Was Cold war necessary?

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by webbrave
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.

Just like it would have been the "pragmatic" thing not to go to war against Germany in 1939. Far better to give the Nazis a free hand in the east and have them rid the woirld of communism...

In 1945/46 Britain had the military muscle to withstand the Soviet Union. It did not have the means to sustain its power without American financial aid.

Britain did the only "pragmatic" thing: It enlisted the US - as it had done in 1917 and 1940. But the US would not have come to the aid of britain unless the Soviet Union acted as if it were a threat to the rest of the world.

The responsibilityf or the Cold War rests on Stalin and the Communists.

 

[unmerged(13535)]

"messianic" ? ? ?

What the hell does that mean?

All post revolutionary socieities are messianic? What the hell does that mean?

We might as well say the US uses voodoo to make all its decisions. I must confess that I am getting tired of a certain segment of Europeans thinking that Americans aren't capable of analytical thought. Just because our thought process doesn't follow yours or agree with yours doesn't mean we are led by our emotions, feelings, religion, etc. Let's try not to lose focus here.

"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" - webbrave

Exactly how did the West's spending FORCE the SU to match it? Please elaborate. Why did the SU feel the need to keep up with the West as you maintain they did? You yourself have stated that the West had no territorial ambitions on the East so what did the East have to fear? The US outspends the next three or four countries in defense spending yearly now. Why aren't they desperately trying to keep up? Shouldn't our level of funding FORCE them to keep up?

What policies specifically damaged the SU economically above an beyond what communisum did by itself? You are claiming that Western policies damaged the SU and Eastern Bloc economies. Which policies?

I hate to keep bringing this up but you still have not addressed a single person dealing with the SU's agressive nature. How was the West supposed to respond to the SU's agressive acts? Should we have let them take West Berlin? Should we not protest when they use force on their own client states? Just tell me what we should have done instead?

For that matter you claim we could have avoided it all together, the Cold War that is. How exactly? What policies would you have preferred to see?

 

[unmerged(5678)]

I must say I thik it's a bit of a stretch to say that America underwent a revolution, let alone that 17 years later it was still in the post-revolutionary stage.

 

[unmerged(6881)]

Re: I apologize Part Two ....

Originally posted by shrike00
Ok, this is fairly amazing. Even my very intense arguement with the Poles about France in WWII isn't reaching this level of absurdity.

I finally agree with you at some point. Sense of absurdity you reached was clearly outstanding, that is.

 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Interesting argument!

But... I think too much of what we have respectively grown up on is at stake here - I am, for one, used to think that the West was the key driver (and just went on and on with that ridiculous cold war till we got this fool Gorbi who finally sold us, ending this spectacle).

But I understand the guys who grew up on the other side of the fence and had been boogey-manned by their governments with the SU's threat. Just like we are being boogey-manned with other threats nowadays.

It seems to me that governments of large and diverse countries simply need an outside thread to maintain the internal unity. In this light, the Cold War was beneficial for all key parties for a while, till it grew out of proportion.

I agree with webbrave that it's difficult to justify that Stalin wanted to swallow Western Europe. We were more dead then alive at the end of the war, even though very vigorous in the euphoria of victory.

But I can't hazard an educated opinion on 'who started'. I would suggest that it was an unfortunate chain of misunderstandings, mistrust, populistics statements, and career moves by security & gov't officials, and most of all FEAR of another fascist-like invasion... which fed on itself and led to what we've all witnessed.

But Russia was not fascist; it was lazy; it was mortally wounded several times over the preceding decades, it lost most of its visionary & energetic leadership, as well as industrial base... what reasonable aggression could we expect from her? If you look at it, most of the Cold war moves by Russia were reactive rather then pro-active; we lost initiative from the upstart and never regained it. I think we all lived in a perpetual state of shock: why don't they want to calm down and live in peace?

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
I must say I thik it's a bit of a stretch to say that America underwent a revolution, let alone that 17 years later it was still in the post-revolutionary stage.

The fact that the Americans consistently refer to their Rebellion and War of independence as a "Revolution" is one case in point.
The patriotism is another. The belief held by all Americans I have met (regardless of political persuasion) that the US is the most perfect of all practical societies a third.

Revolutions and the associated routinization of a new political culture literally takes ages. IMO "post-revolutionary" is a label applicable to countries/societies that actually consider themselves to be the products of revolutions. Such countries are at the same time convinced of their own superiority and totally paranoid. They also have MISSIONS.

