-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
you don't have a clue what I said yet you post in this thread and argue with me. Stange, isn't it?
webbrave:
I think there enough examples of very early provocative/aggressive moves by the SU for us to judge that SU was expansionary *before* the policy of containment was put in place. Another was support for guerillas in Greece. Another was the Berlin blockade.
On the other hand the answer might change depending on when you date the beginning of Western containment--if you start it with Churchill's earliest warnings about Soviet expansionism, you might have a case. If you start it with Truman's adoption of containment as official policy, I think you lose based on what I mentioned above.
I think there enough examples of very early provocative/aggressive moves by the SU for us to judge that SU was expansionary *before* the policy of containment was put in place. Another was support for guerillas in Greece. Another was the Berlin blockade.
On the other hand the answer might change depending on when you date the beginning of Western containment--if you start it with Churchill's earliest warnings about Soviet expansionism, you might have a case. If you start it with Truman's adoption of containment as official policy, I think you lose based on what I mentioned above.
I apologize Part Two ....
Ok, this is fairly amazing. Even my very intense arguement with the Poles about France in WWII isn't reaching this level of absurdity.
If I am correct, webbrave, you are claiming that the West's policies damaged the Eastern Blocs economies and that the West's military spending forced the SU to match it and thus damage its ability to handle its own economies. If that is truly what you are saying then you are even more deluded than I thought.
Did it ever cross your mind that COMMUNISUM was the principal reason the economies of the Eastern Bloc were stunted? I think that it has clearly been demonstrated that liberal democratic capitalism is the superior economic theory. The very fact that all the eastern bloc countries are calmoring to join the EU should demonstrate that. For pete's sake, the Chinese are starting to swing more and more reforms to move towards capitalism. Totalitarian communist regimes can simply NOT provide the level of goods and services needed by a modern economy. The SU's totalitarian control of its economy and communist structure doomed the eastern bloc to economic depression while the west flourished. It was their own fault not ours.
As for military spending .... this is almost as amazing as your other claim. If you claim the odds of the SU invading the west were zero (which they were not) then the converse should be true. Why would the west invade the east? We were doing just fine and certainly had no territorial ambitions. Why did you have to match our military buildup? Please realize I think the reality was the reverse. We built up in response to the SU and its agressive policies. But even if what you claim is true it doesn't make sense. You can't say that we were being agressive militarily. Why was your military buildup necessary?
Finally, the SU was truly agressive. How do you explain Berlin and Hungary in '56? The Korean War was certainly launched with the full approval of the SU. What equal acts of agression to you show from Western democracies?
I honestly do not see how you can support your position realistically at all. I am starting to think you are just yanking our chain.
Ok, this is fairly amazing. Even my very intense arguement with the Poles about France in WWII isn't reaching this level of absurdity.
If I am correct, webbrave, you are claiming that the West's policies damaged the Eastern Blocs economies and that the West's military spending forced the SU to match it and thus damage its ability to handle its own economies. If that is truly what you are saying then you are even more deluded than I thought.
Did it ever cross your mind that COMMUNISUM was the principal reason the economies of the Eastern Bloc were stunted? I think that it has clearly been demonstrated that liberal democratic capitalism is the superior economic theory. The very fact that all the eastern bloc countries are calmoring to join the EU should demonstrate that. For pete's sake, the Chinese are starting to swing more and more reforms to move towards capitalism. Totalitarian communist regimes can simply NOT provide the level of goods and services needed by a modern economy. The SU's totalitarian control of its economy and communist structure doomed the eastern bloc to economic depression while the west flourished. It was their own fault not ours.
As for military spending .... this is almost as amazing as your other claim. If you claim the odds of the SU invading the west were zero (which they were not) then the converse should be true. Why would the west invade the east? We were doing just fine and certainly had no territorial ambitions. Why did you have to match our military buildup? Please realize I think the reality was the reverse. We built up in response to the SU and its agressive policies. But even if what you claim is true it doesn't make sense. You can't say that we were being agressive militarily. Why was your military buildup necessary?
Finally, the SU was truly agressive. How do you explain Berlin and Hungary in '56? The Korean War was certainly launched with the full approval of the SU. What equal acts of agression to you show from Western democracies?
