https://web.archive.org/web/20040130182 ... D=38.topicThis seems to be missing a lot of data, I've tried to reconstruct it as best as I can
Subject: What view of the Cold War do you take?
Posted By: David Newton The English Adminstrator
Posted At: 3/4/02 19:06
===========================
What view of the Cold War do you take? What began the Cold War?
Reece134
Old Friend
Posts: 321
(12/7/01 4:19:55 pm )
Do you take the traditionalist view (it was all the Soviet Union's aggression that encroached on the post-war peace), the revisionist view (it was America's hard line policy that started the Cold War) or the post-revisionist view (it was both their fault, or the Soviet Union and US were two different to be the only world super-powers without tension). Or an "other" in case you choose to blame Latvian and Estonian nationalists or something else for the Cold War. I don't really know who I would blame for the start of the cold war. Sure Soviet aggression was extreme, but the US could have done some things also to ease the tensions. Everytime I think cold war, i think of a picture I once saw that showed an American guard and a Soviet guard staring each other down across the line that seperated East and West Berlin. The cold war was really a sissy war, to be blunt about it. I'm not advocating a nuclear war, which is what the Cold War would have been had it erupted into conflict. I'm just saying that both sides seemed to want a fight, but neither was willing to start it.
The Soviets, and i include all their client countries such as Poland, East Germany, and Hungary, were hardened by their experiences in the 30's and 40's. Ruthless and complete domination of their own people was a good springboard for attempting world domination. When combined with western apathy, and lack of understanding of the real objectives of the USSR, it is easy to see how the Soviets saw the west as ripe for the picking and easy to subvert.
The real begining of the Cold War was in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, in 1945, when a Soviet cypher clerk, a member of the NKVD named Igor Gouzenko, defected with a suitcase of top secret Soviet documents. Gouzenko went to the R.C.M.P. and he was the first shot in the long cold war. Up until this time the western countries had thought the USSR was a true ally, but now it was clear they wanted to rule the world, by any means. The Gouzenko papers showed a number of spy rings in Canada, the USA and Britain, all run by Soviet diplomats, or NKVD officers.
The Americans were stunned, and caught completely flat-footed. It took many years for them to become even somewhat competant in counterespionage, and the scare of the "red menace " was quite real. The FBI tried to cover up it's ineptitude by mass arrests and show trials, but, in reality, the Soviets were miles ahead of the west in both practices and trade craft. Their specialty was dis-information, planting false news and ideas in the minds of influential people in the west, whom they called "useful idiots". An example of this type of person was the newspaper editor who was invited to travel to the USSR to "see" the advances of their system. What he really saw were carefully constructed, but artificial factories, complete with a work force made up entirely of KGB officers, who played the roles of "workers". Upon his return to the west, he could be counted to write glowingly about the wonderful "workers republic" and it' s great treatment of it's people. Meanwhile, the gulags are full of distenters who are dying for the crime of wanting freedom from slavery.
The Americans eventually got on track, but were never able to really operate as well in the east as the USSR did in the west, simply because of the repressive nature of the Soviet society. The one bright light was the Radio Free Europe program, which was widely listened to in the USSR, despite severe jamming attempts by the authorities
But that's a very one sided take on the whole situation.
After WWII, the Soviets were in an ideal situation to set up friendly governments throughout the East of Europe. As the Soviet Union was communist, they favoured communist governments (obviously). This was not only to further their own cause but to ensure they wouldn't get invaded yet again from the West too.
Communism was popular throughout the West too and America (and others) feared that a communist government could get voted into a Western European country (France and Italy mainly). I think it was Truman at the time, anyway, whoever, started basically bribing countrys that looked like they might become Communist.
The "war" wasn't about America defending the free world, it was about America and the Soviets wanting other countrys to think the same way as them.
The Russians set up friendly governments in the sattelite countries??? Where did you get that idea? The real truth is they set up puppet regimes of locals who could be counted on to control their own populations, in return for perks and money for life. Example Hungary, East Germany, and the baltic states. All controlled by Moscow, and under direct control of the Red Army troops in the country, invited there by the "people".
Exactly which "western country' was about to invade the USSR in the 1950's or 60's?? Was it France, Germany, I hardly think so? They were too busy trying to re-build after a long and disasterous war. Perhaps it was Britain? I don't think so.
