Was Cold war necessary?

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by webbrave
I agree with you. This is precisely why Cold war was meaningless - the Soviets had neither the power nor the desire to conquer the West. Why start a confrontation if you know full well that the opponent will never attack you?

The desire:

What Stalin wanted no one knew. On the strength of his actions a lot of people became worried from 1945 on.

Stalin's support of the Yuoslavs over Trieste ? The support of the Greek communists in 1945-49.
The demands for bases in Turkey and control of the Straits.
The demand to sovietize Iraian Azerbaijan, bases and oil concessions in Iran.
The demand that Norway hand over Bear Island as a naval base.

And of course the Baltic states, half Poland, Moldova.
And Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.
And Poland.

And support for the French and Italian communists.

The Korean war taht he let Kim Il Sung unleash.
The power:

In 1946 the SU had enopuh conventional forces at hand to roll over Western Europe in a month.

Yep, the Cold War was inevitable.

The point of WWII was not to replace one totalitarian regime with another.

Sorry for insulting you. But you sound just like a Soviet or home grown '70-ies communist apologist.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by webbrave
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I find this extremely unlikely. Not after WW2 and tremendous destruction it brought. SU could play spy games (who wasn't doing that?), but it would never ever stage a full scale attack on US and its allies.

Not on US cause Soviets has no tech level to achieve it but Western Europe was definitely in the reach of SU once American forces would have been called off.

Destruction made by WWII was made mainly to European civilization. USA and SU/Russia were/are only connected to it. While Spengler was writing about Twilight of Europe, USA progressed with his new style of economy and culture and Russia developed new religion-like philosophy trusted by many. So two superpowers were advancing while Europe was descending.

One can say about Battlefield Europe and both Superpowers definitely could not allow other side to seize whole Europe.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by vilkouak

Destruction made by WWII was made mainly to European civilization. USA and SU/Russia were/are only connected to it.

I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that the Soviet Union didn't suffer an enormous loss of life and destruction of its infrastructure?

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Webbrave

Dinsdale and Hardu have provided lists of incidents which seem to make it clear that Stalin had every intention of extending the SU's influence as far as possible both durign and after the war abnd certainly before the cold war got under way.

I think you need to address these, and especially the invasion of Bulgaria, the crushing of the Poles and the Berlin bloakade if your argument is to retain even a shred of credibility.

I'd also ask why teh SU insisten on East European countries following its brand of communism if Stalin's pre-war policy of socialism in one country was still in force.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Originally posted by webbrave
I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that the Soviet Union didn't suffer an enormous loss of life and destruction of its infrastructure?

Suffered greatly that's for sure but there was the will for rebuild it into new shape and dominate Europe. Old Europe wanted to die and almost achieved it in 1945. You can see that only American or Russian options existed just after WWII. Europe was burned out and without American help no chances for avoid Russian invasion (and dominance after short war) existed.

I've meant mainly destruction of mentality and willpower in the previous post. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

I apologize ....

In other threads and posts I have accused some of our Polish friends of trying to rewrite history in the favor of their country. I think they are looking through rose colored glasses so to speak. I still beleive that to some extent.

However .....

I wish to apologize to each of them.

They don't have anything on webbrave's dramatic re-write of history. This isn't revisionist, this is pure fiction.

Now I assume he isn't baiting us and he is actually arguing a point he believes in. But his facts need serious checking. I have a feeling he might have had some education and instruction that left out a few salient points about his country's history.

That being said the cold war might not only have been necessary but beneficial. Without the pressure to compete with the US, would the SU have collapsed as soon as it did? Would eastern Europe be having the freedom to join the EU like it is now? Nobody like war, even cold ones, but this one might have actually accomplished at least a little good.

 

[unmerged(589)]

The West was faced with a very aggressive, expansionist and homicidal dictatorship with lots and lots of tanks. What more could anyone possibly need to know? Was the Cold War necessary? No, theoretically the SU leadership could have ended it anytime. They didn't. From the West's perspective of course the Cold War was essential for upholding freedom and liberty in their home countries.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Re: I apologize ....

Originally posted by shrike00

They don't have anything on webbrave's dramatic re-write of history. This isn't revisionist, this is pure fiction.

