police violence etc. with issues in totalitarian regimes where debate about them is not even possible and even doubts are punishable.

Another thing about poverty if you compare east and west Germany or Taiwan and red China or south Korea and North Korea than you can really see which economy is reducing poverty. Surelly not planned socialist economy, but capitalist economy with free market. It is true however that capitalist economy works even if regime is not democratic. On the other hand fascists and national socialists were both using planned economy. At the end of 70's communist party of China saw what a horrible disaster was the policy of Mao for economy, millions died of hunger etc. The same can be said about Chile under Pinochet and his economic reforms. In these cases however normal developement was to a degree hindered because no real worker's unions can operate in such regimes.

Third about Cuba of course totalitarian communist regime also there did terrible state sponsored crimes. The coalition which brought down Batista was soon destroyed by Castro himself, even if he was claiming before that he does not want in any way to size power. As he very soon destroyed also the free press and all other freedoms. Judges lost their autonomy already in 1960. From 1966-68, the Castro governament used widespread nationalization of remaining privately owned bussiness in Cuba, even small ones. All this was acompanied with state terror. Political police ( DCE, DEM ) was established. Political 'crimes' in Cuba include gathering in larger groups, organizing independent worker's unions, verbal delicts, even not going in to the job can be considered as sabotage. UMAP military unit was able to arrest people just on the suspicion that they are not loyal enough to the regime. They were known also by their large scale persecution of homosexuals. From 1959 more than 100.000 people were sent in to the concentration camps, where regime used forced labour as punishement and around 16.000 were killed. In concentration camps political prisoners were many times mixed with common criminals and of course that caused many deaths, rapes etc. Lack of medical help, lack of food, lack of sleep, torture etc. all this factors contributed to high mortality rates between political prisoners. Also relatives of political prisoners were punished by losing their jobs etc. After the fall of Batista regime around 600 supporters of dictator Batista were killed without a proper trial. Later hundreds of captured rebels from Escambray rebellion against totalitarian regime were killed in prison La Coma de los Coches. Even more were executed in Escambray mountains after they already surrendered.

For Cuba, Black book of communism, published in Ljubljana in 1999, pages 805-825.
The few cases of capitalist success are not the only point of comparison as I said. You completely ignored my comparisons with Congo and Bangladesh. Nor is your initial complaint valid when you don't have any criteria to judge what is "totalitarian". With the criteria I used, the states of Lousiana and Alabama are easily more "totalitarian" than Cuba, the comparison I was making in that specific case, though Eastern Europe also seems less than them too.

You also miss the wider point which is that Cuba made great progress and is better than most American countries and that even Communism in general has made great progress in spite of not being perfect, and that in the case of China it is very deceptive to attribute all progress solely to market reforms.

Your jumbled argument seems to target that last point by saying market reforms may have led to aurhoritarianism but it still is less than Communism, therefore we should attribute China's diminution of poverty primarily to market reforms, but the problem with this is that even the cases of market democracies like Venezuela and India are comparatively authoritarian. More in fact. Venezuela killed around the same amount of people as China in the Tiananmen protests during the Caracazo -making it proportionally worse given Latin America's much smaller population-, while India's initial neoliberal reforms were accompanied with a massacre of Sikhs that has been labeled genocidal. Mexico's market reforms have led to a virtual civil war that since the 90s has killed between 200 and 400 thousand people -that figure doesn't count deaths from hunger and disease-. Those are levels of authoritarianism worse than even North Korea. Indeed for every North Korea there are like five Haitis or Burundis.
 
Sep 2019
378
Slovenia
Definition about what is totalitarian is clear and is used even by courts it is not a private interpretation. This is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. It applies to all communist regimes but not to states with democracy. Communist party of China at the end of 70's declared that Taiwan is now before them and started to indroduce reforms. If under Mao milions died because of hunger in totaly mismanaged economy it is clear result that only after those reforms were introduced conditions improved. However it is true that communist party of China is still using dictatorial powers to rule over the country.

The biggest massacres of Sikhs happened in 1984 after Indira Gandhi was assasinated by her Sikh bodyguards and this is not the case about economy or economic reforms in India. Soviets even helped Indira Gandhi with informations about connections between Punjab nationalists and Pakistan.
 
Feb 2017
313
Latin America
Definition about what is totalitarian is clear and is used even by courts it is not a private interpretation. This is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. It applies to all communist regimes but not to states with democracy. Communist party of China at the end of 70's declared that Taiwan is now before them and started to indroduce reforms. If under Mao milions died because of hunger in totaly mismanaged economy it is clear result that only after those reforms were introduced conditions improved. However it is true that communist party of China is still using dictatorial powers to rule over the country.