The Soviets exported communism all over the world, or at least they tried to. Look at all the "peoples revolutions" that the Soviets and the PRC fomented thru the decades, like Greece, Cuba, Angola, Ethiopia, Rhodesia, Malaysia, Korea, South Viet Nam, Liberia, Nicaraugua, El Salvador, the list is all most endless. Please don't tell me that all these countries just happened to burst into flame all by them selves.
Could it be that the disciples of the Patrice Lamumba University in Moscow had some small part in the "struggle" against capitalism?
Of course the governments would be (and for want of a better word) "puppet" governments, what would be the point of all the effort if they couldn't easily control them? But if you're using that as an argument to attack the Soviets then maybe you should look at the US government's foreign policy, even to this day.
And what i mean by the invasion thing is, russia had been invaded twice in recent years by a European government, each time the Eastern European governments seemed more than happy to lend a hand to the invaders. The amount of lives lost due to these invasions were tens of millions, upon tens of millions. Now they had the opportunity to make sure these governments wouldn't do so ever again.
And all these "revolutions" came when the Soviets seemed to have entirely lost interest in the world. All support for these countrys was gone.
dont forget that in between those European attacks on SU soil, the SU invaded Poland, Finland, and supported a (failed) coup in Germany? They did just as much attacking Europe as they did defending themselves from it. The Soviets are no innocent little angels standing up to imperialistic Europe or the US devils.
Look at all the "peoples revolutions" that the Soviets and the PRC fomented thru the decades, like Greece, Cuba, Angola, Ethiopia, Rhodesia, Malaysia, Korea, South Viet Nam, Liberia, Nicaraugua, El Salvador, the list is all most endless. Please don't tell me that all these countries just happened to burst into flame all by them selves."
Why do all of these countries have a Third World economy at the time, or been through a protracted period of war? Is it a coincidence that the US supported the dictators Bastita in Cuba, Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, Somoza in Nicaragua (who of FDR once said "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." ), various US supported military juntas in El Salvador and Jonas Savimbi was supported in the hopes of a US-friendly Angola? The only difference between a US-supported dictator and a Soviet supported one is if they are communist or not. But the non-communist ones still kill as many innocent people, priests and cause as much destruction as communist regimes do. Even the possible threat of allying with the Soviets urged the US to action. Saddam, the Shah of Iran, Kaddafi, all these people were placed there by the US. But I suppose it's all a coincidence these dictators turned against the US, or the country was thrown into revolution and an unfriendly government installed? But wait a minute, Cold War's over, so the Soviets couldn't entice these countries to turn against the US! (except Iran, but they couldn't hold the influence over Muslims, could they? The Soviets were aethiests) Maybe there's some other problem.......
The US are no innocent little angels standing up to the face of communist tyranny either.
First question at what point/year do you reckon the "Cold War' was officially over and done with?? second, i'll grant you that some of those guys were right nutters, but in the best of times we have to be careful who we call friends, right?
When did the Cold War end? Hmmmm, interesting question. In my opinion, it was in 1989, with the opening of Hungary's border to the West (which led to the Berlin Wall coming down) that signalled the end of the Cold War. Athough the worst tension in the Cold War was in the 50s and 60s, Cold War policy continued to guide both superpowers through the Vietnam War and the Afghan-Soviet War. Then til 1991, the SU was in political decay, and much of Russian politics still is even after the collapse. But then there were also periods of peace (relative of course) and signing of treaties in between incidents.
The Cold War actually reminds me of the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece just without the nuclear threat hanging over everyone's heads, that too was two opposing government systems with different strengths having a war (it was democracy vs oligarchy back then, and Athens was a naval power, but Sparta a land power), but they rarely, if ever, fought each other (The Spartans used to go and burn the Athenians crops, and the Athenians used to sail around the Spartans and fight wars with other powers, such as the failed Sicilian campaign), all of Greece allied with one power or another, as well as changed sides, and there were a number of peace treaties that stopped the tensions for a while, but not long enough). The only difference was in that war, democracy lost. Greek influence was also evident in pretty much all 18th century democratic theory, so the parrallels between them is astounding (I think at least).
