Well, it's not non-antagonistic, of course. It was an antagonistic response to previous antagonism, both in word (the aforementioned doctrine) and deed (unnecessarily obliterating an entire city with a single bomb, in part as an intimidation strategy). It's simply not irrational to perceive some given action as a way to f*ck with you (even if we give America et al. the benefit of the doubt it assuming that it was ultimately meant benignly) if the people carrying out the action had previously declared, "We are going to f*ck with you," and it does, in fact, end up f*cking with you.
>But this we do know: per previous replies, if we can't agree on appropriate language to discuss the color of the sky on a given day -- that is, if I can't get a straight answer from you in response to an extremely straightforward question about a single event in 1948 -- then we're not going to be able to communicate with each other in regard to the bigger-picture stuff.
>Which was?
>No need for fancy optic effects here - just say what you mean.
I see that you're angry that I did not take the bait of trying to contradict your premise. Sorry; much as you may hate it, we agree that the siege was antagonistic. My straight answer, I'll repeat: antagonism in response to previous antagonism is, at the very least, understandable. In this case, "Who started it?" is significant.
I'm trying to falsify my own stance by finding an instance where the USSR did something aggressive and uncalled for that wasn't a response to Western rhetoric or behavior. One might say the various invasions in the run-up to WWII, but those come after Truman's famous, "Let 'em kill each other," line; Western enmity was preexisting, at that point. And I reject the notion that it comes down to their human rights record, considering our own (even at that time). It seems to come down to a bitterness over the West's inability to turn its totalitarian machine towards at least the facade of our desires and ends (a la China for much of the 90s and 2000s). It's just one of many examples where the West has interpreted a failure to kowtow to our ambitions as an existential threat. This is the dumbshit recklessness that I'm referring to when I say that we started the Cold War.
Also, this is the last time I'm assuming good faith on your part. I would say, "Don't fuck it up," but part of me thinks that you'll take that as a challenge.
No one is angry about anything. It's a meeting of minds here, now.
Antagonism in response to previous antagonism is, at the very least, understandable.
Next question then: was the response ... proportionate? You know, blockading a a whole city, so that nothing can get in, not even diapers or baby food? That's like, an act of war, right? In response to -- currency reform?
More specifically: would you say the Soviet response to that situation was -- "understandable"? Would you now?