Now I assume he isn't baiting us and he is actually arguing a point he believes in. But his facts need serious checking. I have a feeling he might have had some education and instruction that left out a few salient points about his country's history.

How am I re-writing history? What is fiction in any of my posts? I am merely making several suggestions. The points I am arguing are as follows:

1. The Soviet Union post-1945 had neither the will nor the capabilities to attack the US or their allies.
2. Cold war wasn't initiated to protect Eastern Europe - Poland and co were betrayed by the West for lack of a better word.
3. Cold war made life for people in SU and East European countries worse.

I am not saying that the SU was not trying to increase its influence (of course, it was!). What I am trying to say is that Cold war made the situation far more tense and I don't see it as a positive thing like some of the posters here.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
Webbrave

Dinsdale and Hardu have provided lists of incidents which seem to make it clear that Stalin had every intention of extending the SU's influence as far as possible both durign and after the war abnd certainly before the cold war got under way.

the original point was about possibility of a military attack on the US. My point is that the US had no reason to fear the Soviet Union. Both sides had far more to gain from close cooperation that from mutual alienation, don't you agree?

 

[Classique]

Re: Re: I apologize ....

Originally posted by webbrave
1. The Soviet Union post-1945 had neither the will nor the capabilities to attack the US or their allies.
3. Cold war made life for people in SU and East European countries worse.

So, basically you are saying that because the armies of the democracies and the USSR cancelled each other out, the lives of eastern Europeans went to Hell. If the West had not stood up against the USSR and American troops had gone straight home after the war, Stalin would have sat peacefully with a smile on his face? You'll forgive me if I don't trust Stalin in that situation.

Originally posted by webbrave
2. Cold war wasn't initiated to protect Eastern Europe - Poland and co were betrayed by the West for lack of a better word.

Here you're saying that it's bad that the West didn't fight to protect eastern Europe, but in other paragraphs you were saying that the West should never have threatened military force to being with..... Which would you have preferred?

 

[Classique]

Originally posted by webbrave
the original point was about possibility of a military attack on the US. My point is that the US had no reason to fear the Soviet Union. Both sides had far more to gain from close cooperation that from mutual alienation, don't you agree?

Ideology and ethics be damned then, eh?

 

[unmerged(469)]

webbrave:

Love what you're doing, keep up the good work bro!

You're really asking two seperate questions. Was there ever a possibility that Stalin (or one of his succesors) would have ordered the tanks into West Germany? Impossible to give a definitive answer without reading Mr. Dugashvili's mind.

But I think there is abundant evidence that the USSR had a clear-cut policy of supplying and aiding and abetting "communist" guerrilla movements around the world. Even if the possibility of a Warsaw Pact invasion had been zero, this would have been enough to cause the Cold War.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
webbrave:

Love what you're doing, keep up the good work bro!

thanks! I am surrounded by capitalists here! I need all the help I can get. It ain't easy being the Devil's advocate.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Classique
Ideology and ethics be damned then, eh?

precisely. Both are only used to disguise the real interests anyway so why keep pretending that they matter in politics?

 

[unmerged(502)]

Re: Re: Re: I apologize ....

Originally posted by Classique
So, basically you are saying that because the armies of the democracies and the USSR cancelled each other out, the lives of eastern Europeans went to Hell. If the West had not stood up against the USSR and American troops had gone straight home after the war, Stalin would have sat peacefully with a smile on his face? You'll forgive me if I don't trust Stalin in that situation.

no, I am saying that once the status quo was achieved there was no need to push further with billions upon billions spent on new weapons and such. I don't see why an agreement could not have been reached to withdraw armies on BOTH sides. No, I am not saying that because of American policies life in Eastern Europe went to hell. What I mean is that this confrontation complicated the matters a great deal and made it effectively impossible to pull out (i.e. Hungary or Czechoslovakia). Not to mention that it effected the Communist bloc economies a great deal.

Originally posted by Classique
Here you're saying that it's bad that the West didn't fight to protect eastern Europe, but in other paragraphs you were saying that the West should never have threatened military force to being with..... Which would you have preferred?

