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?
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?
"Money isnt the root of all evil, lack of money is."
(Mark Twain)
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.
I support Israel
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.
"Money isnt the root of all evil, lack of money is."
(Mark Twain)
The cold war was started by Soviet lust for power and was ended by America outspending them.
Remember Churchill, wanting to invade Yugoslavia to stop Russia? No-one is to blame imo
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.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
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.
'One day when I fly with my hands -
up down the sky,
like a bird'
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.
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.
Last edited by Mithradates; 02-17-2007 at 12:16.
"Money isnt the root of all evil, lack of money is."
(Mark Twain)
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
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!Originally Posted by North Korea
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.
![]()
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
"I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96
Re: Pursuit of happiness
Have you just been dumped?
I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.
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.
"One of the nice things about looking at a bear is that you know it spends 100 per cent of every minute of every day being a bear. It doesn't strive to become a better bear. It doesn't go to sleep thinking, "I wasn't really a very good bear today". They are just 100 per cent bear, whereas human beings feel we're not 100 per cent human, that we're always letting ourselves down. We're constantly striving towards something, to some fulfilment"
-Stephen Fry
This is priceless...Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
ahhhhahahahahahahahahaha very funny manOr Germany for electing Hitler, and forcing America to build an A-bomb to finish off the enemy...![]()
![]()
![]()
ok so we have 49% nay and 51% yay its unanimous hitler wins!!
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!Originally Posted by North Korea
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.
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.
Last edited by Justiciar; 02-18-2007 at 01:43.
When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bound, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. - John Ball
Hate to drag this a bit off topic, but better than starting a new thread.
Any reccomended reading on the cold war/nuclear deterrant?
From wise men, O Lord, protect us -anon
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions, a statistic -Stalin
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area -UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
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?
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.
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
"I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96
Re: Pursuit of happiness
Have you just been dumped?
I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.
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.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
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.
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.Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
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...
Last edited by Sarmatian; 02-19-2007 at 18:59.
Batista. And he was worse then Castro AFAIK.Originally Posted by 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
Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.
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
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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
On a lighter note, anybody else seen Goodbye Lenin?
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
Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.
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.Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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.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...
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.
Last edited by The Wizard; 02-19-2007 at 22:10.
"It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul
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.Originally Posted by Kalle
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
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.Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
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 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.Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Last edited by Sarmatian; 02-19-2007 at 23:17.
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.Originally Posted by Kalle
You don't need to try to see merit in arguments I never made.Originally Posted by Kalle
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.Originally Posted by Kalle
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.Originally Posted by Kalle
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".Originally Posted by Kalle
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.
Mainly in Europe, Asia and Latin America- though the higher stakes were in Europe.Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
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.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.
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.
Sometimes I slumber on a bed of roses
Sometimes I crash in the weeds
One day a bowl full of cherries
One night I'm suckin' on lemons and spittin' out the seeds
-Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers, Lemons
Bookmarks