I honestly do not see how you can support your position realistically at all. I am starting to think you are just yanking our chain.
Re: I apologize Part Two ....
If I am correct, shrike00, you are claiming that the West's policies did not damage the Eastern Blocs economies and that the West's military spending did not force the SU to match it and thus damage its ability to handle its own economies. If that is truly what you are saying then you are even more deluded than I thought
Yes, it did cross my mind. Cold war made it far worse. I don't think you can prove the opposite.
If you re-read my posts carefully you'll see that I wasn't accusing the US of territorial ambitions in Russia. Why are you defending then? My point was that USSR was never going to attack the US. Do you think it would have?
and you are calling me deluded?
If I am correct, shrike00, you are claiming that the West's policies did not damage the Eastern Blocs economies and that the West's military spending did not force the SU to match it and thus damage its ability to handle its own economies. If that is truly what you are saying then you are even more deluded than I thought
Yes, it did cross my mind. Cold war made it far worse. I don't think you can prove the opposite.
If you re-read my posts carefully you'll see that I wasn't accusing the US of territorial ambitions in Russia. Why are you defending then? My point was that USSR was never going to attack the US. Do you think it would have?
and you are calling me deluded?
@webrave
Because you are a sick person, I can't help but continue this argument.
For round two, I'm now going to employ your amazing argument technique.
"The Soviet Union didn't want it and wasn't iterested in it from the very beginning"
How so? Is it possible to be interested in such a thing? Why did they accept? Why did Russia not allow Allied bombers to refuel during the Warsaw Uprising? Was this their way of 'being' friends?
"If nothing else, it sealed the east-west divide that may not have been so rigid if the SU and US remained friends."
What were the Russian proposals on 'remaining friends'?
"The Soviets had neither the power nor the desire to conquer the West"
Do you think the Americans wanted to conquer Russia?
Wow, that was super easy. I hope you don't answer me with more questions on my questions. That would be ridiculous!
Because you are a sick person
, I can't help but continue this argument.For round two, I'm now going to employ your amazing argument technique.
"The Soviet Union didn't want it and wasn't iterested in it from the very beginning"
How so? Is it possible to be interested in such a thing? Why did they accept? Why did Russia not allow Allied bombers to refuel during the Warsaw Uprising? Was this their way of 'being' friends?
"If nothing else, it sealed the east-west divide that may not have been so rigid if the SU and US remained friends."
What were the Russian proposals on 'remaining friends'?
"The Soviets had neither the power nor the desire to conquer the West"
Do you think the Americans wanted to conquer Russia?
Wow, that was super easy. I hope you don't answer me with more questions on my questions. That would be ridiculous!
This is one of the most amazing threads I have ever read. A single-minded refusal to look facts in the face I have not seen outside of holocaust-revisionists.
Webbrave, while I admire your tenacity, I wouldn't mind you commenting on the significant body of evidence presented to you. Not only have you ignored most of it, but you have provided no arguement which could possibly be used to counter it.
Saying Stalin didn't want it, or it wasn't good for SU is meaningless. Perhaps you can counter the stone cold facts in front of you rather than guessing Stalin's mind.
One final point, why do you have such blind faith in believing the most efficient mass-murderer in history had only good intentions.
I almost fell out of my chair reading this, and have to agree. Halibitt, DarthMaur, Pithorr et al, I beg forgiveness!!!
Webbrave, while I admire your tenacity, I wouldn't mind you commenting on the significant body of evidence presented to you. Not only have you ignored most of it, but you have provided no arguement which could possibly be used to counter it.
Saying Stalin didn't want it, or it wasn't good for SU is meaningless. Perhaps you can counter the stone cold facts in front of you rather than guessing Stalin's mind.
One final point, why do you have such blind faith in believing the most efficient mass-murderer in history had only good intentions.
I almost fell out of my chair reading this, and have to agree. Halibitt, DarthMaur, Pithorr et al, I beg forgiveness!!!
Of course it is not possible to be interested in such a thing and this is my original point. They didn't "accept" it - they simply accepted the rules of the game. I do think it was a mistake. It was clear from the beginning that the isolated and alienated Soviet Union couldn't win this confrontation. Therefore, the better part of Soviet policy-makers have been looking for an exit strategy virtually since 1946. Hence the failed "application" to join NATO.
