4 Comments
Oct 22Liked by Matt Armstrong

Probably important to note that the "East-West" terminology is deeply rooted in American obeisance to a British world-view.

This extends beyond the terms we use for the Soviet Union and Russia.

"Near East, Middle East, Far East" only makes sense in terms relative to the British Isles.

Americans should not adhere to British terminology.

Much better terms for all those regions, whether they are couched in absolute geographical references (Asia Minor, Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Eurasia), or in terms relative to America (Near West for Japan and China), Americans should reject the Britishisms, as we did in 1776 and 1814.

Expand full comment
author

Kent, I agree with the problems of using Britain-centric terms. Relatedly, the State Department did not establish a separate Africa bureau until the 1950s. Before then, the Near Eastern and European bureaus. (Not to mention that Greece and Turkey were in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs until the 1970s.)

However, I don't think the East-West framing here relates to that. It relates to Western Europe, or more precisely, West of Central Europe, and Eastern Europe, which includes Moscow. It's a Europe-centric term, just like much of the major Cold War analysis.

To your last point, when my British friends send out Happy Fourth of July well-wishes, I usually respond with "Happy Insurgency Day!" Back when I lived in London (2013-2016), I was invited to participate in a "small council" advisory group at the MOD. There was a discussion on how to communicate UK's pending withdrawal from Afghanistan. One Brit remarked that the message would be difficult because, he said, Britain had never lost an insurgency. Of course, I couldn't resist my inner child and, as the American in the group, said, "Excuse me, but I can think of one."

Expand full comment

"However, I don't think the East-West framing here relates to that. It relates to Western Europe, or more precisely, West of Central Europe, and Eastern Europe, which includes Moscow. It's a Europe-centric term, just like much of the major Cold War analysis."

And the "Europe-centricity" of that terminology is purely British.

I believe that the Brits have been eating our lunch for the last 110+ years, beginning as their empire crumbled. They unleashed an unrelenting covert (and overt) influence campaign to drag the US into both their European wars. We had no dogs in either fight, until we blockaded Japan, starving them of oil and raw materials, to protect the Brits' (and Dutch) Asian colonies, provoking Japan into attacking us. We never did have a dog in the WW1 fight--we were simply a huge dog being wagged by its British tail.

I, too, worked closely with the Brits, in many roles. They are fully aware that they continue to wag the dog, and manipulate us for their own interests. Their interests are NOT American interests.

It's time that America reverts to the awareness we had in 1815. That the UK is a hostile foreign power, the only foreign force to successfully invade our country, and to burn our capital. They can be treated as friends, but they are not our equals or our brothers. Their squabbles, in Europe or elsewhere, are none of our business.

Sort of a hot spot on the British-centric terminology! But there it is!

Expand full comment

lol at “A” for “Vietnam”

Expand full comment