I was simply stating the truth in response to somebody's suggestion that the West engaged in Cold war because it cared about Eastern Europe. Or maybe I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi

You're really asking two seperate questions. Was there ever a possibility that Stalin (or one of his succesors) would have ordered the tanks into West Germany? Impossible to give a definitive answer without reading Mr. Dugashvili's mind.

But I think there is abundant evidence that the USSR had a clear-cut policy of supplying and aiding and abetting "communist" guerrilla movements around the world. Even if the possibility of a Warsaw Pact invasion had been zero, this would have been enough to cause the Cold War.

I think that the possibility of Stalin ordering tanks into West Germany was zero. He was not suicidal.
Of course the USSR was supporting communist movements elsewhere. Just like the US was supporting anti-communist movements. But you can't isolate the country and treat it as your enemy and then suddenly expect it would not look for friends. Maybe if the West tried to approach the SU instead of antagonizing it, there would have been no need for the SU to actively support relovutions all over the world. I guess I am just too naive and optimistic for people here.

 

[unmerged(589)]

I guess Western Europe had some bad memories of appeasement. Who can blame them?

 

[Classique]

I think the West felt that the USSR would only respect Power. Since the USSR's ultimate goal was to have communist-socialist states in all of Europe, they would take advantage of any weaknesses of the western capitalists. If the West had decided to disarm and disengage, the Soviets would have seen that as an opportunity to use in one way or another. The western leaders knew who would be running Europe in the Soviets' ideal world. To counter that situation, they needed a strong military front to deter Soviet goals.

 

[unmerged(11863)]

"I think that the possibility of Stalin ordering tanks into West Germany was zero. He was not suicidal.
Of course the USSR was supporting communist movements elsewhere. Just like the US was supporting anti-communist movements. But you can't isolate the country and treat it as your enemy and then suddenly expect it would not look for friends. Maybe if the West tried to approach the SU instead of antagonizing it, there would have been no need for the SU to actively support relovutions all over the world. I guess I am just too naive and optimistic for people here."

Are you nuts!!? What bolshevik propaganda have they been feeding you?
Maybe if the West tried to approach the SU instead of antagonizing it... what the heck? Why did the Soviets make a pact with Germany in the first place?! You don't openly approach someone who's switched sides in 1941 only because they've been invaded by the original enemy. Does lend-lease not count? How freaking nice can you be?
In an early UN conference (or maybe just a conference in Geneva) after the war, the US proposed aid to anyone who wished it. All the 'Soviet dominated' state representatives got up and left. Geez. Cool it Sergei and Kazimir. Who's antagonizing who? Man. Even the Russians hated Stalin. I'm assuming they had very good reasons. What are those reasons? Let's start with 'killing lot's of his own people'. Then maybe 'killing some more of his own people'. But I think the most important thing was that he... 'killed lot's of his own innocent people'. What the West did to maintain good relations was far more than what Stalin deserved. Remember, Stalin killed lot's of his own people, and was insane. So... if anyone is going to get paranoid... it's Stalin.

So maybe it was Stalin's fault? So maybe after his death, everyone would come together and mend relations between east-west. Ok, but let's not forget Krushchov's famous 'We will bury you' speech at a UN conference. My. That was certainly a heart-felt 'I don't want to start anything' speech from a leader who 'didn't want the cold war'???!!!??!!

But tell you what though, my Russian language teacher said that in Soviet Russia they would say things like this. Then he laughed and giggled at the very irony of it all.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by sokolowski

You don't openly approach someone who's switched sides in 1941 only because they've been invaded by the original enemy. Does lend-lease not count? How freaking nice can you be?

Did you expect the SU to remain Hitler's ally after being invaded? Yes, lend-lease does count. Was I saying otherwise? And why is is revelant here?

So maybe it was Stalin's fault? So maybe after his death, everyone would come together and mend relations between east-west. Ok, but let's not forget Krushchov's famous 'We will bury you' speech at a UN conference. My. That was certainly a heart-felt 'I don't want to start anything' speech from a leader who 'didn't want the cold war'???!!!??!!

Yes, I agree. There were forces in the SU and the West that didn't want to mend relations. Was I claiming there weren't?