Was the USA Responsible for the Cold War?

[Mithradates]

I wonder if the USA had never seen the USSR as a ideological and military enemy as suggested in NSC 68 would there have been a cold war. If there had been no Truman doctrine would we have been spared the war of nerves that resulted?

[Lorenzo_H]

I am actually studying the Cold War right now, and I have to disagree. The cold war was more inveitable than anyone's fault. I guess that means it was both the USA's and the USSR's fault. Could I point out that without the Truman doctrine those countries would have been severly poor and many people would have died, and those nations would certainly have fallen to communism which would have become Soviet States. Pretty soon you have a massive Soviet web of control which would not have gone down well with the Americans or the West, and the risk of a nuclear war is just as great.

[Mithradates]

I would say that the Truman doctrine and the Marshall plan had the effect of creating a bipolar Europe increasing the tension further. Rather than defusing it i probably went a bit too far saying it was purely the USA i was just wondering if the USA's post war actions could be said to have provoked the conflict.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The cold war was started by Soviet lust for power and was ended by America outspending them.

[Stig]

Remember Churchill, wanting to invade Yugoslavia to stop Russia? No-one is to blame imo

[The Wizard]

Perhaps, but it also would've really helped if Russia hadn't abused Yalta to putsch nation after nation in Eastern Europe.

The Kuomintang losing the struggle for China to the commies there was also a factor; the U.S. and its allies started feeling more and more as if a so-called Red Tide was sweeping across the world.

[conon394]

Mithradates

“…and the Marshall plan had the effect of creating a bipolar Europe increasing the tension further.”

I say rather Soviet (or perhaps more accurately Stalin's) rejection of the Marshall plan and the parallel orders to its Eastern European puppet governments to reject it as well created the bi-polar situation.

[Kralizec]

Equal fault. Both were major powers at the end of WWII, and would have perceived eachother as the natural enemy even if it weren't for the ideological friction.

In the "western block", it was Churchill who however first realized the impending danger and not FDR or Truman however.

[Mithradates]

I think the plan was formulated in the knowledge that the Soviets would reject purley as a matter of honour and if they did accept i find it unlikely that the US congress would pass such an act. I wouldnt say neither country is truly to blame what im trying to assertain is whether US actions post war led to the increase of tensions, more so than the Soviets.

[Veho Nex]

all american. Though i hate to say it(we all know america is usually innocent) we started the cold war because truman flashed A-bombs in front of stalin or what ever his name was but it was also englands fault to an extent. England wished for a strong germany to buffer russia should they ever decide to "spread" their influence. But 90% of the blame comes down upon truman and the post war confrence thingy. If all this seems like jumbled facts im sorry its 3 am and i cant sleep so i just write and write and write until i get tired enough to sleep

[Marshal Murat]

I say Trotsky for not seeing Stalin for what he was and stopping him after the Russian Civil War...

Or Germany for electing Hitler, and forcing America to build an A-bomb to finish off the enemy...

Stalin for having the wacko ideas about Britain and USA trying to take over Europe...

Or Marx for suggesting communism in the first place...

It's a total blame game that won't get anywhere.
:beam:

[Randarkmaan]

It was everyone's fault and no one in particular's fault. When you dig into it, you will see that both the Soviets and the American are to blame and playing a blame game is pointless.

[Sarmatian]

Or Germany for electing Hitler, and forcing America to build an A-bomb to finish off the enemy...


This is priceless...

[Veho Nex]

Or Germany for electing Hitler, and forcing America to build an A-bomb to finish off the enemy...

ahhhhahahahahahahahahaha very funny man:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

ok so we have 49% nay and 51% yay its unanimous hitler wins!!

[Justiciar]

They're both to blame. It was a cunning ploy to keep Europe seperate, and weak, so as to avoid the growth of a federal Europe, as was the intention of many politicians of the day.

Alright, I'm talking out of my arse. :shame:

Marshal means that the Nuclear stand off between the USA and USSR wouldn't have come about without the arrival of Nukes during WW2. Though without them I'd argue that a full-on war would have been inevitable.

[sapi]

Hate to drag this a bit off topic, but better than starting a new thread.

Any reccomended reading on the cold war/nuclear deterrant?

[PanzerJaeger]

Im surprised so many people are laying the blame equally at the feet of both nations.

Surely the communist takeover of all the nations they "liberated" shifts most of the blame to the USSR?

[Marshal Murat]

Just as the formation of NATO was a threat to the USSR's established regime.

Also, I never said Germany was unanimous in the vote, just that they voted Hitler in....


Anyway, I think that both nations were equally responsible for the war.

Takes 2 to Tango.

[The Wizard]

Established regime? The NATO was founded right after the USSR abused the fact that it still garissoned all the countries it had "liberated," and which the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences had kept in a (fragile, as we shall see) equilibrium in between Soviet troops and a wish of the locals to return to the pre-war status qup, to putsch all these places in favor of Moscow-aligned communist parties.

Also, nobody has mentioned the fall of China to Mao and the CCP but me. This happened in 1949, just after (or perhaps contemporarily) the series of Soviet-engineered takeovers by communists in the East, contributing to the idea in American-controlled areas that a "red tide" was taking the world by storm.

[Kralizec]

And the fact that the Soviets detonated their first nuclear bomb only a month or so before that, wich didn't go unnoticed by the Americans.
Stalin's (quite predictable, Churchill knew at least) authoritarian occupation of eastern Europe was an essential for the Cold War. However, an act of covert agression against the other post-war allies? The drawing of NATO could instead be seen as a "pre-emptive strike" without the strike part.
And for some west-block putsching, one needs only to look at Latin America, or before that Greece. Churchill's lashing out against Stalin's approach of handling the occupied territories makes him a hypocrite, or rather a shrewd politician, despite any other positive traits the man had.

There is no way of pin-pointing the exact point where one faction started intimidating the other into competition, because that exact point doesn't exist.

Note: just because I don't think there is a one, true agressor doesn't mean that I think both sides are morally on par. Of course it's a good thing that the USA got out on top.

[Sarmatian]

Established regime? The NATO was founded right after the USSR abused the fact that it still garissoned all the countries it had "liberated," and which the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences had kept in a (fragile, as we shall see) equilibrium in between Soviet troops and a wish of the locals to return to the pre-war status qup, to putsch all these places in favor of Moscow-aligned communist parties.

Also, nobody has mentioned the fall of China to Mao and the CCP but me. This happened in 1949, just after (or perhaps contemporarily) the series of Soviet-engineered takeovers by communists in the East, contributing to the idea in American-controlled areas that a "red tide" was taking the world by storm.

And allies didn't garrison the countries they "liberated"? Germany, France? Had it not been the firm stance of De Gaulle, american troops would have been far longer in France... Do you think the germans saw the presence american troops as good? Prefered to the soviet troops, sure, but certainly not prefered to their own army. The actual need for the presence of american troops in western europe was lesser, because most of the countries were able to use their own, with financial help from the americans of course.

Just how many countries in latin america were garrisoned by the americans? How many dictators were supported so that countries don't fall to communism? Do you think that the guy Castro replaced (I can't remember his name) was much better than him? Maybe a bit better, but he was a dictator just as Castro.

As it had already been said, it takes 2 to tango...

[Kralizec]

Do you think that the guy Castro replaced (I can't remember his name) was much better than him? Maybe a bit better, but he was a dictator just as Castro.

As it had already been said, it takes 2 to tango...

Batista. And he was worse then Castro AFAIK.

[Kalle]

Its just ridiculos to try to put equal blame on the countries. USSR was an expansionistic dictatorship that cared nothing for the wellbeing of either its own population and certanly not of occupied countries which they tried to grab as many as possible. Did you see any revolts in western europe against US troops? Did you see any revolts in eastern europe? (thats a clue to whos presence was wanted and whos precence was in fact an occupation) If you cant see a diffrence in USAs acting towards western europe and USSRs in the east its gotta be because you dont want to.

It takes 2 to tango yes but only one to start the dance.

Kalle

[Louis VI the Fat]

Anybody remember that wall maybe? People fled from East to West, not the other way round. It takes two to tango, but it takes a totalitarian regime to murder it's own citizens when they desperately seek freedom

A thousand crosses, next to a part of the wall. One cross for each person who was murdered for trying to escape the blessings of communism.

This is what the Soviet troops did in the part of Europe they conquered. The other half of Europe was spared this cruel fate by the presence of American troops.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Checkpoint_Charlie_Memorial.JPG/794px-Checkpoint_Charlie_Memorial.JPG

[Kralizec]

Hilarious. Since when is the behaviour during a conflict of any relevance to the question of wich party started the conflict?
The regimes in eastern Europe were horrorible. Eastern Europe, and especially the Baltic countries were the backyard of the USSR and they wanted a buffer against the capitalist west. That's perfectly rational.
OTOH, South America was the backyard of the USA. Democracy is nice, but it was secondary to anti-communism, admittedly also perfectly rational :unitedstates:

On a lighter note, anybody else seen Goodbye Lenin?

[Kalle]

Pathetic!

Maybe the oppressing puppet regimes in easterneurope were the key to the start of the cold war? I fail completly to see how rebuilding a democratic western europe could be seen as provocative by any one with peace and freedom in mind. Who built walls? Who shot people trying to get to the other side. Who forced airbridges to be made to Berlin?

Churchill was the first to use the phrase iron curtain (at least in the sence of post wwii europe) but the curtain was not made by him or the westernpowers.

Westernpowers let the countries they rid of germans become free democracies that could elect even communistregimes if they wanted and could tell US forces to leave if they wanted, was this so in eastern europe? I dont think so. USSR was expansionistic which they proved again and again both before the attack on them by Germany and after.

Kalle

[The Wizard]

And allies didn't garrison the countries they "liberated"? Germany, France? Had it not been the firm stance of De Gaulle, american troops would have been far longer in France... Do you think the germans saw the presence american troops as good? Prefered to the soviet troops, sure, but certainly not prefered to their own army. The actual need for the presence of american troops in western europe was lesser, because most of the countries were able to use their own, with financial help from the americans of course.

The Yalta and Potsdam conferences promoted a status quo similar to the one existing before the war... of the later two parties that took part in the Cold War, only the Soviet Union drastically altered this equilibrium by installing loyal puppet governments everywhere its troops happened to be stationed.

Now, one could, perhaps (and difficultly) argue that the Marshall Plan was a parallel move carried out by the United States, but even if you'd choose for such a direction of argumentation, you cannot deny that that was a significantly lesser provocation than the outright colonization of half a continent.