Second, certainly right. But with the record of 'freinds' the US has, they don't need enemies, and maybe the US should change the qualifications of friendship. The Soviets are no different though. Saddam played both superpowers for all it's worth. But the US is the one with all the shady deals, all the while championing democracy and freedom, whereas the Soviets were advocating revolution, there was no bones about it.
The Soviets had numerous departments and subsections who were dedicated to the promotion and development of revolutions and insurgencies in any country that was in the least bit unstable.
Why else is the most visable sign of the red revolution the AK 47? Because it was given out by the millions to anybody who wanted them by the Soviets, along with the SA 7 RPG.
An earlier pol who played both sides was Nasser in Egypt, after the 56 Suez crisis he got immense military aid from both east and west, to the shagrin of the Isrealis next door.
And the CIA also had various sub-sections. They enticed and backed people's rebellions and revolutions in Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in '68 (as well as skeedaddled when the Soviet tanks turned up in those two), the disasterous Bay of Pigs incident in '61 and Afghanistan in the 80s (the only difference between these rebellions against the Soviets was that it was reactionary), coups in Iran in '53 and Guatemala in '54, numerous assassinations and spying on everyone. Sounds exactly the type of accusations the Soviets get from Western governments, especially the US.
Regards
=========================
Stuart Slade
Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1899
(12/7/01 8:18:39 pm )
The Cold War
I take the correct view.
It was World War III (albeit played out in slow motion) fought over a wide range of military, economic and political battlefields with its own internal logic and its own history of campaigns, strategies and rationales. The basic issue of the Third World War was which political-economic system should predominate; a state-owned centralized totalitarianism or a free-market capitalist democracy. The basic cause of the Third World War was that a state-owned centralized totalitarianism could only survive if there was no alternative to its power structures. Therefore, the very existance of the United States and its free-wheeling decentralized capitalist system was a deadly threat that had to be removed. It was that primary and very simple issue that lay behind the whole Cold War. IF the USSR did not destroy the United States, the USSR would destroy itself.
The cold war was really a sissy war
Try telling that to the very large number of people who died in the Cold War. It was a war and it had casualties. A hell of a lot of them. Some died in places we know about; Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Others are lonely graves next to the burned out wrecks of recon aircraft deep in once-hostile territory. I don't think using the term sissy war is very sensible.
When combined with western apathy, and lack of understanding of the real objectives of the USSR, it is easy to see how the Soviets saw the west as ripe for the picking and easy to subvert.
That was nothing to do with it. The USSR had to destroy the western culture and ideology because it presented a viable alternative to their own power structure and their whole system of government depended on not allowing any such alternatives to develop. How easy it was didn't matter. The Soviet system had to destroy the capitalist system if the Soviets were to survive. They didn't and they didn't.
The real begining of the Cold War was in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, in 1945
Actually it began ten years earlier in Spain. That was Stalin's first big move outwards to eliminate rival political systems.
When did the Cold War end?
1991. Thats when the Soviet system actually collapsed. Again, its a war between systems and it didn't end until one system or the other was destroyed. Fortunately, this time the Good Guys won. We were the Good Guys and our victory is something to be proud of.
Edited by: Stuart Slade at: 12/7/01 8:59:28 pm
========================================
Tim Hanna
Young Jedi
Posts: 7390
(12/7/01 8:57:10 pm )
Re: The Cold War
The biggest thing that irritates me is people who blame the west for defending itself.
Blaming the USA for the Cold War is like blaming a homeowner for causing a robbery by putting locks on his doors.
========================================
Stuart Slade
Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1905
(12/7/01 9:06:12 pm )
Re: The Cold War
Certainly; the nature Cold War (Or World War III) was the direct outcome of a fundamental dichotomy between the two superpowers. The political ideology of the United States was and is that competition, diversity and alternative structures are Good Things that should be (at best) encouraged or (at worst) tolerated. The political ideology of the Soviet Union was that any sort of alternative power structure was a deadly threat that had to be eliminated. Everything came out of that difference. The Soviet Union could not tolerate rivals, the US positively thrived on having them (still does - look at the difference in the US between now and six months ago).
The funny thing was in the 1970s and 1980s we always used to talk about how the Soviets had this ideological advantage that stemmed from having a coherent and easily-explainable political doctrine and we'd decry the fact that we didn't. None of us ever saw the fact that we did have that doctrine and we promulgated it very effectively. We so took it for granted that we never saw it and we never saw the damage it was doing.