The biggest massacres of Sikhs happened in 1984 after Indira Gandhi was assasinated by her Sikh bodyguards and this is not the case about economy or economic reforms in India. Soviets even helped Indira Gandhi with informations about connections between Punjab nationalists and Pakistan.
Your first sentence is nothing but a fallacy from authority, and your definition of "totalitarianism" would preclude Communist governments since their systems of soviets, popular assemblies and communes precludes them from being dictatorial, while actual dictatorial regimes with centralised power like the Latin American fascist dictatorships don't seem to be "totalitarian" to you. I don't even agree that democracies are inherently less authoritarian than dictatorships and I already explained why. The US currently has more or less the same number of incarcerated people than the whole of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. Its police forces definitely kill about as much people per year as the combined armed forces inside the Warsaw Pact killed per year after WWII. And the Warsaw Pact didn't have neither ghettos nor segregated reserves. If we include Jim Crow, which is in essence the same as Apartheid South Africa - yet another democracy - it becomes even worse. Of course, I already gave the cases of Venezuela and India. Even capitalist democracies can easily be said to be "totalitarian".

Stalin's purges and mass executions weren't economic policies or reforms either yet anti-Communists constantly say they should be counted as Communism. You also ignore the Caracazo, which given that it killed as much people in a region that is far less populated than China, makes it proportionally worse than the Tiananmen Massacre, and this one is even more connected to economic reforms since the massacre was done when people protested the neoliberal reforms and Carlos Andrés Pérez sent the army to repress them. Or Mexico's virtual civil war, which has coincided with the period of Mexico's neoliberal reforms. The worst of it came during the right-wing pro-NAFTA PAN governments of Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón. This is why I don't consider the term "totalitarian" seriously.

What's funny is that the British Empire was just as centralised and effectively dictatorial as the caricatures of Communism given by right-wingers. The vast majority of people couldn't even vote in the British Empire, and the Queen was effectively the supreme ruler over them, making it pretty much an absolute monarchy. People forget that Hannah Arendt dedicated an entire chapter to colonialism and imperialism in her book about totalitarianism, even when she didn't consider the British Empire and other classical European colonial empires (and the US) "totalitarian", yet she still saw them as highly influential and impossible to exclude from any narrative about totalitarianism.

Also, you went completely off tangent and didn't even try to address my arguments anymore. Your only tangentially related point is that Mao's policies starved millions to death, therefore China's post-Deng Xiaoping economy isn't Communist. This of course ignores the achievements in Eastern Europe and in Cuba. And the problem with this argument about current China's progress being attributed mostly to capitalism because supposed millions starved to death under Mao is that colonialism and capitalism have starved millions to death - in India, Africa and, yes, even China after the Opium Wars. Neoliberalism in Latin America has at the very least not prevented between 3 and 4 million homicides since the year 2000, while US wars in the Islamic world to enforce the Washington Consensus and its own oil economy has also killed in excess of 4 million people since 1991. It seems Russia lost around 3 million people with the disintegration of Communism and the enacting of neoliberal reforms. No one counts the deaths of starvation in India since the 1980s when neoliberalism came about. Mao's Great Leap Forward lasted only 3 years, it's as much attributable to the Tibetan CIA insurrection and US sanctions as economic mismanagement in a country devastated for decades by the great colonial powers and focusing on it ignores that by the death of Mao, there weren't slums, there weren't any more famines, living conditions did improve and living in China was far better than living in most of the rest of the Third World, not to mention we're talking of a nuclear power that obtained a seat in the UN's permanent security council, while again, neoliberalism has been the cause of suffering around the world while only in China (and if we're very lenient, the Four Asian Tigers) does it miraculously work.

This shows why it is ridiculous to say neoliberalism was the cause of China's current poverty diminution. Without its health care, subsidies, and other such policies that come from the Maoist era, we wouldn't be talking of over 800 million people being lifted out of poverty. The infrastructure necessary for this was only made possible thanks to Mao.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2018
72
Hong Kong
In addition andyferdinard,

People may have questions or even complaints about Communism today. But this thread deals with WW2. During WW2 the world saw a great rise of the movements of Nationaliism(Japan, Germany, Italy) and various communist movements of the 20th century as well..Communism tried to gain ahold in Germany but instead the so called Nazis gained power..Where as in Russia the likes of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky gave Russia and parts of Europe the Soviet Union.