Just how many countries in latin america were garrisoned by the americans? How many dictators were supported so that countries don't fall to communism? Do you think that the guy Castro replaced (I can't remember his name) was much better than him? Maybe a bit better, but he was a dictator just as Castro.

As it had already been said, it takes 2 to tango...

And, tell me -- where was the Cold War fought out? Who were the main players, and where were they located? Besides, what you name are all later examples... we're talking the origins of the conflict. They lie in Europe alone.

There's a reason there's a North-South contrast on the globe. One of the luxuries of being in the North is that you can wave around expensive and flashy weaponry at each other, either using it or just using it for the old proverbial saber-rattle.

[Sarmatian]

Its just ridiculos to try to put equal blame on the countries. USSR was an expansionistic dictatorship that cared nothing for the wellbeing of either its own population and certanly not of occupied countries which they tried to grab as many as possible. Did you see any revolts in western europe against US troops? Did you see any revolts in eastern europe? (thats a clue to whos presence was wanted and whos precence was in fact an occupation) If you cant see a diffrence in USAs acting towards western europe and USSRs in the east its gotta be because you dont want to.

It takes 2 to tango yes but only one to start the dance.

Kalle

Well, I've seen open revolts against american puppet regimes in latin america. Cuba, to name one. I am not saying CCCP rule was benevolent, but in the end, both parties wanted the same, they just used different means.

Also, if we talk about expansionist regimes, just look at the number of countries US had their troops in, in let's say 1945, just after WW2 and compare it to the number of countries US have there troops stationed in 2007



The Yalta and Potsdam conferences promoted a status quo similar to the one existing before the war... of the later two parties that took part in the Cold War, only the Soviet Union drastically altered this equilibrium by installing loyal puppet governments everywhere its troops happened to be stationed.

Now, one could, perhaps (and difficultly) argue that the Marshall Plan was a parallel move carried out by the United States, but even if you'd choose for such a direction of argumentation, you cannot deny that that was a significantly lesser provocation than the outright colonization of half a continent.


AFAIK, in Yalta sphere of influnced were divided. There were some grey spots, but the general look of the world was decided. I am not sure what were you trying to say.

And it is not true that soviets installed puppet regimes in every country they liberated. Soviet troops were in Yugoslavia, but they left because Yugoslavia was supposed to be under british sphere of influence, according to Yalta deal. Even though Yugoslavia was a comunist country. The same with Greece.



And, tell me -- where was the Cold War fought out? Who were the main players, and where were they located? Besides, what you name are all later examples... we're talking the origins of the conflict. They lie in Europe alone.


The cold war was fought all over the world. Europe was just the most important claim. It was also most sensitive. Every thing in the world was connected to the cold war at that point. Even Non-Aligned Movement, which was supposedly been formed for the exact opposite.

[Kralizec]

Maybe the oppressing puppet regimes in easterneurope were the key to the start of the cold war?

The Soviets wanted a nice land buffer against whatever might come out of Europe. Ruthless, but understandable. They still had fresh memories of European intervention in their own civil war, and the invasion of 1942 by Germany and it's assorted allies.


I fail completly to see how rebuilding a democratic western europe could be seen as provocative by any one with peace and freedom in mind. Who built walls?

You don't need to try to see merit in arguments I never made.


Who shot people trying to get to the other side. Who forced airbridges to be made to Berlin?

IIRC that incident was because the other Allied powers, without consulting the Soviets, decided to reunify their occupied parts of Germany and introduce a common Mark again.


Churchill was the first to use the phrase iron curtain (at least in the sence of post wwii europe) but the curtain was not made by him or the westernpowers.

No, but they were simultaniously supporting fascist factions in the Greek civil war, wich would ban communist parties when they won a few years later.


Westernpowers let the countries they rid of germans become free democracies that could elect even communistregimes if they wanted and could tell US forces to leave if they wanted,

You're a fool. The Western European countries weren't kept on a leash because the US knew we could be trusted, not in the last place because we owed them for first liberating us and then the Marshall plan. Maybe you need to do a search for "that other 9/11".

I've already said that the Soviet occupation and vassalization of eastern Europe was essential for the Cold War, but it was more or less the "natural" thing to do. If you want to use that to put the blame on that party, fair enough. I view it more as logical events resulting from enertia. Regardless, the US did the same later on, though more subtly and on a somewhat lesser scale.


And, tell me -- where was the Cold War fought out?

Mainly in Europe, Asia and Latin America- though the higher stakes were in Europe.

[JimBob]

USSR was an expansionistic dictatorship that cared nothing for the wellbeing of either its own population and certanly not of occupied countries which they tried to grab as many as possible.
Do you believe that the US fought the Cold War to protect the people of Czechoslovakia? We wanted power, they wanted power. The cold war was a schoolyard fight. Both sides kept upping the ante but tried not to do anything that would get them in trouble.

The question is not one of morality of the regime. But if you want to have that argument go pick up Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind and start reading. During the Cold War the US supported brutal regimes in Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, Grenada, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Hundreds of thousands of people were disappeared by the security services of those nations, and those security services were trained and funded by the CIA to fight communism.

[Strike For The South]

The cold war was started by Soviet lust for power and was ended by America outspending them.

QFT:smash:

[cegorach]

What a silly question.

100 % Soviet fault.

Without their greed for domination there would be no need for confrontation, at least in Europe.

They have broken all agreements, installed puppet regimes, occupied the countries in Eastern/Central Europe annexing large territories.

The argumetn that they needed buffer is most stupid one - and why would countries like Estonia, Finland or Poland attack them ?
For what ? Poland lost 1/3 of its citizens including 6 millions Poles (and Jews) not to mention the destruction in all other areas.


People you are talking about STALIN, Stalin - one of the greatest murderers in human history and you still consider him a rational, peaceful leader ?

In 1939 he started the bloody 2nd WW together with Hitler. He did help the Nazis from the day one of the war and only because they started fighting each other he was considered as a partner, not the enemy to be stopped - a very bifg mistake of people like FDR - such stupidity doesn't go unpunished.

So he was supposed to leave Europe alone ? Or maybe only the US imperialism stopped him from retiring to work as a gardener ?

That is bloody stupid !
How can you recognise his needs at all ?
Do you agree to surrender for example Southern Korea to Kim Jong Il ? :wall:


The USA did great work in Europe and accusing them for the Cold War is equal to accusing Poland for starting the 2nd WW.:thumbsdown:

[sapi]

:laugh4:

I can't believe how many people in this forum are so willing to wave the US flag.

I'd prefer to stay out of this discussion but it's getting stupid.

Points:
a) @cegorach - Stalin was a great leader for Russia, when looked at impartially. He brought the country out of the figurative stone age and made them a major player in world affairs. While not all of his domestic policies worked, for those who survived his regime he was a net force for good

b) Soviet imperialism my [beep]! One of the main reasons america nuked japan, for example, was to prove to the soviets the devestating effects of the bomb - a big 'up yours' between nations. Would the USA not have acted in the same way if positions were reversed?

c) Looking at this from a purely military sense, the only way the US could have avoided the cold war would have been to nuke moscow straight after hiroshima and nagasaki.

What developed as a result of that (perfectly reasonable) decision was the fault of both parties.

It takes two to tango

/returns to his policy of not getting involved in teh Monastery

[TinCow]

I believe most responders in here are entirely off-base. Certainly both the USA and USSR were responsible for continuing and increasing the severity of the Cold War, but neither of them is truly responsible for starting it. The Cold War was biproduct of an Allied victory in WW2. WW2 was a biproduct of WWI. WWI was a biproduct of the re-arrangement of European power resulting from the unification of Germany and Italy. So, if you really want to point a finger, let's go with Bismarck and Garibaldi.

It's ridiculous to try and place blame for historical trends, which the Cold War was most certainly a part of. They are always the results of extremely long and complex series of events which have their origins in more places than any of us can imagine. To a certain extent, nations and cilizations are slaves to fate in a way that individuals are not (unless you believe in that kind of thing).

[Kalle]

It is even more hard to believe the number of people waving the antiamerica flag.

Stalin a great leader?????? Complete rubbish. If that is the kind of leadership you like and admire I dont know what to say!!

I once actually took the time to conduct a proper research and wrote a long answer to someone in this forum with footnotes reference list and the whole thing. It was pointless then and it would be pointless now, so I wont waste my time doing it again even when I am told I am a fool.

Lets just conclude; if I am a fool then the antiamericans (Itoo can critizise america but not when they dont deserve it) pro soviets pro stalinists in this topic are just plainly insane.

Cegorach has brains as usual though.

Kalle

[ShadeHonestus]

Stalin a great leader??????


Hey, at the very least 3 million dead subjects can't be wrong. The number of the satisfied dead are thought to be much higher.

The USSR needed confrontation with the west just to maintain its ideology among those in power.

[Randarkmaan]

Wouldn't it be great if we could just agree that both were assholes in their own way(s)? And concerning Stalin he showed absolute disregard for human life and appeared unable to show real compassion, but he did produce results and it may have been through his ruthlessness and brutality that the Soviets managed to defeat the nazis, because Stalin had in his power to fight to the last man in Russia if he so wanted, which he probably would have wanted. Also when he was young he kinda looked like Borat.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Stalin_exile_1915.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

The cold war could possibly have been prevented by a... "Hot war", that is a full scale war between the US and the Soviets. Because of the development before, during and after world war II I think the cold war was inevitable. Who won in the end between the US and the Soviet union would not be the first thing on people's mind, because a war would definately have devastated Europe (which would become a battleground again) and much the rest of the world to a point that we can't even imagine.

[Avicenna]

forcing America to build an A-bomb to finish off the enemy...

You're not having a laugh are you? You think the Americans couldn't defeat Japan? Anyway, Germany had pretty much absolutely nothing to do with Japan.


Or Marx for suggesting communism in the first place...

He's also the person whose ideas led to more freedom for the people, as it were. Do you hear anything about public services, scholarships for the needy and deserving or any kind of equality before Marx?


Stalin for having the wacko ideas about Britain and USA trying to take over Europe...
You believe that the noble crusaders (as they want you to think) didn't want hegemony?


The argumetn that they needed buffer is most stupid one - and why would countries like Estonia, Finland or Poland attack them ?
They don't need buffers from them. They ARE the buffers. Germany caused lots of Russian suffering twice over in the memory of many Russians at the time. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War. Polish expansionism is clear right off the ball when they are independent.