========================================
Tim Hanna
Young Jedi
Posts: 7391
(12/7/01 9:10:19 pm )
Re: The Cold War
Which leads to the next question. Is the PRC fundamentally far enough away from real Communism to survive in a competitive world?
Or in the end will the PRC be forced into USSR type actions?
========================================
Stuart Slade
Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1906
(12/7/01 9:26:07 pm )
Re: The Cold War
To some extent I think the Chinese leadership has learned from watching what happened to the USSR. The incredibly stupid mistake that Gorbachev made was to try and make the system work by letting up on the screws when it was keeping the screws down that stopped the system exploding. Now, those Chinese leaders don't care what follows them so they're happy to do whats necessary to keep power until they die and let their successors handle the problems. Thats why we shouldn't pay too much attention to what the leadership says now; they don't matter too much.
The ones who will come after know that the dreadful ideology is waiting for them. What ideology? You made a very succinct summary of it tonight. In your local A&P supermarket.
Tim "Honey, do you want steak or chicken for dinner tonight"
Fiance "Lets have a steak, haven't had one recently. Its not very good here though. Lets go to Big Y and get it there"
Do you realize what a ideologically profound political statement that little exchange is? Or how people who don't get to make those choices hunger to do so? Its such a pervasive part of our ideology that we never see it. We never even think about it. The Chinese see it and they know what'll happen if they ignore it. They also know that we smash them economically because our system thrives on the fact that Big Y has better steaks than A&P. You see they learned the other lesson from the USSR, the one Osama bin Laden never understood. The US is an economic power and its military and political strength is based on economics. Its perfectly possible to translate economic power into military might but military might cannot be translated into economic power. If they want to match our military power they have to do it by matching our economic power first. And that means creating a system where the Foo Yung Supermarket thrives because it sells better steaks than the People's State Emporium.
========================================
Jeremy M H
Old Friend
Posts: 348
(12/14/01 2:32:48 am )
Re: The Cold War
A really excellent book on the subject of why communism failed is the book called
How we Survived Communism and Even Laughed
The author is Slavenkan Drakulic.
It is not a poltical book in any sense. It just talks about life in the Soviet Union and Communist Europe. The way she talks about it backs up exactly what Stuart has said.
========================================
JPaulMartin
Old Friend
Posts: 554
(12/16/01 4:15:20 pm )
Invasion of Poland in 1920
Stuart,
You say that the Cold War starts during the Spanish Civil War as that is Stalin's first attempt to reach out and destroy a rival political system. I have a questions about events that come before that. What I am looking for is some division between the violence that accompanied the Bolshevik seizure of power and later Soviet attempts at expansion. I realize that given the messianic nature of Bolshevik/Soviet ideology a clear division might not be possible.
What about the invasion of Poland in 1920? This is the first time that the Bolshevik leadership attempted to spread the Revolution beyond the borders of the Russian Empire. They thought that they could carry the Revolution accross Europe in the same way that the armies of Revolutionary France had burst out across Europe at the end of the 18th century. I realize that a lot of Poland had been part of Russia, but I think the invasion of Poland has to be placed in a different category than the suppression of independence movements/other governments that took place in the Ukraine and Siberia because (in my understanding) Lenin was aiming to carry the Revolution to Central Europe. He was incouraged in this by the short lived Bolshevik Republics in Hungary and Bavaria. The effort to repeat the exploits of Revolutionary France failed because of Polish military success, and the failure of the Southwestern Front under Buddenny and Stalin to take Lvov, but it seems to me that the invasion of Poland is the first attempt to take over the world. The attempt fails, but so does Stalin's attempt to set up a puppet state in Spain.
--Jeff
========================================
Stuart Slade
Prince of Darkness
Posts: 1952
(12/16/01 5:57:24 pm )
Re: Invasion of Poland in 1920
These are very good points indeed; the honest answer to them is that I don't know enough about the Russo-Polish war to be able to make a soundly-based argument either way.
What I do think is that your suggestion does highlight the innate aggressiveness of a communist regime - the fat that such regimes cannot tolerate an alternative system to their own without courting their own destruction. However, Stalin's own regime wasn't fully formed until the mid-1930s so I would suggest that Spain was the first adventure of that fully developed system.