I could ask you the very same question in relation to the US. Please bear in mind that I am not blaming either of the side exclusively.
No, was I saying they did? Sure, both sides wanted the other one gone, but I don't think either of them was crazy enough to start a nuclear war.
Thank you for admiring my tenacity. My original point was that the SU did not pose a direct military threat to the US. I didn't see any facts proving that it did. The "significatng body of evidence" you mention only proves that Stalin was rather effective in installing his influence in Eastern European countries and was supporting communist movements worldwide. Although I understand why it can be seen as a threat by capitalist governments, I do believe there were other ways of capitalism-communism interaction in post-1945 world. I understand that it is quite idealistic on my part, but maybe, just maybe, it was possible to move past ideological differences. This goes both ways, of course.
You think wrongly. In the five years between the Soviet atom bomb test at Semipalatinisk and the US hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, The Bomb was just that, a bomb. It was extraordinarily powerful, but in a total war it was definately open for usage. If the Russians had rolled on the West in 1950, Tu-4s would have been dropping A-bombs on Allied population centers, and B-29s would have been going the other way. Until the mid-to-late 50s, when both sides had deliverable thermonuclear weapons, a nuclear war a contest that could be won. Only after the advent of the ICBM tipped with the hydrogen bomb did the general populance realize that it would kill us all, and that the nuclear bomb was something totally new in the annals of warfare.
My "favourite" source for the political history of world in the WWII and immediate post-war period (Oct 39-Nov 47) are the British Foreign Office secret "Weekly Political Intelligence Summaries".
Anybody wanting to know what the British government knew and thought about what was happening in the world as it actually happened should have a go at them. They record events and reflect attitudes, but do so without making judgements and without the benefit of hindsight.
I re-read the 1945-47 volumes this autumn in preparation for a lecture on the Cold War. Even though I "know" this part of history well, I was struck by the force with which the British Labour government at the time protested every Soviet abuse of its powers as military occupying force in the Danubian countries. It's not as if Stalin was not warned that the British government would not take kindly to the imposition of communist governments in Hungary. Romania and Bulgaria. The Americans were as strong in their diplomatic rhetoric.
When the Cold War "broke out" in the spring of 1947 with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan there is no way anybody can argue that Stalin had not been warned that his attempts to impose his form of totalitarian dictatorship in Eastern Europe would have serious consequences for his relationship with the Western Allies.
The rhetoric was so strong that I've modified my "traditionalist" views on the subject and now must argue that the Western Allies did what they could to stop the Soviets from the summer of 1945.
Short of a new war, that is. And the US committed itself militarily to contain the Soviets as early as the spring of 1946.
The problem is that in 1945-46 Britain had the political will, but not the economic or military means to stop the Soviets while the US lacked the political will due to the strength of the pro-Soviet if not pro-communist wing of the Democratic Party. It was only after the Republican victory in the Congressional elections of 1946 that the US were in the position to act forcefully against Stalin.
Byut I agree with Webbrave. The Cold War was totally unnecessary. But you willhave to arrange a seance with Stalin to find out why it happened.
Anybody wanting to know what the British government knew and thought about what was happening in the world as it actually happened should have a go at them. They record events and reflect attitudes, but do so without making judgements and without the benefit of hindsight.
I re-read the 1945-47 volumes this autumn in preparation for a lecture on the Cold War. Even though I "know" this part of history well, I was struck by the force with which the British Labour government at the time protested every Soviet abuse of its powers as military occupying force in the Danubian countries. It's not as if Stalin was not warned that the British government would not take kindly to the imposition of communist governments in Hungary. Romania and Bulgaria. The Americans were as strong in their diplomatic rhetoric.
When the Cold War "broke out" in the spring of 1947 with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan there is no way anybody can argue that Stalin had not been warned that his attempts to impose his form of totalitarian dictatorship in Eastern Europe would have serious consequences for his relationship with the Western Allies.
The rhetoric was so strong that I've modified my "traditionalist" views on the subject and now must argue that the Western Allies did what they could to stop the Soviets from the summer of 1945.