People you are talking about STALIN, Stalin - one of the greatest murderers in human history and you still consider him a rational, peaceful leader ?
Rational: Oran ring any bells? Anyway, it's perfectly rational in his eyes. For the benefit of the Russians, others will lose their freedom. Gives him and his country more power. Perfectly rational to squeeze as much as you can from a deal.


In 1939 he started the bloody 2nd WW together with Hitler. He did help the Nazis from the day one of the war and only because they started fighting each other he was considered as a partner, not the enemy to be stopped - a very bifg mistake of people like FDR - such stupidity doesn't go unpunished.
This is because the Allies refused to help Stalin against Hitler after he proposed the idea, and with Chamberlain's appeasement it was clear they wouldn't do so for some time.


That is bloody stupid !
How can you recognise his needs at all ?
Do you agree to surrender for example Southern Korea to Kim Jong Il ?
Language. Anyway, the same can be said of South Korea wanting the North. They want their country to be unified: plenty have relatives across the border.


The cold war was started by Soviet lust for power and was ended by America outspending them.
You are a leader of a country. You have fought in a war for 5 years. The number of dead on your side has 8 figures. Would you be willing to just do that for absolutely nothing? Please. Wake up. You don't just had world domination to USA on a silver platter: look what it's like when you do. Oh no! Democracy can also make evil empires! Even if you were willing to because you want to win Miss World by saying you want world peace, you would get lynched by your people.


Surely the communist takeover of all the nations they "liberated" shifts most of the blame to the USSR?
Are you suggesting that the Americans and British didn't install regimes sympathetic to their own after they liberated countries? I'm pretty sure Mr Hitler wasn't one who liked democracy. Or Italy/Japan/Austria, for that matter.

The cold war is caused by human nature. It's the natural survival instinct that you should gain as much power as you can. This is beneficial for the people under you, should you be a leader, and obviously for yourself. It's also a male competition of who has bigger cajones.

[Sarmatian]

It is even more hard to believe the number of people waving the antiamerica flag.

Stalin a great leader?????? Complete rubbish. If that is the kind of leadership you like and admire I dont know what to say!!

I once actually took the time to conduct a proper research and wrote a long answer to someone in this forum with footnotes reference list and the whole thing. It was pointless then and it would be pointless now, so I wont waste my time doing it again even when I am told I am a fool.

Lets just conclude; if I am a fool then the antiamericans (Itoo can critizise america but not when they dont deserve it) pro soviets pro stalinists in this topic are just plainly insane.

Cegorach has brains as usual though.

Kalle

Well, a great leader in a sense that he turned an agricultural society into an industrialized country. For having the strength to do so in such a short time, for holding things together when every other country thought that ussr would break under german pressure and for leading a country that achieved the most, even though it suffered the most in WW2. Had it not been for his reforms, ussr would have probably been defeated, and that could have changed the outcome of the war. Even if it didn't, the war would have certainly been longer and more bloody.

Was he a brutal man, a dictator, a murder? Yes, no doubt about that, but there are some things that we have to give him credit for.

Sorry for going of topic here.

To go back the questions at hand. US used the same methods as USSR, but they were careful not to get their hands dirty. They used different people to do their dirty work. And, most importantly, they understood the difference between Europe an the rest of the world. 100 deaths in some country in South America, Africa or Asia isn't important. 100 deaths in a European country is unacceptable.
US had different methods for Europe and for the rest of the world. USSR didn't.

[Avicenna]

How surprising to see that from a European Ubermensch[/sarcasm] Too bad things have changed now, eh?

Anyway, the USSR didn't do anything outside of Europe. They waited after Berlin was taken to DoW Japan and grab some islands.

The USSR's defeat is also definitely not a "could change the outcome" kind of thing. It WOULD change the outcome. Do you know how many divisions there were in the WF that GB+USA took over a year to defeat?

[ShadeHonestus]

Do you know how many divisions there were in the WF that GB+USA took over a year to defeat?

I do know that we weren't too fond of the human wave tactic, besides there were many times we gave up advancing for the sake of allied sensibilities, east and west. But hey, for every man or woman you throw in front of enemy guns, you get one less post-war whiner that stalin would have to gulag later.

[Grey_Fox]

Should this be backroomed?

[Sarmatian]

Should this be backroomed?

Well, in 2007, cold war is history. Recent history, but history nevertheless. As long as people remain civil, I don't think that it should be moved...

[cegorach]

@Avicenna

They don't need buffers from them. They ARE the buffers. Germany caused lots of Russian suffering twice over in the memory of many Russians at the time. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War. Polish expansionism is clear right off the ball when they are independent.

Oh I forgot - Stalin said it clearly in 1944 'Poles are imperialists'.:laugh4:

Perhaps you should chack the earlier uprisings - the November one in 1831 and January Uprising in 1863-65 as well as Polish part in Napoleon's war against Russia in 1812 and later check the map of Europe in 1772-95 you will see that areas 'occupied' by Poland in 1919-20 strangely coincide with those where the Polish borders in earlier centuries happen to include.

Of course we can develop your argument and insist that every form of Polish state on any territory is clarly marks Polish drive to conquest against peaceful Russia.

If you are so willing to ignore historical borders, the ethnic composition of territories (here to make it easier for you)https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/Poland1909-1939.jpg, not compare the time for which certain areas were in Poland and in Russia we indeed can reach the only one conclusion - to make Russia safe Poland needs to BE ANNIHILATED.

Or are you afraid to say so - come one, be bold with your statements you have already started going in this direction after all....:wall:






This is because the Allies refused to help Stalin against Hitler after he proposed the idea, and with Chamberlain's appeasement it was clear they wouldn't do so for some time.

Smokescreen. He didn't mean it, he couldn't do it - the purges were at their hights in 1938 so it was not possible.
Besides how could he do anything without agreement with Poland and Romania ?
Could he ?



Language. Anyway, the same can be said of South Korea wanting the North. They want their country to be unified: plenty have relatives across the border.

Pure sophism. You can say this way that the Allies were equally right as Hitler in the 2nd WW and are equally responsible for the war.:thumbsdown:

South Korea wants the same as the korean sociey - unification, but invading a different cpountry while oppressing your onw population is another thing.

If we proceed this way there is no difference between invader and the invaded.

[Avicenna]

Not the Allies, per se, but Neville Chamberlain.

I think I'll stop there and say that I don't see any reason for arguing extensively with a nationalist.

[Don Corleone]

I think the way this argument has been proceeding, it really belongs in the backroom. It began with Mitradates asking a very provocative question and offering scant little evidence to back his assertion and has proceeded from there as a pro/anti West argument.

Honestly... I could ask "Does anybody else other than me think that Charles Manson, who never technically killed anyone, has seen his civil rights violated for the past 36 years, including his right to free speech the night of the murders?" It is one viewpoint, sure, but it's one without much factual basis.

Now, to address the original question, loaded as it is, with as much rationalism as I can muster, I am going to begin with a definition of the Cold War, always a good place to begin as that term means different things to different people.

Wikipedia's definition is "The Cold War was the period of conflict, tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies from the mid 1940s until the early 1990s". That sounds good and about as value neutral as you're going to get.

Now, in order to blame the USA as the cause of the Cold War, as Mithradates seeks to do in his initial post, one must look at the causes for the event defined above.

What caused the period of conflict, tension and competition?

-Soviet socialism had written into it's charter a charge to eliminate capitalism and establish command economy socialism globally. It was put in there by the Bolsheveks in the (IMHO correct) opinion that their system could not compete ideologically in a world with capitalism, so therefore capitalism had to be eliminated to remove the temptation from the proletariat.

-At the time of the close of WWII, Stalin was in absolute control of the Soviet Union. For some time, he had come to see the nation as an extension of himself, and governed solely by at the whims of his own will. He had co-opted cause #1 to a personal goal for world domination. What records we have of unofficial statements by him leave no doubt on this matter.

-The United States and Britain were determined to end Soviet style communism. They understood very early on that there was no way a command economy could keep pace with their free markets and given enough time, they could end communism. They just needed to make certain that the communists never hit global critical mass. Hence, the series of policies of containment.

Now, I would argue that cause #3 is a reaction to cause #1, the ideological charter inherent within Soviet style socialism that the entire world must be converted to their means of government, by force if necessary, and cause #2, Stalin's naked ambition to rule the world, so #3 was not so much a cause as a natural result of #1 and #2.

Therefore, I'd have to conclude that no, the USA was not responsible for the Cold War. Certainly the USA engaged in a lot of unethical and immoral behavior in their efforts to resist global Soviet style socialism, but it was a resistance, which is by definition reactionary, not causal. But at the end of the day, a tempering of the goal of global domination by the Soviet Union would have immediately engendered a correlating temepring of the resistance by the West.

If you declare to somebody that you intend to enslave them, it is not their fault that they defended themselves and resisted your efforts.

[Tran]

Should this be backroomed?

Yep, clearly this thread should be either locked, erased, and burned or transported into the 'secret backroom'.

This thread doesn't look very healthy in Monastery and it appears to be more and more going into that direction...

[Mithradates]

I regret giving that name to thins thread and i thank Don Corleone for his response i think a more appropriate title would have been something along the lines of to what extent was the USA responsible for the Cold War; irregardless i thank all for their responses and hope this thread doesnt get too out of hand.

[cegorach]

Not the Allies, per se, but Neville Chamberlain.

I think I'll stop there and say that I don't see any reason for arguing extensively with a nationalist.


The easiest way is always the best, huh ? A slander to avoid a topic you do not even know, but at least you are not losing face here...:juggle2:


@Anyway I agree that the title should be different - there are too many US-haters and Stalin apologists who try to explain paranoid and sick, aggressive policy of the former SU by giving them the benefit of rational, perfectly understandable policy - which indeed was used as long as Teheran and even Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact.:wall:

Unfortunatelly if we cannot agree with Hitler why should we agree with Stalin, Kim Jong Il and the likes ?

Unfortuanatelly there are limits, lines which shouldn't be crossed - I fail to see any reason why should anyone trust despotic leaders of aggressive, genocidal empires ?:wall:

Because they were the allies against another murderous empire ?


Probably there is a huugee difference in perception - the 2nd WW for some people is a fair game - the brave knights in shining armours against the pure evil of the Third Reich, however in the countries which experienced the 'enjoyments' of both Hitler and Stalin there is a complete different vision of the entire conflict - the Second World War was nothing more than the clash between two dictatorships - former allies who started the war, but started arguing and decided to fight each other - the whole question of Western involvement remains remote and of little or no consequence.


Without undertanding at least in here some differences in opinion will remain impossible to resolve.