It's no coincidence that the idea of the US as a post-revolutionary society crystallized (in RR Palmer's "Age of the Atlantic Revolutions") in the late 1950s/early 1960s when the US version of utopia was confronted with the Soviet. The Golden Age of post-revolutionary USA are the Kennedy years.

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Calling it a revolution is propaganda. A revolution requires the wholesale changing of the political classes. That just didn’t happen in the States – society did not change as it did in France, Russia, China or even England.

Many Americans do believe that they have the best society and constitution. So did Victorian Brits and Napoleonic French. It is more a conflation of natural patriotism fuelled by being No 1. To put it down to post-revolutionary fervour is to over-complicate.

If you are to make good your claim that America has a mission deriving from its 'revolution' you'll need to explain why this was not apparant durign pre-war isolationism.

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by webbrave
...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.

Why would anyone want to move past ideological differences with an aggressive, expansionist and homicidal Communist regime?

 

[unmerged(13535)]

I agree with Gupta .....

I think you are making Americans and America in general to one dimensional. Our "Revolution" is called a revolution by most but it doesn't qualify in any regard that I see. Our ruling party stayed in power. Before the War of Independence England had primarily left us to govern ourselves. After the war, which Americans will say was caused by England's attempt to reassert control, we still governed ourselves. In fact our government didn't change until several years later with the adoption of the American Constitution. There were no class upheavals or dramtic policy changes. I fail to see how this even comes close to equating with the French or Russian Revolutions.

Also, America, until after WW II was decidedly isolationist. How can we be considered to be "on a mission" when for the greater part of our existence we have decidely avoided world wide affairs? In fact our current, post WW II, stance is a lesson learned from our past. We found out that when we stay isolationist then things tend to get out of control. I don't say that to be arrogant (although I'm sure some of you will take it this way) but only to say that we learned that pro-active involvement was a better way to look after our interests.

Gupta makes more good points on our idea that our society is the "best". I am not going to apologize and say I don't believe that but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, especailly anything to do with the Cold War. I don't recall the US forcing their society on anyone. I certainly don't believe our system is perfect but it seems to work pretty well. Does my belief in my society and system of government somehow make me "messianic"?

I am also curious where you get your ideas of the "Golden Age" of the "post revolution" America. I certainly don't consider that our golden age. You are confusing pop-culture with political reality. To say that America was swept up in the fairly tale of Camelot, as Kennedy's presidency is often called, would be true. However that fairly tale had to do with him being the prince and her, Jackie, being the princess. I would deem it similiar to the English love affair with Diana. It had nothing to do with our politics or our world views. Kennedy had a notable success on the world stage and a notable disaster. He embroiled us in the quagmire of Vietnam and all its resulting trouble both abroad and at home. How is this our "golden age"? Is so it was very short. He was only around 3 years.

 

[Dinsdale]

Hardu
Post Revolutionary Messianism? In 1960 This is a nice label to explain the symptoms, but have historians become psycho-analysts now?

Did I miss the French messianic period which should have followed about 20 years later?

--------------------------------------------
Emperor Gupta, which English Revolution are you thinking of? I don't think either Charles I or James II's removal could be equated to a revolution.

-------------------------------------------

Webbrave,

Perhaps you could take these specific examples of pre-cold war Soviet expansion and explain whether or not they display Stalin's desire to push out his borders.

1) Katyn Wood
What possible motive does Russia have to murder thousands of Polish officers. This is a purge, a purge to remove an officer corps who might perceivably be an obstacle in the post-war Polish army's realignment with Russia

2) Yugoslavia
Why would a soviet spy ensure that Stalinist partizans would be supported and their strength increased to the detriment (and extermination) of the non-Stalinist Yugoslav resistance?

3) 1944
Poland again, why would Stalin not allow British planes to refuel at Russian airfields? This ensured that the Warsaw rising would fail (would probably fail anyway) and that another possible resistance to Soviet rule would be crushed.

Now, these all predate Potsdam, one of the first rifts between the allies. They do IMHO point to an aggresive, expansionist Soviet Union who had an eye on post-war world in the height of their struggle.

 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Re: I agree with Gupta .....

Originally posted by shrike00
Gupta makes more good points on our idea that our society is the "best". I am not going to apologize and say I don't believe that but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, especailly anything to do with the Cold War. I don't recall the US forcing their society on anyone. I certainly don't believe our system is perfect but it seems to work pretty well. Does my belief in my society and system of government somehow make me "messianic"?

A nice thoughtful post, shrike00!