Short of a new war, that is. And the US committed itself militarily to contain the Soviets as early as the spring of 1946.
The problem is that in 1945-46 Britain had the political will, but not the economic or military means to stop the Soviets while the US lacked the political will due to the strength of the pro-Soviet if not pro-communist wing of the Democratic Party. It was only after the Republican victory in the Congressional elections of 1946 that the US were in the position to act forcefully against Stalin.
Byut I agree with Webbrave. The Cold War was totally unnecessary. But you willhave to arrange a seance with Stalin to find out why it happened.
I guess my biggest problem is that webbrave said something to the effect that Russia didn't want the cold war and actualy wanted to be friends with the West, and really good friends at that. Moreover, it seems that webrave is saying SU wanted to be friends with the West more than the West wanted to be friends with Russia. I don't see a shred of information that would back up this statement. All I see is a government that deliberately imposed comunism in other countries by force. The West didn't do this. If the Russians really didn't want to start anything, why did they seemingly go out of their way to aggravate the West? I mean, if I want to be friends with someone, I don't try to piss them of by doing little stupid things. If I really really want to be friends with them, then I go out of my way to forgive them for doing stupid things. The Soviets didn't do this. Therefore, they really didn't care. Therefore, they're just as much to blame as the West, and even more.
"My point is that the US had no reason to fear the Soviet Union." This is classic. Truly a beautiful statement. An oppressive government. A psychotic ruler. A huge warmachine. Already imposing communist governments by force on Eastern Europe. Why, there's nothing to fear at all. I'm getting dumber reading this stupid thread, yet I keep coming back, why God, why?!!
And this 'did I say this' bull is really annoying. When I ask someone, 'do you know this person', I don't expect them to answer 'No, did I say I did?'. Replying like this is retarded.
"My point is that the US had no reason to fear the Soviet Union." This is classic. Truly a beautiful statement. An oppressive government. A psychotic ruler. A huge warmachine. Already imposing communist governments by force on Eastern Europe. Why, there's nothing to fear at all. I'm getting dumber reading this stupid thread, yet I keep coming back, why God, why?!!
And this 'did I say this' bull is really annoying. When I ask someone, 'do you know this person', I don't expect them to answer 'No, did I say I did?'. Replying like this is retarded.
Interesting posts Hardu. I didn't know those were published - there not on the web are they?
A lot of people don't know about the Atlee government's hatred of the Soviet Union and its role in persuading America just how big a threat the former was.
How influential was Bevin in this policy, in the sense of whether a different foreign secretary would have taken a different approach?
A lot of people don't know about the Atlee government's hatred of the Soviet Union and its role in persuading America just how big a threat the former was.
How influential was Bevin in this policy, in the sense of whether a different foreign secretary would have taken a different approach?
You keep putting words into my mouth and when I deny that I said this or that you claim that this is "retarded". How very nice of you. If you are so annoyed, why coming back, really?
Interesting post, Hardu. In particular, this is a very interesting observation. Never thought of it this way. I always thought that is was the Americans who were the "messianic" ones and the Brits who were the "pragmatic" types.
AFAIK, no. One of the pleasures of being a subject librarian is that I decide what is bought. These reports are among my better decisions on "really expensive source collections".
I think Bevin was the man who save democracy in 1946 - even at the price of breaking the economic back of Great Britain.
If Cripps had been in the FO I fear we all might have been communists.
The Brits were extremely "pragmatic". So pragmatic in fact, that in March 1946 the level of tension had reached the point were people in the Balkans thought war between Britain and the Soviet Union imminent.
Wishful thinking, but it says something about the climate - and the stand taken by the British.
Britain actually fought WWII in defence of democracy as in "liberal democracy" with free elections - not in "socialist democracy".
The US were messianic because all post-revolutionary societies have a messianic political culture. It's the unavoidable consequence of revolution I'm afraid.
Well, it would have been "pragmatic" to sit quiet since you are in no shape to wage war. I think that Britain's position (i.e. Fulton speech) is extremely messianic. It looks like the US was initially the pragmatic one, but soon the "messianic" party gained upper hand.
What is messianic about the Fulton speech. It's simple realpolitick and entirely right as well:
On the other hand I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.
From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.
On the other hand I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.
From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.