Here lies the starting point of the Cold War which name is WARSAW UPRISING of 1944.


After all here the illusions of Soviet rationalism were finally shattered, there was no question of Stalin's goodwill anymore, because how could it be ?
The Soviet policy shown its perfidious, anti-Western face - lie, after lie, after lie with only one in mind - conquest whatever means could be exploited.
The outcome justifies the deed ?
Sometimes does, but if the deed is putting despotic regimes wherever you can is it justified ?
So why, the hell did we fight Hitler ? How was he different from Stalin ?



As Lenin said before 'we will strangle the capitalists with the rope they will sell us before that' - the sad truth us that with such naive leader as FDR Stalin didn't have to buy the rope - he was GIVEN IT !

After all we know now that FDR hoped for the future world without the main danger which was ... the British Empire...
The completelly corrupted US contacts in the SU, the strange, trusting attitude of FDR towards Stalin and his dislike of Churchill created a vision only the most optimistic Soviet propaganda could create - the 'good guy' Uncle Joe and his simple, but brave fellows who wish nothing else than beating the bad guy Hitler and to secure their safety as well as to 'bring democracy' to the Eastern Europe...:thumbsdown:

Unfortuanatelly the West was keen on trying appeasement every time - first Hitler - results 2nd WW, next Stalin - result the Cold War.

Of course it also meant sacrificing Poland for nothing...

And surely because I quite fed up with such arguments I am a nationalist.:wall:

Of course I am a Pole, a nationalist who spits venom on everything which is German or Russian with obvious dreams of imperialistic conquest of Russia as everyone knows - so surely I should not be even listened to + every fact I mention must be a fake created by grand Polish world-wide conspiracy...

Or at least this way some can avoid too difficult topics...
:shame:

[Crazed Rabbit]

To the original question-
No, not at all.

It was the USSR that enslaved Eastern Europe - the Americans did no such thing to any of the countries they liberated from the Axis, nor even the defeated Axis countries. Occupation (of the Axis countries), yes, but not nearly so long, so brutal, so oppressive as the USSR. Ask someone from Germany and Japan how they feel about Americans and compare that to, say, how a Hungarian feels about Russia.

It was the USSR that tried to gain dominance over Europe and other lands. It was the USA that stopped them. Blaming the US is like blaming a man attacked in an alley for defending himself, using the rationale that if he didn't fight back, there wouldn't have been a fight. The Truman Doctrine did not threaten the USSR, it threatened their wars of aggression and expansion.

If the USSR had not been so greedy and desiring of power and control, there would not have been a cold war.

As Louis, with whom I am in complete agreement in this thread, pointed out, the USSR was the nation that built walls to keep people in.

Also- to the fellow who asked how Germans thought about Americans in their country; my uncle was in the army in Germany in the 1980s, and he said the German people were grateful to the Americans for being there.

Crazed Rabbit

[Randarkmaan]

I have to say I agree with Cegorach and Crazed Rabbit on this issue: The USSR with their imperialism and oppressive attitude towards the countries they had liberated (or should have liberated), scared the US. Because they were frightened (frightened that communism might spread, or rather "Soviet Totalitarian Socialism") they offered economical and military help to those European countries who accepted it, had it not been for that then many Western European countries would have been alot more like Eastern Europe or may have been annexed by the Soviet union. We should be grateful that the Americans protected us, even if it may have been more in their own interest, (most decisions by powerful countries is with their own interest in mind first and foremost) but that doesen't mean that we should automatically agree with everything they do from then on. Just as we should be grateful the Soviets fought against the Germans rather than with them, which happened in Poland, but agreeing with all their actions after that just because of that is just folly. Never the less I feel that during the Cold War the US and USSR did very similar things; supporting (often brutal) regimes in the third world in order to combat the other's ideology, though I must say the Soviets definately were more repressive within the borders of their own country. Though the US had theirs as well, the Red Scare for an example. But when it comes to causing the Cold War the Soviets, or rather Stalin, is most to blame.

[Sarmatian]

Also- to the fellow who asked how Germans thought about Americans in their country; my uncle was in the army in Germany in the 1980s, and he said the German people were grateful to the Americans for being there.

Crazed Rabbit

That fellow would be me.

Situation in 1980s was a bit different than in the 1945. And I said that germans certainly had prefered americans to soviets, but not to their own army. A foreign army is a foreign army, even if it's an allied army.

French were also grateful to the allies but that didn't stop De Gaulle from expelling american soldiers as soon as France was stabilized. That thing, more than any other, assured that americans won't dominate western europe as soviets dominated eastern. France was really only major european power that could stand up to US at the time. Brittain was having their hands full with their crumbling empire and germany was in ruins.

But we are drifting off topic. The point of this thread was which country, US or USSR, was responsible for the cold war, not which one used more brutal methods. That is a no brainer.

You have two countries (two alliances, two ideologies put it anyway you want) with unprecedented power and without real rivals.. Their conflict was inevitable. The fact that both were aware that an actual war between them wouldn't have a winner, but two losers, assured that the war remain cold.

Also, people who see US vs USSR as Captain America vs the Red Skull should really stick to comic books. Today, Russia opened up completely soviet archives, according to the 50-year rule. British and US archives as still only partialy opened. That is, there are parts that are of limits to public.

Also, soviet archives show that the numbers of dead "freely" estimated don't really correspond to reality. But some people still choose to believe 40, 50 or 60 million dead by the USSR.

[ShadeHonestus]

That fellow would be me.

Situation in 1980s was a bit different than in the 1945. And I said that Germans certainly had preferred Americans to soviets, but not to their own army. A foreign army is a foreign army, even if it's an allied army.

The Germans in the majority did what they could when they could to travel to the western front to avoid capture by the Soviets and instead be captured by the Allies. This is beyond reproach as fact.

A local fact that I can attest to is what happened in this little section of Iowa and it is indicative of what happened across the states. There were a couple of rather large German POW camps located here and following the war when given the choice to go back or stay, a large majority of those in the camps close to here opted to stay. Many farmsteads in this area are owned by former German soldiers and their descendants. I remember the crop duster pilot that serviced our fields was a former German pilot and had the nickname "Rusty."

In large part these men stated over and over again that they wish they never had fought the U.S. or were put in that position by their government. People forget the large number of German immigrants in the U.S. and the degrees of cultural separation was far less for the German in relation to the Allies than it was to the Soviet.

I remember reading about all the German prisoners who wanted to stay in England after the war rather than return home.


BTW the number of German immigrants around here before the war was quite large. Most towns had German/American names like Germantown, German Valley, etc before WW1. After the onset of WW1 most changed their names to things like Lakota and other Native American references to show solidarity with the general anti German government sentiment at the time.

[Randarkmaan]

The Germans in the majority did what they could when they could to travel to the western front to avoid capture by the Soviets and instead be captured by the Allies. This is beyond reproach as fact.

The treatment of German prisoners was, I think, less a product of Soviet policy than it was vengeance for what the Germans had done. But I can understand, fully understand, why the Germans would want to get away from being captured by them.

[Sarmatian]

In large part these men stated over and over again that they wish they never had fought the U.S. or were put in that position by their government. People forget the large number of German immigrants in the U.S. and the degrees of cultural separation was far less for the German in relation to the Allies than it was to the Soviet.

I remember reading about all the German prisoners who wanted to stay in England after the war rather than return home.


BTW the number of German immigrants around here before the war was quite large. Most towns had German/American names like Germantown, German Valley, etc before WW1. After the onset of WW1 most changed their names to things like Lakota and other Native American references to show solidarity with the general anti German government sentiment at the time.

Well, USA wasn't the only country in the world which had german minority. Germans everywhere were generaly against the war. I fail to see what this has to do with the topic...

[ShadeHonestus]

The fact that Stalin himself directed the retribution principles including the killing of innocent civilians and surrendering soldiers via his contests of loyalty shows the difference between the West and the USSR. The Western Allies knew of the brutality and did not order the mass killings of German PoW's or the rape and pillage of its citizenry.

I believe their actions show a lot about the ideology and the willingness to engage in unbridled brutality for the sake of being brutal for the object of fear and power. A principle that had wrung true through Stalin's reign and continued after his death through the ideology. At least we can say the USSR had integrity of principle...even if it was a principle of brutality.


[edit] Of course the French acted like the...French. They had little to no diplomatic currency after cooperating with the Nazis and not to mention De Gaulle struggling through the realization that his legitamacy of power could come only to fruition through the Allies defeating Germany. An effort that he resented becuase it involved him only on the fringe. The man took every opportunity to be an obstacle to Eisenhower. Anyone who has studied De Gaulle knows he was a pompous prima donna.

[Sarmatian]

The fact that Stalin himself directed the retribution principles including the killing of innocent civilians and surrendering soldiers via his contests of loyalty shows the difference between the West and the USSR. The Western Allies knew of the brutality and did not order the mass killings of German PoW's or the rape and pillage of its citizenry.

I believe their actions show a lot about the ideology and the willingness to engage in unbridled brutality for the sake of being brutal for the object of fear and power. A principle that had wrung true through Stalin's reign and continued after his death through the ideology. At least we can say the USSR had integrity of principle...even if it was a principle of brutality.


[edit] Of course the French acted like the...French. They had little to no diplomatic currency after cooperating with the Nazis and not to mention De Gaulle struggling through the realization that his legitamacy of power could come only to fruition through the Allies defeating Germany. An effort that he resented becuase it involved him only on the fringe. The man took every opportunity to be an obstacle to Eisenhower. Anyone who has studied De Gaulle knows he was a pompous prima donna.

What soviet soldiers did was done out of revenge, not as an organized action.

Revenge of course is never a good thing but try explain it to the soviets after what they have been through. In the US there has been a mistreatment of japanese americans. That was not case with german americans or italian americans, at least not in that scale. And that was because japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Imagine what would have happened if the japanese have leveled Los Angeles, New York and Washington with the ground and killed 20 millions americans because they are a "lesser" race. It is not that simple...

And I really can't agree with your description of De Gaulle, but that is for another topic.

[The Wizard]

AFAIK, in Yalta sphere of influnced were divided. There were some grey spots, but the general look of the world was decided. I am not sure what were you trying to say.

No, at Yalta and Potsdam, spheres of influence were not established. What was decided -- this only really matters for Eastern Europe, since there it ended up very different from the design -- was a compromise trying to reconcile the elements from nations occupied by the Nazis that belonged to the different "fronts" (East versus West), if you will.

