Quote
The first half of the 19th century was devastating for France. There was Napolean, there was the aftermath, there were the coups of 1848, 51, and 70. France was in serious political turmoil for most of that century.
The empire was devastating??? Only for other people. Frances regime changes between the 1830's and 51 affected not one jot her position in Europe, or in fact the majority of Frenchmen. Napleon III's reign was one of a return of France as a major power broker. France restored her Prestige by the 1880's much of Bismarks dismay. Hence he spent much of his later years trying to keep France busy with Colonial deals. That Bismark eh? Obviously not the smart dude we thought he was, as unlike that clever scut fella he rated France as a serious danger............
Quote
just take the worst year as an example. Austria-Hungary, France, and Prussia all had violent coups in 1848
Yes they did, all of which fizzled out by 49 with lasting effects in only
one country - France. By 1849 the autocrats had regained full control of all the major powers and weren't to lose it until 1917-18. Great list, so what? Most of those were, unlike the post 45 ' era short, low loss of life, conflicts. They were also mainly Imperial border conflicts or internal squabbles. The only major wars were restricted to six to 8 months. Thats one of the major reasons why they thought WW1 would be over by Christmas ........ If anything that list only proves my point. In fact WW1 is case in point. The theory was that there were two, vast, opposing armies so big that neither side would dare attack one another, there was only one problem, it was BS. Sooner or later force X, or the external factor forces your hand. And when that happens..............
Quote
And my contention is that Reagan's tough stance towards the Soviets prevented more Afghanistans
Which is classicly "the world revolves around the US" as is
Quote
Not over here. TV ratings are way down on all the olympics since the Soviets fell. NBC has taken a major hit on the olympics the last few times.
. First the Soviets own long standing problems prevented external action, not Reagans bluster, as even Soviet officals admitted they were "sucked into Afghanistan" rather than going willingly, and second who cares whether the insular, head up their own ASS, American viewing public doesn't watch the Olympics cos' theres no unpleasant rivalries going on? Everybody else is enjoying for the opposite reason!!!
Quote
The Soviets had already demonstrated in Eastern Europe that they were more than willing to roll in the heavy armor and install puppet governments. If we didn't rattle a few sabers they'd have been happy to finish the job in the West.
Unfortunatley for that theory is that Soviet documents prove that wasn't the case. Equally sadly for MAD, as before, Breznehev was building up the Soviet forces in the way he did in the 70's because he felt that a quick strike would nullify the Wests capabality, and that all out war, MAD, or no MAD
was winnable. With loons like that MAD is the right word. But it obviously had no effect on his plans. I think we're luckier to be here, than here by design. Had the Soviets just had a few dollars (and thefore tanks) more we might be sitting in bunkers writing this right now............... MAD broke down because as with WW1, theres always someone who thinks an unwinnable war
is winnable. Ironically war only didn't come about because the Soviets overspent, not because they thought we'd all end in ashes - the leaders wouldn't. Sensible politicans and cool heads be damned.
Quote
And yet oddly enough, they've haven't come to full scale war in that time. I wonder why...
Because ever other bugger didn't fancy a few nukes going off nearby!! Those nutcases pushed to the wire on more than a few occasions, in fact "we British" can take a good deal of credit for stopping thing's going pear (or should that be mushroom?) shaped. MAD be damned...........
