A better term is "neutrality" like Austria and Switzerland, or non-alignment like Yugoslavia. There is no reason why all countries in Europe should become NATO members--if they do not want it.https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1487095851856105479 …
-
-
That was Austrianization, to give a new term. Withdrawal of Russian occupying force in return for neutrality (1955). Stalin considered unification of Germany for neutrality. But acc to what I read, US never thought of it seriously.
-
Yes, Austrianization. Lukacs might over-estimate the possibility it could have been adopted. He emphasizes that it had major advocates, including Kennan.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think it was a "Neutral Germany" e.g. a similar arrangement that Eisenhower (over Dulles objections) did agree to on Austria. But I think Eisenhower just thought Germany was too big (and potentially dangerous) a country. Keeping Germany divided & effectively occupied better.
-
Yes, the purpose of Nato is not just to keep the Russians out but the Americans in and the Germans down.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this sounds interesting, do you remember a source for this?
-
See here and Lukacs biography of Kennanhttps://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/10/books/ike-winston-and-the-russians.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.