Poland is the best example: the Allies wanted the old, non-communist Provisional Government/Secret State in control, while the Soviets wanted their puppet communists there. Post-WW2, Poland was left with an unstable transitionary government in which both elements were represented -- however, with tens of thousands of Red Army troops there at the same time, the story's end wasn't hard to predict.

This was how it was throughout Eastern Europe. Countries formerly outside of the Soviet sphere of influence were supposed to be reconciled between their original, now-exiled governments on one side, and the communist puppet organizations set up by the USSR after it noticed it was likely to win the Great Patriotic War.

Another element in the Allied failure to push through their designs on Eastern Europe at Yalta were the diseases the Western leaders suffered. FDR had a blood pressure three times the amount that is deemed healthy, and was barely able to keep up with the subject, much less give any opposition to his appeasing diplomats who didn't care about giving the USSR a slice or two more. Churchill, meanwhile, was often drunk. Ol' Joe Stalin was mentally diseased, but otherwise quite clear of mind and body.

Funny. Makes you wonder what would've happened if Churchill and FDR had actually been healthy enough to properly cooperate and coordinate their diplomatic efforts.


And it is not true that soviets installed puppet regimes in every country they liberated. Soviet troops were in Yugoslavia, but they left because Yugoslavia was supposed to be under british sphere of influence, according to Yalta deal. Even though Yugoslavia was a comunist country. The same with Greece.

The exception that affirms the rule, and a bad example where the communist movement made a grab for power later (at the same time the Soviets established communist puppets throughout Eastern Europe in a huge meat shield) -- funded by the USSR and its Yugoslav ally, yes.


The cold war was fought all over the world. Europe was just the most important claim. It was also most sensitive. Every thing in the world was connected to the cold war at that point. Even Non-Aligned Movement, which was supposedly been formed for the exact opposite.

You failed to read my post. We're talking about the origins in Europe -- not the proxy wars that were the product of this origin.

[ShadeHonestus]

"Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Anyone want to guess who said this and when? I'll give you a hint, he was in constant contact with Stalin from about 1936 and took many directives, especially in foreign policy.

This vision of Stalin as a tormented soul who does these dastardly deeds only for the sake of his poor countrymen is the biggest load of S*** on the market. The man's psychological profle would have Hannibal Lector up at night with nightmares.

[Avicenna]

Hardly a day went by in which Churchill didn't drink at least a whole bottle of some alcoholic beverage.

SH: would you disagree with that statement by Mao? It's a simple of who has more (and bigger) guns than who. Anyway, he didn't follow everything Stalin said. I believe Stalin wasn't pleased when he appealed not to the workers but to the peasants in China.

[Marshal Murat]

Mao didn't like the USSR want to control all the Communist activities. 500 something or others?


Mao knew the peasants were the key to a revolution, not the city workers because there weren't alot of city workers!

[Oleander Ardens]

I can simply not understand the tendency in Russia and partially here in the Monastery to hail Stalin. He commited so many crimes that one has a hard time to keep an overview of them.

While Hitler is rightly seen as the one which kicked of WWII I always wonder why Stalin seems to be portrayed as a peaceloving father of his peoples. He attacked Finland and the Baltic States and Poland and yet poor old Stalin is seen as a victim - just because another dictator attacked him before he could possibly attack him...

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

The USA is partly responsible for the Cold War - and for avoiding a new hot war in Europe. It helped and meddled in Europe for it's advantage but also for it ideals. In the end Western Europe became free and wealthy - by initial help from the USA and the lack of USA direct domination. Sounds alot better than the scoring card of the CCCP in Eastern Europe


OA

[The Wizard]

Mao knew the peasants were the key to a revolution, not the city workers because there weren't alot of city workers!

Marx turns in his grave.

[cegorach]

Poland is the best example: the Allies wanted the old, non-communist Provisional Government/Secret State in control, while the Soviets wanted their puppet communists there. Post-WW2, Poland was left with an unstable transitionary government in which both elements were represented -- however, with tens of thousands of Red Army troops there at the same time, the story's end wasn't hard to predict.


Not exactly the Allies wanted to give some power to the communists who were universally disliked, even hated - at least since the war of 1920, later terrorist activities and collaboration with Soviets and Germans ( YES even during the war e.g. joint operation of Gestapo and NKVD undercover agents in Warsaw in 1944 against the real underground) - later they had to recruit anyone they could including criminals and native Russians 'imported' from the SU.

They put the legal authorities under great pressure to recognise the communists as a legitimate force.

Most of the leaders didn't do it - since they seen any deals with the communists as accepting them as real, Polish supported force.
Some led the fight against the new occupants (already started in 1944 by the Soviets who tried to eliminate any non-Soviet organisations).
Several tried to negotiate with the Soviets (remember Poland was officially on the same side after all), but got arrected and were accused for 'collaboration with the Nazis' during a show trial in Moscow.

The prime minister Stanislaw Mikolajczyk was one of those who tried to deal with the communists as the Allies 'insisted', but after 2 years of political oppression with the rigged elections later hehad to run away to save his life.

Technically the legitimate government was still that in London's exile - it represented ALL political parties except the communists and was chosen in the legal way.


Basically the country was too weak after losing about 34 % of citizens to fight without any real aid against another world power.

Even Stalin claimed that Poland is impossible to turn into a communist state - nevertheless it was decided to do so.
This way the 4th largest contributor to the allied cause ended as occupied state - if you are British or American and appear in Poland never, I mean NEVER try to say that 'we saved Poland during the 2nd WW' unless you like the feeling of absolute disgust targeted at you or something more 'material' in less civilised place.:smash:

[The Wizard]

Not exactly the Allies wanted to give some power to the communists who were universally disliked, even hated - at least since the war of 1920, later terrorist activities and collaboration with Soviets and Germans ( YES even during the war e.g. joint operation of Gestapo and NKVD undercover agents in Warsaw in 1944 against the real underground) - later they had to recruit anyone they could including criminals and native Russians 'imported' from the SU.

You realize that right after the section of my post that you turned bold I say that the immediate post-WW2 countries in Eastern Europe was a compromise between the Soviet puppets and the old pre-war, exiled governments? ~;)


Even Stalin claimed that Poland is impossible to turn into a communist state - nevertheless it was decided to do so.
This way the 4th largest contributor to the allied cause ended as occupied state - if you are British or American and appear in Poland never, I mean NEVER try to say that 'we saved Poland during the 2nd WW' unless you like the feeling of absolute disgust targeted at you or something more 'material' in less civilised place.

Too true. The hard-driving Polish armored division liberated the Netherlands, and fought like lions to push for Poland as soon as possible, but thanks to the Allied logistical situation, not to forget the Battle of the Bulge, the Soviets got there first. They were left without anything for all their bravery and effort, even being mistreated and ignored after the war by their erstwhile allies in the West.

[cegorach]

You realize that right after the section of my post that you turned bold I say that the immediate post-WW2 countries in Eastern Europe was a compromise between the Soviet puppets and the old pre-war, exiled governments? ~;)

It never hurts to add some details since the avarage level of knowledge in this thread is pretty low.
Two good remarks are better than onw.:2thumbsup:




Too true. The hard-driving Polish armored division liberated the Netherlands, and fought like lions to push for Poland as soon as possible, but thanks to the Allied logistical situation, not to forget the Battle of the Bulge, the Soviets got there first. They were left without anything for all their bravery and effort, even being mistreated and ignored after the war by their erstwhile allies in the West.

Since the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 was started Polish units in the west started suffering from problems with morale.
The western inability to act as they should, to do anything in fact made so many realise that they are fighting for nothing.
The worst situation was in the Parachute Brigade which was created and trained to support the Uprising, but instead was sent to fight in the useless battle for Arnhem. The unit almost revolted, but as in other Polish units the sense of duty and soldiers' honour prevailed and the units fought to the end and with some sort of grim desperation of people without any hope left.
As thank you they of course were refused their part to march in the Victory Parade in 1945, (as well as in later years untill 2004...) not to 'annoy Stalin', though the British proposed them to march in Moscow...:furious3:


Actually the most memorable moment to me is the ill-fated visit of the Polish PM in Moscow. Here he tried to negotiate with Stalin the situation in the eastern part of Poland which the Soviets decided to annex.
The shocking fact here is that when Mikolajczyk started talking Molotov suddenly answered 'but it was decided in Teheran in 1943'. To his amazement he learnt that the entire situation of Poland was already resolved over 15 months earlier...
The whole thing happened with Churchill and an US envoy present next to him and both stood in silence, too afraid or too ashamed to deny Molotov statement.

The sad truth is that either because they were too naive, or to careless, but both the USA and the UK already served Stalin half of Europe on a silver dish.


It is simply incredible how grown men with great access to all possible sources about the SU behaved as careless childred when dealing with Stalin.
It makes even atheists pray for some special hell for those political morons.:thumbsdown:

[Blodrast]

The sad truth is that either because they were too naive, or to careless, but both the USA and the UK already served Stalin half of Europe on a silver dish.

And that is the reason why there is some resentment in several parts of Eastern Europe (not just Poland), when people come and claim that the West liberated, or helped them, from under the nazis.
Because the US and the UK literally sold them to Stalin.

[Adrian II]

The original question is not who started the cold war, but who was responsible for it, i.e. who caused it to be started. In my mind there is no doubt that this was the Soviet Union, a dictatorship with an expansionist attitude and philosophy intent on dominating the world since 1917. The WWII alliance was but a temporary (and necessary) reprieve. The Soviet subjugation of a large part of Europa after 1945 made a renewed and direct confrontation inevitable.
And that is the reason why there is some resentment in several parts of Eastern Europe (not just Poland), when people come and claim that the West liberated, or helped them, from under the nazis.
Because the US and the UK literally sold them to Stalin.Sorry but this is nonsense. You are suggesting a profitable 'deal' between the US and UK on the one hand and Stalin on the other. There was no 'sale', nor was there any profit in the deal except that it prevented another world war, something that would have been inconceivable to the western negotiators at the time.

[Blodrast]

Sorry but this is nonsense. You are suggesting a profitable 'deal' between the US and UK on the one hand and Stalin on the other. There was no 'sale', nor was there any profit in the deal except that it prevented another world war, something that would have been inconceivable to the western negotiators at the time.

Feel free to look at it any way you want - I did not present it as a 'sale', or a 'deal'. What it feels like to me is more like a combination of apathy, appeasement, and another thing:

You say that they placated Stalin in order to prevent a world war ?
How on earth can you say that this is a justification with a straight face ?
The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ? They go to war against Hitler so that he doesn't get all of Europe, but they hand Stalin half of it on a platter, so they don't have to go to war. :dizzy2:
Then why didn't they appease Hitler as well, after all, it was bloody obvious it would cause a world war. They should have just let him get what he wanted, and, there you go, no world war, everybody's happy. Right ?