Unless you have an objection. I'll bounce your comments off Norman F when we meet next (December 26). If he agrees with your hypothesis, there is an autographed copy of 50 Years War as a prize
========================================
JPaulMartin
Old Friend
Posts: 555
(12/16/01 6:42:41 pm )
Fine with me
Wow, I hadn't expected a response like that! Pass along whatever you'd like. I also know very little about the Russo-Polish war. I would add that the hiatus in expansionism is entirely the result of Stalin's consolidation of power; he was building 'socialism in one country' and wiping out Trotskyite internationalists (more accurately, that was one of the names he called his victims). Once he is secure (by his standards) at home he seeks to expand where he sees an opportunity.
OTOH, Lenin could have just been riding the wave, so to speak. I can't think of an opportunity in the 1920s for an 'internationalist' USSR to make trouble once the initial postwar chaos has ended. OTOOH, I don't anything at all about the history of Eastern Europe between the wars.
--Jeff
========================================
Tim Hanna
Young Jedi
Posts: 7628
(12/16/01 8:07:43 pm )
Re: Invasion of Poland in 1920
I thought the Polish-Soviet war was started by the Poles who invaded into the USSR and made good progress until being pushed out by the Red Army.
========================================
Hoahao
Old Friend
Posts: 736
(12/16/01 9:10:13 pm )
Re: Fine with me
Problem is, seperating Soviet expansionism from Russian expansionism. One wonders if the Russian monarchy had survived WW1, they might have invaded Poland too.
"Richard pipes reminds us that it is estimated, for example, that between the middle of the 16th century and the end of the 17th, Russia conquered territory the size of the modern Netherlands Every Year For 150 Years Running."
Remember all that Victorian era competition betwix Russia and Great Britain in Afghanistan and along the frontiers of the British Raj??
Hope you get the book JP. Be interesting to hear what Norman has to say.
========================================
JPaulMartin
Old Friend
Posts: 556
(12/16/01 9:59:34 pm )
Re: Invasion of Poland in 1920
I thought the Poles were trying to define what independent "Poland" would be and thus they were trying to incorporate as much as possible of the ethnicly Polish territories into the new state. However, I don't really now for sure.
--Jeff
========================================
Sea Skimmer
Old Friend
Posts: 1240
(12/20/01 12:50:45 am )
Re: Invasion of Poland in 1920
but pre war, Poland was part of Russia so I question if they really thought of it as an invasion of another nation.
========================================
ducktape22222
Regular
Posts: 12
(1/5/02 6:22:47 pm )
Re: Invasion of Poland in 1920
The Russo-Polish war was initially a Polish rejection of the Curzon line as the border between Poland and Russia. In addition to wanting to get the cities of Wilno and Lwow, they also wanted to set up puppet states around them, and indeed attacked with the goal of having an independent Ukranian government be set up and defend their southern front while the polish armies moved to the north. Budenny's 1st Cavalry army broke the Polish lines North of Kiev, and drove the Poles out of much of the Ukraine.
The Russians then had to decide whether to sue for peace and get a stable government, or to go for conquering Poland and get a corridor to support the possibility of a revolution in Germany (since Marxist theory held that communism in a backwards country like Russia was doomed and they needed resources from an industrial state). Lenin decided to go after the entirety of Poland, but was beaten in Praga, the suburb of Warsaw across the Wisla (Praga is probably better known as the "city of the sleepers", where Soviet armies slept as the Warsaw uprising was crushed).
Since the Soviets had a lot of reasons to want to take over Poland, the 2nd part of the war is viewed by many - probably most - as Russia's war, whereas the 1st part was unquestionably a Polish invasion. It was part of the cold war in that the French supported the Poles with everything but combat troops, including 1 regiment of FT-17s and a group of advisors so large that many of the units were half French. Also, the "Kosciuzko Squadron", consisting of Americans, fought directly against the Russians, though they weren't supported by our (US) government.
The communists definitely thought of Poland as a separate nation they were at war with, first because of the practical reality that they were fighting an organized army, and second from the revolutionary principle of self-determination. Poland's white allies, on the other hand, viewed Poland as a renegade province that had to be retaken after the Reds were overthrown.
I'm not very concise, am I? Oops.