Question about Vietnam and Czechoslovakia...

[Some Moran]

If the U.S. was so willing to prop up fascists in South Vietnam to fight the Soviets, why wasn't it willing to do the same for progressive visionaries like Czechoslovakia's Aleksandr Dubcek?

[pnorman]

1. For all their fearsome bellicosity

those sort of people won't move without "favorable" odds. It was ~10 to 1 in Viet Nam, which was considered acceptable by conventional Bandit Suppression theory. Alas; that wasn't enough in VN (but they were a lot better in Grenada, where it DID work).

Likewise with Hungary in 1956. Hungary was "complicated" by the perception of some fascist elements in the revolt. In retrospect, some (but not all) of that may have been Soviet disinformation. But almost everyone I knew from the "left" then, were CHEERING Dubachek and his "Socialism With a Human Face". (Perhaps THAT's what turned them off).

[izzie]

2. I do not know.We have backed some odd people.

If we stand for anything why do we do that?Must go back to capital. That seems to be the only thing you really can count of USA for. We will go with the cash.

[Aidoneus]

3. because popular support of any kind was anathema

If Dubcek was in favour of restoring the rule by the rich and turning Czech resources over to Western businesses, then there'd have been some action. As it stood, he was another "enemy" as far as the government's ideologues were concerned, and at least the Soviets were a useful collaborator in international affairs.