No, sorry, your argument doesn't fly.

[Sarmatian]

The sad truth is that either because they were too naive, or to careless, but both the USA and the UK already served Stalin half of Europe on a silver dish.


Well, it's not like they had a choice. War was over and USSR came out as the world's strongest country, militarily. A new order was to be established. It is naive to think that the USSR would have been pleased with table scraps, or did it would back down too much considering it's strength and the fact that they did a lion's share of fighting.

[cegorach]

Yeah right. Face it the Allies did NOTHING to stop Stalin and they could at least try to do so - Lend Lease help could be used to put some pressure at least in some areas and more aggressive military approach could cave at least a couple of countries more.

When you see how they dealed with Stalin it is plain, 'old, good' appeasement combined with almost suicidal trust in Stalin's goodwill and pragmatism.

The only thing they achived this way was to tempt the Soviets to demand more and more as the result they thought they can get away with EVERYTHING.:wall:

[Warmaster Horus]

[QUOTE=Blodrast]

The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ? They go to war against Hitler so that he doesn't get all of Europe, but they hand Stalin half of it on a platter, so they don't have to go to war. :dizzy2:
Then why didn't they appease Hitler as well, after all, it was bloody obvious it would cause a world war. They should have just let him get what he wanted, and, there you go, no world war, everybody's happy. Right ?
QUOTE]
IIRC, France & Britain did try to appease Hitler, by letting him get away with the remilitarising of Rhineland and the Anschluss. They didn't want another war in Europe. Even when it was apparent that the Nazis wouldn't be stopped, they let Hitler get away with it. It is an embarassing part of History, knowing what Hitler was up to, but after WW1, who wanted to start another World War? Then Hitler decided to invade Poland, and the governments finally decided to stop him. But still only because of their alliance with the aforementioned country.

[Petrus]

Feel free to look at it any way you want - I did not present it as a 'sale', or a 'deal'. What it feels like to me is more like a combination of apathy, appeasement, and another thing:

You say that they placated Stalin in order to prevent a world war ?
How on earth can you say that this is a justification with a straight face ?


No, sorry, your argument doesn't fly.

Well, europe was in ruin from the atlantic to the oural.

Britain was barely breathing, France was trying to recover from the vichy regime and the anarchy that followed liberation, germany was torn from east to west, all european countries were completely disorganized economicaly, had suffered huge populations deportations/losses and plundering of all usable ressources, the different regimes that were in place during the war had shatered letting pre-revolutionary or at least very unstable situations.

The populations lived in ruins, spent a big part of their time to search for food and were sick of the war.

So in case of war, this would have meant a us-ussr war on european ground with ressources having to cross the atlantic to feed both a huge army and an immense population.

With so dizorganized countries it would have been impossible to have better than small armed forces to support the us army.

The european populations, sick of war, having to support even more suffering and loses would very certainly have been favourable to the communist/soviet propaganda claiming the will of peace of the little father of the peoples.

All of this does not make a very favorable situation to launch a war.

You also have to considere that the soviet army was by far the most powerfull and the most efficient armed force in the world.

The us army was not a mercenary army, it was a citizen army and i doubt the opinion in the us would have shown a big fervour to go to war against what had been a major allied just a few days before. In fact i do not think a us president would have had enough power to launch such a war.


So i think the will of preventing another world war against soviet union was very reasonable and probably the only possible solution the allied had.

[Blodrast]

[QUOTE=Blodrast]

The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ? They go to war against Hitler so that he doesn't get all of Europe, but they hand Stalin half of it on a platter, so they don't have to go to war. :dizzy2:
Then why didn't they appease Hitler as well, after all, it was bloody obvious it would cause a world war. They should have just let him get what he wanted, and, there you go, no world war, everybody's happy. Right ?
QUOTE]
IIRC, France & Britain did try to appease Hitler, by letting him get away with the remilitarising of Rhineland and the Anschluss. They didn't want another war in Europe. Even when it was apparent that the Nazis wouldn't be stopped, they let Hitler get away with it. It is an embarassing part of History, knowing what Hitler was up to, but after WW1, who wanted to start another World War? Then Hitler decided to invade Poland, and the governments finally decided to stop him. But still only because of their alliance with the aforementioned country.

We're talking about two different things.
Yes, France tried to appease Hitler, but France did not decide things at Yalta and/or Potsdam. UK and US did.

Yes, Britain tried to appease Hitler, BUT it was Chamberlain, not Churchill. Chamberlain did not represent Britain at Yalta/Potsdam, Churchill did. Churchill never tried to appease Hitler, he was for war all the time.

So your arguments are valid, but you're referring to a different problem than what we're talking about here. For THIS problem, they are not valid.

[Adrian II]

Feel free to look at it any way you want - I did not present it as a 'sale', or a 'deal'.Excuse me, you did exactly that. You wrote that the western allies 'literally sold' Eastern Europe to Stalin. Maybe you should have chosen your words more carefully
You say that they placated Stalin in order to prevent a world war ? How on earth can you say that this is a justification with a straight face ? The same people who did NOT appease Hitler, go against their "principles", and appease Stalin just to prevent a world war ?Exactly. I said they wanted to prevent another world war. One had been quite enough, and even that one they had entered most reluctantly. Remember they did appease Hitler initially.

It is no use to blame Stalin's handling of Eastern Europe on the Americans and the Brits simply because they did not enough to stop him. And it is nonsense to suggest a betrayal or 'sell-off' of Eastern Europe. By doing so, you make it appear as if it would have been in their interest to leave half or Europe in Stalin's hands, which it obviously wasn't.

[Blodrast]

Excuse me, you did exactly that. You wrote that the western allies 'literally sold' Eastern Europe to Stalin. Maybe you should have chosen your words more carefullyExactly. I said they wanted to prevent another world war. One had been quite enough, and even that one they had entered most reluctantly. Remember they did appease Hitler initially.

It is no use to blame Stalin's handling of Eastern Europe on the Americans and the Brits simply because they did not enough to stop him. And it is nonsense to suggest a betrayal or 'sell-off' of Eastern Europe. By doing so, you make it appear as if it would have been in their interest to leave half or Europe in Stalin's hands, which it obviously wasn't.

They did not do enough ? What did they do ? Nothing. There's a difference between not doing enough, and not doing anything about it.

No, I'm not trying to claim it was in their interest to give half of Europe to Stalin. Not sure how you inferred that from my post. What I am trying to claim is that they didn't care enough about it to do any effort to prevent what happened. Stalin wanted it, they let him have it.

When I said "literally sold", yes, I expressed myself poorly. "Selling" implies getting something in exchange, which wasn't really the case. "They let him have it" is more semantically accurate, ok ? "Selling" also implies ownership of the object of the exchange. That was not the case either. Indeed, I chose my words poorly - my mistake.

So let's try to agree on "they simply let him have it".
As simple as that.

Moreover, I think that while their physical conditions may have been a factor in their apathy to try and thwart Stalin, it's not really an excuse. If you're not in a good shape, then send somebody else who is, to decide the fate of half a continent, and a few tens of millions of people.

[Adrian II]

They did not do enough ? What did they do ? Nothing.On the contrary, they waged a cold war over it. Which they won. Even with full hindsight, I think that this outcome is preferable to the devastation wrought by another world war.

Of course this was not the outcome as envisaged by democratic forces in Eastern Europe at the time. But the Soviet armed forces were three times as strong as the American forces at that moment, the Lend-Lease days were long over and Roosevelt, who did not yet know if the atomic bomb would prove an effective weapon, needed the Soviets to support American efforts in the Pacific. Don't forget that the Pacific was a larger and possibly more important theatre than Europe.

[Blodrast]

On the contrary, they waged a cold war over it. Which they won. Even with full hindsight, I think that this outcome is preferable to the devastation wrought by another world war.

Obviously I can't know what their plans might have been - I sure hope they had some plans - , but I find it hard to believe they were along the lines of "We'll start an arms race, and in 50 years we'll wipe the dirty commies off the face of the earth by bankrupting them".



Of course this was not the outcome as envisaged by democratic forces in Eastern Europe at the time. But the Soviet armed forces were three times as strong as the American forces at that moment, the Lend-Lease days were long over and Roosevelt, who did not yet know if the atomic bomb would prove an effective weapon, needed the Soviets to support American efforts in the Pacific. Don't forget that the Pacific was a larger and possibly more important theatre than Europe.

(emphasis mine) To the US, quite possibly, not to Eastern Europeans though. ~;)

[Sarmatian]

When I said "literally sold", yes, I expressed myself poorly. "Selling" implies getting something in exchange, which wasn't really the case. "They let him have it" is more semantically accurate, ok?

"They let him have it"? Do you really believe that they could have done anything else? Say no? And than Stalin would say "Sheesh, at least I tried... Can I have something else instead?"...

They couldn't have called his bluff and said no because Stalin wasn't bluffing. He had no need to. He had the worlds strongest military at his disposal. You don't bluff when you hold a royal flush in your hands. You can raise as much as you like.

[cegorach]

I don't know why you are wasting so much time and energy discussing about the situation in 1945.

The appeasement is much longer policy started at least in 1943 (Teheran), possibly earlier (1941-42) - the Allies simply acted too naive treating Stalin as som sort of good drinking buddy - especially the pathetic (in this area) FDR.

Another thing is that even after 1945 so DURING the Cold War some people were still treated as 'rightfully' Soviet-dominated.
Perhaps the war-time propaganda could not adjust easily from 'Uncle Jo' to tyrant, but it still doesn't explain little, humilating details as refusing the Polish soldiers any rights to march in annual victory parades in London, to what ? 2004.:no:

The so called Anglo-American vision of history was kept for many years after 1945 - the Allies were all good guys, the Axis and its alllies or anyone fighting any of the Allies were completelly evil, anything that doesn't fit is ignored or forgotten - it might be the effect of left-wing fascination with the Soviet Union, but the usual conservatism of some influential people meant that the SU got as many apologists as they ever wanted.:wall:

[Adrian II]

(emphasis mine) To the US, quite possibly, not to Eastern Europeans though. ~;)To the US, definitely. For Europeans WWII started in September 1939. For Americans it started only in December 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbour. And the US waged war against Germany only because Germany declared war on the US, not because of any concerns about nazi domination, the freedom of small nations or the fate of the Jews.