That paragraph is interesting to me, however. You seem to be saying that the US is not imposing it's society model on others?

I do not think this is entirely true. What is happening around the world (inc. the 'reforms' that IMF pushes though, and the latest promises to install US-backed military regime in Iraq to promote the 'Western' (read: US) model of 'democracy', and insistence on 'regime changes' in some other countries) seem to prove otherwise. That's 'messianic' to me.

You've confused me; help!

 

[pithorr]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
1) Katyn Wood
What possible motive does Russia have to murder thousands of Polish officers. This is a purge, a purge to remove an officer corps who might perceivably be an obstacle in the post-war Polish army's realignment with Russia

I must go further. Officers caught in the east were mostly conscripted ones. Who was drafted as an officer then - doctors, lawyers, engineers etc. Soviets executed them to clear the country of elites (like Nazis used to do as well) for the conquest to be easier...

About misery in the Soviet Bloc...
Well it is ridiculous to say that the West is guilty for it, not the idiotic economy system and absurd armament costs. We suffer o such past till today.
BTW: Originally, Poland and Czechoslovakia decided to accept the Marshall plan, however SU forced them to refuse it later...

 

[unmerged(502)]

Re: "messianic" ? ? ?

Originally posted by shrike00

Exactly how did the West's spending FORCE the SU to match it? Please elaborate. Why did the SU feel the need to keep up with the West as you maintain they did? You yourself have stated that the West had no territorial ambitions on the East so what did the East have to fear? The US outspends the next three or four countries in defense spending yearly now. Why aren't they desperately trying to keep up? Shouldn't our level of funding FORCE them to keep up?

What policies specifically damaged the SU economically above an beyond what communisum did by itself? You are claiming that Western policies damaged the SU and Eastern Bloc economies. Which policies?

I hate to keep bringing this up but you still have not addressed a single person dealing with the SU's agressive nature. How was the West supposed to respond to the SU's agressive acts? Should we have let them take West Berlin? Should we not protest when they use force on their own client states? Just tell me what we should have done instead?

For that matter you claim we could have avoided it all together, the Cold War that is. How exactly? What policies would you have preferred to see?

How did the West force the SU to equal its military spending? The Soviet leadership felt that if it lags behind the West in certain areas (most importantly military technology) it will lose the "race". Same goes for the US. I personally disagree with this line of reasoning - once you know you can destroy your enemy 100 times over, you can concentrate on other things as well. Actually, you are asking the very same questions that I did - Cold war seems extremely irrational.
Apart from military spending the Eastern bloc had to endure, there were also numerous economic restrictions applied on Soviet/Eastern European goods in Western countries. Some of them are still in place (like the infamous Jackson-Venic ammendment that STILL hasn't been dropped - bizarre, isn't it?).
I honestly do not know if/how the Cold War could have been avoided. That's the reason I started this thread.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Gaijin de Moscu

I agree with webbrave that it's difficult to justify that Stalin wanted to swallow Western Europe. We were more dead then alive at the end of the war, even though very vigorous in the euphoria of victory.

But I can't hazard an educated opinion on 'who started'. I would suggest that it was an unfortunate chain of misunderstandings, mistrust, populistics statements, and career moves by security & gov't officials, and most of all FEAR of another fascist-like invasion... which fed on itself and led to what we've all witnessed.

But Russia was not fascist; it was lazy; it was mortally wounded several times over the preceding decades, it lost most of its visionary & energetic leadership, as well as industrial base... what reasonable aggression could we expect from her? If you look at it, most of the Cold war moves by Russia were reactive rather then pro-active; we lost initiative from the upstart and never regained it. I think we all lived in a perpetual state of shock: why don't they want to calm down and live in peace?

thank you, Gaijin! I agree with you wholehartedly. You phrased it better than I ever could.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Re: I agree with Gupta .....

Originally posted by shrike00
I don't recall the US forcing their society on anyone. I certainly don't believe our system is perfect but it seems to work pretty well. Does my belief in my society and system of government somehow make me "messianic"?

Are you saying that the US doesn't promote democracy worldwide? US president's speeches are filled with "guardian of democracy" rhetoric mixed with Bible references. If this doesn't make US policy-makers "messianic" I don't know what would.

How about post-war reconstruction of Japan and Germany? Wouldn't you see it as an example of forcing democracy on people? Or current plans for Iraq? Or even policy toward Russia throughout the 90s and to a lesser extent now?

 

[Dark Knight]

Just a reminder that the history forum isn't the place for current events, especially anything involving the dreaded I-word.