FDR and Churchill were faced with the grand decisions of what to do about the rise of these movements across the world. ..At first both made critical remarks about Communism especially when the Reich and USSR jointly invaded Poland in WW2. But of course even the USA and British Empire had dealings with the Reich, having various businesses operating in the Third Reich. Btw does anyone know of any Communist companies operating in the Third Reich during the so called alliance between the USSR and Reich? Anyway...when Germany invaded the USSR the USA and England decided to work together with the Soviets. That occurred in history and the question is should the USA and British Empire have ever worked with the Communists, I feel the answer is yes but others may disagree. Roosevelt either way gave the USA a great economy, and he made our military #1 in the world up from around being ranked 15th or so in terms of military strength. And the OP can not prove the Soviets were any kind of successful spies...the thing is even to this day allies spy on each other and try and gain information. It does not make sense that the FDR administration mismanaged foreign policy because under FDR the USA become the strongest country in the world able to wield a great foreign influence upon the world. The fact the USA during and after WW2 wields great foreign influence proved the OP to be wrong. The Government of FDR did a great job, it was probably the best of times in US history jobs wise when FDR was in office. No one successfully infiltrated the USA as to wreck or sabotage our economy during the reign of FDR. Otherwise we would have gone through another depression or similar.
Butcher 140 millions to you, not good enough you just wanted to butchered another 140 millions more. All those historical victims were mostly Proletarians.
 
Feb 2018
72
Hong Kong
  • "Do you know the boundary between real socialism and communism?" – "The border runs along the Kremlin's wall" [hinting that only rulers of the Soviet Union (and other Socialist Workers Paradise ) live in the bright communist future promised by Karl Marx].
Always judge people by their actions rather than their long tiring articles.

Do you know that the Sole daughter of Emperor Xijinping living? Correct it is the "Corrupted" United States. She is just learning from Daughter of Stalin. Comrade.

Yes colonialism killed people for 300 years therefore we should given the Commies 200 more years, right.

Eastern Europe better than third world Capitalists? Breaking Berlin Wall is wrong and how about South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

Communism is absolutely nothing but the Biggest Shithole in the Mankind History. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
378
Slovenia
@Guevarist Mayan i am not responding mostly to things which are concerning events after 1991 because of the forum rules. But that of course does not mean that i agree with your interpretations of them. Mostly i do not. For example liberal capitalism and even laissez faire demands also that state is making sure that contracts are respected. If there is no real rule of law of course that is causing also economy to work in a disfunctional way. 'My definition' of totalitarian regime is not arbitrary but very reasonable one and it is in fact included also into the law system. To say that Soviets are demonstrations of democracy in communist totalitarian regimes or demonstrations of any kind of basic freedoms is of course a complete illusion or propaganda. They must just work in the line with totalitarian party. We have really many examples of this in history. For example Mao launched in 1956 like a campaign called Hundred flowers. Different views and debates were like encouraged. But communists just used the campaign to see who are so called reactionaries and then started a big campaign of terror against them. in 1957 around 800.000 people were killed in China.

So called great leap forward started after this big repression which followed 'democratic debate' in red China. Mao and Chinese communist party decided to start great leap forward because people were leaving collective farms and because harvest was good. Agriculture had quite positive results from 1952-1958 yet it was not collectivized yet. Not because they would be worried about Tibet rebellion. ( in Tibet of course they commited another genocide ) The devastation was really caused by Japan between 1937-45 but that in fact helped communists because it weakened KMT and was not a real reason for planned 'economic boom' which ended with milions of deaths known in Maoist propaganda as great leap forward. Governament increased exports of food during the famine and declined help from the west. Governament was like building industry, but in the stile of vampires it was draining the farmers. In the farmland they were building a lot of blast furnaces and putting aside production of food. Steel products were of very bad quality and it was of course hard to sell them. Because they were killings sparrows en masse pests multiplied. Etc. All farmers were forced in to collectivization accompanied with great terror. This was the biggest famine in all China's history caused by planned economy combined with totalitarian state repression. As it was after the death of Mao also the great famine was stopped by some market reforms. Liu Shaoqi pressed Mao in central committie that he allowed them for a time being. Than Mao started so called cultural revolution with all its massacres. At the end after the death of Mao communist party of China recognized they are far from Taiwan considering developement of economy.

For China, Black book of communism, published in Ljubljana in 1999, pages 559-682.

The most imperialistic regimes in last century were communist regimes. USSR started to colonize smaller countries already after WW1. Stalin's purges were of course also economical, collectivization by brutal force, leaving milions dead and causing great hunger. In the link bellow you can read more about how planned economy is encouraging militarism, imperialism and giving the oportunity to most brutal dictators to prevail against more 'moderate revolutionaries'. It works in the same way if it is applied by communists or national socialists and fascists.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Apollon
Oct 2019
124
West Virginia
It is unfortunate that so many during the Soviet era believed that anything anti-Communist was acceptable, including bloody dictatorial regimes which tortured and murdered at will, and most of these supported by the USA, UK, etc.

Do we stand for freedom or not? McCarthyism is NOT freedom.