For Americans the main concern and primary war theatre continued to be the Pacific, where they were engaged longer and at a higher cost than elsewhere. The sands of Iwo Jima topped the beaches of Normandy, both in military planning and in the public perception.

As for Britain and France, they entered the war very reluctantly in September 1939 because of the German attack on their ally Poland, a two-bit dictatorship ruled by a couple of Pilsudki's successors with whom they had, equally reluctantly, concluded a military accord only in May 1939.

Maybe the Poles should have taken up Stalin's offer of an anti-German pact, an offer he made repeatedly in the course of 1939. It would have created a buffer against the German onslaught, or at least made an attack on Poland much more costly for Hitler.

It is rather useless for Poles to blame the western allies for choosing the lesser of two evils, i.e. an alliance with Stalin, where they could have done so themselves in order to avoid the worst for Poland. The vehemence with which nations put the blame for their misery at the feet of others often hides their own mistakes, lack of initiative and absence of wisdom. My own country is a good example. The Dutch used to blame the post-war loss of their colonies Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on an American 'betrayal', too, whereas in the last analysis they had only themselves to blame.

[Pannonian]

Yeah right. Face it the Allies did NOTHING to stop Stalin and they could at least try to do so - Lend Lease help could be used to put some pressure at least in some areas and more aggressive military approach could cave at least a couple of countries more.

When you see how they dealed with Stalin it is plain, 'old, good' appeasement combined with almost suicidal trust in Stalin's goodwill and pragmatism.

The only thing they achived this way was to tempt the Soviets to demand more and more as the result they thought they can get away with EVERYTHING.:wall:
Erm, the Soviets weren't tempted into demanding more and more as a result of encouragement from appeasement. They knew what they wanted, they demanded it and no less, and they declined the offer of even more (when the Communists in Greece asked for Soviet help, Stalin shopped them to the British). After being invaded 4 times in the last 30 years (WW1, Civil War, Polish War, WW2), they wanted a buffer between the west and the USSR, with special demands for Germany. A look on the map shows that the countries that formed the Iron Curtain all bordered the Soviet Union, with the exception of Germany (Bulgaria as well, but few people cried for them). Could the Allies have done anything about this? Probably not much more than what Churchill did, which was to extract an implicit promise from Stalin not to be too blatant about his business. As Stalin pointed out, there were Soviet troops in these countries, but there were no Allied troops. Therefore the Allies were in no position to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted.

Could the lure of lend lease have helped get concessions from Stalin? No, since the more generous Marshall Aid was later turned down. Could direct military action or the support of indigenous military action have got concessions by force? No, the British and American people wouldn't have stood for war with their erstwhlile allies, while large parts of the military would likely have mutinied if they had to continue fighting after Nazi Germany had been vanquished. The Americans had always been more interested in the Pacific theatre (and even then there was much bellyaching about being switched to fight the Japanese), while the British were sick of all fighting, and were in any case bankrupt.

[ShadeHonestus]

A couple of small corrections...


And the US waged war against Germany only because Germany declared war on the US, not because of any concerns about nazi domination, the freedom of small nations or the fate of the Jews.


We were in a de facto state of war prior to Germany's declaration and that was by our doing.



The sands of Iwo Jima topped the beaches of Normandy, both in military planning and in the public perception.


It's important to note the vast differences in an Island campaign and an invasion for the establishment of a beachhead.

If you take into account the beach invasion and the establishment of the beachhead then Normandy took much more planning, logistically and and tactically.

If you just look at the campaigns of the invasions, the Western Front was greater in its scope then the operation of Iwo Jima.

You have to remember that the campaign in Western Europe had the additional obstacle of allied nations working together .

If you want to compare theaters, the Pacific Theater was on equal scale with that of the western front for the sole reason of naval logistics this theater was larger in scope.

In western europe the U.S. contributed a greater amount of troops and logistics than another other allied country. In the Pacific Theater the operation was almost entirely a U.S. operation.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE]Erm, the Soviets weren't tempted into demanding more and more as a result of encouragement from appeasement.

Compare what they wanted in 1943 to what they demanded in 1944 and later.



After being invaded 4 times in the last 30 years (WW1, Civil War, Polish War, WW2), they wanted a buffer between the west and the USSR, with special demands for Germany.

4 invasions, huh ?:inquisitive:

WW1 in the Eastern Front started as we know by Russian attack on Eastern Prussia and attack in Galizia (from both sides) - so it doesn't count.

Civil War ? So the 'Whites' are not Russians ? They were legitamate force as well and doubt they would talk of any Entante invaders who helped them after all. Good bye to the second invasion.

The war with Poland started in 1919 or even 1918 and was the effect of two sides filling the vacuum left by the Ober Ost.
If you see the first clashes of the conflict you will notice they happened in Vilnius/Wilno region betwen local Polish militias and the invading Red Army which took the entire territory out there.

If you are refering to the third phase of the conflict - i.e. from the March-April offensive in 1920 in Ukraine you will notice there was a different agenda - creating independent ukrainian state which corresponded to the Prometheism movement and 'Miedzymorze' idea of central-eastern european federation.
Also as invasion of Russia - it is questionable unless all territories of the former Russian Empire are treated the same way - so any form of independent states on its territory would count as invading it well as.

Please define what is Russian territory ?


Four. 2nd WW ? Well surely attacking Poland and Finland + annexing the Balts and blackmailing Romania helped a lot.:juggle2:
The Soviets are hardly peaceloving people who are innocent victims of Nazi aggression. Are they ?


Besides I wonder if you are aware how close the Soviets were to start a war in 1920s and 1930s - not because of alleged Polish imperialism but because their paranoid authorities seen themselves as under siege and under threat of foreign invasion.
A sort of paranoia with extreme self-centred way of thinking i.e. 'the capitalist world wishes nothing else to destroy the workers' paradise' - this was shown for example during the show trials of the 30s where people were accused for working with ... Swiss imperialists (not a joke !) or in Bulkhakov works -( the rumours of a Polish conspiracy etc).

To see how those people thought check Soviet agents' reports from Warsaw during the uprising of 1944 - they actually believed that the Allies drop supplies to the Germans.



As Stalin pointed out, there were Soviet troops in these countries, but there were no Allied troops. Therefore the Allies were in no position to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted.


Not exactly. It is justified to say that the appeasement was started long before ANY Soviet troops entered to those territories.

FDR was especially interested in his ludicious idea of new world order where Soviet Union was supposed to 'secure' half of Europe - ludicious because based on two assumptions
- that Stalin is pragmatic and tends to cooperate in sustaining world peace,
- that he will honour the agreements made before.

The grevious mistake of the Allies was to treat Stalin's Soviet Union as one of the 'good guys' with full trust that he will honour agreements and proceed as every western leader would do.



@Adrian II


As for Britain and France, they entered the war very reluctantly in September 1939 because of the German attack on their ally Poland, a two-bit dictatorship ruled by a couple of Pilsudki's successors with whom they had, equally reluctantly, concluded a military accord only in May 1939.

Maybe the Poles should have taken up Stalin's offer of an anti-German pact, an offer he made repeatedly in the course of 1939. It would have created a buffer against the German onslaught, or at least made an attack on Poland much more costly for Hitler.

It is rather useless for Poles to blame the western allies for choosing the lesser of two evils, i.e. an alliance with Stalin, where they could have done so themselves in order to avoid the worst for Poland. The vehemence with which nations put the blame for their misery at the feet of others often hides their own mistakes, lack of initiative and absence of wisdom. My own country is a good example. The Dutch used to blame the post-war loss of their colonies Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on an American 'betrayal', too, whereas in the last analysis they had only themselves to blame.

The only thing which stops me from trashing the comments is the fact that you are the only person in the whole web whom I despise and ignore.

That was only to explain why I won't engage in discussion with this person - not because the arguments are ohhh sooo powerfull.:smash:

[Petrus]

Erm, the Soviets weren't tempted into demanding more and more as a result of encouragement from appeasement. They knew what they wanted, they demanded it and no less, and they declined the offer of even more (when the Communists in Greece asked for Soviet help, Stalin shopped them to the British). After being invaded 4 times in the last 30 years (WW1, Civil War, Polish War, WW2), they wanted a buffer between the west and the USSR, with special demands for Germany. A look on the map shows that the countries that formed the Iron Curtain all bordered the Soviet Union, with the exception of Germany (Bulgaria as well, but few people cried for them). Could the Allies have done anything about this? Probably not much more than what Churchill did, which was to extract an implicit promise from Stalin not to be too blatant about his business. As Stalin pointed out, there were Soviet troops in these countries, but there were no Allied troops. Therefore the Allies were in no position to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted.



Yes.

The general attitude of the european nations toward ussr since wwI was a very strong argument for stalin to justify his buffer-state requests.

The very aggressive attitude of the polish army leaders and government in london and their absolute refusal of any form of compromise probably also favoured stalin's manoeuvre by forcing the us diplomacy to make a choice between something that could seem reasonable - ussr requests - and a dead end - polish requests.

Zones of influence and buffer states were something common at that time and the end of wars was usually a period of diplomatic competition to try to gain specific advantages : the same things had happened after WWI when former allies confronted diplomatically about the ottoman empire, the remains of the habsbourg empire etc ...
These diplomatic competitions were based upon the relative amount of troops of each of the competitor in a geographic area and the importance competitors gave to that area.

A sort of bargain based upon relative military power and governments objectives that ended with the definition of political/economic/military zones of influence.

That's what happened in the end of WWII and the result of this bargain corresponded to the general military situation in europe at the end of the fight.

[Adrian II]

If you just look at the campaigns of the invasions, the Western Front was greater in its scope then the operation of Iwo Jima.Oh sure, my reference to sands and beaches was a pars pro toto. I guess you and I could argue about the relative importance of the Pacific and European theatres till we are blue in the face, but something tells me we are too reasonable for that.

I just made the point that the European theater was part of a much wider American war effort, something that is often forgotten or underestimated by Europeans. By Americans too, by the way, since there is a growing tendency in the US as well to depict WWII as essentially a struggle between the civilised world and an absolute evil, represented by nazi Germany, and not much more.

[ShadeHonestus]

:2thumbsup:

[Pannonian]

I wonder what cegorach expected the Allies to have done. In 1943, when he says Churchill and FDR sold out the Polish, the Allies weren't even on the continent. By the time the Allies landed in France, the Soviets were about to launch their own major offensive. By the time the Allies had broken out of the Normandy pocket, the Soviets had already entered Poland and were just outside Warsaw. At no point did the Allies have anything significant in hand to force the Polish solution they wanted. With Roosevelt blocking Churchill (he regarded the imperialist British as a greater post-war threat than the Soviets), what could Churchill do? Hell, he had his hands full trying to keep De Gaulle in the picture against FDR's opposition.