If you want to argue that the US is a 'messianic democracy', you'll have to do it without the last few decades.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
If you want to argue that the US is a 'messianic democracy', you'll have to do it without the last few decades.

sure, just tell us where to stop. Is Reagan historic enough? Or just Kennedy?

 

[unmerged(13535)]

Gaijin de Moscu - "what reasonable aggression could we expect from her? If you look at it, most of the Cold war moves by Russia were reactive rather then pro-active; we lost initiative from the upstart and never regained it"

Huh? The closing of Berlin was reactive? Reactive to what? The supression of Hungry was reactive to what? People demonstrating in the streets? The massacre of Katyn Woods was reactive to what? The fear of an intact Polish leadership? Please explain to me what exactly the SU was reacting to when it made these moves.

webbrave - "How did the West force the SU to equal its military spending? The Soviet leadership felt that if it lags behind the West in certain areas (most importantly military technology) it will lose the "race". Same goes for the US. I personally disagree with this line of reasoning - once you know you can destroy your enemy 100 times over, you can concentrate on other things as well."

I still believe that the SU started the arms race but let's assume for a minute the West did. You have made my case. You yourself say that trying to keep up with the West was irrational. Therefore the Cold War arms race was brought on by the irrational moves of the SU to keep up. The big difference between the West and the SU in the arms race is that we could afford it. The SU couldn't. I'm not sure how that is the West's fault. Why didn't the SU stop after being able to destroy us once? Why be so irrational? Is the West to be blamed for irrational behavior on the part of the SU leadership?


webbrave - "How about post-war reconstruction of Japan and Germany? Wouldn't you see it as an example of forcing democracy on people? "

I'm not sure how you FORCE democracy on someone. By its very nature, democracy can't be forced. You can encourage democracy and argue that it is the best system (which isn't what I am saying necessarily) but you can't force a country to be democratic. Anyway, that's a pretty bad example to use. The reconstruction of West Germany and Japan are practically modern marvels. Both turned into vibrant, strong economies that played key roles in their areas of influence. Not a single country under the SU hegemony had such success. They didn't even come close. In fact they are still desperately trying to climb out of the morass caused by the SU's policies, both political and economic. If anything this is a hit against the SU not the West.


webbrave - "Are you saying that the US doesn't promote democracy worldwide? US president's speeches are filled with "guardian of democracy" rhetoric mixed with Bible references. If this doesn't make US policy-makers "messianic" I don't know what would"

Maybe we are confusing society with political system. I'm not sure the two are the same. Linked, yes. The same, no. And at the risk of offending Dark Knight, your references are modern and can be argued in another forum. I can certainly argue them since I don't think they mean what you think they mean but we'll do it somewhere else. To stay on our topic ..... the West, or US specifically, certainly was in no position to export democracy or its society immediately after the Cold War. For pete's sake, the record is clearly the other way. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, half of South and Central America, Angola, etc., etc., etc. All of these countries clearly fell under the influence if not control of the Soviet Union. Exactly where did the US start its "messianic" attack? I'd say it was desperately defending itself from agressive encroachment by the SU and until the 1980's it was losing.


Finally, you still have not addressed a single instance of SU agressiveness or produced a single instance of the West agressive nature. I think almost everyone on this board will agree that the SU was quite agressive in the immediate post war period and I don't think the same can be said of the West. Please address these charges, webbrave. If you don't your argument constantly falls flat. How can you argue against SU agressiveness when we are pointing out instance after instance of SU agressiveness and you are ignoring them? Please address these instances.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

This discussion is getting very interesting. But i don't have time to write any windy posts until monday.

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
--------------------------------------------
Emperor Gupta, which English Revolution are you thinking of? I don't think either Charles I or James II's removal could be equated to a revolution.

-------------------------------------------

Dinsdale,

I was thinking of the removal of Charles I rather than the 'glorius' revolution.

I agree it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the Parliamentary revolt was a revoltion. I tend to think of it as a proto-revolution. It did involve a regicide which was pretty revolutionary in those days.

More importantly, it became more revolutionary (or purist, if you'll pardon the pun) as it went on. Certainly, the New MOdel Army wqs run on revolutionary lines and one could hardly imagine the Putney Debates being held before Cromwell.

On the other, one could see it as more of a power struggle between competing elites. It certainly didn't destroy the power of the aristicracy but it did elevate the lower gentry and give the midlleing sorts a say in English politics for the first time.

How's that for good old English fudge?