About the banning of British airdrops to Warsaw - Stalin was quite aware who was the main architect of foreign intervention during the wars in the early days of the USSR, and teased Churchill about it. While he may have forgiven the man and respected him as the leader of a foreign power allied to his own, he wasn't going to forgive the perfidious British and give them a free hand in his patch. Therefore the British were free to drop whatever they wanted to the besieged Poles in Warsaw, but they were forbidden from landing in Soviet held territory, and would be held as prisoners if they did.

[The Wizard]

Sorry but this is nonsense. You are suggesting a profitable 'deal' between the US and UK on the one hand and Stalin on the other. There was no 'sale', nor was there any profit in the deal except that it prevented another world war, something that would have been inconceivable to the western negotiators at the time.

Figure of speech he used there; fact of the matter is that the USSR took half the pie when Europe was divvied up, and gobbled it up like it was starved. The Americans gave most of the pieces of their half to their liberated allies, after which they took their own slice and discreetly enjoyed it in the background.

Lot less provocation going on there to start the Cold War, methinks. I mean, hey, it's kinda rude to eat half the pie on your own.
~D

[Marshal Murat]

I have to say I feel bad for the Polish resistance fighters. They were all about freeing Poland, and they end up in camps, being indoctrinated about how the Soviet Union is great, and why they should lay down their arms.


I have to say that the U.S. was really more about the Pacific Theater, not so much the European Theater.


I think that Stalin was responsible for the Cold War with the Berlin Blockade. It really shook the Americans, French, and British into action. Airlifting goods into Berlin to show Stalin that he can't get what he wants.

I'm sure that some will point to the unification of the 3 areas, but that isn't threatening the death of thousands of Berliners with a blockade of the area. If the Soviets hadn't tried to do that, then I think we may have been on more agreeable terms.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE]I wonder what cegorach expected the Allies to have done. In 1943, when he says Churchill and FDR sold out the Polish, the Allies weren't even on the continent.

More aggressive approach - to treat Stalin as necessary ally, but NOT AS a friend !

They could use the extremely useful Lend-Lease (just check how much US equipment was send there, not to mention raw materials).

In Tehran the Allies promised Stalin to deal with Poland, but thought about it as democratic leader, NOT as despotic demi-gods.
So still assumed there is something to negotiate, some place for Stalin to give up his demands, but he didn't and NOTHING what the Allies later did changed his mind, on the contrary after what FDR did during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 he was sure that he can go as far as he wants !





About the banning of British airdrops to Warsaw - Stalin was quite aware who was the main architect of foreign intervention during the wars in the early days of the USSR, and teased Churchill about it. While he may have forgiven the man and respected him as the leader of a foreign power allied to his own, he wasn't going to forgive the perfidious British and give them a free hand in his patch.

So suddenly he takes the revenge for the intervention in 1917-21 ?
Don't make me laugh !




but they were forbidden from landing in Soviet held territory, and would be held as prisoners if they did.

NOT TRUE. Have you ever heard about US airforce based in Poltava ? They were free to use the airbases to re-fuel and WERE NOT shot or imprisoned.

It was a matter of pressure put on Stalin. Even in the question of the Uprising he did make concessions - after all initially he refused to treat it as event which really is happening.

It is justified to blame the Allies here - Churchill tried to make FDR to address the question together, to act unified and make Stalind do something.
Unfortuanatelly it was too late and FDR was simply too much concerned with his idea of the future world order where his friend Stalin was supposed to play decisive part.
FDR trusted Stalin to really incredible level - he thought of him as the ally against Churchill.

Why was it too late - because the Allies knew the uprising will happen - they were informed about it since 1940, the Independent Parachute Brigade (wasted at Arnhem) was created and trained to support it, all plans of the Polish Underground State spoke about it, but the Allies do not even manage to consult it amongst themselves !
The frantic activities of Churchill in summer 1944 were desperate, but badly prepared, partly disrupted by his own administration and met with ignorance from FDR's side. This is why Churchill was (and is) blamed for the final results.






The very aggressive attitude of the polish army leaders and government in london and their absolute refusal of any form of compromise probably also favoured stalin's manoeuvre by forcing the us diplomacy to make a choice between something that could seem reasonable - ussr requests - and a dead end - polish requests.


What ? Where was that aggressive ?
Maybe you should remember that in 1939 Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union and despite this Poles came to the agreement with Stalin in 1941 where Stalin declares pact Ribbentropp-Molotov null and void.
The fact that behind Polish backs the Allies promised everything to Stalin changes nothing.
In other words you are blaming the member of the same allience for not submiting half of its territory to the Soviets !

Polish attitude was REALISTIC - they knew what to expect from Stalin, but believed he will not dare with allied support given to Poland.
It is true that the Allies didn't keep their promises (just like in 1939), but it is ludicrous to call Poles aggressive for demanding from Stalin to honour the agreeemnt he signed !!! :whip:


Same way you can actually blame us for the beginning of the 2nd WW - after all there was this stubborn attitude not to submit to Hitler's will.

Situation is so much similar - Czechs capitulated in 1938 with Sudetenland and got the full annexation half a year later, the Balts agreed to Stalin's modest demands for military bases on their territory and are annexed a couple of months later - see any differences ?:wall:



@Marshal Murat


I have to say I feel bad for the Polish resistance fighters. They were all about freeing Poland, and they end up in camps, being indoctrinated about how the Soviet Union is great, and why they should lay down their arms.

It was far more simple - officers were shot and soldiers were given choice - fight in the puppet Polish army or go to Siberia. It was happening everywhere from July 1944.

The extreme case is during the Uprising in Warsaw - while the capital fought the Nazis, NKVD was executing the resistence members on the other side of the river and in the same city.

[Pannonian]

More aggressive approach - to treat Stalin as necessary ally, but NOT AS a friend !

They could use the extremely useful Lend-Lease (just check how much US equipment was send there, not to mention raw materials).

You want to risk losing the war against Germany just to make a point against Stalin? Barring the Dieppe disaster, the Allies hadn't even made an effort against continental Europe at that point - the Soviets were doing all the fighting, and as such, could make all the demands. Stalin's overriding demand was for a second front to be opened, and until that happened, the Allies could make no corresponding demands of their own. If the Allies made any noise about Poland or such things, Stalin could always threaten to make a separate peace with Hitler and leave Britain to deal with the consequences.


So suddenly he takes the revenge for the intervention in 1917-21 ?
Don't make me laugh !

He remembered enough about those days to tease Churchill about it in one of the conferences (Tehran?), drawing a embarrassed apology from the British PM. IIRC it's in Sebag-Montefiore's Court of the Red Tsar.


NOT TRUE. Have you ever heard about US airforce based in Poltava ? They were free to use the airbases to re-fuel and WERE NOT shot or imprisoned.

Then ask the Americans why they didn't fly in airdrops then, because Stalin was definitely hostile to the British, at least where their efforts did not directly benefit the USSR.

[The Wizard]

I'm seeing a lot of (correct) comments about how the Allies were in no shape to go to war again, how most of the Allies' nations were in tatters, and how Europe could not bear another war between superpowers so soon after the last one.

But the fact of the matter is, my friends -- neither was the Soviet Union. Of all the so-called Allies, it was the USSR that had suffered the most. Almost half of the dead in the war lived in one of the various Socialist Soviet Republics, and while the effort to relocate Soviet industry was mammoth and amazing, the Uralic plants weren't ready to take on the only industrial power left untouched by the war -- the Arsenal of Democracy, the United States of America. Ike proved that, no matter how good your strategy, it just wasn't gonna happen without a golden logistic machine -- and the best in the world resided on the Columbian continent.

So stop making it look as if the Soviets were unperturbed and untouched by the ravages of war. They had suffered the most under it. Sure, this was because their leadership was far, far more ready to commit its resources than were its counterparts in London, France, Washington, or even Berlin (and I don't think Ol' Joe was gonna let up on that unbroken record), but even under such governance there are serious and final limits to a country's endurance.

In the end, everybody was tired of war. The Soviets, and the future NATO. Poland and other hard-fighting Allies were therefore not occupied all over again because of the overbearing Soviet strength, but because of Allied weakness in the face of this unrelenting Red Bear. When the agreed-on Polish democratic elections were putsched by Moscow's puppets, no-one did a thing. If that ain't a knife in the back I don't know what was.

[cegorach]

[QUOTE] If the Allies made any noise about Poland or such things, Stalin could always threaten to make a separate peace with Hitler

And lose the war... Untill late 1944 the Soviets didn't cross their pre-war borders, something worth considering I believe.



He remembered enough about those days to tease Churchill about it in one of the conferences (Tehran?), drawing a embarrassed apology from the British PM. IIRC it's in Sebag-Montefiore's Court of the Red Tsar.

Which is lovely. The Red Emperor getting some sort of 'moral highground', ironic perhaps, but clearly shows flaws in Allied policy.

In many aspects the British and the Americans were more Soviet than Soviet propaganda - there are numerous examples of such actions including those of Brish press which were condemned so strongly by Orwell.
In many ways it were the Allies who did the self-humilation to themselves and worshipped Stalin.
It might be necessary to justify the alliance with the totalitarian regime, but they went so far that one of those US propaganda productions became a hit of Soviet war cinemas - personally approved by Stalin, certainly not without much amazement how something like this can be produced without his 'encouragement'...



Then ask the Americans why they didn't fly in airdrops then, because Stalin was definitely hostile to the British, at least where their efforts did not directly benefit the USSR.

I don't need to. I have already said it - they appeased Stalin and FDR trusted Stalin who 'does what he can'.
It is unfortunate he spent so much energy on undermining the 'great evil' of the British empire...




Some people often wonder why it is Churchill who took most of the blame for the treachery.
The answer can be given in one short sentence - because he personally dealt with the Poles and assured them whenever he had the opportunity.

One of most pathetic moments of British government was when Eden wwas asking repeatedly his own staff in Moscow 'if I do that would I be remembered as an appeaser ?' in some sort of self-explaining chant.

The ultimate failure of the British especially was that they indeed allied themselves with the devil as Churchill once said before 'Barbarossa', but never dealt with him as they should acting with incredible arrogance and petty malice towards former allies even untill 21st century.:thumbsdown: